I've been playing with crises on, since I want my first bunch of games to be played the way the developers/designers intended.
I have had the barb crisis a couple times, and it was not too bad. The Antiquity plague crisis feels different/less burdensome than the Exploration plague crisis.
I disliked the happiness crisis because I felt I had fewer tools to fight it. I could lose a town I just expended effort/troops/gold to conquer, which was frustrating. Rebuilding burnt-down buildings, also less fun.
TBH, I never considered the impact on the AI much. I enjoyed it when an AI city flipped to me, but it wasn't common.
I never pay much attention to whether the hostile IP attack the AI, or if they lose buildings in the plague.
The impact of the crisis on my empire consumes most of my attention, which is probably intended.
I would support a scaling with difficulty that includes a softer impact on AI at higher difficulties in single player.
The point of increasing difficulty in SP is to provide a greater challenge for the human player, on their path to victory.
Allowing a stronger AI player (see one of my recent games) to stay strong would pose more of a threat to me.
I'm not a big fan of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" aspect to crises. If I (or an AI player) have spent effort to build a successful empire, I don't want to be penalized for playing well. Yes, I understand that's hard to balance and that snowballing is real.
It's inherent in all the Civ games I've played, so I don't see a fun/enjoyable way to eliminate it.
I have had the barb crisis a couple times, and it was not too bad. The Antiquity plague crisis feels different/less burdensome than the Exploration plague crisis.
I disliked the happiness crisis because I felt I had fewer tools to fight it. I could lose a town I just expended effort/troops/gold to conquer, which was frustrating. Rebuilding burnt-down buildings, also less fun.
TBH, I never considered the impact on the AI much. I enjoyed it when an AI city flipped to me, but it wasn't common.
I never pay much attention to whether the hostile IP attack the AI, or if they lose buildings in the plague.
The impact of the crisis on my empire consumes most of my attention, which is probably intended.
I would support a scaling with difficulty that includes a softer impact on AI at higher difficulties in single player.
The point of increasing difficulty in SP is to provide a greater challenge for the human player, on their path to victory.
Allowing a stronger AI player (see one of my recent games) to stay strong would pose more of a threat to me.
I'm not a big fan of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" aspect to crises. If I (or an AI player) have spent effort to build a successful empire, I don't want to be penalized for playing well. Yes, I understand that's hard to balance and that snowballing is real.
It's inherent in all the Civ games I've played, so I don't see a fun/enjoyable way to eliminate it.