Deity Level is a poor effort !!!!!

[JFL_Dragon]

DEITY LEVEL IS A POOR EFFORT BY FIRAXIS

I found winning at this level was easier than
at emporer level the way I play, and found that
emporer provided a more balance and competitive
game.

Please read this entire post before you agree or disagree
, and remember the topic is balance & winning at this level.
Just for reference I usually play small-standard maps with
4-6 AI civs

After getting severely beaten on my first game,
the next 3 were easy victories.
You only need to make a few major adjustments.
Just look at GOTM 7 where Valeri,Patrick & Serg
won the game in 650AD, 710AD and 790AD.

DEITY IS UNBALANCED

Tech Rate : At a 60% research rate & the high AI - AI trade
rate means the ancient era & middle era ends much
more quickly. For example, just look at Sir Plebs huge map
deity game in the HOF at 10AD where he is 17 techs
into the middle age. You buy tech dirt cheap and you have
your knights & Cav so much faster, and its at this stage
the AI can't compete with the human.

Food Rate : Again this is at 60% and this creates what
is commonly called "settler direahea" .
The Ai is a psychotic land grabber at this level and
with only needing 12 food to increase its pop rather than
our 20 food its no wonder the settler flood is on.
But its unbalanced, you just go to war early, get that
land and you are in better position then in emporer,
and the AI has lost both food and production in
is land grabbing effort.

Production Rate: This a great bonus, but the AI doesnt
handle it well with the food bonus attached.

The Killer Spearmen : I experienced this at Deity lol
3 knights attack one spearmen in open terrain
and I lose. I was happy it wasnt at a critical point in
the game, and can understand why some people
complain.

TO MONARCH PLAYERS

And for those monarch players who are having
trouble at emporer & deity but want to beat it,
you already have the skills, you only need to adjust
your game.

But you may be happier playing at that level as it
provides more fun and a wider range of playing styles


Cheers

JFL_Dragon

 

[God]

Good post. You have encouraged me to try GOTM 7 again. I was doing ok in it. Had fallen behind a bit in the techs. Had engineered a war. Didn't want continue playing.

Emperor isn't beyond me. I can keep up with the AI in techs and almost in expansion. Anyway the AI wars amongst itself so much more which allows me to catch up and take the score lead.

 

[sumthinelse]

I have seen posts that say deity is too hard and now yours, that says it's too easy. I haven't tried your method method yet, but I would think it would be only a matter of time until somebody found a way to exploit the AI's weaknesses on deity, because the difficulty is based on things that are easy to program: production rate, initial units, etc.

Thanks for your post. It makes sense and points out one big problem with deity: It limits the ways you can play the game and have a good chance of winning.

If the AI played better without all this superficial tinkering with rates, I think it would be harder to exploit, but eventually somebody would find a way to exploit even an AI engine that was smarter and stronger. And I think that beating an AI that really played stronger would feel like more of an accomplishment, and would make you a better player against humans when PTW comes out. Will strong human opponents make the same blunders as the AI? Sell you techs that you will use against them? Not if they are playing to win.

But there are good business reasons why Infogames/Firaxis can't make this effort: it's expensive and there are not enough strong human players who care about this to justify the exclusion of other features or price increase for all customers. But wouldn't an AI that really played well (without handicapping the human) be a wonderful thing for those of us who care? Sigh.

 

[Klasanov]

That's where the multiplayer comes in. Although I am a little curious as to how you can get anything done if a turn comes every few seconds.

Anyway, on the knight vs. spearmen thing. I could see that realistic-wise. Game wise, it's just a fluke. But spear/pikemen were a good counter to calvary (Of the sword-bearing type. Not sure on the gun-bearing type of calvary. I imagine pikemen were pretty much obsolete by then though)

 

[Aeson]

I still don't understand why you claim it's easier on Deity. Games can play out more quickly like you said, spaceship and diplomatic, but that doesn't equate with being 'easy'. It just makes it harder to keep up, and compounds any mistakes made by the player.

Conquest and Domination victories are hardest on Deity, and take longer to achieve. The lifespan of the most effective units get cut short because of the tech rate and the AI have more cities and units to have to destroy. When I'm playing on Emperor or below, there just isn't any doubt that the game is in hand by the end of the Ancient Era.

re: Your point about unwinnable. I think just about any random start is winnable even on Deity. My current game is a test of this, I started a thread about it over in the poly strategy section. The thread is titled: So very cold (of the map generator).

