[R&F] I wish there were a difficulty level between Immortal and Deity

[KyivanRusCivPlease]

I must confess that since I last played for domination victory on Deity (about 1 year ago), there have been a few changes to that difficulty level!
Of course, I have recently played on a small map (I used to play on a tiny map, which must have been easier) but the game has definitely become more difficult and the barbarians tougher. In my latest 2 games as Zulu, I lost one game early and desperately gave up the second around turn 75 after my attack of an enemy civ's city turned into defence of my own city. I can't win on Deity now! However, before these Deity games I played an Immortal game as Mongolia and it was not difficult to ultimately achieve Domination Victory. So I wish there were a difficulty level between Immortal and Deity

 

[UWHabs]

I concur. I find that as long as I can survive the AI's initial assault at Immortal, I can take basically any game I play through without too much difficulty. I've almost finished at least one game as each civ, and my next test will be to try some Deity starts. But it's just so daunting, as the AI gets out to a massive lead. I definitely wouldn't mind an "immortal+" level where the AI has the same initial bonuses as immortal but get gets more bonuses through the eras.

 

[eleven11]

I had to change up my game quite a bit which I didn't really want to do. For good and bad, Deity forces you to do everything in a more efficient manner which really limits your possible play. Eureka's are key. Golden Ages are key. Early expansion is key. Abusing AI tactical weakness is key. Chopping and overflow is key.

I hope that the developers smooth out the difficulty curve in upcoming patches and expansion. I feel like they took a page from Xcom:EW and front-loaded most of the difficulty in the first 50 turns. I think my biggest complaint is that they start with 3 settlers and a 4th is never far behind those initial.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'd suggest the biggest change in Deity is in the "exploration" phase of the game. Absent a lucky map roll, you're not likely to get many goody hut bonuses or free City State envoys. The potential rewards for exploring beyond your immediate neighbourhood are reduced, and the cost-benefit equation therefore highly tilts away from an early Scout.

The second impact is in the intensity of an early Warrior rush if an AI civ starts nearby. You can still start Builder/(Holy Site if going for a religion)/Settler, but you need to be prepared to drop everything and produce/buy Warriors plus a Slinger or two as soon as you're met by an AI. Having dumped all those resources into your military, you're then highly incentivized to use them offensively after the AI Warrior rush arrives and is beaten back. You need to be careful, though, as the Deity AI will typically have at least a few reinforcements to follow up it's initial attack.

The third impact is in the likelihood of a Classical Dark Age. You'll get 45 to 49 turns to hit the era score threshold, and that can be a challenge if you don't explore as much (or are unlucky while exploring). Playing a civ with an Ancient era UI or UU really helps mitigate this risk. You can't (well, I can't) get a lot of benefit out of a Classical Dark Age because you may have a Tier 1 government with a Wild Card slot for only part of it. And if you're trying to carve out space for yourself after surviving an early Warrior rush, it's much tougher to position new cities up against large Deity AI cities when you're in a Dark Age (especially if your neighbour hit a Golden Age at the same time). On the other hand, a Classical Dark Age can set you up nicely for a Medieval Heroic Age

The fourth impact is in the amount of space you have if you're trying to play peacefully. Again, this highly depends on the map roll, and how lucky you were in cordoning off a piece of land for your own expansion. I've had maps that allowed 12+ productive cities without tramping on a neighbour's toes, and ones where getting to 6 was a challenge. Room for 8 to 10 good cities has usually been possible in the maps I've rolled, and then you can add another 2 to 5 on islands if you're lucky, but your experience can vary greatly.

The final impact is that you shouldn't expect to get as many City State bonuses on Deity, as fewer City States will survive. So Libraries and Amphitheatres and the other tier one buildings have a slower payoff on Deity than they do on other difficulty levels.

