Is it possible to win Deity in a "fair" game?

[dohh]

I have read a lot of threads about playing civ4 at higher difficulties and all players who share their winning experiences on Deity seem to have followed some kind of systematic weakness in programmed computer beheaviour.

I have seen winning Deity by spamming Spies or early rushing by making use of AI civilizations building order. I have also seen deity victory via permanent alliance but never in long run domination on huge map. Is it possible to outrun or at least run with AIs supreme speed advancing through all eras?

Have anyone won deity with these settings:

Huge map - to avoid early rushes
speed marathon - to make early ages more important.
18 civilizations - to make free land a deficit
permanent alliances off - to avoid asskissing and winning via powerful ally
technology brokering off - to avoid tricking with technology trades
agressive AI - to force You divide production between infrastructure and army
vasall states on - to make AI diplomatic victory more propable
all winning conditions on
NO LOADS

I have been playing civilization series from very start, but never managed to outplay deity in civ 4. Best I have done, is winning Immortal with 1-2 loads, which not change results of battles (reloading after starting war and getting sneaked behind my back 2 turns later by other AI etc.)

Has anyone won game similar on deity?

 

[Seraiel]

I've won games similar to that. I wouldn't say completely like that, because what you regard as a fair game imo is a little too harsh, and I cannot understand everything of it. I would not know i. e. why a Huge map whould prevent rushing, and I also cannot understand what'd be wrong about early rushing (meaning something like attacking in between 2000 BC and 500 BC) . Marathon on the other hand i. e. is something making it a lot simpler for the player, and there are enough players that say that war is the most unfair advantage of the player anyhow, because AI is not good at it, Marathon favours war. Technology Brokering off and then no spies, uh, that's really harsh, but even that is possible I guess with intelligent use of bulbs and good knowledge over which techs AI doesn't research, so for which techs trading rates like at 4:1 are still possible. I opened a thread once about the AGG-AI-setting, result was, that I personally found little difference with that setting except that AIs did build quite large stacks, yes, but there are other advantages from AGG-AI that favour the player again, like i. e. that bribes are cheaper and that it's possible to get a lot more techs in peacedeals.

If you like, have a look at the 1st link in my signature, I'm currently again doing a writeup about a Huge / Epic / Conquest game (so more difficult than Marathon) without PAs that was played under HoF standards, so no cheating, and another game I remembered when writing this, was this spacerace in which I peacefully expanded to 9 cities or something like that, conquered about 9 more (very late, like 1000 AD) and simply out-played the AI in "a fair way" like I see it. The game is / was played on a large map and epic speed, so again quite close, but I unfortunately cannot offer any games with no tech-brokering, as I'm a 100% HoF player and it'd make no sense for me to play with that option, as that option is pure disadvantage, so, for my taste, also not really "fair" .

Regarding what you formulated in the beginning of your post: I think it is possible to out-tech the AI, anyhow the combination of no war, no tech-brokering and no spies I'd rate extremely challenging, because what you must not forget, is, that AIs on Deity lvl have something like 50-80% discounts on everything, this is ment to say something to if the game the AI is playing towards the player can be regarded as fair.

What I'm completely certain about, is, that you're not right about "players using AIs buildorder to win" , because AIs buildorder basically is totally random, meaning, the AI makes dice-rolls to decide what (stupid) thing to build and by chance, it's something intelligent. I'm thinking that you're generally overestimating the AI, with which I don't want to say that Deity is easy, but when having the extreme discounts in mind that the AI gets, AI actually plays really really bad ^^ .

 

[oranje willem]

I have read a lot of threads about playing civ4 at higher difficulties and all players who share their winning experiences on Deity seem to have followed some kind of systematic weakness in programmed computer beheaviour.

I have seen winning Deity by spamming Spies or early rushing by making use of AI civilizations building order. I have also seen deity victory via permanent alliance but never in long run domination on huge map. Is it possible to outrun or at least run with AIs supreme speed advancing through all eras?

Have anyone won deity with these settings:

Huge map - to avoid early rushes
speed marathon - to make early ages more important.
18 civilizations - to make free land a deficit
permanent alliances off - to avoid asskissing and winning via powerful ally
technology brokering off - to avoid tricking with technology trades
agressive AI - to force You divide production between infrastructure and army
vasall states on - to make AI diplomatic victory more propable
all winning conditions on
NO LOADS

I have been playing civilization series from very start, but never managed to outplay deity in civ 4. Best I have done, is winning Immortal with 1-2 loads, which not change results of battles (reloading after starting war and getting sneaked behind my back 2 turns later by other AI etc.)

Has anyone won game similar on deity?

