tu_79
Deity
@HeathcliffWarriors is on the case. He's tweaking AI diplomatic behavior to have more sense, but you know, for every thing you fix, another breaks.
Regarding the "run eliminateHuman.exe" issue: what if this isn't a bug in the AI but simply a consequence of a combination of the following:
a) the human tending to do well, which, as I've argued many times before, should induce the AI to become hostile toward him to stop him from becoming a runaway (and if you don't like it, again, there's an flag you can set to turn this behavior off),
b) the human being a lot better at war, which quickly leads to more warmonger score and thus hostility (it seems that people who currently find Deity too easy are mostly warmongering, so it seems like more "ganging up on them" and more anti-warmonger bonus is the way to go as the AI will never tactically or strategically surpass the human) and
c) the AI simply being better at diplomacy than the human!
For people that complain about difficulty, go to difficulty.lua file and find A, B C handicaps.
You are 100% correct on this. But this, IMO is the critical element that separates us from the AI and is the reason we eventually win the game. What I mean by this is that we are indescribably more intelligent at maneuvering our military units than the AI could ever hope to be. The way we win the game is by surviving with a small military until we've grown our Empire to the point of churning out a military equal to them. Then we win lolI think another factor is that AI players tend to have a higher Military Power rating than human players (simply because they have more units).
So when they are evaluating which other player would be an easy target to attack they have a tendency to underestimate the armies of human players
Promotions
Penalty v. Barbarian promotions reduced by 10% each
Removed Sortie from the Dogfighting line
Distributed promos in the Dogfighting line more evenly; allows interceptor fighters to more easily get to the +33% bonus against fighter units
Buffed Ace Pilot II and III with +1 Range and +1 Interception, respectively
Very interested to hear people's assessment of the sword changes. My impression from the patch notes is that everyone getting 17CS would be too much, especially with spears getting no compensatory buff
Was formation changed to 15% open/33% mounted, or is it still 10% open/25% mounted?
If Formation wasn't changed, then this spear line change is actually a nerf.
@Gazebo Man... I would appreciate if any changes to promotion values were listed in op. At least names of ones that were touched. I can check values by myself during Promotion Overhaul for VP update. Looking through 300 promotions each time VP is updated is a horror.Yes it's changed to +33% against mounted and +15% defense in open.
Another undocumented change is that Air Repair now requires Dogfighting 3 instead of 2.
Discipline now gives +10% CS and +15% if adjacent to another unit.
But here again we have a bit of a schizophrenic presentation....on the one hand people complain that the AI gangs up on them and that the anti-warmonger bonus is too high (and this is almost exclusively coming from high-difficulty players) and on the other hand we get posts like "Deity is a walk in the park lol; y so ez brah?"...
![]()
Arabia breezed through and vasallized, I am leader in tech, policies, and my armies are wiping everything out but of course all AIs non stop declare that my army is laughing stock of the world (what the hell? it is so ). Deity is definetly too easy, it is a problem with too strong Authority, too strong Fealty with large empires, too strong going wide generally. I am twice as careful with every choice and twice as engaged during late eras as small tradition aiming for culture or science victory. There have been positive changes to diplomacy, I was conciously able to form a firm alliance with France and Russia avoiding any penalties and enganing in joint denounces, wars, trade positive for them and grabbed luxuries for free and gold from them as a gift when I was broke before my snowballing.
I haven;t done any wars early, first war, first city taken, first vassal was in medieval by going steel, physics.
Is there any option to increase the difficulty, so that my strategic and longterm choices actually matter and I could not be shure if I win and Ai could outplay me?
I don't play with 3/4 because it is mostly unbalanced as heel and massively inflates yields, making the game even more easy. In maby cases it is just stupid in choices for uc. I play vanilla, bare VP.
Can next version include some additional difficulty option like free settler for the AI right off the bat and early, subastantial bonuses, more like vanilla deity but not as much?
No. I don't want to brag, you have more expeirence, I play casually since December.
ANti-warmanger bonus is a little to high to be realistic but isn't a hindrance in any way.
But you are completely confusing two separate issues.
