Has the difficulty level been increased in a recent patch?

[EK834]

I still don't understand why non-"hardcore" players want to play above Prince. Prince is the default difficulty. It's designed for casual players. Maybe your problem is that Prince is too easy rather than King+ being too hard?

I suspect you're right.

I'm not a hardcore player by any stretch (not a good one anyway), though I'm an experienced one (I played all versions since Civ II but never bothered to learn to play the top levels).

Prince is way too easy for me, and I guess Horizons is too experienced the same way I am to get much fun from it. The AI on Prince is no challenge at all.

King is however perfect for casual games for me, unless I get a terrible start in which case I will get a challenge for a while, or be forced to change the VC I originally wanted. Otherwise it's a very forgiving level for me. On Emperor I can't consistently win (not quite) and I play too casually to really enjoy the challenge.

My gripe with pre-patch King is that once I overcome the small bonuses of the AI the mid and late game stops being challenging. I like the "new King" more than pre-patch King. It's a bit more challenging because I spend a longer time in the middle pack and when I get ahead of those I still have the runaway(s) to catch up or I might even have to destroy them around Industrial to prevent their victory.

It's not quite Emperor, but it's a funnier King. It could still be improved, for instance if the AI was more active to prevent a victory.

You don't need to be a hardcore player to play and beat the slightly better AI on King, especially not if you could beat it pre-patch. You just need to borrow the tricks of the hardcore players for the early game, to optimize growth and thus science, after which it's back to the more casual play style, but the catching up phase can be longer than before as the AI is harder to leave behind. Basically you have to say goodbye to more WW than on pre-patch King, unless you have a great start for them. The rest of the level seems to be the same.

 

[Quineloe]

I still don't understand why non-"hardcore" players want to play above Prince. Prince is the default difficulty. It's designed for casual players. Maybe your problem is that Prince is too easy rather than King+ being too hard?

What exactly is a casual gamer on Civ?

 

[Rohili]

What exactly is a casual gamer on Civ?

I would define it as someone who makes gameplay decisions based on considerations other than winning the game. For example, if you like to roleplay, or if you treat Civ as a empire-builder sim (and like to horde wonders even if it hurts your game), then you are a casual gamer. A competitive gamer relentlessly optimises every decision for the sole aim of winning the game.

 

[Cedbird]

If you mean BETA, yeah, I noticed an increase in difficulty - everyone seems to tech faster now. Could be just my imagination, though, but they do seem to be all doing much better now, probably because of the change that made them more likely to build science stuff.

If their aggresiveness and willingness to war was slightly increased (so they attack when it's obvious they're going to win) , Civ 5 BNW would be even more challenging.

Nice! I play Emperor. Been at this level for maybe a year now. I love it. I get challenged enough the AI catches me slipping enough but I win my fair share. But a challenge makes you better! Just have to home your skills in

 

[Cedbird]

So I keep hearing about strategies to rush to the NC and develop your cities ... which sound great ... but then when you actually play the game you get rushed by 10 units in the ancient era in addition to the regular barbarian attacks, and I just don't understand how you even have time to build a library in between having to rush out units to defend yourself. You guys must be playing on huge maps with great distances between the civs.

This works for me. Maybe it will for you. First all I observe some people just think strategically, tactically etc. So they are more naturals to the game. Some people have to learn to think that way. If you were in the military etc maybe things come easier etc.
Anyway the thing I believe works well for me is separating your emotion from your need. This can be very difficult at times but in the games I lose I am sure that was my mistake. Understand what makes a Civ in the game strong. The number one thing is defense. If you can 't defend your nation then Wonders, strong economy, ten cities by Medival etc doesnt matter. Prioritize defense. Don 't go crazy or do its up to you but you have to have it. This will allow you to get some of your wants. But make sure you have your needs.
Proper city placement is also very important. Try to get placement in good areas with growth potential,resources,and think defensive when you can. That equals science and production focus will be good. Economy will be purring also. Those are the three most important areas of the game to me. If you can defend yourself properly with Range units and a few Melees, keep your science good to great, and your economy good to great you position yourself for whatever you want to do be it Wonders/cultural/ Diplo victory. Grow your gameplay from that position. You have to learn to be balanced just enough OR be very strong in one area. If you like those Civs who rushed you have 15 units forgetting their science etc than that 's great for them because you build their cities for them . Now they have the money to fund their massive army. And now maybe they don 't want to warmonger no more. They have the advantage they were looking for. But yes you have to play often until you get your gameplay philosophy down. Try different things but think it out before you play during your day at work etc. I do ha ha ha.

