Is Civ 7 Deity too easy?

[Gen.Washington]

oh no, they're trying to win the game

All Civ games have OP strats that guarantee victory. If you’re choosing to make the game super easy for yourself you can’t complain that you won.

 

[Leyrann]

In general I've found diety to be no fun. It forces you (or at least me) to abandon a lot of the elements of the game that are the reasons I like playing in the first place.

I had the same opinion of Deity for a while in Civ VI, but eventually I had played the game so much that I could mess around on Deity as well. The only issue is the occasional early surprise war from an AI that requires me to build some military.

 

[Mudkip1001]

Im just happy the AI doesnt start with extra settlers and warriors on turn 1, I hated that in 5 and 6 ; especially since the AI is going to be forward settle happy until some sort of new loyalty system comes in.

 

[Acken]

A big part of the civ5 deity difficulty was this extra settler and double worker start though. That made a huge difference between Immortal and Deity difficulty. Civ6 AI was so inept it needed 3 settlers starts.

 

[GeneralZift]

Really really tough idea but how about they make them less inept without giving them 7 settlers and warriors

 

[Acken]

I'd wish. My point is only to say that when people say "X game was harder" we need to understand why it felt harder.

 

[MIS]

I think they should go the Civ VP route and give constant bonuses (e.g. combat bonus, production bonus) rather than one-offs. Does Deity AI get a new bonus every age? I hear the point others make about a "too difficult" Deity turning people off by hurting their ego's.

 

[Leyrann]

I've been watching PotatoMcWhiskey's livestream, and I like what I've been seeing there.

First, he first lost his capital (and briefly another town) to an Independent Power, admittedly after some gross negligence of the situation (he was under the impression that an IP would never actually take a capital city). He only got his old capital back two or three turns before it was completely razed.

Later, he decided to wage war against another civ, and (as human players tend to do), moved his troops to the border in preparation. The AI clearly noticed this and reacted, and started pulling all it's troops into the area, and was completely ready to defend by the time Potato declared war (which took a while as Potato didn't want to declare a Surprise War and have bad war support). It then fought him to a standstill defensively and almost managed to capture Potato's (new) capital on offense, only being stopped at the last moment by Potato's reinforcing units which he was absolutely spam-building.

The only things detracting from the AI's performance are that I feel like it could've taken Potato's capital one or two turns faster with a bit more aggression, and that it offered up the city Potato was after in a peace deal (initiated by the AI) despite having stalled his advances. But all in all, this is a better performance than even the modern Civ VI AI would be able to pull off.

 

[GeneralZift]

I've been watching PotatoMcWhiskey's livestream, and during the Antiquity Era he first lost his capital (and briefly another town) to an Independent Power, admittedly after some gross negligence of the situation (he was under the impression that an IP would never actually take a capital city), and then when he prepared for a war against an AI by moving his troops to the border, the AI reacted by pulling it's own troops into the area, negating the surprise factor that he'd been planning on having, and he almost ended up losing his new capital to that AI before managing to rally his defenses, and did not manage to break through offensively. The only things detracting from the AI's performance are that I feel like it could've taken Potato's capital one or two turns faster with a bit more aggression, and that it offered up the city Potato was after in a peace deal (initiated by the AI) despite having stalled his advances. But all in all, this is a better performance than even the modern Civ VI AI would be able to pull off.

There's a bit of potential placebo there - I've seen even the Civ 5 AI move units into territory where I've been parking my army before an attack, especially Aircraft.

I don't know how the Civ AI works as a whole, but I'd imagine they have a metric to determine where units are, like a density function, so that they know where would be the most undefended.

I wonder what kind of improvements Civ AI could make on a technical level... I'm a hobbyist software engineer so these things interest me

 

[Leyrann]

There's a bit of potential placebo there - I've seen even the Civ 5 AI move units into territory where I've been parking my army before an attack, especially Aircraft.

In this specific case, the city that Potato was after was a somewhat strangely settled city, almost an exclave, and the AI's unit count in the area went from basically none to outnumbering Potato in the span of like ten turns. There's no way it was random variation or anything like that.

