So it must be easier this time around?

[mva5580]

I'm still in my first game of Civ V, and I guess maybe it's just a totally random thing, but the game seems much easier this time around. Yes....I'm only playing on Chieftain, but so far in the game I'm absolutely dominating to the point of being shocked. I usually played that level on Civ IV and while I still won the games, it was at least in question for a little while. But in this game so far I've wiped out Russia and they had ZERO military units with about 5 cities, and India is right next to me with only 2 cities and 1 military unit. And in the demographics screen I'm in first place in every demographic by a rather large margin over the "average" amount in every category. I've also wiped out one city state and that was a bit of a joke, again they had 0 military units.

So did they just make the easier difficulty levels REALLY easy this time around? Because I'm a bit shocked as to how simple it is at this point.

 

[InterAl]

Definitely. Played the full 100 turns with all the 3 civs of the demo on "King". It's kind of a joke really. In all my 3 games I conquered my closest neighbor without a sweat. Was leading in tech, cities growth, wonders and army. My score was like 200 points higher than the next highest civ. And that's after merely 100 turns, in all of my 3 games.
The AI is kinda bad, just as I feared. It sucks in combat, doesn't manage its cities well and tends to spread them too far from each other, undefended and too close to my borders (ripe for the taking...). Its armies are too small and too primitive, very easy to steamroll it very early in the game. Furthermore, in my experience it also kinda ignores the early wonders. Was really easy for me to get the 3 early ones even without that wonder-building-bonus social policy (with it it's even easier).

 

[Delgar]

To the OP: maybe you want to try a higher difficulty level before making a judgement.

To InterAl: it's a demo with only 100 turns. Perhaps your experiences with the full game will be different.

 

[DarkMaster]

Well, I'm on Prince and I am currently second in score in the Reinassance Era, behind the god damn Iroquois. I used to play on Monarch / Emperor on Civ IV. I don't think the game is harder, because I haven't learned the ropes yet, but I don't think it's easier.

 

[Crezth]

Definitely. Played the full 100 turns with all the 3 civs of the demo on "King". It's kind of a joke really. In all my 3 games I conquered my closest neighbor without a sweat. Was leading in tech, cities growth, wonders and army. My score was like 200 points higher than the next highest civ. And that's after merely 100 turns, in all of my 3 games.
The AI is kinda bad, just as I feared. It sucks in combat, doesn't manage its cities well and tends to spread them too far from each other, undefended and too close to my borders (ripe for the taking...). Its armies are too small and too primitive, very easy to steamroll it very early in the game. Furthermore, in my experience it also kinda ignores the early wonders. Was really easy for me to get the 3 early ones even without that wonder-building-bonus social policy (with it it's even easier).

Up the difficulty. Problem solved. Next!

 

[mva5580]

To the OP: maybe you want to try a higher difficulty level before making a judgement.

To InterAl: it's a demo with only 100 turns. Perhaps your experiences with the full game will be different.

And as I stated in the post, I played on Chieftain in Civ IV and it was definitely not this easy. Not even close.

 

[Watiggi]

And as I stated in the post, I played on Chieftain in Civ IV and it was definitely not this easy. Not even close.

Maybe you've gotten better at it than you had realised.

 

[InterAl]

Up the difficulty. Problem solved. Next!

Raising it up will just make it plain harder because of the bonuses, but it won't play smarter. The AI's idiocies will remain... So no, it's not the "right" solution imo.

 

[Jimbo30]

Raising it up will just make it plain harder because of the bonuses, but it won't play smarter. The AI's idiocies will remain... So no, it's not the "right" solution imo.

Not according to the release webcast where one of the devs said the AI plays smarter at higher difficulty levels.

Try a harder level, say King. Judging by the demo I'll start at King and probably need to move up one, but who knows I might end up being (un)pleasantly surprised by the AI later in the game, and find I need to drop down instead.

 

[remconius]

A few remarks:

1 - a lot of civ 4 experience will help in civ 5... Comparing civ4 levels to civ5 it'sself id not meaningful. For example, noble is now prince.
2 - AI at low levels will make decisions based on large amount of options. AI at high difficulty will really focus on the only the best options. So the AI at higher difficulty levels will act smarter.
3 - At chieftain you get bonuses vs the AI, at Prince its balanced. Playing low levels will automatically give you a serious edge vs AI.
4 - At higher difficulty levels the AI gets bonuses to compensate for the fact that humans can always outsmart the AI. In the end it translates to competing against more and better units. It's not fair, but human Intelligence vs AI is also not fair.

 

[Iceciro]

At King the AI starts with Pottery.

