If Civ V is so easy, why isn't everybody winning on Emperor?

[fantsu]

I didn't have any of those achievements, but I did win on Emperor. Just didn't want to play it all the way through. Useless. It was all over for AI anyways.

 

[TLF]

In a game like that screenshot you don't use tactics on the enemy.
You would spend all of your time trying figure out how to move any unit at all.

Fighting would just be a matter of digging through the mass of units.

It's infinitely worse than SoD.

 

[Fistalis]

In a game like that screenshot you don't use tactics on the enemy.
You would spend all of your time trying figure out how to move any unit at all.

Fighting would just be a matter of digging through the mass of units.

It's infinitely worse than SoD.

Waits for the inevitable blob of death or BoD as it will now be known.. Vs SOD thread.

I mean atleast a SOD can attack or defend.. how can the AI move any of its units in that mess? and to what effectiveness?

 

[CaptainBinky]

(Personally, I'm trying to tell my sense of self-respect I should at least win one game on Settler just to get the achievement...)

In this case your gut instinct is correct, since all the victory achievements stipulate "on any difficulty", the only way to prove that you've done all those victories on a decent skill setting is to never ever complete the game on low difficulties.

I just wish that had occurred to me before I played on Warlord

edit: oh wait, there are other pages... this has been mentioned... er, lots. Oh forget it

 

[TLF]

It's just another reason to dislike Steam.

People are going to decide how to play because other people can see how they are playing.

It's another addition to the modern Surveillance State.
Big Brother with a smile.

 

[ohioastronomy]

One of the nice things about Steam -- and, full disclosure, I'm a fan -- is that it allows you to see what people are doing by awarding achievements and publishing the related statistics. This is why the early achievements are so trivial: If 12 percent of the people haven't founded a second city, ever, you know most of them just have the game sitting around on their computer, pretty much unplayed.

Now we can use these statistics to check the claim that Civ V is "too easy" and "dumbed down". Let's look at the numbers about victory levels:

Baby Steps (Settler): 10.2 percent
Taking off the Training Wheels (Chieftan): 15.3 percent
The Alexman (Warlord): 6.6 percent
Charming, Really (Prince): 4.8 percent
The Once And Future King: 0.7 percent
The Golden Path (Emperor): 0.3 percent
Flawless Strategy (Deity): 0.2 percent

Obviously there are a lot of people not finishing their games, but we already know that (personally, I tend to quit any Civ game when I either get too far ahead or too far back).

If Civ V were really as easy as the detractors here claim, I would expect the percentage of wins on Emperor and Deity to be a lot higher, with people ramping up the difficulty to try to make the game enjoyable. It's not like everybody is leaving in disgust, either, as you can see by the number of players on the Steam Stats.

(Personally, I'm trying to tell my sense of self-respect I should at least win one game on Settler just to get the achievement...)

The majority of people clearly don't even finish a game, and the majority of game players on Steam play on easy settings. That doesn't change how boring the game is for people familiar with the series. I could beat Emperor in Civ 4 but I had to pay attention. I beat Emperor in Civ 5 without having to think about it much, and some simple early-game tactics always work.

 

[Balerune]

One of the nice things about Steam -- and, full disclosure, I'm a fan -- is that it allows you to see what people are doing by awarding achievements and publishing the related statistics. This is why the early achievements are so trivial: If 12 percent of the people haven't founded a second city, ever, you know most of them just have the game sitting around on their computer, pretty much unplayed.

Now we can use these statistics to check the claim that Civ V is "too easy" and "dumbed down". Let's look at the numbers about victory levels:

Baby Steps (Settler): 10.2 percent
Taking off the Training Wheels (Chieftan): 15.3 percent
The Alexman (Warlord): 6.6 percent
Charming, Really (Prince): 4.8 percent
The Once And Future King: 0.7 percent
The Golden Path (Emperor): 0.3 percent
Flawless Strategy (Deity): 0.2 percent

Obviously there are a lot of people not finishing their games, but we already know that (personally, I tend to quit any Civ game when I either get too far ahead or too far back).

If Civ V were really as easy as the detractors here claim, I would expect the percentage of wins on Emperor and Deity to be a lot higher, with people ramping up the difficulty to try to make the game enjoyable. It's not like everybody is leaving in disgust, either, as you can see by the number of players on the Steam Stats.

(Personally, I'm trying to tell my sense of self-respect I should at least win one game on Settler just to get the achievement...)

The general problem with statistics is they can be easily manipulated and interpreted. Personally I have lost interest in the game unless something drastic is done.

My read would be if many people are not finishing (without canvasing those people you can not be sure unless you knew if they were new players or etc, etc.) because of a lack of interest in finishing them (kind of obvious by definition) meaning more people are not trying to accomplish the higher levels of victory which would then be shown in the stats.

 

[LegioCorvus]

(Personally, I'm trying to tell my sense of self-respect I should at least win one game on Settler just to get the achievement...)

From my perspective, not getting any of the achievements under Prince is evidence that I accomplished all achievements without resorting to easier difficulties.

Also, the complaints aren't about the non-forum dwelling fans of the series. They most likely are perfectly happy. However, the immortal & deity settings are for the people who are most likely to come to CFC, and that's where we will complain. We're not a majority. And that's kind of the point. Again, those settings aren't for the majority. Their for exactly the minority that requires those difficulties, and we're finding them toned down.

