New Version – 5.0-alpha.03
- Thread starter axatin
- Start date
Hi all
I don't know if that's the relevant thread, but my feedback after 6 games of 5.03, all on Emperor, Large, is that the game is pretty difficult! True, I've tried civs that I did not play much before, so may not have always made the best strategic choices, but I've found AI aggressiveness difficult to handle.
On Emperor, I always find myself 2-5 tech late when starting Industrial, which is usually fine, but I now have to fight many more wars than before, with fewer units and lower tech than the AI. Besides, AI never seems to be willing to accept peace, even when the situation is a clear stalemate. I keep having to fight off limited waves of units, that have almost no chance of capturing my cities, but that still cripple my economy and make the mid game painful. How is the AI assessing war relevancy?
Even when I played a dominant win with Brazil (lol the Bandeirantes yields), my stupid Huns neighbour kept declaring war even though he could make a move into my territory, was 10 tech behind and surrounded by some vassals I had made in a previous war. I ended up eliminating him.
But of course, same behavior when I'm playing Carthage or Siam makes the game much more difficult than I felt it was in 4.22.
I don't know if that's the relevant thread, but my feedback after 6 games of 5.03, all on Emperor, Large, is that the game is pretty difficult! True, I've tried civs that I did not play much before, so may not have always made the best strategic choices, but I've found AI aggressiveness difficult to handle.
On Emperor, I always find myself 2-5 tech late when starting Industrial, which is usually fine, but I now have to fight many more wars than before, with fewer units and lower tech than the AI. Besides, AI never seems to be willing to accept peace, even when the situation is a clear stalemate. I keep having to fight off limited waves of units, that have almost no chance of capturing my cities, but that still cripple my economy and make the mid game painful. How is the AI assessing war relevancy?
Even when I played a dominant win with Brazil (lol the Bandeirantes yields), my stupid Huns neighbour kept declaring war even though he could make a move into my territory, was 10 tech behind and surrounded by some vassals I had made in a previous war. I ended up eliminating him.
But of course, same behavior when I'm playing Carthage or Siam makes the game much more difficult than I felt it was in 4.22.
I dunno man, i play on Diety exclusively and last game (Russia) is was 6 or 7 techs ahead when i entered Industrial. ^^ Playing on Final Version 2UC before integration with 3 and 4 UC though, since i am waiting for beta.
TheOrpheus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2024
- Messages
- 32
I've been getting my ass kicked on King since Alpha release. Not sure what it is. Can't seem to win other than super strong snowballing early Authority Civs...
what was your regular difficulty lvl before Alpha?
Same here. I typically played on Immortal before, and I must be doing something wrong now because I always feel considerably behind on King/Emperor to the point where I don't typically play out the late game. But like with early authority Civs it's a stomp.
GeneralAmadeus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2019
- Messages
- 97
I remember That 2-3 years ago I changed the files by giving emperor the early bonus modifiers from king and playing like that. It was practically the perfect difficulty for me because emperor was just a bit too hard for me and with king I fell behind in the early game and outpaced the AI starting the Industrial era.
I've had one CTD in three games, after I conquered a capital and took a second city in the peace negotiation. I've had a couple of other very minor bugs. Beta, I hear, is scheduled for this week or next. I haven't played 43 civs, but I'm guessing your computer can handle it.
I'm noticing something on 5.03 alpha I didn't notice on 4.22. If I have an archeologist unit selected, the antiquity sites are NOT highlighted in pink on the map like they used to be. Makes it a lot harder to scan the entire map looking for dig sites. I cannot easily go back to 4.22 to doublecheck, and not even sure I have a savegame laying around (I don't keep them forever).
Can someone confirm if this is by design?
Can someone confirm if this is by design?
I can't even finish an 8 civ game + 16 CS without late game CTD without dumping all the graphics settings down to minimum. I cannot imagine what a 43 civ would be like. Also.... the late game end turn times must be hellacious.
But haven’t you noticed some increased , unprovoked aggressiveness ? And right at the time when the AI is at its peak vs. human, so feels a bit unfair if you ask me.
Maybe I’ll move down to King in order to finally finish successfully a progress game with an Average Civ. But that would be frustrating for sure.
dammit I just lost a game by maybe 2-3 turns..... India squeaked out a culture victory on me in the 1960's. I had been kicking ass as Portugal for the entire game, and was in the #1 slot for most of it. India was #3. but hey at least it finished and didn't late game CTD
I think the main issue with current AI is its inability to take cities properly. AI makes smart moves when fighting units on open territory but taking cities is a problem for it. I suspect it somehow connected with priorities: AI is often reluctant to sacrifice one or two untis for much bigger gain (like damaging city severely or killing important units, aka 2 for 1). ALso unconditioned and unjustified agressiviness is a bit of an issue 
paul_soryu
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2024
- Messages
- 71
I mean, if an agressive civ is playing Authority then they will always be agressive for no reason from the start.
I've played 3 games on 5.0, one with The Huns on Emperor, I got attacked by The Zulus but the AI was broken on 5.02 so I easily conquered them.
Then I played Egypt on 5.03 again on Emperor, surrounded by Marocco, Korea and Sweden, Korea was closer to Sweden than I was, so they went to war multiple times and I got a chill start, and then Sweden was so weak that we split it in half with Korea, both Marocco and Korea wanted to be friends until I got a score lead. Korea even paid a huge GPT to declare war on Sweden.
Then I played Venice on Immortal, surrounded by Poland and France, there was no place for a city between Paris and Venice, we were that close, but France decided to attack Polynesia, and I again got a chill start, both Poland and Polynesia wanted to be friends with me until I conquered weakened France and got a score lead.
So in my experience everything is as usual, warmongers attack everyone, everyone hates warmongers, you can even get 2-3 cities from them without anyone getting too upset about it. And then everyone hates you when you are a leader. Also if you have army smaller than their, which is usually the case, they are more likely to attack you.
I don't know what causes it, but it happens on 4.22, too. Easy way to fix it: Select any other unit and then the archeologist. The antiquity sites should then be marked in pink again.
stormfallen
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 129
Having a unit upgrade advantage is the biggest combat boost in the game.Every Civ is Auth Civ
But yea the logistics is amazing and bonus science is particularly useful with Authority
Sure, I do expect that from Sweden or Iroquois, but having Portugal and Ethiopia gang up on me (Carthage) when I'm a continent away, minding my own business, and NOWHERE near the top of the scoring list, is quite a frustrating experience. Sure, we have different religions, but being a continent away, it's not like we're fighting for religious influence...
TheOrpheus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2024
- Messages
- 32
King and Emperor. King was sometimes too easy for me while Emperor was very hard, but winnable.
Similar threads
