Going for Gold: What remains that is "Broken"?

[Stalker0]

Some of the 2nd prize events are worth it for civs. World Fair, for instance, 2nd place gets you a free policy and 33% culture for 30 turns.

Agreed. International Games for example, while the 1st prize is very good for CV, just getting the 3rd prize is a big boost.

World Fair 2nd and 3rd places are actually very strong for science heavy civs, as it lets them get ideologies at a more reasonable time, and helps them meet their policy prereqs for wonder, as that tends to be their Achilles heel.

 

[CppMaster]

Maybe it was good 40 versions ago, but now its something made by someone who likes to cheese the mechanics so they can win a science victory on deity by the medieval era.

It's literally impossible even on Settler difficulty

 

[JamesNinelives]

I won't speak for immortal+, but on Emperor it is extremely doable to get a religion early, even without going religious. A good pantheon + shrine first settlements can get you there.

What other settings do you play on? And what do you consider to be good pantheons?

I play on Emperor as well and I find several of the pantheons in my games are simply not available to the player unless you have a very early religious bonus or a faith ruin. I always build shrine first in my capital but about a third or more of the AI always pick a pantheon before I am able to, even when I get gold or production ruins to rush my shrine.

 

[Stalker0]

What other settings do you play on? And what do you consider to be good pantheons?

I play on Emperor as well and I find several of the pantheons in my games are simply not available to the player unless you have a very early religious bonus or a faith ruin. I always build shrine first in my capital but about a third or more of the AI always pick a pantheon before I am able to, even when I get gold or production ruins to rush my shrine.

I play Standard Size Standard Speed Communitas_79 with ruins on. I go monument first than shrine in my capital, and often shrine first in my secondary cities. I never get the earliest pantheon unless I am playing a strong religious civ but I generally always find a good variety of pantheons to choose from when I do make it. I don't always get my top choice, but I very rarely find a situation where I don't get any pantheon I would want to choose.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I play Standard Size Standard Speed Communitas_79 with ruins on. I go monument first than shrine in my capital, and often shrine first in my secondary cities. I never get the earliest pantheon unless I am playing a strong religious civ but I generally always find a good variety of pantheons to choose from when I do make it. I don't always get my top choice, but I very rarely find a situation where I don't get any pantheon I would want to choose.

I play on Epic speed, Huge map, Continents plus with ruins. I guess when you have more civs there are less choices available, that's OK. It does bother me that at least 4 AIs always get pantheons before the human possibly could (excepting India, Spain, or a faith ruin). If I went Monument first I would get last pick every time. Guess at least I can say life isn't always easier on slow games/big maps.

 

[ICanHasName?]

I think part of the problem on high difficulties is the player can win a war too cheaply. Civ5 war AI will always be easy to beat but it doesnt have to be inexpensive as well. IMO maybe AI on high difficulties should:

1 - focus heavily on killing player units, and be much more willing to loose their own. On diety trading 2 units for one is probably advantageous for the AI, and everything better than that is a big win. Any time the AI can kill a player unit it should do so. This is why war is so easy and profitable for players, they can fight a war without losing very much, and get very experienced units upgrading through the ages.

2 - do not spread out damage. Everything in range of a target should attack it until it is dead. I always see a unit that could be killed live because 3 bows attack 2 targets, and 2 pikes move away or fortify.

3 - do not shuffle units. Especially units at 75% health should not just waste turns moving, and attack if that will kill a unit or trade damage reasonably well. Especially ranged units should just fire at something every turn they can.

4 - attack in numbers on a broad front, or do not attack. AI should never trickle in units one at a time. Kill boxes are solved when 3x their number come in from all sides. If this is not possible the AI winning an invasion is probably not either, and it should defend until it has more. I have seen it mass for invasions at the start of wars, if possible it should use this during wars too.

Basically the AI is zerg and should play like it: it has more resources, more quantity, and individually weak units. It cant keep units alive or do anything too clever anyway, just focus on trading units at a better than 2:1 ratio every time it is possible. Even if it looses the war it will have caused enough damage that the conquest will take longer to be profitable.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Adding to the previous post: In my 20 or so VP games I don't recollect seeing an AI ranged unit with the Range promotion. IMO the range 3 units tend to be the strongest of all units in the game because they can continuously hit from a distance without fear of retribution. That means they also get XP more easily, making them even stronger later with indirect fire, etc. Such a unit should (in theory) be easier for the AI to handle as well, because they can keep it on a hill behind their main line, and keep firing.
And this promotion isn't too hard to get either. Barb camps get you Accuracy 2, its just two promotions from there. Maybe the AI could prioritise it more/value their Accuracy 3 units more highly so that they don't die?

 

[Melchizedek]

Should an AI be programmed to fight as well as possible on the basis of parity or on the basis of having AI advantages? Should it fight to win the game, or to beat the human player (regardless of which AI wins)? Personally, having an AI intentionally sac two units for one of mine would be immersion breaking for me. If I'm at war with Askia, I want it to feel like Askia is trying to make Songhai win the game, not trying to make me lose. And I want it to feel as much as possible like Askia is another human player, not an AI leveraging AI bonuses.

