Difficulty

[Exterrestrial]

I really wish there was a difficulty level between king and emperor, or, better yet (but not gonna happen, I know) improvement to the AI so they don't need atificially added bonuses like the extra settler. I'd love a balanced competition instead.
King is far too easy - I just played a game and I got almost all the great people, was miles ahead in science and culture and won culture by turn 210 or something. It felt like an eternity.
Meanwhile on Emperor, the gameplay feels mostly stressful to me. Especially when civs start too close to my territory (happens way too often) plus the really bad starting positions 50% of the time. When I then get into a war to establish my territoy, it often feels so dragging and messy on emperor. It can be done of course, but not always, and at the expense of a more focused gameplay. Also, I know I'll have to get my spies up and running quickly to then prevent space projects from being finished. And that mechanic is so, so boring, yet I can't avoid it and on emperor it's just annoying - every few rounds you gotta check if there's a new spaceport somewhere. (I don't want to disable science victory though, I like to play with all victory types archievable).
The mid-game is alright on emperor. It's just the start and the spaceports that mostly annoy me.
So... Yeah. I probably just wanted to rant a little.

 

[Rosty K]

There was a mod somewhere that removes extra settlers below deity. Not sure it works with R&F.

 

[WillowBrook]

The mod is called "AI free settler on deity only" on the Steam workshop. Won't help with spaceports, but would make the start less stressful.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ultimately the problem is with the weak AI (though it seems better in the latest update) but in general the only difference between the difficulties is the first 50 turns or so. Once you get yourself set up, there isn't really much separating a prince or deity game.

 

[Art Morte]

Yes, the big AI bonuses at higher levels distort the game. AI civs are always ahead in the beginning (and, for instance, have an immense advantage towards getting a religion, getting a religion on Immortal and Deity is too hard, imo, too much up to chance), but the player can overtake the AI later on. I play mostly on Immortal and I'm not against the AI having some bonuses, but the size of their bonuses make my games follow the same pattern almost always; AI way ahead in the beginning, I can catch up and overtake later on. Yet if I drop the difficulty level then I get ahead too early and that's not very fun, either.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Escalating bonuses per era is what I'd like to see the development team try, instead of more front loading (additional settlers, etc.).

For example, if the AI got a 3% yield boost per era on Emperor, a 5% yield boost per era on Immortal and a 10% yield boost per era on Deity, you'd have to run faster and faster to stay par with or ahead of the AI.

I'm not sure 3%/5%/10% are the right levels, that would require playtesting. The main idea is to avoid the current situation where, once you've caught up to the AI, you know they aren't going to regain the lead. If the AIs get more efficient each era, that would give them the ability to mount a comeback if you don't continue to play more efficiently than them.

 

[eleven11]

I played Immortal for quite some time because Deity AI bonuses annoyed me. I've once again move to Deity after installing the starting scout mod. Somehow that takes the sting out of the AI starting with so much. At least I have a chance at discovering a CS first and grabbing a goody hut or two. I'll look into the mod that removes AI starting settlers...

My advice to OP (and I could possibly be repeating someone) is to go up a level in difficulty to get the extra challenge but find a mod in the workshop that may give you something a little extra. I like the Resourceful mod too. It really improves the tile situation for cities.

 

[criZp]

I made a mod called " no ai start advantage" that you perhaps would like to try.

 

[Exterrestrial]

Thank you all! I'll look for the mods you mentioned, I think those could make my game more enjoyable.
No AI starting bonus or at least having a small bonus myself (1 scout would be amazing) is probably what I'm looking for.

 

[PeterChu]

I would like to see a sort of 'dynamic difficulty'. A good old mod for Civ 4 once did this:
Flexible difficulty
The optional flexible difficulty algorithm sets handicaps for the humans and the AI relative to their score; low score civilizations will get bonuses and those with high scores will receive penalties. The game difficulty will thus dynamically adapt to your skill to ensure you will get a challenging but balanced game throughout.

 

[Art Morte]

Escalating bonuses per era is what I'd like to see the development team try, instead of more front loading (additional settlers, etc.).

For example, if the AI got a 3% yield boost per era on Emperor, a 5% yield boost per era on Immortal and a 10% yield boost per era on Deity, you'd have to run faster and faster to stay par with or ahead of the AI.