These things contradict each other. Also, marathon speed makes rushing a lot easier.

That being said; only tech brokering off makes winning under your conditions considerably harder, but I still think that Cuirrasier/Cavalry will be strong enough to gain enough of an advantage on a map like this for the really good players.

 

[drewisfat]

There isn't like a conspiracy of people making up that they play on deity lol. Huge maps aren't harder really because of early rushes.... it's that the AI has cheat growth abilities and isn't hampered by expanding the way a human is. Also it becomes extremely tedious to really micromanage dozens of cities properly the way you should to play seriously.

Playing on marathon makes the game about two difficulty settings easier than it would otherwise be, so that makes this setup very doable.

I don't think anyone plays with permanent alliances on a regular basis.

Also tech brokering off is different than tech trading off right? ( I never really touch those settings ). With 18 civs won't it still be really easy to just research aesthetics-like techs and trade it around a dozen times? (depending ofc how many you are in contact with).

Oh and welcome to CFC and stuff !

 

[dohh]

Thanks for detailed answer. I will defend my arguments, not trying deny Yours.

1) Huge maps prevent rushing more, because You can not attack the best-doing opponents operatively. For example, You play Mongols and Justician on the other side of huge map does extremely well. On huge map its much more difficult to do anything to harass him.

2) Marathon, in my opinion, makes defensive war easier but offensive decicions more critical. Every unit is more expensive, as it takes more time to replace it. When fighting AI, average win:lose ratio must be at least 10:1 to make their production advantage even. In my opinion (maybe im wrong) marathon speed makes attacking Ai early more difficult as going against cities with 70% propability of winning, is a huge risk.

3) yes, technology brokering is off (as its unfair) and using spies only to defend Your empire against AI spies.

4) AGG-AI setting, I have played it most of times and IMO AI is much more ready to make demands and declare war. Declining endless demands lead to worse relationships, worse trade rates and more wars.

5) I will definitely look Your posts on deity, thank You.

 

[dohh]

Thanks! Nice forum You have here.

Talking about micromanaging, what You consider more powerful in long run: cottage spamming or specialist economy? I count myself rather good in first and miserable in other.

Technology brokering off option is very different from no trading option. Technology brokering off You can only trade technologies that You have discovered Yourself. This means, You can not buy a new technology from Ai and trade it to everyone else. Which makes keeping tempo of Ai discoveries much harder.

There isn't like a conspiracy of people making up that they play on deity lol. Huge maps aren't harder really because of early rushes.... it's that the AI has cheat growth abilities and isn't hampered by expanding the way a human is. Also it becomes extremely tedious to really micromanage dozens of cities properly the way you should to play seriously.

Playing on marathon makes the game about two difficulty settings easier than it would otherwise be, so that makes this setup very doable.

I don't think anyone plays with permanent alliances on a regular basis.

Also tech brokering off is different than tech trading off right? ( I never really touch those settings ). With 18 civs won't it still be really easy to just research aesthetics-like techs and trade it around a dozen times? (depending ofc how many you are in contact with).

Oh and welcome to CFC and stuff !

 

[oranje willem]

Thanks for detailed answer. I will defend my arguments, not trying deny Yours.

1) Huge maps prevent rushing more, because You can not attack the best-doing opponents operatively. For example, You play Mongols and Justician on the other side of huge map does extremely well. On huge map its much more difficult to do anything to harass him.

2) Marathon, in my opinion, makes defensive war easier but offensive decicions more critical. Every unit is more expensive, as it takes more time to replace it. When fighting AI, average win:lose ratio must be at least 10:1 to make their production advantage even. In my opinion (maybe im wrong) marathon speed makes attacking Ai early more difficult as going against cities with 70% propability of winning, is a huge risk.

3) yes, technology brokering is off (as its unfair) and using spies only to defend Your empire against AI spies.

4) AGG-AI setting, I have played it most of times and IMO AI is much more ready to make demands and declare war. Declining endless demands lead to worse relationships, worse trade rates and more wars.

5) I will definitely look Your posts on deity, thank You.

1) It might be better (easier) to conquer a few weak civs than one that is doing great, you can take the big guy out with nukes later on, if you have to.

2)On marathon units are actually cheaper, relatively. That's one of the reasons why warring is easier on marathon; you can make more units in the same 'timeframe', which gives you more time to build an army and moving to your opponent also takes less time, relatively

 

[Seraiel]

Thanks for detailed answer. I will defend my arguments, not trying deny Yours.

1) Huge maps prevent rushing more, because You can not attack the best-doing opponents operatively. For example, You play Mongols and Justician on the other side of huge map does extremely well. On huge map its much more difficult to do anything to harass him.