Once you have your empire carved out and your cities placed, however, beyond the fewer City State bonuses I'm not sure you'll experience much difference between a Deity game and other difficulty levels. The AI's just as easy to befriend and just as passive when not befriended. Once you catch up to it in science/culture, it can't mount a come back. It's just the time to catch up to it that may differ, and if you're warring, the time difference isn't likely to be that much.

 

[UWHabs]

I'd suggest the biggest change in Deity is in the "exploration" phase of the game. Absent a lucky map roll, you're not likely to get many goody hut bonuses or free City State envoys. The potential rewards for exploring beyond your immediate neighbourhood are reduced, and the cost-benefit equation therefore highly tilts away from an early Scout.

The second impact is in the intensity of an early Warrior rush if an AI civ starts nearby. You can still start Builder/(Holy Site if going for a religion)/Settler, but you need to be prepared to drop everything and produce/buy Warriors plus a Slinger or two as soon as you're met by an AI. Having dumped all those resources into your military, you're then highly incentivized to use them offensively after the AI Warrior rush arrives and is beaten back. You need to be careful, though, as the Deity AI will typically have at least a few reinforcements to follow up it's initial attack.

The third impact is in the likelihood of a Classical Dark Age. You'll get 45 to 49 turns to hit the era score threshold, and that can be a challenge if you don't explore as much (or are unlucky while exploring). Playing a civ with an Ancient era UI or UU really helps mitigate this risk. You can't (well, I can't) get a lot of benefit out of a Classical Dark Age because you may have a Tier 1 government with a Wild Card slot for only part of it. And if you're trying to carve out space for yourself after surviving an early Warrior rush, it's much tougher to position new cities up against large Deity AI cities when you're in a Dark Age (especially if your neighbour hit a Golden Age at the same time). On the other hand, a Classical Dark Age can set you up nicely for a Medieval Heroic Age

The fourth impact is in the amount of space you have if you're trying to play peacefully. Again, this highly depends on the map roll, and how lucky you were in cordoning off a piece of land for your own expansion. I've had maps that allowed 12+ productive cities without tramping on a neighbour's toes, and ones where getting to 6 was a challenge. Room for 8 to 10 good cities has usually been possible in the maps I've rolled, and then you can add another 2 to 5 on islands if you're lucky, but your experience can vary greatly.

The final impact is that you shouldn't expect to get as many City State bonuses on Deity, as fewer City States will survive. So Libraries and Amphitheatres and the other tier one buildings have a slower payoff on Deity than they do on other difficulty levels.

Once you have your empire carved out and your cities placed, however, beyond the fewer City State bonuses I'm not sure you'll experience much difference between a Deity game and other difficulty levels. The AI's just as easy to befriend and just as passive when not befriended. Once you catch up to it in science/culture, it can't mount a come back. It's just the time to catch up to it that may differ, and if you're warring, the time difference isn't likely to be that much.

Classic dark age is actually good. It sets up for the Heroic age, and generally speaking, that early in the game loyalty pressure is not strong enough to worry too much about. Of course, if you are trying to invade a neighbour, it can be really hard to do that in a dark age, since you often only have about 4-5 turns once you take a city to take its neighbours before it flips on you.

 

[Esperr]

I wish there was a difficulty level and not a hardness level.

 

[Nigel_Tufnel2]

In Civ V I set up some Deity Lite Challenges, where you'd get an extra starting unit (or 2 or 3). I've been experimenting lately with this in Civ VI using Firetuner. Immortal gets too easy too early (for me anyway), so providing for game-long Deity AI bonuses but with my own buffed start has been intriguing. In V, just an extra Scout or Worker could dramatically change the game. In my current VI game I gave myself 4 Warriors, a Builder, and a 2nd Settler (not a 3rd like the AI get), just to see what that would be like.

I'm also playing some strange maps (Huge Terra maps from YnAMP with fewer civs and more CS), with a number of fun mods, so your mileage will vary. The main point to me is to smooth out the difficulty from early to mid-game.

