Ferocitus
Deity
The counter is in Dan Quayle years.
Deity unplayable!
- Thread starter bitula
- Start date
Just to clarify, because I sense some don’t understand my problem. My problem is: when Teddy reached atomic era in 500AD I was in medieval era. My problem is NOT the difference between the ERAs, but the year 500AD and the fact that the game becomes shorter. If Teddy reached atomic era in 1900AD and I would be in medieval era at that time that would be perfectly fine!!! This is how it should be by default IMO. So basically the correct approach for example is to slow down my research progress and not increase the AI’s.
KayAU
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,115
Frankly, I don't like the way difficulty is handled in Civilization at all. The AI is extremely weak and exploitable at any difficulty, but massive bonuses are given to make winning a bit harder. This works for some types of games, but in my opinion Civilization is not one of those. At its core, it is a mostly symmetrical board game. Yes, each civ and leader has different bonuses, but all appear to be playing by the same basic rules. Except when you play on any other difficulty on Prince. Move up to higher difficulties, and a warrior owned by the AI will somehow better than yours, and the same resources will give them higher yields.
For me, this just doesn't work. Loosing out in the early game because of artificial nerfs or bonuses just feels like the AI is "cheating". If the game was more asymmetrical in nature, or if you to a larger degree were fighting against the environment, that would work better for me.
I generally play on King, and yes, it is a bit too easy. The problem is that Deity is not that much harder, but you will be forced into a different play style if you want to win.
What I would prefer is this:
* By default, the same rules as on Prince
* Way, way smarter AI (but adjustable for new players)
* You could increase difficulty by choosing stronger opponents
* You could make other choices to increase difficulty, but they would make narrative sense. For instance, your civilization could get a somewhat later start, or more challenging terrain. Or there could be changes in what resources you have at the start of the game (because some tribes were wealthier, or larger)
* You should be able to pick and mix among these options as you wish when setting up the game
All the options should combine to create a difficulty rating, which again decides a score multiplier. And the scoring system should be fixed to make a bit of sense.
For me, this just doesn't work. Loosing out in the early game because of artificial nerfs or bonuses just feels like the AI is "cheating". If the game was more asymmetrical in nature, or if you to a larger degree were fighting against the environment, that would work better for me.
I generally play on King, and yes, it is a bit too easy. The problem is that Deity is not that much harder, but you will be forced into a different play style if you want to win.
What I would prefer is this:
* By default, the same rules as on Prince
* Way, way smarter AI (but adjustable for new players)
* You could increase difficulty by choosing stronger opponents
* You could make other choices to increase difficulty, but they would make narrative sense. For instance, your civilization could get a somewhat later start, or more challenging terrain. Or there could be changes in what resources you have at the start of the game (because some tribes were wealthier, or larger)
* You should be able to pick and mix among these options as you wish when setting up the game
All the options should combine to create a difficulty rating, which again decides a score multiplier. And the scoring system should be fixed to make a bit of sense.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
OK so you are saying these two things are your issue
1. The year value is just rubbish and should be ignored, its not of any value apart from immersive and for that on deity it is broken.
2. Its just about the way they design deity. For this game the AI science is sped up which lessens turns, you have to be faster. Yes they could also slow down your science instead but the difference is that slowing down your science slows down the game, the designers decided to speed it up instead. They will not please everyone with this and if they changed it you would have threads stating deity is just a long dull grind. I personally prefer this thread to those which are harder to argue against and to me that makes this a better choice than that option but maybe they could have done it a better way, plenty have been suggested.
The title of this thread is misleading and should be changed to something like "Deity Science is too fast"
Last edited:
Pistol90
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Messages
- 356
I play on Diety Civ6 , and have not won yet (I only play game for 10-15 days after every DLC updates) .... i tried last few days to play as Germany and it almost impossible to even try - everyone declares war on me as soon as they met me , I cant even build one unit. This didnt hapen to me before when I was playing as Japan or Indonesia when sometimes nobody would declare war until me until Renessase era. Is it possible that AI is more agressive depending on Civ you selected (I started as Germany for 7-8 times and always same result, soon i met somebody = Suprise war)
What? No, that won’t slow down the game but simply leave the pace unchanged compared to Prince. It would just slow down the player’s scientific progress. I don’t see what complaint can this raise. Why would one desire a deity game to be faster than other difficulty games? There are speed settings, like online for this purpose.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
Making my science on 50% of the value of other civs will not slow down my game?
Why don't you play deity Epic since you are using online as an argument?
Anyway this argument has been thrashed to death and the title really annoys me so I'm unwatching it.
By slowing down the game I mean decreasing its duration (where duration is time expressed by years and turns).
That's just the sort of game Civ is. It's not designed to be a historical simulation. It's a game where players build cities, improve tiles, collect yields. The better, and the longer you play, the more your ability to exploit resources increases, so the faster you progress. The only difference between you being in the Information era in 1850, and you being in the Medieval era, is how well you play and exploit the map and your rivals.
Even in the best-case scenario, where the Deity AI is just like a really good human player, this would be the case. It's like if you run a race against Usain Bolt - if you want to compete at that level, you're going to have to run faster. The race will be over quicker.