(also I rewrote the post you were replying to because it was a ridiculous run-on sentence, and even though I can keep track of all parts and make it grammatically correct it's still hell to read)

 

[Noble Zarkon]

In general I've found diety to be no fun. It forces you (or at least me) to abandon a lot of the elements of the game that are the reasons I like playing in the first place.

Agreed, this is why I never play Deity as you tend to have to optimise e.g. in Civ VI if I'm Gilgamesh I want to smash Civs with war carts which you can't do at that level. It tends to homogenise things to the "correct" path and removes much of the fun.

 

[Ellye]

Personally, I consider mementos to just be cheat codes and disregard any playthrough that uses them.

It's by far my most disliked thing in Civ7, even more than the UI or anything else. I can't explain how or why I dislike the idea of unlockable fully optional power ups in Civ so much, but I do.

 

[MIS]

Personally, I consider mementos to just be cheat codes and disregard any playthrough that uses them.

It's by far my most disliked thing in Civ7, even more than the UI or anything else. I can't explain how or why I dislike the idea of unlockable fully optional power ups in Civ so much, but I do.

In Slay the Spire you beat level 1, then get an extra tool to help you with level 2. So I can see someone that can beat Immortal but not Deity working up to a momento. Ij like the addition in terms of replayability; in a single player game, you have the choice not to use them, if you don't want to. I don't know how it would work in multi-player, but I don't play civ that way.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Personally, I consider mementos to just be cheat codes and disregard any playthrough that uses them.

I get that but think it's an interesting take on keeping replayability and getting people to finish their games.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the unrestricted leaders + memento system is going to lead to some very OP strategies that will take some balance. Even the memento system alone gives you one or two extra boosts above the AI, they're sort of like playing a level down, since those bonuses aren't going to the AI as well.

That might be way to boost it, let the AIs choose Random mementos as well (based on the ones available to you)

 

[Leyrann]

I don't know how it would work in multi-player, but I don't play civ that way.

There's an option to disable them in multiplayer.

 

[Hans Tork]

The game hasn't been challenging since Civ4. Civ5 was alright I guess but still too easy if you just follow the meta strategies.
Civ7 looks too easy in my opinion yes but that's not really different than civ6 which was a complete joke at release in difficulty (people were beating Deity first game no problem).

Balance just looks very off with not enough limits and too much stacking.

I cannot believe you are back. You were the goat of Civ 5 deity strategys.

Coming to Civ 7 it indeed seems like Deity is easy.

 

[Melkus]

I'm cautiously optimistic about the state of the AI, but the easy town giveaways in peace deals might be a problem - saw it in some streams before and witnessed it myself today.

A fairly developed José came across the map with a decent army and declared on me, two neighbors join him within two rounds - uh-oh - I beat him back with some losses of my own (we both fumbled a bit tactically, but that wasn't a big issue - it was enjoyably tense as it should be)

And then... in comes the peace offer and he simply gives me a decent town all the way across the continent - a major chokepoint on his only path towards me. (And leaving his weaker allies at my mercy, of course.)

I didn't ever send someone (besides scouts) within 5 tiles of his borders. Immediately settled another town in the now much less dangerous territory between us after this, very probably a game-swinging moment.

 

[GeneralZift]

I like that the AI sometimes offers Cities / Towns in trades but they should be limited to offering them only in specific scenarios. For example, if they're struggling with handling settlement cap or happiness, they could offer a terrible town in a terrible location rather than a big settlement.
Maybe they should offer if they know that you're struggling with keeping happiness or settlement cap.

Or perhaps the developers could add different levels of peace.
So White Peace for 10 turns or a Long Peace for 20 turns but they offer their town, or demand a town from you, depending on who is winning.

I like the idea of the AI trading this stuff as long as it's refined

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I like the idea of the AI trading this stuff as long as it's refined

Agreed - AIs should definitely be willing to give away towns when your army is about take a city for example.