 

[Lord Tirian]

To InterAl: it's a demo with only 100 turns. Perhaps your experiences with the full game will be different.

I've played only the demo so far, but following lemmy's playthrough, it appears that even if the early game appears easy, it can get harder with time. It's also possible that the early game appears easy, because you haven't seen the late-game consequences yet!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Crezth]

Raising it up will just make it plain harder because of the bonuses, but it won't play smarter. The AI's idiocies will remain... So no, it's not the "right" solution imo.

Actually, false. The AI makes better decisions on higher difficulty levels. This has been confirmed by the developers.

Checkmate.

 

[InterAl]

Actually, false. The AI makes better decisions on higher difficulty levels. This has been confirmed by the developers.

Checkmate.

No, it doesn't. I played again today on Deity. Besides having more bonuses and hence a larger army, the stupidity remains. It still can't handle combat and can't position units tactically or even reasonably. It builds undefended cities too far away from each other, which it cannot defend.
And I wouldn't count at all about any "confirmations" the devs delivered. All that bulls*it about a multi-layered AI algorithm blah blah blah, and what we eventually get is perhaps the most inferior AI ever presented in a Civ game.

 

[Jimbo30]

No, it doesn't. I played again today on Deity. Besides having more bonuses and hence a larger army, the stupidity remains. It still can't handle combat and can't position units tactically or even reasonably. It builds undefended cities too far away from each other, which it cannot defend.
And I wouldn't count at all about any "confirmations" the devs delivered. All that bulls*it about a multi-layered AI algorithm blah blah blah, and what we eventually get is perhaps the most inferior AI ever presented in a Civ game.

I'm not saying I disagree with you but can you show me a screenshot, or a save with you winning on Deity? That would go a long way towards helping.

 

[ohioastronomy]

It is utterly unsurprising that the AI has trouble in a tactical wargame. Look at the 1up review, which is one of the rare ones where someone clearly played the game long enough to be able to convey what it's like after the initial rush.

In Civ 4 (vanilla, the only version I spent much time with) you actually had to avoid the AI civs at the start for higher difficulty; they could wipe you out. Here: not so much.

 

[bernlin2000]

I've also been playing on Chieftain, and one thing I've especially noticed that happiness is never EVER an issue . I always seem to have at least 20 excess happiness. I've only started war once (playing Greece I attacked India) and it wasn't even worth all the planning I put into it, aligning units at his border. He had 2 units that were a tier or 2 below mine (warrior and archer vs. catapults and swordsmen), but they seemed to disappear once I declared war. He didn't have units garrisoned in ANY of his cities, and when I marched to his capital I didn't encounter any resistance from outsides forces: just the cities with their feeble attack. Apparently they did decide to dumb down the AI depending on what difficulty you played: I preferred an AI that was smart on all difficulty levels, but had penalties/bonuses depending on what level you played. Even on Chieftain in CivIV, it was a big undertaking to attack another civ's capital: they usually had 5-6 units stacked on the city and plenty wandering around. Where were India's units?

 

[cdcuase]

So the AI makes better decisions when the difficulty is increased, but at the same time it gets bonuses...?

What I would like is a normal setting (prince) where it gets no bonuses, but still plays the best decisions.

 

[mva5580]

I've also been playing on Chieftain, and one thing I've especially noticed that happiness is never EVER an issue . I always seem to have at least 20 excess happiness. I've only started war once (playing Greece I attacked India) and it wasn't even worth all the planning I put into it, aligning units at his border. He had 2 units that were a tier or 2 below mine (warrior and archer vs. catapults and swordsmen), but they seemed to disappear once I declared war. He didn't have units garrisoned in ANY of his cities, and when I marched to his capital I didn't encounter any resistance from outsides forces: just the cities with their feeble attack. Apparently they did decide to dumb down the AI depending on what difficulty you played: I preferred an AI that was smart on all difficulty levels, but had penalties/bonuses depending on what level you played. Even on Chieftain in CivIV, it was a big undertaking to attack another civ's capital: they usually had 5-6 units stacked on the city and plenty wandering around. Where were India's units?

Exactly what I experienced. I played on Chieftain and was just totally shocked at how simple it was.....I mean it was a bit of an embarrassment. Now I have no idea how the higher difficulty levels are, because I haven't had the courage to try them yet. Warlord seems a little bit tougher, at least in the sense that I'm right next to Montezuma and I see that he has multiple military units. I've seen Alexander's units roll through my area as well, so at least I know military units exist on this level lol.

I haven't tried a war yet on this level so I guess I'll see what happens, but so far Warlord feels like Chieftain in Civ IV. I can't even imagine what Settler is like......perhaps they just surrender to you immediately after you meet them for the first time?