Civ5 vs Civ4 - difficulty

[sjkebab]

Hi all,
I've just finished my first game on Civ 5, and was curious as to whether anyone else has had a similar experience to me.

On Civ4, I'm a pretty ordinary player - I generally play on Cheiftain settings, and usually finish with a ranking comparable to Dan Quayle. My style of play is usually to try and win by Science or Culture victories.
So I crack out Civ 5, and after reading Lemmy101s write up the other day, I figure it wise to start out at a higher difficulty than normal. So I played on Warlord, which normally punishes me hard on Civ 4.
Imagine my surprise then, when I won a Domination victory in 1830AD, with a few space race parts already built to boot. The final ranking that was given to me was Augustus Caesar (can't remember the exact score).

Has anyone else had such a startlingly and unexpectedly easy win like this? The game had 6 AI civs, and was on a normal sized world map, at standard speed.

Cheers
/long time lurker, first time poster...

 

[sarah_aus]

Hi
I'm not a very good player, i just enjoy clicking around and like mainly the exploring aspect of the game and only declaring war when I'm ready. I kicked it up to chieftain today and my basic warriors were getting killed by the barbs as fast as I could make them, so i went back to settler.
U must be a better player then u thought cas I would get slaughtered in warlord!

 

[Alexfrog]

Civ 5 is massively easier.

 

[sjkebab]

I was playing as the Greeks, and the City States really helped out in the early parts of the game, and I think they've got a massive boost against the barbs too (40% I think). So my game was really about noticing that I had a huge early lead, and working to maintain or extend that lead. But still I was pretty stunned at how much I had the game dominated.
TIme to up the ante again methinks...

 

[AriochIV]

I won running away (Conquest victory) on my first game at Prince difficulty. The AI is a bit uneven, especially when it comes to tactical combat. The AI is aggressive, but not very competent when it comes to the nuts and bolts of attacking you. In particular, it uses ranged units very poorly, often leaving them vulnerable (sometimes moving them adjacent to your melee units), sometimes seemingly forgetting to fire them at targets in range.

 

[ChaplainDMK]

I haven't played much Civ IV, but from what i read i suspect thats down to the new combat system (AI has a much harder time moving the units now that you have 1UPT) and the AI not ganking on you (I won a game on standard difficulty by just minding my own buisness while evreybody else wiped each other off and ignored me ).

 

[keisukekun]

yeh in civ 4 i always got dan quale rank but on my fort game in 5 i got ceasar. I think teh ai has issues fighting cause I steamrolled them

 

[poom3619]

Surprise too. I thought I may very good at Civ5 so I may up for challenge in front page. This topic pretty discourage me. Duh.

I played Settler civ4 and won Dimplomatic Victory as Frederick. Probably only game I won without using Worldbuilder.
But in ciV, I just won Domination Victory as Ramkhamhaeng of Siam in my very first game.(if not counting several games in demo) I start the last war using Atomic Bomb to Japan's Tokyo and India's Delhi in order. (not Nuclear. I just got it in that game) and conquer their capital by Modern Armor (against infantries. Duh.) at 2035.
In that game I personally conquer Persia and Arabia. Halted by Peace after halfway conquered Russia. (and raze every city except Moscow) Liberate and give land I carved from Japan to New China (old one conquered by Japan). (New) Wu Zeitian indeed like me but she hate me like other after few turn through. Then a nuke threw to Tokyo. Send Modern armors and got Tokyo and Osaka. Do the same to India and conquer Delhi, and I WIN!

I think my point are ridiculously high (more than 2575 a bit) compare to other. So if I didn't INDEED that great, so A.I. could be very weak.

Now I'm playing in King difficulity as Rome. Probably more challanging.

 

[Flavorable]

Civ V is way easier, for one reason. The AI.

 

[NZV]

This game is much simpler. On Civ4 Noble, I often have a pretty rough time. Almost always win, but it isn't easy. Here? Prince is a joke and I just toy around with the opposing Civs while being two ages ahead.