I'm not sure 3%/5%/10% are the right levels, that would require playtesting. The main idea is to avoid the current situation where, once you've caught up to the AI, you know they aren't going to regain the lead. If the AIs get more efficient each era, that would give them the ability to mount a comeback if you don't continue to play more efficiently than them.

I like this idea. Correctly implemented it should be much better than the current curve where early stages are very difficult and then difficulty steadily declines from there.

 

[KayAU]

The problem for me is that there is no satisfying challenge on any difficulty level, at least not once you have learned how the mechanics work. That is because the AI does not get smarter when you go up in difficulty levels, it just gets a bunch of bonuses. For one thing, this doesn't feel fair, because you are not loosing wonders or city spots due to poor decisions, you are loosing them due to the AI "cheating". Secondly, it really isn't much harder to win, you are just pushed towards a more specific path to achieve it: take advantage of the AIs inability to handle combat, beat up your neighbors and go wide.

To make the game challenging, they would have to either make the AI way more competent, or change the game to be more about fighting the environment/game world than the other players.

 

[Sykes179]

When I was naive I thought the AI would get smarter at higher levels and then I realised they just got more buffed at the start of the game and recieved bonuses throughout the game.

I'm not a programmer but surely it would be incredibly difficult to programme the AI to be operating from really dumb to super smart and points inbetween depending on the level?

As for modding the game so it's easier on higher levels. Seriously, why would you do that? It's really really tough at higher levels, that's the point!

 

[agonistes]

When I was naive I thought the AI would get smarter at higher levels and then I realised they just got more buffed at the start of the game and recieved bonuses throughout the game.

I'm not a programmer but surely it would be incredibly difficult to programme the AI to be operating from really dumb to super smart and points inbetween depending on the level?

As for modding the game so it's easier on higher levels. Seriously, why would you do that? It's really really tough at higher levels, that's the point!

It wouldn't be hard. Time consuming. Not hard. You'll see our resident programmers say otherwise. They are wrong.

 

[gozpel]

If you have half a brain, you win this on Deity. You just have to make your first decisions count.

You build a few warriors/archers (as you fancy) and defend yourself. The rest of the game is a breeze.

Unless someone is running away on another continent. but by then you have a multitude of choices how to work on that.

 

[Rosty K]

I'm not a programmer but surely it would be incredibly difficult to programme the AI to be operating from really dumb to super smart and points inbetween depending on the level?

I think something like that could be done through some subtle limiting of AI's strategic and tactical options at lower levels and allowing it to do more and more as the level increases. Possibly also some tolerance in picking the next move could be played with (so at the Settler level the chance of picking a suboptimal decision would be high).

After all, the chess AI even in your phone can do exactly that - go from absolutely dumb (easily missing that 5-turn checkmate) at the easy level to super smart (may attempt that 5-turn checkmate on you, and you'll possibly miss it) at the hard level. And it doesn't get more cogs or gold to do that - all it gets is more information to process.

 

[Stringer1313]

I hear you. I now beat Emperor fairly easily but I have to stick to an early aggression strategy to do it. With King, I can be laidback for a while and roleplay, but it is far too easy.

 

[Rosty K]

I hear you. I now beat Emperor fairly easily but I have to stick to an early aggression strategy to do it. With King, I can be laidback for a while and roleplay, but it is far too easy.

One of the reasons I stick with King. I don't think early conquest must be necessary to win

 

[acluewithout]

I think a problem with higher difficulties is that all of the AI start with the same bonuses. It gets overwhelming fast. It’d maybe be a bit better if there was a little randomness in what the AI got; eg some get two settlers, some three, some get extra builders, some get extra scouts.

The AI also needs bonuses through out the game. Ideally, these should be a little linked to their best victory condition, or uniques, or just situational.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Playing Deity really forced me to learn the mechanics of combat and economics. Build lots of cheap units and CH's early. Lure out units to be killed by ranged units. Farming promotions, using siege weapon against cities with walls.

I thought the difficult with building a good AI was that the computing power needed to 'look ahead' really increased with 1UPT. It seems like Firaxis made a decision to make civ 6 work on the widest possible number of platforms which meant limiting the resources required. I thought this is the same reason they chose the graphic style they did.