 

[Recursive]

Should an AI be programmed to fight as well as possible on the basis of parity or on the basis of having AI advantages? Should it fight to win the game, or to beat the human player (regardless of which AI wins)? Personally, having an AI intentionally sac two units for one of mine would be immersion breaking for me. If I'm at war with Askia, I want it to feel like Askia is trying to make Songhai win the game, not trying to make me lose. And I want it to feel as much as possible like Askia is another human player, not an AI leveraging AI bonuses.

AI is programmed to win for itself. It gets into conflict both with the human and with other AIs on a largely equal basis. If all the AIs seem to hate you, you're likely doing too well - try upping your difficulty.

 

[Vhozite]

Not sure what causes it, but the AI will still occasionally throw a GG out in the middle of nowhere completely unprotected.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Should an AI be programmed to fight as well as possible on the basis of parity or on the basis of having AI advantages? Should it fight to win the game, or to beat the human player (regardless of which AI wins)? Personally, having an AI intentionally sac two units for one of mine would be immersion breaking for me. If I'm at war with Askia, I want it to feel like Askia is trying to make Songhai win the game, not trying to make me lose. And I want it to feel as much as possible like Askia is another human player, not an AI leveraging AI bonuses.

Also, even on high difficulties if the AI act like that towards each other they are essentially digging their own graves by wasting resources.

Askia might well be more successful in general if he was willing to trade troops with a human player. But he would have to use a different strategy against other AIs.

 

[Deljade]

Some huge map kinks come to mind, I think a bunch of us prefer to play on huge. I've been saying for a while now that some games are downright impossible to get a religion on huge maps. I always have to rush shrine on every city to have chance at last founding, this happens even when I get a relatively early pantheon, no idea why, this is just unfun. Then there's great works running out, most definitely gamechanging for cultural victory, I alleviate this with other mods, should that be the case?

 

[JamesNinelives]

Some huge map kinks come to mind, I think a bunch of us prefer to play on huge. I've been saying for a while now that some games are downright impossible to get a religion on huge maps. I always have to rush shrine on every city to have chance at last founding, this happens even when I get a relatively early pantheon, no idea why, this is just unfun. Then there's great works running out, most definitely gamechanging for cultural victory, I alleviate this with other mods, should that be the case?

What difficulty and other settings are you playing on? I love playing Huge maps, I find founding is OK on the mid-tier difficulties but certainly very difficult on the higher ones. I hear Stonehenge is one way to do it but I don't really want to open the same way in every game. I kinda assumed things were the same on standard size but perhaps I'm wrong. I went down from Emperor to King recently, but I think that's related to the game speed rather than the map size.

 

[Deljade]

What difficulty and other settings are you playing on? I love playing Huge maps, I find founding is OK on the mid-tier difficulties but certainly very difficult on the higher ones. I hear Stonehenge is one way to do it but I don't really want to open the same way in every game. I kinda assumed things were the same on standard size but perhaps I'm wrong. I went down from Emperor to King recently, but I think that's related to the game speed rather than the map size.

Emperor mostly, Immortal sometimes. I also use ruins, as well as religious city states which can play a factor sure, and events (where I always go for the faith) but there's just too few available religions for the 15 civs needed on a huge map, or the AI is doing it way too fast, it's absurd to be missing or founding last with hard focus on faith, stonehenge excluded since its usually a gamble. Gamespeed is epic, if that matters.

 

[Ziad]

As some have mentioned, map size / game speed scaling still needs tuning.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Emperor mostly, Immortal sometimes. I also use ruins, as well as religious city states which can play a factor sure, and events (where I always go for the faith) but there's just too few available religions for the 15 civs needed on a huge map, or the AI is doing it way too fast, it's absurd to be missing or founding last with hard focus on faith, stonehenge excluded since its usually a gamble. Gamespeed is epic, if that matters.

Ah, I understand now. I play very similar settings to you but I only use 12 civs, probably why it's tougher for you! I think as @Ziad noted though, scaling with game speed is a bit off currently. I play on Epic like you and had to go down a difficulty on this patch just to be able to found.

 

[Deljade]

I feel there's too much space on huge with 12, probably depends on the map but looking for some early conflicts to occur too in case it gives the warmongers/authority a better chance. Maybe have an AI be eliminated too.

 

[Zanteogo]

I would honestly consider how often the AI will find trade deals "impossible" broken right now.

Trading votes is probably the best example of this.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I feel there's too much space on huge with 12, probably depends on the map but looking for some early conflicts to occur too in case it gives the warmongers/authority a better chance. Maybe have an AI be eliminated too.

Yeah, I understand people do feel that way. I was never a fan of very early warfare though. I prepare for it anyway - I'm a cautious player. Generally though, I don't enjoy it.

 

[Ziad]

Yeah, I understand people do feel that way. I was never a fan of very early warfare though. I prepare for it anyway - I'm a cautious player. Generally though, I don't enjoy it.

I only enjoy it if my civ is meant for it (like Aztecs).

Otherwise I greatly prefer having some space to settle before hostilities begin.