 

[Cedbird]

Yikes, ok this is about what I expected. I guess I just can't do things like I'm used to.

The first hundred turns used to be set in stone; no longer.



Too low relative to the number of cities I have? Meaning I shouldn't have founded a new city if my cap is only pop 6?

You have to find a way to multi task. Civ is a game of giving up something for something else. Example . Give up Wonders for settlers. But if you get a couple settlers out asap you will be able to have one city contributing to Defense units, One concentrating on Wonders etc. Then when you feel a need to get something important done lets say NC or you feel the need to bulk your defenses. Stop everything and do so. You have to have priorities and multi-task. Be flexible but be focused on what 's important.

 

[greygamer]

Civ V has good design when it comes to difficulty levels. You can play on whatever level you find enjoyable without missing out on other game elements. If King is easy and Emperor too hard you can cook the settings until you find the right balance, or impose 'house' rules stopping you from doing 'optimal' things (e.g. not stealing workers from CS).

It is only about beating the next difficulty level if you make that your goal.

 

[Horizons]

You have to find a way to multi task. Civ is a game of giving up something for something else. Example . Give up Wonders for settlers. But if you get a couple settlers out asap you will be able to have one city contributing to Defense units, One concentrating on Wonders etc. Then when you feel a need to get something important done lets say NC or you feel the need to bulk your defenses. Stop everything and do so. You have to have priorities and multi-task. Be flexible but be focused on what 's important.

I understand the need for choices and prioritization but the number of choices of what to build is just overwhelming and it is stressful (and a lot of work) trying to work out what to prioritize. And that, in between having to desperately pump out units and try to grow a population to catch up to the AI's enormous happiness bonuses just makes this game like a chore. Too much work, too much stress and not much fun.

I distinctly remember this is also the reason why I didn't like Civ4: Colonization. You have a lot of choice, but only the 'optimal' choices are the 'right' ones, otherwise you will be crushed by an AI with enormous bonuses.

 

[joncnunn]

lol I will need to go back to Prince, if I play Civ5 again that is. It is clearly being 'optimized' for the hardcore players at this stage, and will likely become less and less 'fun'.

Personally, I would suggest that patches that improve AI behavior be paired with reductions in the bonuses the AI would get over a player at Prince level.

The good news though is that even if the game doesn't do this; it is very easy to write a mod that does it. There's probably a few out there already.
One is the quick and dirty change AI from "AIDefaultHandicap" to "Prince". (Similar to the G&K & vanilla mods promoting the AI from "Cheftain" to "Prince".)

And the other approach in BNW is to go into the standard handicap file and edit values within AI Default Handicap:

If the AI has too much happiness for your taste, just copy the values from Prince.
If the AI has too much science for your taste, eliminate their science handicap.

 

[joncnunn]

For me; if I were role playing for BNW, King would actually be my personal level rather than Prince. It would still be almost impossible for me to lose.

And Emperor is for a game that is easy to win but it's now possible for me to lose if I make bad decisions.

Immortal is for a challenging game.

 

[TLHeart]

I understand the need for choices and prioritization but the number of choices of what to build is just overwhelming and it is stressful (and a lot of work) trying to work out what to prioritize. And that, in between having to desperately pump out units and try to grow a population to catch up to the AI's enormous happiness bonuses just makes this game like a chore. Too much work, too much stress and not much fun.

I distinctly remember this is also the reason why I didn't like Civ4: Colonization. You have a lot of choice, but only the 'optimal' choices are the 'right' ones, otherwise you will be crushed by an AI with enormous bonuses.

I play emperor now, and win 70% of my games. Pump out units? Never in my games. Explore, find those war mongering civs and trade with them. Know they want war, and don't become their target. A city on a hill with an archer can hold off many units. One does not need every wonder or every building in every city.

The techniques the deity players use, will help your game, they did mine.

I have had Assyria as my neighbor, and he was always attacking someone. He even attacked me, and failed due to the river and hill.