 

[KyivanRusCivPlease]

I'd suggest the biggest change in Deity is in the "exploration" phase of the game. Absent a lucky map roll, you're not likely to get many goody hut bonuses or free City State envoys. The potential rewards for exploring beyond your immediate neighbourhood are reduced, and the cost-benefit equation therefore highly tilts away from an early Scout.

The second impact is in the intensity of an early Warrior rush if an AI civ starts nearby. You can still start Builder/(Holy Site if going for a religion)/Settler, but you need to be prepared to drop everything and produce/buy Warriors plus a Slinger or two as soon as you're met by an AI. Having dumped all those resources into your military, you're then highly incentivized to use them offensively after the AI Warrior rush arrives and is beaten back. You need to be careful, though, as the Deity AI will typically have at least a few reinforcements to follow up it's initial attack.

The third impact is in the likelihood of a Classical Dark Age. You'll get 45 to 49 turns to hit the era score threshold, and that can be a challenge if you don't explore as much (or are unlucky while exploring). Playing a civ with an Ancient era UI or UU really helps mitigate this risk. You can't (well, I can't) get a lot of benefit out of a Classical Dark Age because you may have a Tier 1 government with a Wild Card slot for only part of it. And if you're trying to carve out space for yourself after surviving an early Warrior rush, it's much tougher to position new cities up against large Deity AI cities when you're in a Dark Age (especially if your neighbour hit a Golden Age at the same time). On the other hand, a Classical Dark Age can set you up nicely for a Medieval Heroic Age

The fourth impact is in the amount of space you have if you're trying to play peacefully. Again, this highly depends on the map roll, and how lucky you were in cordoning off a piece of land for your own expansion. I've had maps that allowed 12+ productive cities without tramping on a neighbour's toes, and ones where getting to 6 was a challenge. Room for 8 to 10 good cities has usually been possible in the maps I've rolled, and then you can add another 2 to 5 on islands if you're lucky, but your experience can vary greatly.

The final impact is that you shouldn't expect to get as many City State bonuses on Deity, as fewer City States will survive. So Libraries and Amphitheatres and the other tier one buildings have a slower payoff on Deity than they do on other difficulty levels.

Once you have your empire carved out and your cities placed, however, beyond the fewer City State bonuses I'm not sure you'll experience much difference between a Deity game and other difficulty levels. The AI's just as easy to befriend and just as passive when not befriended. Once you catch up to it in science/culture, it can't mount a come back. It's just the time to catch up to it that may differ, and if you're warring, the time difference isn't likely to be that much.

Thank you for an extensive and interesting analysis. How many Deity games have you played after the latest patch? How many did you win and with what Victory Condition?

 

[gozpel]

CIV used to have a Demi-God level, but when was that? Civ3?

I play mainly on Deity and I survive most of the times and win almost every time I survived the first 50 turns. It is not by getting another settler out ASAP, it is about defending yourself. Many times a settler makes sense, but then you're naked and here comes 6 warriors and 2 slingers. I figured working towards archery from the start made me feel much stronger, 2 archers and 2 warriors can counter anything in that age. Even barbs.

I win on any condition I find doable, after I have seen the initial map.

Key is scouting, so I build scout, slinger, warrior, scout, by working hammer tiles instead of growing. After that I get a settler, with 4 directions scouted I feel good. Then I start to grow and get a builder.

Immortal feels like Prince sometimes, a couple of enemies coming, you fear nothing. The barbs is a harder threat. Obviously for your whole civ is to get another settler out asap to help you out, but on Deity you can afford the wait.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Thank you for an extensive and interesting analysis. How many Deity games have you played after the latest patch? How many did you win and with what Victory Condition?