 

[Klasanov]

Man... And Gandhi always yells at me for trying to extort him. As I said before, the mahatma is so two-sided.

 

[Klasanov]

Talk about skill and luck though. I would have cried if I got such a bad starting position.

 

[wohmongarinf00l]

all i can say is, hats off to aeson for that map.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Thats a really bad map you have the aeson, but at least you
have iron

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Originally posted by sumthinelse
I have seen posts that say deity is too hard and now yours, that says it's too easy.

No. I didnt say it was easy, I said it I found it easier than
emporer.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

My original comment relates to the location
of iron being too far away in a deity game or worse still
you get there and it disappears the next turn

Cheers

JFL_Dragon

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Unwinnable maps, and too-easy maps - it all depends on the map!

I can win detiy with 1100 points using no exploit and no unenvisaged strategies, but I sometimes get beat badly on Regent. Like yesterday, a game where I started in a place with Tundra, two hills, 1 fish. The entire island was like that, except room for 3 very good cities, and all of them right around the Persian capital. Only iron on the island: under the Persian second town. By the time I had four towns with two defender each, the Persians stacked 30 Immortals at the border.... Then, they asked for all my gold for peace, I gave it to them and they attack anysway.....

So it very much is the starting position, and early expansion, not so much the level.

I hade an excellent starting pos once where I subsequently lucked out on a UN win on deity. I played the same game again (for a 4000 BC sav with town founded), and that time I got two settlers from goodie huts. I won by domination with 8000 points hands down! It was the two settlers that eneables me to construct a startegically smart empire, hold of enemies at a chokepoint, instead of being drawn into prolonged border wars with occasional two front wars mixed in. Starting pos and early expansion, that's the thing!

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.

I hade an excellent starting pos once where I subsequently lucked out on a UN win on deity.

Now wait a minute. "UN" as in diplomatic victory? You mean the AI guys hated each other more than they hated you? How did you do that?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


Now wait a minute. "UN" as in diplomatic victory? You mean the AI guys hated each other more than they hated you? How did you do that?

Well I was a good guy all game, and I got a leader two turns before the AI completed UN. I rushed it, but before I made MPP with everyone (cost me a fortune, I'd have gone broke if I hadn't won!), then declared war on the biggest civ (Zulu). He'd been a bully all game long, and the MPP dragged all the other war weary civs in on my side. Since Shaka had first-striked with nukes (yep he was that far ahead, I don't know why he tried building UN in a 10 prod city......), he was the baddest guy.... and I got 6 out of 11 possible votes

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Unwinnable maps, and too-easy maps - it all depends on the map!

So True , but using the same map (lets say pangaeu),
what level is the hardest ?

Emporer or Deity ? Thats what this post is about.

I must admit I nearly always play pangaeu, sometimes cont.

BTW Killer that game that I downloaded of yours where we analysed anarchy,
how did you adjust the health bar ?

Cheers

JFL_Dragon

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

JFL_Dragon: do you mean the HPs of the units?

In the editor, under experience, simply set the numbers higher. I think I used elite=11, veteran=8, regular=6, conscript=4, bonus HP (under the unit-tab) +1 for every middle ages unit, +2 for the next kind and so on.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Yep

Ah Thx I will do that in some of my private games.

 

[JuicyCivNewbie]

I disagree, deity is more difficult than emperor. Hell, I can expand faster than the AI on emperor given a roughly equal start, but the 2 settlers the AIs get on deity ensure that unless you get a really early settler you won't be able to achieve the same expansion rates. Conquest is also harder as units become obsolete quicker (you'd be lucky to conquer more than just one civ with knights or cavalry, for example). Sure, diplo victories might be achieveable a little quicker, but that's almost victory by a coin flip.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

Originally posted by JuicyCivNewbie
. Conquest is also harder as units become obsolete quicker

True, but isnt that to your advantage at Deity Level
if you have Leonardo's ? As the units are becoming
obsolete quicker means the AI must upgrade units faster
also.

So if you have Leonardo's doesnt this offset
that component between Emporer & Deity somewhat ?
Hence the first civ I go for is the one that builds Leonardo's.
But even so I think your comment is correct.

And maybe Im not the best at expanding so that
why I find it easier if you read my previous postings.

Cheers

JFL_Dragon