EDIT:


Aren't the achievements disabled if you use mods? I believe a lot of people here would be using mods, which would throw a huge monkey wrench into your numbers.

 

[r_rolo1]

I haven't finished a game yet, and I'm far above 50 h of play And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one ...

I can't talk by anyone else, but after pounding through a Emperor AI with 4 rifles and 1 artilery while the best unit seen was enabled by a early medieval tech ( the game where I was closer of winning ) after that same AI called me weaking due to my military weakness and dowing me is a great turn off

I'm in the same boat as PoM : I just haven't finished any game on Deity just because I'm in no mood so far to either early rush or fight gigantic blobs of death.

 

[Tridus]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

According to those numbers, in the most optimistic scenario where everybody has beaten exactly one game, only 38.1% of people who own the game have completed a game.

Under the more likely scenario where some people have beaten it on multiple difficulties, an overwhelming majority of owners haven't completed a game at all.

Does that make any kind of sense? These numbers are useless for determining how hard the game really is. (I've already won my current game but don't see the need in clicking next turn 100 times for the mop-up, so that one won't count in the stats.)

 

[Pantastic]

I rarely play a civ-style game to completion, it can be obvious that I've won long before I can score a win. Some of the victories like cultural and diplomatic work OK. If my huge empire has a productivity strat 10x what the 2nd place person has and completes the Apollo program before anyone else even gets to the tech, I don't get any enjoyment out of spending an hour clicking build queues and shuffling minutinae to finish the game. If I've conquered half the world and have hugely more military power then my remaining targets, fighting through pointless battles holds zero interest to me.

If I even had steam achievements turned on (I don't think I do), you would see hardly any wins from me, since I don't enjoy the long process of going from 'clearly won game' to 'victory condition', and a lot of times I play the game as more of an empire-building simulator than a strict game.

 

[SomethingWitty]

IMO, complaining about "cheating" is a whiny cop out. Civ II had the same AI on every difficulty level, the AI is simply given better advantages at higher levels, and handicapping the player.

It makes each level harder then the last, but it's still fun as hell if you don't mind real challenges.

 

[alpaca]

Okay, then how about this: All you people who say the game is too easy, why don't yo go out right now (or when you are off work, etc) and beat the game at Deity. Make a nice little bump in that Steam curve to prove a) there are a lot of you and b) it really is trivial. You don't have to enjoy the game, just do it once on tiny/quick to prove your point. In fact, if there is a sudden spike of Deity wins, I'm sure Firaxis would get your message a lot better than just general complaining here. If they are embarrassed enough, they'll patch, and we all win.

Done. All exploits allowed I guess? I went straight for the companion cav rush (tiny map) so once I survived the first onslaught Lizzy threw at me, it was smooth sailing and not very fun. There's practically nothing you can do against companion cav if it's used competently because the cav will always stay out of range and even has enough movement to travel two tiles, attack a city, then travel back.

Mind you that I am able to pull off the occasional Civ4 deity victory if I really set my mind to it and paid attention to what I do - but Civ5 is a walk in the park by comparison. It's just grinding your way through hordes and hordes of units. Me personally, I've taken up playing for a good economy on a highish difficulty level (Emperor or Immortal).

Not that the Civ4 AI was much better, it usually sent a stack into your lands which you could wipe out with enough collateral damage but since Civ4 was all about who had the bigger stick, the production bonuses for the AI were a lot more meaningful than in Civ5 where tactics actually play a role. This is, by the way, pretty much the same issue we can see in Total War games: The AI gets huge cheat bonuses in the strategic game but since the human will thrash it on the tactical level so hard the game is still pretty easy for any competent player. The only solution may be multiplayer.

 

[SuperJay]

and the what-would-be extremely tedious task of slogging through this many units...

Spoiler :

What. The. Hell.

 

[Murky]

I was playing on Emperor and was forced to quit because of a show-stopping bug. A city that razed didn't register as being razed and I couldn't get past the production prompt.

 

[ohioastronomy]

What. The. Hell.

That's why moving to Deity level isn't a solution: you replace quick and easy with tedious and still easy.

That screenshot is a poster child for why one unit per hex isn't a solution to the Civ 4 combat problem. Instead it's just replacing one set of problems with others.

 

[Tridus]

No I think that screenshot is a poster child for why giving the AI ridiculous production & income bonuses isn't a substitute for a good AI.

 

[SuperJay]

That's why moving to Deity level isn't a solution: you replace quick and easy with tedious and still easy.

That screenshot is a poster child for why one unit per hex isn't a solution to the Civ 4 combat problem. Instead it's just replacing one set of problems with others.

I agree with your first sentence - the higher difficulty levels should have the AI playing smarter, not cheating harder.

And I still think 1UPT is a great change, in this case it seems it's just highlighting the underlying issues with the AI on higher difficulty levels.

 

[eoc]

I start the game at Emperor difficulty in my first game. It is not too easy, but I really beat AI with no s/l.

 

[Janig]

i just finished my first diety attempt. i usually choose random but incase i got archipegalo (boring/slow) i chose pangaea, and its small cuz my computer sux

i skipped immortal difficulty and i noticed that for the first time I had to use a little intuition to combat the numbers of units i was facing, but really it was still a walkover

i dont know about everyone else but im not going to be on the stats cuz i play offline