Deity Difficulty

[Gazebo]

Something like that. If it, in my game, hadn't been for Dido (which can be replaced by whatever snowball AI is at the top) the game would have been even. The game would have been fun and interesting, I do admit for the first time in a fairly long time even if the february updates where also harder and fairly good in that regard. But there is just no "smart plays" or optimizations or "right choices" or "stop sucking get better l2p!" issues that can counter when one AI is just on the massive yield welfare bonus express compared to the player and all the other AI. If I look at the data I had from a few turns ago (four-five posts above this one) all the AI:s are sort of someone in a clustered bunch give a take a couple of techs and policies and such and then there is the snowball that is somehow more then an era ahead of everyone else and just keep getting more and more bonuses.

Rubber banding is evil.

 

[looorg]

Rubber banding is evil.

While a system that in game after game create overpowered outliers is intended and good? How is stopping, or diminishing, the return or payout that feeds the beast that is already so far ahead of everyone else in the game evil? They clearly don't need to bonuses at that stage. They are so far ahead that even if they stood still it would probably take at least 50 to 100 turns, or more, to even make it to their level. If the player or the other AI catch up their bonuses will once again then become larger. In case after case here it's not a matter of them being a little ahead. The system appear to create something that always end up an era or more ahead of everyone else, player and other AI.

Just to give it some numbers here.

Malacca, 5 turns remaining. (Dido 128095) vs 32932 (me) vs 44082 (I guess it's Morocco or Indonesia -- still they are winning over me but not by a ridiculous amount as Dido is/was)
BA, 7 turns remaining, 142910 vs 31902 (still vs Dido)
Yerevan, 19 turns remaining, 110954 (still vs Dido) vs 24790
Mbanza, 41 turns remaining, 19376 vs 5073 (Dido)

Dido 60 tech, 24 pol, 19 wonders, 18 cities, 471 pops (31 capital)
Morocco 53 tech, 17 pol, 6 wonders, 14 cities, 310 pops (32 capital)
Russia 52 tech, 15 pol, 5 wonders, 11 cities, 229 pops (27 cap)
Indonesia 52 tech, 17 pol, 7 wonders, 10 cities, 233 pops (24 cap)
Monty (me) 50 tech, 14 pol, 7 wonders, 11 cities, 200 pops (27 cap)
Celt 51 tech, 15 pol, 1 wonder, 12 cities, 228 pops (24 cap)
England 52 tech, 15 pol, 1 wonder, 8 cities, 150 pops (25 cap)

I had not taken notes every turn. So the Malacca line here is after Dido get into a war and drops out of one of the Culture race quests. So her number is when it ends probably was more around 160k+, the player is at 33k and the second best AI, that is now winning due to a minor change in fortune or turn of events, is at 44k. You can optimize and play better for that 11k thing, but it's a lot more doubtful for the 130k+. That said I wouldn't bother for 3 capital happiness faces. But in this case it's culture so it explains her massive difference in policies compared to everyone else.

Or is this working as intended and good and needs no tuning? This is just down to "good play" on her part and not part of some massive bonus yield payouts? One AI being more then an era ahead in tech and policy, having built about three times the wonders then any one else, double the pops etc. This is not a unique case to this particular game either but is happening in game after game.

 

[Gazebo]

While a system that in game after game create overpowered outliers is intended and good? How is stopping, or diminishing, the return or payout that feeds the beast that is already so far ahead of everyone else in the game evil? They clearly don't need to bonuses at that stage. They are so far ahead that even if they stood still it would probably take at least 50 to 100 turns, or more, to even make it to their level. If the player or the other AI catch up their bonuses will once again then become larger. In case after case here it's not a matter of them being a little ahead. The system appear to create something that always end up an era or more ahead of everyone else, player and other AI.

Just to give it some numbers here.





I had not taken notes every turn. So the Malacca line here is after Dido get into a war and drops out of one of the Culture race quests. So her number is when it ends probably was more around 160k+, the player is at 33k and the second best AI, that is now winning due to a minor change in fortune or turn of events, is at 44k. You can optimize and play better for that 11k thing, but it's a lot more doubtful for the 130k+. That said I wouldn't bother for 3 capital happiness faces. But in this case it's culture so it explains her massive difference in policies compared to everyone else.

Or is this working as intended and good and needs no tuning? This is just down to "good play" on her part and not part of some massive bonus yield payouts? One AI being more then an era ahead in tech and policy, having built about three times the wonders then any one else, double the pops etc. This is not a unique case to this particular game either but is happening in game after game.

You've already said that you don't have logging on - I'd need concrete evidence that the handicaps are causing it. 'Feels' aren't enough.