 

[Horizons]

Impossible to lose at King, eh? I really must be a crap Civ player

 

[Gort]

There's a lot of variation in difficulty levels - what civs the AI is playing, what policies those AIs take, whether their natural inclinations lead them to win the game or just meander along, that sort of thing. For example if you get a game where you're up against someone like England, and they go Piety, that's probably not going to be all that tough. If you're up against someone like Greece and they've gone full Tradition and Patronage, that's going to be considerably harder.

Your start position matters a lot, too. Get a nice grassland start, with lots of rivers, and luxuries like salt and gold, and you're onto a winner. If there's space for 3 more super-cities, even better. On the other hand, you might get a tundra start and only have space for one more good city before you have to start conquering. You then conquer another two good cities, but now everyone in the world hates you and your crappy tundra capital is dragging you down.

 

[Horizons]

I lose at King even if I have a good start, so long as the AI - with its bonuses - gets a good start too. It's near impossible to out-do the AI at anything and I have only won when able to overwhelm the AI militarily in the early game.

 

[greygamer]

Impossible to lose at King, eh? I really must be a crap Civ player

Not really, I struggled when I went from Prince to King but now I find King interesting to play but I expect to win at that level. I couldn't go back to Prince level now. Emperor is now where I struggle but I will eventually figure it out, that is the fun part.

There's a lot of variation in difficulty levels - what civs the AI is playing, what policies those AIs take, whether their natural inclinations lead them to win the game or just meander along, that sort of thing. For example if you get a game where you're up against someone like England, and they go Piety, that's probably not going to be all that tough. If you're up against someone like Greece and they've gone full Tradition and Patronage, that's going to be considerably harder.

Your start position matters a lot, too. Get a nice grassland start, with lots of rivers, and luxuries like salt and gold, and you're onto a winner. If there's space for 3 more super-cities, even better. On the other hand, you might get a tundra start and only have space for one more good city before you have to start conquering. You then conquer another two good cities, but now everyone in the world hates you and your crappy tundra capital is dragging you down.

Even re-starting a map using the autosave initial save and adopting a different strategy can make a huge difference. If I loose on a map I will try again to try and learn from my mistakes.

I have been experimenting with a Liberty (+ Honor opener) strategy using this method on King level with America, I have been playing Tradition 3 city openings. My neighbours were China, Monty and Poland. In my first attempt Poland eliminated both of it's neighbours and had me cut off from the rest of the continent before the Renaissance. I hadn't really made good use of the Liberty tree so I did a restart where I would build cities much quicker, I even hard built the first settler. In this game I have 6 cities and got attacked by all my neighbours but managed to get peace out of each of them. No one has been eliminated, my military has slowly caught up and I feel in a much stronger position.

TLDR: try restarting your map to analyse if you made errors, it is a good way to learn.

 

[greygamer]

I lose at King even if I have a good start, so long as the AI - with its bonuses - gets a good start too. It's near impossible to out-do the AI at anything and I have only won when able to overwhelm the AI militarily in the early game.

It can seem like that at first, believe me when I say I thought the same thing ...got an era behind on tech by Industrial. But I read a few strategy posts, I can catch up with the AI on tech during Medieval now even if I don't build the NC before t150. Try to focus on how you want to win and improve that part of your strategy. A good idea is to play on smaller maps while you are learning and then increase the map size once you get the first win. I usually start on a tiny (4 player) map, also use the easy types of map.

I would recommend reading Tabarnak's thread on Trad 3 cities
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=502837

I don't follow it to the letter, I like to get the Honor opener early on and take some tech earlier than in that guide and I rarely build as many scouts as recommended. I have never gotten 3 cities to 10 pop by t100 but I still get wins following the general principles in the guide.

 

[Horizons]

I have tried that. Some games are unwinnable, pure and simple.

 

[joshua43214]

Impossible to lose at King, eh? I really must be a crap Civ player

It does not mean you are a crap player at all, civ is a tough game and unless you are willing to devote a lot of time and energy into mastering all the little nuances then King is a hard level. Some one who wins basically 100% of Immortal games will find it impossible to lose on King or even Emperor.

 

[Horizons]

Either back to Prince or uninstall ... not sure which at this stage

 

[Scott Jegg]

Maybe you should uninstall, because it doesn't sound like you enjoy playing the game.