Ai gangs up isn;t hard to the player, it is just laughable because they don;t do anything, it isn;t a coalition of thought-out coordinated, simultanoues attacks (IT WoULD BE GREAT BTW) it is phoney wars that acheieve one thing and one thing only, end to any meaning diplomacy and trades after renaissance/industrial/ and vawes of half-brained AI insults.
AI ganging up is a nuisance, is a anti-realistic feeling. It mostly takes places after you began to run away with the game.
Deity sadly is dishearteningly easy due to many combinations of yields that you get from min-maxing city states alliances, buildings, policies, beliefs. At deity I expect this min-maxing to just barely keep afloat and not too far behing others, and the game should force you to act long-term and short term in gaining advantages and taking opportunities, but without certainty that you suceed. The game is worth nothing past the point you know you win and it is also worth nothing when you know exactly what to do to beat AI beause of its lack of bonuses. When there is no real thrill, no real gamble that you will try and maybe will suced in invasion, but now is a certainty that you will beline steel/gunpowder/rifling and grind ai. I want to have games when I war succesfuly in medieval but by industrial mmy empire falls down, due to my mistakes, and due to strong reaction AI )no phony wars) and I have to try redevelop my empire, let some cities flip to ideological pressure and focus on other, let some be taken by strong AI, in order to just survive and have another shot in another era. AT current stage of development there is very little real threat of overextension and once you snowball fir the first time after first vassal/succesful war you never rally have to make such decision as what front to give up and maybe give half of your gpt to ai to keep them at peace, when fighting other on the other side of the map.
I don't mean to whine, this mod is excellent, miles ahead of vanilla, and I would like to contribute, not only point out mistakes, but I think you and VP has a real problem with difficulty. You did excellent job at making AI think and be decent without bonuses, but let's face it, it still needs those massive bonuses to keep deity players entertained and engaged from the first settler to the last nuclear missle/theming bonus.
Sorry for typos, I am 30 hours on my feet, just wanted to leave it.
Just some of my thoughts.
Deity sadly is dishearteningly easy due to many combinations of yields that you get from min-maxing city states alliances, buildings, policies, beliefs. At deity I expect this min-maxing to just barely keep afloat and not too far behing others, and the game should force you to act long-term and short term in gaining advantages and taking opportunities, but without certainty that you suceed.
I feel Gazevo changes many petty things, it is going back and forth, like what to do with terrracota, taking range from archer, which is just weird when maassive balance issues still plague )example are policies, too many yields from buildings and England UA .
I was thinking about this today and thought i might borrow old difficulty files from a previous version
Yeah, I play Epic, standard feels completely off for me.
I would like to make those difficulty changes a community optional standard so we can share experiences and work something out. Like a one-time much harder beta version to test how community will react.
I feel Gazevo changes many petty things, it is going back and forth, like what to do with terrracota, taking range from archer, which is just weird when maassive balance issues still plague )example are policies, too many yields from buildings and England UA .
That is quite an exaggeration...when maassive balance issues still plague
Keep in mind that if things are balanced around what happens when you min-max everything it's going to affect gameplay for anyone who doesn't as well. Certainly making deity a proper challenge is part of the goal, just wanted to note that it's not the primary or only objective.
I strongly disagree that there are massive balance issues.
G
If you want to make harder difficulties, do it and post it in the modmod section, like how pineappledan responds to balance choices he disagrees with. Because it seems to me that the community consensus is that the fundamental balance of the game is in a good place right now.Yeah, I play Epic, standard feels completely off for me.
I would like to make those difficulty changes a community optional standard so we can share experiences and work something out. Like a one-time much harder beta version to test how community will react.
I think they are quite a few.
SuperNoobCamper and I brought up playthroughs.
Martin Fencka on Youtube plays deity vp and is able to consisntently win despite many mistakes.
Even in last two weeks it surfaced that Imperialism gives as much culture and more science than rationalism xddd being vastly superior
There is no counter to wide play and unrelenting conquests.
Some civs have just plain several tiers better ua
I think they are quite a few.
SuperNoobCamper and I brought up playthroughs.
Martin Fencka on Youtube plays deity vp and is able to consisntently win despite many mistakes.
Even in last two weeks it surfaced that Imperialism gives as much culture and more science than rationalism xddd being vastly superior
There is no counter to wide play and unrelenting conquests.
Some civs have just plain several tiers better ua