I'm on game 11 post patch right now, but I haven't won any. I'm not trying to win them, I'm just observing the AI for aggression levels and AI victory times: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...gressiveness-impact-deity-level-tests.632848/

Previously, I did play to win, but got bored. Best way I could find to make the game challenging was to pay Deity, build a Holy Site and run projects until I got a religion, then start expanding, but without attacking or conquering any AI cities. That gave the AI time to get well established, but it still wasn't interfering with my plans or winning the game itself before I could. That's what inspired me to run the tests above, to better understand how likely the AI was to interfere with you if you don't cultivate good relations and to better understand how quickly the AI can win a Deity level game when the human isn't actively trying to prevent the AI from winning.

 

[sixty4half]

I wish there was a difficulty level and not a hardness level.

What does that even mean? In the context of a game, those are synonyms.

 

[liv]

Just give deity some more tries. Do not worry if you lose a game or two. Just take notes about what happened and what you may do to prevent it and give it another go. Only the first 20 turns or so are dangerous on deity if you get through those fine you will probably be OK

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Just give deity some more tries. Do not worry if you lose a game or two. Just take notes about what happened and what you may do to prevent it and give it another go. Only the first 20 turns or so are dangerous on deity if you get through those fine you will probably be OK

To be fair, post the latest patch, I'd extend the dangerous period.

A Warrior rush within the first 20 turns isn't just dangerous, it can be nigh on impossible to defend against. A Warrior rush from turn 20 to, say, turn 40 can also be quite dangerous if you're not prepared / not experienced with handling combat in Civ 6.

It's quite common to see a second AI attack after that, either with Knights/Catapults or Musketmen/Bombards, if you're playing peacefully. If you know it's coming, you can be prepared for it, but I'd suggest you do need a plan for how you'll deal with such an attack, or you may lose a city or two. Of course, if you're playing aggressively, you'll already have military superiority and won't need to worry about such things.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think that what Civ really needs is an incresasing difficulty option where the AI starts with no or minimal advantages and then gets more bonuses as the game progresses. Something like cheaper settlers and builders after turn 50 instead of free units at turn 1, or a 1% bonus to all yields every 15 turns.

 

[UWHabs]

I think that what Civ really needs is an incresasing difficulty option where the AI starts with no or minimal advantages and then gets more bonuses as the game progresses. Something like cheaper settlers and builders after turn 50 instead of free units at turn 1, or a 1% bonus to all yields every 15 turns.

Even if everything they got was just bonuses to yields. So basically turn 1 everyone starts out exactly equal, but the AI gets a 100% bonus to production/science/culture/faith. At least that way, I'm not facing an AI that has 4 cities settled, and maybe 1 captured, before I can even build my first settler.

 

[Aristos]

The thing with civ 6 is, even if you lost, you didn't. Let me explain. Current game, random rolled Shaka, Immortal, Conts, all standard. Caged between Egypt to the North, Russia to the South and the Germans to the North West. Good terrain, but limited by the presence of those three. So I developed normally, had space for 4 good cities of my own, went that way. Gave priority to diplo + infrastructure, and as a consequence was slightly under-defended (but knowing the Impis were coming...).

Joint War between those two, Russia and Egypt. After a struggle, Egypt takes my Northern gem, and Russia my southern. Game over, right? 50% of your cities out? Naaa.

The last two cities were better defended, in good defensive positions, and I resist until I finally reach Impis. A couple of cats, a bunch of highly promoted archers (survivors of the long struggle), plus promoted spears -> Impis, and I take the two cities back (the southern one being an Emergency, so nice extra money). I am interested in Russia's friendship, so I stop at that and accept his juicy peace offer (more money), and focus everything on Egypt. I take one of her best cities on our border, and call it a victory.

Result: I am more powerful now, Egypt is forever emaciated, Russia is friend. On my way to win the game bar something really strange happening.

Bottom line: Civ 6 is ever forgiving, the most forgiving of the series, even in a situation where the huge majority of players would rage quit because of the memories of past civ games that would punish you heavily for losing 50% of your empire... I mean, you lose 50% of your cities in Civ 4 and you better quit that game and start over.

In civ 6, well, you have to adjust to the challenge, but most of them are in the end really easy to overcome. No matter what diff level.