Games like civ are intrinsically snowball games, because of how 'per turn' values accumulate from the early game on. For example, monuments are one of the top culture sources in the game solely because they come so early. Your pantheon choice is more important than your tier 3 ideology choice for this same reason. Most of my work lately has been on < turn 100 AI behavior. And it shows, the AI is performing much better at making long-term choices.

G

 

[CrazyG]

With regard to Wonders - there's plenty of posts on this, and most are not by me?

I've played multiplayer, so the idea that you just can't get a wonder sometimes is completely normal to me. Sometimes someone else builds it first, that's the nature of wonders.

Honestly I find these posts whiny. Drop your difficulty or adapt to the circumstances. I wish the community would play for longer before demanding changes. We have a total of 1 detailed report so far that actually covers a whole game.

 

[Balint2]

Honestly I find these posts whiny. Drop your difficulty or adapt to the circumstances. I wish the community would play for longer before demanding changes. We have a total of 1 detailed report so far that actually covers a whole game.

This has been my initial impression as well: as if some posts on this forum were a little too little thought put into, and too long in words. IMHO ppl should put more effort into the game before, well demanding changes.
Because I often find myself bored and tired reading this forum cuz of some low quality comments.

 

[Gidoza]

I've played multiplayer, so the idea that you just can't get a wonder sometimes is completely normal to me. Sometimes someone else builds it first, that's the nature of wonders.

Honestly I find these posts whiny. Drop your difficulty or adapt to the circumstances. I wish the community would play for longer before demanding changes. We have a total of 1 detailed report so far that actually covers a whole game.

In multiplayer I know I am essentially on the same page as the other players. Unless someone gets a pretty extreme start and I don't (that's a discussion for map balance), in multiplayer I may lose the Wonder war, but I never need to worry about losing it because the AI had so much production that I couldn't even have a chance of constructing it. These are not parallel examples by any means.

 

[Cokolwiek]

Most of my work lately has been on < turn 100 AI behavior. And it shows, the AI is performing much better at making long-term choices.

If it's really due to you work on AI decision making, I think you may have achieved something remarkable in 4X games, and should seriously consider putting your skills into paid, professional work at some gaming company. You made an intelligent AI. I wouldn't be surprised if more intelligent than me. Amazing work, which provides amazing experience for players.
It was my observation as well, AI really prioritizes good tiles to improve first, good buildings to construct, good techs and wonder. It just plays well and to create synergy and snowball. Which it should.

As for snowballs and runaways. I don't want a game totally defined by them, but they are necessary to some point and should appear frequently on deity. They create danger to the player, and opportunity to use diplomacy well, in order to create coalitions against them. They are a little ridiculous right now, but I think they are needed to provide enough challenge. Such runaways is also how AI must see succesful player many times. Interesting.
I had different experience with AI reaction to one of them winning the game, with all AI recognizing possible snowball and ganging up on him. Which was amazing to be honest.

I've played multiplayer, so the idea that you just can't get a wonder sometimes is completely normal to me. Sometimes someone else builds it first, that's the nature of wonders.

This is nonsense, sorry. Human player will loose so much by focusing on an early wonder in other areas like expansion or religion, or war, same with focusing on anything. And you can actively focus on that and counter him in those areas. AI have so much bonuses it will forward settle you, settle thrice as many cities, get a wonder, get an army and get a religion, and have better capital as authority than yours as tradition at the same time. How many times have you played with a human player that has five pop city five turns after settling them?

These are not parallel examples by any means.

I agree 100%.

I will later post detailed report in my photojournal thread from my recent game to showcase, that's peaceful tradition is really not about player's decision right now. It's always catching up to the AI, throughout entire game.
I agree with most changes and general direction. Difficulty is increased sharply which is good. We just now need a little adjustments around the edges that will ensure all playstyle ar eplayble and players are not forced into exploits or early agme to achieve antyhing more than meraly surviving at the bottom of the ladder.
I think 50% win-lose goal for the best players is okay, I just don't agree that "only if the stars align you have any chance", when it is not mostly to your decisions and mistakes.

I'm aware this patch is still very fresh, but I still want to see it first: can somebody win a deity game without the use of any force (this obviously excludes inevitably having to defend yourself), or not? If this can't be accomplished and warmongering is basically required to stand any chance, then I don't think that's a good thing.

My expierience so far, only 10-15% percent of the time and if ALL: terrain, neighboors, city quests will work in your favour which is a bit too random for my taste. Achieving that with non-culture/science oriented civ, or one with extremely good all-around bonuses seems suicidal. Not impossible, but too rare to validate such a randomness even on deity.

This has been my initial impression as well: as if some posts on this forum were a little too little thought put into, and too long in words. IMHO ppl should put more effort into the game before, well demanding changes.
Because I often find myself bored and tired reading this forum cuz of some low quality comments.