The better you get, the more you controll all AIs and the more they're all the same. A runaway AI on the opposite edge of the map is something, but it's nothing to be frightened of.

2) Marathon, in my opinion, makes defensive war easier but offensive decicions more critical. Every unit is more expensive, as it takes more time to replace it. When fighting AI, average win:lose ratio must be at least 10:1 to make their production advantage even. In my opinion (maybe im wrong) marathon speed makes attacking Ai early more difficult as going against cities with 70% propability of winning, is a huge risk.

10:1 are winning odds that are very hard too achieve, I know only of Praets achieving such great results. Defensive wars are generally easier on higher speeds, because then the defender has the advantage of getting techs while the attacker has to move and while his units obsolete. Marathon makes war generally easier, because of units obsoleting not as fast, and Marathon comes with unit-costs that are only twice as much as on normal speed while the number of turns is trippled, so Marathon has lower unit costs -> advantage to warfare.

The problem I sense somehow is that you have to find ways into production, because I've sometimes teared down AIs 2:1 already, meaning 2 kills for 1 loss, saying something about that it's possible to produce a lot more units. 10:1 are unbelievably good kill:death rates that I only achieved in Replay #6 (again signature) with Praets, to me they're a sign of an extremely hard game or extremely strong units, normal games are imho more like 5:1 or 4:1.

4) AGG-AI setting, I have played it most of times and IMO AI is much more ready to make demands and declare war. Declining endless demands lead to worse relationships, worse trade rates and more wars.

AI is more willing to conduct wars afaik, the behaviour of demands or begs doesn't change, so the personality-attitudes of the AIs are still the same, go to S&T and look for a thread named "Agressive AI" or "Agressive-AI" or "AGG-AI" , it's still quite fresh and Tachywaxon published a complete list there that lists the exact changes of that setting.

5) I will definitely look Your posts on deity, thank You.

.

 

[dohh]

1) In my conditions - all victory conditions ON, there will almost never be any nukes as AI votes No nuclear weapons Late game I will be rushing Space ship or working my arse off to kill someone off if its not possible to catch him up.

2) OK, I have to consider this, maybe You are right here. I personally can not see that warring is easier when comparing epic and marathon. Maybe its due my playing style... that I have studied myself without any specialist advice (until now)

1) It might be better (easier) to conquer a few weak civs than one that is doing great, you can take the big guy out with nukes later on, if you have to.

2)On marathon units are actually cheaper, relatively. That's one of the reasons why warring is easier on marathon; you can make more units in the same 'timeframe', which gives you more time to build an army and moving to your opponent also takes less time, relatively

 

[Ghpstage]

2) Marathon, in my opinion, makes defensive war easier but offensive decicions more critical. Every unit is more expensive, as it takes more time to replace it. When fighting AI, average win:lose ratio must be at least 10:1 to make their production advantage even. In my opinion (maybe im wrong) marathon speed makes attacking Ai early more difficult as going against cities with 70% propability of winning, is a huge risk.

As Oranje Willem mentioned units on marathon are actually substantially cheaper when compared to other speed (2/3rds?), they also move and heal three times as fast. The worst part is the AI doesn't have any understanding of this so it fairs even more poorly than on other settings!
The main difficulty with Deity on marathon is in the early game, as more turns gives more chances for a DoW at times before your ready to deal with it (i.e. the infamous 2000BC DoWs). In short, marathon makes war of all kinds (except defending when unprepared) a great deal easier.

Technology brokering off option is very different from no trading option. Technology brokering off You can only trade technologies that You have discovered Yourself. This means, You can not buy a new technology from Ai and trade it to everyone else. Which makes keeping tempo of Ai discoveries much harder.

Turning it off would almost certainly make it harded, turning brokering off however makes most games much easier as it nerfs the hell out of AI trading while the AI can both compensate fo the change AND take advantage of the inevitable AI hilarity that ensues

4) AGG-AI setting, I have played it most of times and IMO AI is much more ready to make demands and declare war. Declining endless demands lead to worse relationships, worse trade rates and more wars.

Demands are very often just easy diplo points but I don't think aggAI changes how often they are made. AIs being more likely to declare, and with bigger stacks is an isue in the early game, but their tech rate suffers as the game goes on so like the other options it has 2 sides.

In my conditions - all victory conditions ON, there will almost never be any nukes as AI votes No nuclear weapons

Thats what defying is there for, the unhappiness is worth it , especially as you don't really need to tech any further than getting acces to tac nukes and subs

 

[Seraiel]

AIs being more likely to declare, and with bigger stacks is an isue in the early game, but their tech rate suffers as the game goes on so like the other options it has 2 sides.