Whereas with the AI in Civ as it is, you're not so much running 100m against Usain Bolt, but a tortoise who is rolling down a steep incline.
tekjunkie28
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 338
I play mostly on prince. I used to play on king when the game 1st came out. It has gotten slightly harder and I enjoy that. If a game was easy I wouldnt play it. I also dont play into cheesy tactics or do number crunching. I left that crap with WoW. I also only have about 280 hours in Civ6 but most have been during the 1st month and after this latest patch. Deity should be so hard that only 1-3% are able to win, if that.
Canadian Bluebeer
Prince
Jackanape
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2002
- Messages
- 190
I didn't read it as all strategies being cheap, just that in Deity, there is only one real strategy, and it is "cheap". Archer Rush. Attack your neighbor before he attacks you...No matter what VC you're going for, that dominates your entire opening strategy and often leaves you with Domination looking better and better.
I played Deity for a long time since release, and won three VCs to date, but it's pretty boring that EVERY game starts out the same. I've actually stepped down a notch or two, to get back some of the enjoyment I was losing...
Not sure if there is a solution, but this topic's pretty much nailed the problem on the head.
I played Deity for a long time since release, and won three VCs to date, but it's pretty boring that EVERY game starts out the same. I've actually stepped down a notch or two, to get back some of the enjoyment I was losing...
Not sure if there is a solution, but this topic's pretty much nailed the problem on the head.
KyivanRusCivPlease
Prince
As I understood - you are now playing one and two levels below Deity. So what do you feel you prefer: Emperor or Immortal?
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,255
"Hard" mode is inherently a contrivance to give players a challenge. . The maximum amount of level where the game will feel natural and the game was designed on is naturally going to be the difficulties where everyone is even.
The problem of course is what defines a challenge? Everyone sees it differently and developers are generally not as good as players at playing their own game so it is a ton of guesswork involved, and they threw out a slew of settings and hoped people would fine one. But as it turns out, there are huge gaps between certain difficulties, so I imagine that's where the problem lies.
The problem of course is what defines a challenge? Everyone sees it differently and developers are generally not as good as players at playing their own game so it is a ton of guesswork involved, and they threw out a slew of settings and hoped people would fine one. But as it turns out, there are huge gaps between certain difficulties, so I imagine that's where the problem lies.
Last edited:
I've love a game where the only difference between levels is the AI play, although in many ways, it's more work to make the AI play "stupid" at lower levels than to simply make the AI as good as possible at all times, but simply adjust the bonuses.
But overall, I think what the OP is missing, is that Deity really isn't expected to play anywhat normally. Like, there's a reason it's the top level. It should be stupid hard to play, and stupid hard to beat. And yeah, if the AI is launching rocket ships before 1 AD, to me that's just "Deity being Deity". And I mean, I guess I understand part of the argument - if the AI are launching their spaceships at turn 150 in Deity, then you need to beat them to win. But if they're only launching them on turn 350 at Prince, then you have a much longer game before you "have" to beat them. The key point is that the devs mostly don't want to play around with the player's bonuses - I mean, I don't want to learn a "different" game to play at Deity. If a university suddenly gave me only 2 science instead of 4, that might totally change my strategy. However, if I still get the same 4 from the university, but the AI is getting 6 or 8 from theirs, the effect is the same (AI getting more science than I am), but at least I don't have to learn new rules, other than knowing that the great people will go faster in that game relative to one in which most civs are behind me.
You can win on Deity without archer rush, you can even win without any conquest at all, although you will have to sabotage a few spaceports. Of course, winning with a smaller empire (down all the way to the one-city challenge, which some people have achieved on Deity) should be more difficult. And on higher difficulties, you cannot get a larger empire without conquering a few cities.
As far as I know, for any Civ game at high difficulties, you start behind the AI, eventually catch up and then cruise to victory. Of course, it would be more immersive if you went toe-to-toe with the opponents for the whole game and advanced at the same pace. But by nature, Civ is a game of compounding advantage, where a small edge (either due to skill or to chance) becomes bigger over time. It's an unstable system, where the leader is bound to snowball, unless the leader deliberately holds back.
For example, even if IMO Civ4 has a better maintenance system, which forces you to develop an economy before going full conquest at higher difficulties, it doesn't change the basic pattern of start behind / catch up and conquer.
I never go into the game with some cheesy strategy, I never go for domination, and I've never failed to win on Deity. I've played 3 full games of Civ VI, and they were Scientific, Cultural and Religious victories respectively, all on Deity, and all without conquering another civ. In my latest game, after the most recent patch, I won a Religious victory on a large map with 7 opponents without ever being at war with another civ.
The game is just far too easy no matter how you play it, and the techs coming too fast has nothing to do with the difficulty setting.
Skulbow
The Lonely Cyclist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 113
I would love to see a replay of these games. I have enough trouble at Emperor level getting some wins. Need a lot of luck and usually have to conquer some cities.
I don't understand all these gripes about the ai being too weak and a pushover. If you play/try to play peacefully the ai can be very hard to beat in my experience.
Similar threads
- Locked