I consider this a comment about me. If you consider feedback about important changes low quality posting, feel free to do so. You can disagree abut my conslusions, sure, but you know nothing about how others play or how much effort they put into their game.

I think most of players that call that feedback whiny aren't even deity or immortal players and hence don't see a problem. I feel it is they who are are whiny in the first place that someone else is playing deity and dares to have opinion. It's just a game, play level you are comfortable with. We don't disparage your opinions about emperor and suggest you play settler.

TLDR: I agree that we need more time and more deity reports, but I see a recurring pattern of maybe too much AI early bonuses that lead to unwinnable situations to any player, reported by more and more users. We still need need deity to be in most part be test of player skill. That's disparaged as whiny, many times by players that even cannot play well enough to stay afloat and score limited succeses on deity right now, like I and @looorg definetely do, and play emperor or something. We are also part of the community. If I was too vocal about that, I am sorry but I don't see a need to apologize, it just accidentaly surfaced when I had spare time for play and account activity. And this is what this forum is for anyway.

There is a difference when a really good player (not me) select deity and thinks: "I am gonna do it 33% or even 50% if I will be exceptionally focused from the right till the end and not make any mistake, and if I won't able to, it will still be fun and cutthroat and learning experience" and saying: "I am gonna loose 90% because most of results will be beyond my decision-making and I can change little through my skills". Situation when your tradition capital is roughly the size of most progress or authority secondary ctities thoughout entire game (ancient to information) and you simply can't make more than one or two wonders whole game past classical is not a healthy deity.

 

[CrazyG]

I'm still waiting on the reason y'all can't just play immortal or emperor.

 

[Recursive]

Just to note, you can find the exact bonuses the Deity AI gets on this page:
https://civ-5-cbp.fandom.com/wiki/AI_and_Difficulty

IMO, experience counts a lot in arguments here. If multiple players who are very skilled and play a lot of high difficulty games like @Stalker0 and @CrazyG report that Deity is honestly too difficult and most games are unwinnable, then a difficulty reduction should be looked at.

Player feedback is valuable but you can't get an accurate gauge of how difficult the game is if the feedback is based on "feels" rather than an evaluation with logs or a careful analysis backed with strong knowledge of the game mechanics.

"It feels like X might be making the game too difficult" is not actionable feedback.

 

[CrazyG]

ce so far, only 10-15% percent of the time and if ALL: terrain, neighboors, city quests will work in your favour which is a bit too random for my taste. Achieving that with non-culture/science oriented civ, or one with extremely good all-around bonuses seems suicidal. Not impossible, but too rare to validate such a randomness even on deity.

What does this comment mean exactly? Did you play 20 games and win 2 or 3 of them?

You aren't even evaluating Deity as a difficulty here. You are evaluating Deity + additional restrictions. No conquest at all is a self imposed rule. Taking that photojournal you posted as an example, the right play is clearly to attack Russia and take that city. I wouldn't even consider that warmongering, its just one city. That game you skipped religion too, you can't ignore two major components of the game and succeed on the highest difficulty. You aren't entitled to win every game on Deity with any start with any civ while adding other restrictions.

 

[Doormat123]

I'm still waiting on the reason y'all can't just play immortal or emperor.

Longtime lurker here, but I dropped from emperor to king for this patch. If there is anyone at all who has a shot in any deity game, I think deity can remain what it is. The way I see it, deity should be a mode where the best player in the world has a chance of succeeding if all the stars align in a game, rather than something for the top 10%-15% of players. There's Immortal for that...

 

[Cokolwiek]

I'm still waiting on the reason y'all can't just play immortal or emperor.

Because we tried it and it's too easy.

What does this comment mean exactly? Did you play 20 games and win 2 or 3 of them?

That I've tried enough to see a pattern.

You aren't even evaluating Deity as a difficulty here. You are evaluating Deity + additional restrictions. No conquest at all is a self imposed rule.

Because he specifically asked for non-warmonegring, tall, peace play viability.... which is one of the modes of the game and should be possible to pursue on deity. And curently it is nigh impossible. I don't advise people to conquer a city early if they want peaceful tradition and have other priorities when going tall like game-changing wonders and other tech path.

the right play is clearly to attack Russia and take that city.

Yes, with two units I had back then and was going to only have for half of the game (which allowed me to focus my gold and production on science, cs alliances and culture so much). And ensure my destruction when they come back and underdevelopment cause of it would also prevent any peaceful play by possibly staging me against future Russian invasions I wouldn't be able to counter.

that game you skipped religion too, you can't ignore two major components of the game and succeed on the highest difficulty.

