The game is even EASIER now on Deity - If that's possible

[Nog]

So most anyone who's played a few games of Civ V knows the AI is so bad, that deity level is no different than beginner level - other than your opponent starts with more "men" but is still just as dumb.

I fired up Civ V due to the new patch thinking things can only get better than being at the bottom...right?

The performance improvements I was hoping for are not there but I don't think those cannot come unless they re-write the entire game. But you'd think the inter-turn lag is due to the world class AI right? *cough*

So I start up a new huge map deity game and expect some mild pain finally. The one I was in was already well past the "I win for sure" stage so let's get a fresh board. A challenge!

*crickets*

It's much easier now than before, and that seemed impossible.

Why?

The _only_ risk you had at losing on deity before, other than you just installed the game and never read the manual or player before, was that you might have one (usually more than one) Civ _very_ close to your borders.

They were aggressive if too close, and given their incredible resource head start - not their more 'intelligent' play - they would often attack and if they teamed up, you simply couldn't respond due to being so far behind.

Now, the AI is even softer so that threat is gone, and it's impossible not to win by just attacking one AI after another once you get some footing. Beyond easy now.

I guarantee they will lose both the "casual" base they went after and the hardcores now.

The game offers little in terms of long term enjoyment to either group.

This is mostly due to their inability to design and code a challenging game and now it seems they are waffling on their "vision" to try and make everyone happy - and in the end, as it always turns out - will make no one happy.

Unless you buy a game from Blizzard or Valve, protip I learned; NEVER pre-order and always wait for word of mouth to be world class, or never buy.

*sigh*

 

[Sonereal]

Have you won that game yet?

 

[Nog]

Have you won that game yet?

The new one I started?

I've eliminated 4 of the 12 Civs and own most of one of the continents. Nothing has changed other than being easy.

I then make a navy now that I own most of this continent, control the seas (like that is hard ), soften the other continents from the shore and outright take their cities with no more than ONE ground unit (always play the same and win) and destroyers/frigates, and then just bomb any internal cities left.

If you're new, let me know where you are struggling and I'll help.

 

[aisle5]

The new one I started?

I've eliminated 4 of the 12 Civs and own most of one of the continents. Nothing has changed other than being easy.

I then make a navy now that I own most of this continent, control the seas (like that is hard ), soften the other continents from the shore and outright take their cities with no more than ONE ground unit (always play the same and win) and destroyers/frigates, and then just bomb any internal cities left.

If you're new, let me know where you are struggling and I'll help.

Play on a harder map type instead of hiding on islands. I just lost a game, standard great plains, where after I eliminated one civ, 5 of the remaining 6 declared war on me all within 5 turns. Since I wasn't hiding on an island, but rather was in the middle of the map, they all converged on me and killed me rather easily.

I see a lot of people claim the game is easy when they have set it up the game in a way that gives them the best chance at success; I suppose the problem with the game is that people can determine their own level of challenge and they aim low.

 

[stii]

I'm a bit confused as to how you concluded it was even easier now? You played one game where there was no AI close, what does that prove? You could have no AI close before the patch as well, I don't see how you could see a difference without playing a bunch of games.

 

[Bushface]

Play on a harder map type instead of hiding on islands. I just lost a game, standard great plains, where after I eliminated one civ, 5 of the remaining 6 declared war on me all within 5 turns. Since I wasn't hiding on an island, but rather was in the middle of the map, they all converged on me and killed me rather easily.

I see a lot of people claim the game is easy when they have set it up the game in a way that gives them the best chance at success; I suppose the problem with the game is that people can determine their own level of challenge and they aim low.

That merely shows that you started in an untenable situation, the so-called diplomacy gave you no chance of negotiation, and every AI civ will attack you for any or no reason. The problem I found with the game is that the developers set the level of challenge extremely low, and then failed to make it anything like that hard.

 

[Dun Malg]

I see a lot of people claim the game is easy when they have set it up the game in a way that gives them the best chance at success; I suppose the problem with the game is that people can determine their own level of challenge and they aim low.

I think that no matter what map you choose, Deity level ought to be a challenge. If playing on "continents" or "archipelago" maps constitutes setting up a Deity level game to give you an unbeatable starting position, then I'm sorry, the AI is still not fixed. If you have to play on "pangaea" maps to give the AI a chance to win on freakin' Deity, you're having to coddle it just to get a decent game, and that's not right.

 

[Nog]

Play on a harder map type instead of hiding on islands. I just lost a game, standard great plains, where after I eliminated one civ, 5 of the remaining 6 declared war on me all within 5 turns. Since I wasn't hiding on an island, but rather was in the middle of the map, they all converged on me and killed me rather easily.

I see a lot of people claim the game is easy when they have set it up the game in a way that gives them the best chance at success; I suppose the problem with the game is that people can determine their own level of challenge and they aim low.

Not this arguement again.

I realize there is a need to try and put the game in SOME type of positive light, but when playing the hardest of hard levels, there shouldn't need to be a "but can you beat it with one arm tied behind your back and not look at the monitor?"

First, I'm playing continents - you know, one of the main map types on the selection screen? Pangea is even easier because with proper builds/strategy, I can own 1/3 of the map before I can sip my coffee.

It's already bad enough that this is like playing chess or checkers but instead of designing an actual 'intelligent' opponent, you give them more pieces to start the game!

And then, because that fails so quickly, now it's asking "well, can you beat me with 20 less men and only using the left side of the board?!??"

 

[Nog]

I'm a bit confused as to how you concluded it was even easier now? You played one game where there was no AI close, what does that prove? You could have no AI close before the patch as well, I don't see how you could see a difference without playing a bunch of games.