I was doing a cultural One City Challenge earlier. Being a OCC, I was way more behind than I normally would be. Towards the end of the game, my army consisted of 2 industrial era infantry and 2 of those renaissance cannons. Persia, by far the largest and most powerful nation, got angry at me. He was almost done with the space shuttle and was miles ahead in tech/money/production/everything but culture. He attacked me with a neverending tide of modern units. I don't know how many he had, but I took out dozens and dozens before I eventually won the cultural victory because the combat AI is just so bad and so easy to take advantage of. Also built the stupidest unit types possible, like tons of anti-air when nobody but him could make air. Makes it a bit of a joke.

 

[dannythefool]

Civ V is easier because the AI is ridiculously bad at combat.

For example, I've been playing some OCC games lately and two to three units are usually enough to defend my city up until 2050 (where I fail, because I haven't really figured out how to win culturally with only one city yet). In contrast, in Civ IV they just had to send a SoD or two, which is much easier to do than a working tactic to counter a Civ V citadel on a mountain pass. I can certainly do that, all it takes is some ranged units, but the AI seems to have issues with anything beyond moving one unit onto a tile occupied by another and hoping its unit wins. Don't try this against a citadel that takes off 30% of your health every time you finish your turn next to it.

But apart from combat, I don't think it's easier. Some decisions are *much* harder. If they fix combat, it should be a challenge. And it can't be too hard to fix it a bit because the AI knows virtually *no* 1upt tactic at all, it just tries to use its units like it would use single-unit SoDs.

 

[Maxor127]

Civ5 is a breeze. I'd have to constantly save and reload in Civ4. In Civ5, I can take entire continents over with just 5 units.

 

[Takeda]

On Civ4, I'm a pretty ordinary player - I generally play on Cheiftain settings, and usually finish with a ranking comparable to Dan Quayle. My style of play is usually to try and win by Science or Culture victories.

You consider Chieftain to be "pretty ordinary"

No offense, but I'd consider an average Civ IV player to generally play on Monarch, or at the very least Prince difficulty levels. I didn't even know it was possible to not easily dominate on Chieftain. The player gets massive bonuses on Chieftain and the AI in Civ IV isn't exactly a genius. Even on Warlord you get pretty substantial bonuses.

Do you even know the basic rules of the game? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just genuinely having trouble understanding how it's possible to struggle at the Warlord or Noble level.

 

[Dariush]

They game is easier than previous versions. Check out this review on 1UP http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540&p=1
He is right the AI comes attacks like a moron even on higher diffuculties.

 

[Generals3]

i experienced exactly the same . My first game was in Prince (i used to play monarch in Civ IV and have a hard time doing so ) and even if i made some "new to Civ V" mistakes i easily obliterated the enemy . Now i'm doing a game in King and i still have an easy time , seems like the Civ V difficulties are equal to the 1 lvl lower difficulties in Civ IV .

 

[Melchizedek]

I usually win Monarch and struggle with Emperor in Civ IV. First Civ V game has been astoundingly easy so far, as the military AI is just idiotic. I was scared when Napoleon declared on me, since he had about an equal number of soldiers, but (a) he mostly fought my city-state allies, and (b) his units would just sit by my cities, getting bombarded, not attacking! The AI needs serious work. This might be ok on settler/chieftain, but on the balanced difficulty it should at least be able to conduct some semblance of a war. Now I own half the world mostly by accident--goal remains a spaceship victory.

Incidentally, I think the City States are much better tactically than the AI civs. Anyone else notice this?

 

[sjkebab]

You consider Chieftain to be "pretty ordinary"

No offense, but I'd consider an average Civ IV player to generally play on Monarch, or at the very least Prince difficulty levels. I didn't even know it was possible to not easily dominate on Chieftain. The player gets massive bonuses on Chieftain and the AI in Civ IV isn't exactly a genius. Even on Warlord you get pretty substantial bonuses.

Do you even know the basic rules of the game? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just genuinely having trouble understanding how it's possible to struggle at the Warlord or Noble level.

No offense taken.

"Pretty ordinary" is meant to read "hopeless", in the same sense that "average" can mean useless - given the right context. It might be an Aussie thing - not sure...

I'm still learning basic tactics in both 4 and 5, and city specialisation isn't exactly my forte. However there's alot of threads going around at the moment about the lack of military AI in the new version and I think my domination this time around was purely due to that now. However as the maintainence is so prominent this time around, I made an effort to only build what was needed, rather than just building whatever like I used to in 4, which I think was part of my downfall...