I'll provide save games. It was impossible to get a religion, you can feel free to prove me wrong. It was just strictly impossible that gameplay. I focused other areas and decided to no tot pour my resources into religion which wouldn't be possible anyway. Recognizing what is doable, and what is waste of resources is part of any good play. With a rush to get a religion I would have sacrificed so much in other areas my loss would be inevitable.

 

[CrazyG]

Because we tried it and it's too easy.

So how many games have you won on immortal this patch?

 

[Balint2]

Longtime lurker here, but I dropped from emperor to king for this patch. If there is anyone at all who has a shot in any deity game, I think deity can remain what it is. The way I see it, deity should be a mode where the best player in the world has a chance of succeeding if all the stars align in a game, rather than something for the top 10%-15% of players. There's Immortal for that...

Agree, even if maybe its a bit of an exaggeration.

Btw I missed the original post(s) which supposedly implied the opposite. Could some1 maybe point me towards what spawned this discussion? I dont want to read the whole forum 4 that. Thx

 

[Cokolwiek]

So how many games have you won on immortal this patch?

Once again you just pick something that you can smartly respond to and call it a day and completely ignore my points when they are proved valid or when I showed flaws in your thinking or when others post to confirm what I said. It happened several times in several threads already with you. I do not know how to talk with you.

Implying that I "skipped" something or didn't use early warmongering when it was my concious decision to play peaceful tradition and to min-max religion play is also a cheap tactic. Yeah, we can all try conquering early a neighboor when AI left city undefended (which is exploit) or steal workers, but I wouldn't call that peacuful tradition deity.

 

[CrazyG]

Once again you just pick something that you can smartly respond to and call it a day and completely ignore my points when they are proved valid or when I showed flaws in your thinking or when others post to confirm what I said. It happened several times in several threads already with you. I do not know how to talk with you.

The answer is 0, isn't it?

If you really want, I'll post in that austria photojournal some thoughts on your attempt at peaceful deity. I have a suspicion you don't take criticism well, which is why I didn't, but I will. Either way I don't want to derail this thread any further.

 

[Balint2]

Because he specifically asked for non-warmonegring, tall, peace play viability.... which is one of the modes of the game and should be possible to pursue on deity.

Did he? I doubt that both peacefull and warmonger can be both viable on deity (so equally strong) in CIV5, simply by desing.
There is not as much "room" in tall play, as much as there is in warmonger.

Therefore it shouldnt be possible to pursue peacefull tall victory on the highest difficulty.

I mean it should be, but im not convinced that its possible to add that much "room" to tall play, that you can gain so much on the AI you still can beat it with its bonuses.

Could be wrong here but from some of your posts ive seen: All you are saying is "it should be possible" and not "how to add more room to tall".

Btw what I said before was just partly about u. If its not about you dont apply it to urself.. It was just a stg general truth. Also I said im not sure.

 

[Cokolwiek]

The answer is 0, isn't it?

It is one, thought on standard, not epic, which is my favourite speed, with England, science, tradition-statecraft-rationalism-order. It was good in some way, I was able to send last part only because of unblocking road to my capital with one mordern armor and one guerilla which was what was left of my army (Bismarck conquered all of my secondary cities), generally my feeling was really not harder than previous deity (which is too easy). Also I had to use nukes in defense against Roman and Russian navy, which is why I value statecraft as tradition soo much.

Did he?

Yes, quite clearly, and it was valid concern:

can somebody win a deity game without the use of any force (this obviously excludes inevitably having to defend yourself), or not?

Therefore it shouldnt be possible to pursue peacefull tall victory on the highest difficulty.

I disagree. Tough-as-nails, brutally challenging every buidling order and unit movement when on defense, but I should be. Not 100%, of course, but it should happened sometimes.

Btw what I said before was just partly about u. If its not about you dont apply it to urself.

Literally you said it was, even if partially. Then "don't apply to yourself".

If you really want, I'll post in that austria photojournal some thoughts on your attempt at peaceful deity. I have a suspicion you don't take criticism well, which is why I didn't, but I will. Either way I don't want to derail this thread any further.

I would love to hear that out. Maybe then we will have more substantial discussion and find more common ground.

 

[Balint2]

I disagree. Tough-as-nails, brutally challenging every buidling order and unit movement when on defense, but I should be. Not 100%, of course, but it should happened sometimes.

There is a gap between warmonger and peacefull due to "room (or space, not sure which is used)"
If you can win deity with warmonger 30% times you can never win it with peacefull.
If you can win deity 80% times then you can win it with peacefull too but then deity is too easy, there should be a difficulty above it for warmongers.
Should it be like that? Frickin obviously not, but that gap is just the nature of CIV5 (and most 4x games)

You are not helping, reducing the gap or stg by saying there shouldnt be a gap, which is obvious..

 

[Balint2]

It can be achieved but I imagine its out of the scope of this project.