And it's not even that the AI was a fail, combat AI put up a good fight (imagine, even taking 2 cities from my 4), and overall fought well, but still... civ 6 has too many "come back" mechanisms to render almost any situation that would have been a lost cause in earlier iterations, hopeful. Any. Some may love this "feature", but others looking for more challenge (aka more punishment for errors) may feel it dumbed down...

 

[UWHabs]

The thing with civ 6 is, even if you lost, you didn't. Let me explain. Current game, random rolled Shaka, Immortal, Conts, all standard. Caged between Egypt to the North, Russia to the South and the Germans to the North West. Good terrain, but limited by the presence of those three. So I developed normally, had space for 4 good cities of my own, went that way. Gave priority to diplo + infrastructure, and as a consequence was slightly under-defended (but knowing the Impis were coming...).

Joint War between those two, Russia and Egypt. After a struggle, Egypt takes my Northern gem, and Russia my southern. Game over, right? 50% of your cities out? Naaa.

The last two cities were better defended, in good defensive positions, and I resist until I finally reach Impis. A couple of cats, a bunch of highly promoted archers (survivors of the long struggle), plus promoted spears -> Impis, and I take the two cities back (the southern one being an Emergency, so nice extra money). I am interested in Russia's friendship, so I stop at that and accept his juicy peace offer (more money), and focus everything on Egypt. I take one of her best cities on our border, and call it a victory.

Result: I am more powerful now, Egypt is forever emaciated, Russia is friend. On my way to win the game bar something really strange happening.

Bottom line: Civ 6 is ever forgiving, the most forgiving of the series, even in a situation where the huge majority of players would rage quit because of the memories of past civ games that would punish you heavily for losing 50% of your empire... I mean, you lose 50% of your cities in Civ 4 and you better quit that game and start over.

In civ 6, well, you have to adjust to the challenge, but most of them are in the end really easy to overcome. No matter what diff level.

And it's not even that the AI was a fail, combat AI put up a good fight (imagine, even taking 2 cities from my 4), and overall fought well, but still... civ 6 has too many "come back" mechanisms to render almost any situation that would have been a lost cause in earlier iterations, hopeful. Any. Some may love this "feature", but others looking for more challenge (aka more punishment for errors) may feel it dumbed down...

There's something so satisfying about taking a position where you're down a couple cities and then come back stronger than before. I've had that happen in a couple games where an AI surprised me, grabbed one of my cities, but I had enough to turn the tables.

Of course, I've had other games where they came too strong, took my capital, and there was nothing I could do about it, either because that was my only city, or I knew that the city I had only founded 5 turns before wasn't going to be able to build even 1 warrior to defend itself. Those times I just quit and start a new game.

 

[KyivanRusCivPlease]

So, finally, thanks to perseverence and some luck (I got my unique unit when I needed it badly, the game received useful city-states, e.g. Kabul which gave me double XP points for attacking) and some encouraging tips from previous posts, I won my third game as the Zulu! I chose Mongolia as one of the AI civs for the third time in a row, to create a better military challenge - and actually Genghis did become the biggest challenge both militarily and scientifically. Some conclusions I can draw:
1) I really didn't know if I could win until the late game, which is great.
2) The late game was still boring compared to the early and mid game. When I have captured lots of cities from Mongolia, I just steamrolled next cities, it turned into a routine and I didn't receive much resistance. So it is most interesting to catch up and to fight when you are not stronger and more in numbers.
3) A Domination game at Deity as of the latest patch is not less interesting than a Culture Victory game. And overall, CHALLENGE IS MORE INTERESTING TO ME THAN ROLEPLAYING)

 

[Leathaface]

I've won my last couple of Science victories handily on Immortal difficulty, probably gonna make the jump up to Deity with Korea soon-ish. I wonder if the gap will be very big.

 

[Esperr]

What does that even mean? In the context of a game, those are synonyms.

I wish the A.I got smarter, instead of just getting harder.