Concerns about difficulty vs. AI.

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Isn't the whole point of the higher difficulties to present the player with a difficult challenge which has to be overcome with very smart play? The AI can't be as smart as the human player, so it gets bonuses that have to be overcome with very careful planning, micro, and min-maxing - basically the point is for the player to have to use every piece of their toolkit to succeed. Which Otter had to do. Ben Franklin's attack was conducted pretty intelligently, imo, and Otter had to sacrifice units, carefully focus fire, spend his influence to get support from Confucius for extra combat strength to keep his settlement by the skin of his teeth.

Of course, what then happened is what often happens whether fighting AI or humans. The loser overstretched, lost their army, and the winner capitalized and followed through without mercy. Less smart play and things would have ended very differently.

And of course, Otter's conquering spree then ran afoul of the crisis and he lost 2 settlements to revolt!

All in all, that seemed like a really engaging and fun Deity experience for him.

Quoting from the streamer thread since it fits better here.

No real arguments from me, it definitely looked fun and engaging.

My slight concern is mainly that a) it was basically his first deity game, and b) most decent human players wouldn't overstretch that much, it would be a shame if winning on deity amounted to weathering an initial storm and then counter attacking.

Not enough evidence yet really, but it's hard not to be sceptical when you're used to Civ VI.

 

[Seek]

Marbozir, in his stream yesterday, was not overly positive about the tactical AI. Commanders have a lot of concentrated power (possibly more than any other civ unit, ever), and if they are often left exposed…

I am already considering making a house rule for myself to never attack AI commanders

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I might be in the minority here, but my primary problem with the bonus-scaling method of making AI difficult to beat is the curve that it forms. They start off as an unbeatable threat you have to appease, and then once you've passed them in yields or conquered one of them, they are barely a threat and the game is already over. Is it optimal that the tactical play encouraged is just a matter of getting good enough at maneuvering to overcome a boosted threat? Certainly not. However, if the Ages system delivers as promised and keeps the AI competitive throughout the game instead of just at the start, my primary qualms will be settled.

 

[Acken]

It's one of the thing I mentioned in another post. Some mechanics will advantage the player a lot compared to the AI. And one way to bring back a higher AI challenge is to tone it down. Ideally the AI should better use it but you know how this goes...
Commanders look OP to me. Hopefully it can be modded.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

 

[Riconatic]

I would prefer civ difficulty buttons cheating with giving AI powerful commanders instead +8 flat.

And if AI do not know how to use them that is priority level 1 need fixing issue.

 

[Evolena]

Deity, apparently Sumerian (whose village Ur was between the Camel and the Gypsum on the top left) took over Ravenna and Roma, relocating Augustus' capital city to Pompeii?

Source: