Is immortal too hard?

[civIII]

Does anyone else find that immortal severely limits their strategic options? I've only been able to win on immortal via a scientific, cultural, or by using my science advantage get a stronger military and crush them.

I realized that the following things just don't work:
-expanding early. By turn 30 you get rushed by warriors, if you don't have 2 archers, you die.
-trying to go for some wonders. Again, you don't have 2 archers, you die.
-going for an early rush. I tried going straight for immortals as persia then rushing england with 6 of them. England had more cities and units than me, and was popping out an archer every 2 or 3 turns. After 3 tries I finally conquered them, however right after that everyone declared war on me and I ragequit.

Does anyone else feel that immortal is too restricting to be fun? Deity was even worse. I had pretty much no options and was just following my cookie cutter strat to launch my spaceship or build my utopia.

 

[Slvynn]

Does anyone else find that immortal severely limits their strategic options? I've only been able to win on immortal via a scientific, cultural, or by using my science advantage get a stronger military and crush them.

I realized that the following things just don't work:
-expanding early. By turn 30 you get rushed by warriors, if you don't have 2 archers, you die.
-trying to go for some wonders. Again, you don't have 2 archers, you die.
-going for an early rush. I tried going straight for immortals as persia then rushing england with 6 of them. England had more cities and units than me, and was popping out an archer every 2 or 3 turns. After 3 tries I finally conquered them, however right after that everyone declared war on me and I ragequit.

Does anyone else feel that immortal is too restricting to be fun? Deity was even worse. I had pretty much no options and was just following my cookie cutter strat to launch my spaceship or build my utopia.

1 and 3 work on my side.
When you REX you need to do it properly, and you can have 3 warriors and 1 archer, with using terrain its easy to repel the attack
many cities actually help with that, esp if you chopping

Early rush. Works it its not too early, even on deity, against certain civs.
England is WORST #1 civ to rush because: She favors defence buildings , and she often civ that builds Great Wall. She have walls early, and also she build alots of units, and prioritizes ranged. So, in your case you rushed worst civ, followed by Babylon. I've did that too, and i only failed when i rushed England, justy because she have her defence/ranged priorities. Extra ranged units (which are gold at defence) and early walls is rush counter.

 

[The Pilgrim]

So, let me understand. You can win via science, culture or domination and find it too hard?
I find deity too easy then.

If fun means for you spamming wonders, then yes. Otherwise, have these archers. What's the problem exactly? REXing and early rush work fine when you have a suitable map and opponents.

BTW, immortals rush is not something I'd go for. Haven't checked them in G&K yet, but in vanilla that wasn't a good idea.

 

[Slvynn]

So, let me understand. You can win via science, culture or domination and find it too hard?
I find deity too easy then.

If fun means for you spamming wonders, then yes. Otherwise, have these archers. What's the problem exactly? REXing and early rush work fine when you have a suitable map and opponents.

BTW, immortals rush is not something I'd go for. Haven't checked them in G&K yet, but in vanilla that wasn't a good idea.

agree, and also its not point of immortals even... its more point of map and opponent you rushing. England or Babylon near you? reconsider your rush....

 

[Louis8k8]

I think that's just play-styles you haven't adapted to. That's macro cheesing in my opinion: To be able to early expand and not have to make ranged units for defense. From my perspective, sticking on 1 city for a while and expanding when you have army/tech/happiness to back it up is the standard. Immortal is rigged enough so you can't play greedy or aggressively and not be punished for it.

 

[chazzycat]

just finished my first immortal game and it didn't seem too hard. got first religion, built plenty of wonders, allied 10 CS, etc. But the AI was certainly competitive, Babylon had 3 spaceship parts built when I won the UN vote around turn 285

 

[sschmalz]

I'm finding Immortal to be too difficult. Made my first attempt a couple days ago and realized within 100 turns that I was in big trouble, i.e. last in science and military.

It just feels like the bump in difficulty from Emperor to Immortal is too much. I'm able to dominate the AI at Emperor level, but I'm very skeptical about my ability to beat the AI at Immortal (besides maybe a culture win on an island map).

I guess I'll have to keep attempting and hopefully get better at Immortal difficulty because Emperor is no longer challenging.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I'm finding Immortal to be too difficult. Made my first attempt a couple days ago and realized within 100 turns that I was in big trouble, i.e. last in science and military.

At turn 100? That's not critical. You have enough time to catch up. If you do things right, of course.

 

[sschmalz]

At turn 100? That's not critical. You have enough time to catch up. If you do things right, of course

Yeah, perhaps I gave up on it a bit early, but it really did feel hopeless that early on, especially since I felt like I was doing the best that I could.

 

[mike678]

I'm finding Immortal to be too difficult. Made my first attempt a couple days ago and realized within 100 turns that I was in big trouble, i.e. last in science and military.

I have never played a game on immortal where I had the most army ever so just don't plan on it happening unless your the last person . As for tech you wont start passing them in tech till late medieval to renaissance so its too early to tell if you won or lost by turn 100.

 

[_megafone_]

Immortal is too easy, lol.

Being behind early is definitely not an issue - unless you're warmongering the whole game, you usually win far behind some of the AI in points, just because of sheer number of cities and pop.

And complaining you need archers to not die is silly. Hey, what did you expect, play the whole game without any units? You don't even have to get a LOT of units out, but needing to build some defense is both realistic and fun.