Hi Ghp.

My experience is more, that the larger stacks are something to be encountered in mid to endgame. I find that in the beginning of the game, AI doesn't have enough time to really make a difference.

And from what think I have read at some time, the free-unit-supply-limit for AI on Deity is somewhere between 50 and 80 units, so as far as I know, the lower-tech-rate comes from the slider-change that happens when an AI is war, but that's something unrelated towards the AGG-AI setting.

Seraiel

 

[dohh]

I can get approximately 10:1 kill rate with almost any civilization, but probably I lose a lot of pace in my games and win much later than I could had.

Roughly my strategy is: get few first wonders with industrious and /or suitable resourses, and start building almost all buildings to almost all cities, not specializing much. Only defending and sneak attacking my neighbourgs when they are attacked by other civs. Defending mostly means attacking incoming stack (and they are huge on AGG-AI) with level 2 retreat horses to kill off catapults and then only hit with high propability winning units to get experience, otherwise I keep units in garnison.

So first eras I basically sit in cities, defend, defend, defend and build city raider units, which in late game will be my main winning reason. Wiht the help of theocrazy and vasallage I make around 30 mazeman city raider 3 by the time I reach riflemen. You cant produce city raider rifleman, but You can get them by upgrading. Of course I need good economy to produce them in spare and upgrade them ASAP. This move will give me kill rate about 90%.

The better you get, the more you controll all AIs and the more they're all the same. A runaway AI on the opposite edge of the map is something, but it's nothing to be frightened of.



10:1 are winning odds that are very hard too achieve, I know only of Praets achieving such great results. Defensive wars are generally easier on higher speeds, because then the defender has the advantage of getting techs while the attacker has to move and while his units obsolete. Marathon makes war generally easier, because of units obsoleting not as fast, and Marathon comes with unit-costs that are only twice as much as on normal speed while the number of turns is trippled, so Marathon has lower unit costs -> advantage to warfare.

The problem I sense somehow is that you have to find ways into production, because I've sometimes teared down AIs 2:1 already, meaning 2 kills for 1 loss, saying something about that it's possible to produce a lot more units. 10:1 are unbelievably good kill:death rates that I only achieved in Replay #6 (again signature) with Praets, to me they're a sign of an extremely hard game or extremely strong units, normal games are imho more like 5:1 or 4:1.



AI is more willing to conduct wars afaik, the behaviour of demands or begs doesn't change, so the personality-attitudes of the AIs are still the same, go to S&T and look for a thread named "Agressive AI" or "Agressive-AI" or "AGG-AI" , it's still quite fresh and Tachywaxon published a complete list there that lists the exact changes of that setting.



.

 

[dohh]

If you like, have a look at the 1st link in my signature, I'm currently again doing a writeup about a Huge / Epic / Conquest game (so more difficult than Marathon)

Checked Your game, I can not understand how do You manage to discover Meditation first by founding City on 3985 bc? I can only discover meditation first with HC if I get lucky starting position + I take maximum commerce I can + I start searching it from very first move. Then and only then on emperor difficulty I get to meditation just 1 silly turn before first AI does. Having Holy City is such a big deal...

 

[ZeekLTK]

I don't see how turning off tech trading is "better" - I think one of the main aspects of civ is research and trade. That's kind of the point, sometimes you don't have to research everything, you just have to research the right thing and then trade it with others to get the things you need.

Not being able to trade techs makes the game less like Civ should be, IMO.

 

[georgjorge]

Checked Your game, I can not understand how do You manage to discover Meditation first by founding City on 3985 bc? I can only discover meditation first with HC if I get lucky starting position + I take maximum commerce I can + I start searching it from very first move. Then and only then on emperor difficulty I get to meditation just 1 silly turn before first AI does. Having Holy City is such a big deal...

The Replay#1 is hardly the game to look for if you want a "fair" game as it abuses Quechuas, the most overpowered unit in the game. The latter threads also have a lot more background info and nice graphical presentation, so I'd actually look at Replay#8 first (also uses a good Unique Unit but nowhere near as "unfair" as the Quechua).

 

[auagxa]

nvm i read it wrong

 

[Funky]

The first (and unfortunately also one of the very few) Diety games I ever won was actually with the exact settings you give. Although in addition I had raging barbs on and started with stone in my capital, so it wasn't really "fair" either. I also might have reloaded a few times.

Regarding tech trading, the game is indeed much more difficult when it's disabled. It's like adding another difficulty level above Diety. However, for various reaons it's also much for fun, for example the game becomes less "gamey" and the Civs more unique. So I can't help but disabling the option in every game I play, even if it makes me lose more often. In contrast to the poster before me I'd argue that without tech trading the game feels more like Civ, in that different rival Civs are competing for victory by pursuing in part very different tech lines and strategies, as opposed to constantly leveling themselves to the same techs.

