Is Random Immortal consistently beatable?

[cleverhandle]

I think the answer to the title question is probably yes, but I'm curious to hear others' experiences. I've been playing Emperor for quite a while now and win probably 80+% of my games. I nearly always play Standard Continents - Normal speed, down-the-middle settings, random civ and opponents. So no cherry-picking easy neighbors and no inflating the human's military advantage with slower speeds. I like these settings because I feel they're challenging, but that there's always a path to victory somewhere - the challenge is correctly perceiving your strengths. I've won every different way - bloody domination, diplomation, totally peaceful cultural, relatively peaceful diplomacy, space, etc.

Does Immortal allow for this style of play? Again, I'm guessing the answer is yes, provided I'm good enough, but I've been playing Immortal starts lately and it's definitely harder. The barbs are insane and really hamper your early game - no more relying on half a dozen warriors until the land grab phase is over. Starting positions seem much more boxed in than Emp starts and financial resources seem rarer. A lot of this, obviously, is that I just need to acclimate to the level and get a feel for how far I can push my limited forces. I'm sure I can win some games eventually and in fact have had at least a few decent starts so far. But will Immortal allow me to eventually play like Emperor, where games are basically always winnable if you're perceptive enough? In at least a few games so far, I've had what appear to be impossible situations. In the most notable one, a stack of 4 barb archers appeared at the border of my capital on turn 30, presumably from a bad AI hut pop - it was the first time I had ever actually seen the "You have been defeated" dialog.

What say you, Immortal veterans? Should I continue at this, or is it likely to change the game too much for my liking?

 

[3drawegroeg]

I can't answer this but I'm curious why you think slower speeds enhances the military advantage vs. the AI.

 

[Absolute Zero]

I can't answer this but I'm curious why you think slower speeds enhances the military advantage vs. the AI.

I can't answer either as I'm nowhere near an Immortal-level player, but slower speed does favor human military, IMO. This is because slower speeds allow for more warring, since units don't go obsolete as fast (and units are scaled to build relatively faster, I think), and the one area where the AI doesn't have the advantage over the human is war. The AI does not know how to conduct a war. So a speed that favors war favors human player...if they warmonger, that is.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The stack of 4 archers is a ghetto random event that can happen on any difficulty. Events have too many that are just fake difficulty...turn them off.

Resources are the same as always.

The vast majority of random immortal starts are winnable, although some are quite challenging, especially given how broken hidden modifier stacking can be forcing you into a guaranteed dogpile (shaka + napoleon as only neighbors for example). Even that is probably winnable but you'd probably have to be a deity player to manage it on immortal.

 

[Badtz Maru]

I can't answer this but I'm curious why you think slower speeds enhances the military advantage vs. the AI.

The AI's war planning strategy is based on being able to re-build defense forces rapidly if it's first offensive stack is wiped out. On slower speeds, it never builds enough extra troops to defend it's territory in case of defeat when it declares a war.

 

[Orzio]

To be fair the AI is allways bad at war.

 

[Badtz Maru]

To be fair the AI is allways bad at war.

True, but on normal speed they can usually defend at least some of their core cities by the time I've wiped out their stack and come back for revenge.

 

[The Rook]

@cleverhandle

IMO, a VERY tough Immortal map is more difficult than an easy Deity one, but I'm doubtful that even the most difficult random Immortal maps are unwinnable with accurate play.

Immortal allows for all kinds of playing styles, most maps will accommodate a variety of victory conditions. Even Deity can allow for a range of strategies, you often see in the Deity challenges how players adopt completely different approaches, but ultimately end up winning.

Although playing the map becomes more important at higher levels, reading the map and executing the win is likely to come down to a player's style and personal experience. The forum is filled with heated debates between top level players as to which strategies are optimum.

I can't answer this but I'm curious why you think slower speeds enhances the military advantage vs. the AI.

Slower speeds allow a greater window of opportunity to attack with units of a certain era. As units move relatively faster, there is less risk of peacetime AIs surging ahead of you during war due to a weak wartime economy, after all it's 6 vs 1. Time can fly by at Deity normal speed when using a "one move point" stack to conquer a large continent.

 

[Orzio]

True, but on normal speed they can usually defend at least some of their core cities by the time I've wiped out their stack and come back for revenge.

True they got it easier on normal but they are still as stupied. Thinking horses cant move 2 turns not understanding anything of modern era war etc.