New Difficulty Level Between Emperor and Immortal

[Mesix]

To me, the difference between Emperor and Immortal is how you acquire the wonders. On Emperor you build the wonders you want. On Immortal, you build units and take the wonders you want.

 

[stii]

if you want challenge, why not to play MP?

Because simu turns is a very different game

 

[smallfish]

Try starting a Immortal game on Classical era start.

If not fun, turn off every victory option except Time and Domination. Then try it again.

 

[Kennan]

I think Immortal without the AIs staring bonuses are what you are looking for. Remove their techs and units using the in-game editor - mod. Or you could give yourself their staring conditions, then you don't have to see how they start.

 

[Snipes]

I don't see why you'd put a difficulty below Immortal before putting one below Deity. The difference from Immortal to Deity is much more drastic than any of the others.

 

[neilkaz]

I'd also love to see two new difficulty levels. One between Emperor and Immortal as the OP suggests, and one between Immortal and Deity as some of the very experienced top players here suggest.

.. neilkaz ..

 

[Djinn8]

I'd just like to see the AI lose their starting techs. It ruins the game in my eyes by putting you dead last in the religion race and makes it impossible to get some of the wonders.

I played a game a while back as Carthage and tried to get the Great Lighthouse. I don't think I could rush it any quicker than I did. Teched straight to optics; started on a coast with two whales and bought 2 workboats to improve them; stole a worker and improved a marble; went tradition and took the wonder bonus - got beaten to the punch by 3 turns. Only other thing I could have done better was get lucky with a ruin and get the +15% to ancient wonders pantheon or the right free tech.

Tried the same stratergy to get the Great Library once - got beaten by 8 turns and even if I had built it my free tech would have been something crap like wheel or bronze working. That's a real problem if you are playing as Korea; GL is THE wonder for them and it's imposible to get it.

 

[Cromagnus]

I would have liked a smaller step between Emperor and Immortal. Either by making Emperor slightly harder, or adding another level. I definitely encountered the same issue: 100% win on Emperor, not sure I ever even lost after moving up to Emperor, took me almost 10 games of Immortal to even win once. Probably took 20 games to win consistently on Immortal, and I still don't win every time.

Now, maybe that's due to having played a crapload of Civ4, but I still think Emperor wasn't enough of a jump. The curve feels very exponential after that, and before that it's pretty linear. Just my impression though.

Of course, what we all *really* want is for the AI to be smarter on Immortal and Deity so that they don't need to be given so many % advantages. The best human players are harder to beat than Deity, even if they're playing with a handicap and you're not. That's what I dream of, that one day a Civ will come out where the AI doesn't need hand-outs to compensate for bad decision making. Because to win on Deity you have to rely on tricks that *would never work against a human*. I want a difficulty level higher than Emperor that doesn't rely on my network connection and simultaneous moves (AKA MP) or require me to do silly diplomacy tricks, like Deity.

Not that I'm saying it's easy. At all. I'm an AI programmer myself, and I've spent tons of time making an AI "smart" only to have it look stupid when the game shipped. Compared even to chess, the possibility space in Civ5 is insane, so I can sympathize. Still, one can dream.

 

[The_Quasar]

I'd also love to see two new difficulty levels. One between Emperor and Immortal as the OP suggests, and one between Immortal and Deity as some of the very experienced top players here suggest.

.. neilkaz ..

I agree with this. I believe it would make a lot of sense.

The level between Immortal and Deity would, I think be very popular... I would certainly play it.

The level between Emperor and Immortal could be useful for testing things, as Emperor is so easy, it's not such a good level to test on, and Immortal is not so easy that testing of certain kinds is possible.

 

[OmniPotent42]

I don't know what you guys are talking about this game is easy I want a level that's twice as hard as Diety.

 

[Dogmouth]

I agree with OP. I like Emperor because it allows the player to experiment with new strategies, bad starts, and new leaders while still being able to (easily) win. Immortal and Diety are vastly more challenging, but they're also so constraining that you feel like you have to play the same strategies over and over. At the very least, on Immortal and Diety I feel like I'm playing a glorified war game, because I make all of my significant gains on the battlefield. Something between Immortal and Emperor would really hit the spot.

 

[glider1]

There are other ways to customize difficulty:
Emperor easy: small map, quick, continents-standard settings
Emperor harder: small map, quick, continents- low sea level and 5000BC

With a bit more land area the AI expands better and because there are less average hills and mountain passes, the AI is able to play tactically a bit better.

Cheers

 

[Cromagnus]

As I mentioned in another thread, I've come up with a way to make Emperor more difficult without relying on tactics that feel cheaty. (Trading tricks that only work because the AI has stupid amounts of money)

Basically, I immediately DoW every Civ on first contact and I never accept peace treaties. That forces me to be very careful about how I play, whether I'm going to be warlike or not, and it's a much closer simulation of MP, which is what I hate about Deity. Deity is harder in *all the wrong ways*.

Sadly, the only way I've found I really enjoy Civ5 Multiplayer is Hotseat though. Simultaneous turns = different game and ultimately less fun.

(Side note: Playing this way gives *really weird* results. The AI will offer insane deals for peace treaties at seemingly random times. It's awful tempting to take a deal when they offer 1000 gold and 3 luxuries, when I'm not even attacking them or near their borders)

 

[smallfish]

As I mentioned in another thread, I've come up with a way to make Emperor more difficult without relying on tactics that feel cheaty. (Trading tricks that only work because the AI has stupid amounts of money)

Basically, I immediately DoW every Civ on first contact and I never accept peace treaties. That forces me to be very careful about how I play, whether I'm going to be warlike or not, and it's a much closer simulation of MP, which is what I hate about Deity. Deity is harder in *all the wrong ways*.

Sadly, the only way I've found I really enjoy Civ5 Multiplayer is Hotseat though. Simultaneous turns = different game and ultimately less fun.

(Side note: Playing this way gives *really weird* results. The AI will offer insane deals for peace treaties at seemingly random times. It's awful tempting to take a deal when they offer 1000 gold and 3 luxuries, when I'm not even attacking them or near their borders)

There's an "Always War" toggle in the xml somewhere. Find it, switch it on, then it should appear in your advanced options menu and you can toggle it for future games.

 

[Cromagnus]

There's an "Always War" toggle in the xml somewhere. Find it, switch it on, then it should appear in your advanced options menu and you can toggle it for future games.

That's a good idea. The spam of Peace Treaty requests gets really old when you're at war with 7 Civs. However, I like the additional challenge of them *not* being required to be at War with each other. It actually makes the game easier when all the AIs are at war with each other.