 

[Seraiel]

I can get approximately 10:1 kill rate with almost any civilization, but probably I lose a lot of pace in my games and win much later than I could had.

Roughly my strategy is: get few first wonders with industrious and /or suitable resourses, and start building almost all buildings to almost all cities, not specializing much. Only defending and sneak attacking my neighbourgs when they are attacked by other civs. Defending mostly means attacking incoming stack (and they are huge on AGG-AI) with level 2 retreat horses to kill off catapults and then only hit with high propability winning units to get experience, otherwise I keep units in garnison.

So first eras I basically sit in cities, defend, defend, defend and build city raider units, which in late game will be my main winning reason. Wiht the help of theocrazy and vasallage I make around 30 mazeman city raider 3 by the time I reach riflemen. You cant produce city raider rifleman, but You can get them by upgrading. Of course I need good economy to produce them in spare and upgrade them ASAP. This move will give me kill rate about 90%.

CR3 Rifles are truely very powerful. I hope you understand it right when I say, that your style reminds me very much of how I played CIV when it was still new to me. Regarding what you write, that sounds terrible, but I understand it very well ^^ . The wish to build every building, the behaviour to defend in the beginning, building up and then attacking with a strong move, and you write like someone playing PvP which I like as much as you calling Theocracy Theo"crazy" and the association of "Maze"men I cannot follow.

What I tried to say to you, is, that: The better I got, the more I discovered, the more I was able to see, the more I found out how wrong I was sometimes, and I got proud about the few things about which I was right.

The community here at Civfanatics.com is the best I've discovered in over 10y of hardcore gaming, the people here are really really helpful, they often give good advice, and they take themselves a lot of time to answer very personally.

Try and look for a player named Dubioza, his signature contains all information you need if your aim is to conquer Civ, which I'm guessing. Also, forget my early writeups at least for as long as you don't want to see the long way I took. I didn't write "if you're interested, choose Replay #8" because I thought you'd pick that automatically as it's the newest and I called it "the new highlight" . It was an invitation to "the party that's in progress" , but the information in Dubioza's signature will let you find your own way.

There are basically very few players that regularly beat CIV Deity, but I'd bet that most of them are registered on this site. Most of them are my friends, and the thread I mentioned to you is just the easiest place for you to meet them and get to know them better, most are beating Deity for several years already and I assumed that you'd be interested. If you want to find your own way, just search for that player and read his signature, it's amazing. You can also do both if you like.

Checked Your game, I can not understand how do You manage to discover Meditation first by founding City on 3985 bc? I can only discover meditation first with HC if I get lucky starting position + I take maximum commerce I can + I start searching it from very first move. Then and only then on emperor difficulty I get to meditation just 1 silly turn before first AI does. Having Holy City is such a big deal...

I think that you've not yet realized that I play for HoF, so I go for the slot that's held by another player. HoFers play with comparable settings and choose the settings to our advantage. The aim is, to produce a better finish-date / higher score than the other players that played with similar settings on comparable maps.

This means that in the game at which you looked, I chose only opponents that start without Mysticism, while myself choosing a Civ that starts with Mysticism. I think I wrote that in the writeup actually, I picked a start where I settled on a 3 tile and I worked a 3 tile, giving me the religion in 26T only + 1T that I settled later = T27. Deity AIs that start without Mysticism can only beat that time, when they find Mysticism in a hut as they have to research 2 techs where I only need to research 1.

I guess that this answers your question.

 

[MilesBeyond]

In response to the OP: No, not really. That's why K-Mod Deity is considered more or less "unbeatable" (I think it's been beaten once or twice? But IIRC they were kind of flukes). When the AI has that many advantages and plays intelligently, there's not really a lot you can do. Deity is only beatable because the AI is dumb as bricks.

You're not really presenting a fair game, though. You're presenting a game where the player has to intentionally handicap him/herself (or at least, trying to. As has been indicated, Marathon would make it easier).

And all victory conditions on? Man just AP cheese.

Anyway, while it's good to challenge yourself, what you're presenting is more just an attempt to create a Deity+ than to make things fair.

 

[sinimusta]

I think op focuses too much on the k/d ratio. The purpose of an offensive war is to claim land not to kill enemy units. With chopping and whipping player can outproduce an deity ai for a short time and then exploit that and take the land which will lead to more units. Other things should be considered than mere losses, speed for example. Why are cuirassiers so useful? Surely a siege stack could get better k/d ratio.