Link from my original, un-edited post where I said that.

I'll help you with reading comprehension (not to be mean but not sure what else to call it)...

I said the only way you could really lose before is if one or more Civs started very close to you and they were aggressive (which was the way it usually worked since they were aggressive because they started with immense resource advantages and hence were more 'powerful').

I didn't say in my current game that no one was close to me. In fact, that is what makes it so easy! Two did in fact start close to me, but didn't attack as usual.

Once I got footing, and because they were so close, it made it even easier to attack since I could re-supply so easy.

That is why Pangea is so easy (they are all easy, for different reasons). You can still use navy on the very edges of the map to wipe all coastal cities and you can quickly steamroll with men the Civs next to you, get your base, and then it's just playing out turns to win.

I still have not seen anyone post where they actually have trouble with deity?

Don't be embarassed, it's ok. I just want to actually understand where people struggle...?

 

[sosueme]

I love it. Either the changes are bad because they made the game easier or the changes are bad because they made the game harder...but no matter what, everything both pre-patch and post-patch is wrong.

 

[Benzidrine]

Wow one man's assessment of the challenge a game offers and it brings on the fanboy flood. It is unfortunate that someone can not post their experience of a game on a board dedicated to that game without getting flamed.

I agree deity is quite easy and my limited playthrough of one game so far does seem to agree with your summation.

 

[Nog]

I love it. Either the changes are bad because they made the game easier or the changes are bad because they made the game harder...but no matter what, everything both pre-patch and post-patch is wrong.

Look through my post history and link where I said it was too hard... Ha! That would be comical.

I'm a below average player who can barely tell you what most units are, what most counters are, never...EVER change my default city production, never..EVER assign specialists and couldn't tell you what the point is, etc.

And I still steamroll deity.

I can't imagine anyone who is actually understands most of the game still plays without being bored to tears.

I never really played/got into the other Civ versions, but if it's true they dumbled this one down from a mechanics/feature standpoint, no wonder all the hate on this board because it comes bundled with such dumb AI.

Twice the dosage of dumbness is enough to drive most gamers away, even fanbois - which I think is where all the initial meltdown came from.

Most seem to not post as much anymore as they bailed - and probably lurk from time to time.

 

[Dearmad]

to the fanboys: he's playing DEITY LEVEL- he ought to be having his ASS kicked for months until he gets better.

 

[Aristos]

the mass markets in all their fury...

not even Sulla can escape them anymore...

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'm a below average player

This may be surprising, but I actually consider a lot of players on civfanatics to be too modest in this regard. I think I said a similar thing in the thread about "I laugh at the Deity description", but if you can compete at Deity and win fairly regularly then you really are up there in terms of the people who are best at the game.

Not knowing all the unit names or other trivial details is not a symptom of a bad ability to play the game. It just means you focus on the details that are more important - nothing wrong with that.

Off topic: Wow I just noticed there are a bunch of civ5 symbols for attaching to posts now. Here, have some fire

 

[Nog]

to the fanboys: he's playing DEITY LEVEL- he ought to be having his ASS kicked for months until he gets better.

The worst part of it all (if there can be a "worst" part) is that I thought hey - I can create my own challenges...and at least get better via score.

ALL my highest scores, by far, are on king/prince level.

On deity, you get less wonders if any until late game (can't compete resource wise and need to focus on military first).

And it definitely does not reward the difficulty level as any real modifier, the number of civs, etc.

In fact when I finish my current game in the next day or two I should post my scores screenshot and I want to see any diety level screenshot scores be higher than your typical noob king/prince scores.


EDIT: It's not like I never lose at diety, but pre-patch when I did, it was always the same... I was stuck between Civs and they were somewhat close - sometimes the first expansion was enough to draw their ire, sometimes it didn't even take that - but it was never their superior talent that beat me, just that they start with SO much more resources than you that you can't catch up fast enough if they attack you too early...

 

[dexters]

Scores in Civ5 aren't normalized.

Not sure someone (if there can be anyone) hasn't realized it yet.

Also play on Pangea

 

[pi-r8]

I was afraid this might happen. Some of the changes they made in that patch will really hurt the deity AI.

First, they said the AI workers prioritize trading posts less. Buying with gold was what gave deity AIs their incredibly production advantage, and they get most of their gold from trading posts. They won't be able to properly use farms or mines.

Then, they've also changed it so the AI won't trade for luxury resources so much. Good in theory but... if they go too far, the AI will struggle for happiness. That means they'll have to make happiness buldings instead, and if they can't buy them, they'll be stuck building them the slow way. So now the AI will just spend all it's time struggling to build theaters and stadiums, and be unable to produce the insane army sizes that were its only chance to win before.

 

[PieceOfMind]

pi-r8, if AIs are offering less money in luxury trades, doesn't that make it more likely there will be more such trades? At least with that aspect of the patch changes, I'm not seeing the problem. Only the human player is going to be perhaps less likely to sell luxuries, but even for the new reduced amount, it's still easily worth it isn't it? From the games I've played so far, I always felt like I got the best deals when selling luxuries. Strat resources I didn't seem to do as well with. It was pretty much to the point where deciding new city sites was mainly about securing more luxury resources so they could be sold.

Re: AIs putting less emphasis on TPs, yeah - maybe not the best idea.

 

[Nog]

pi-r8, if AIs are offering less money in luxury trades, doesn't that make it more likely there will be more such trades? At least with that aspect of the patch changes, I'm not seeing the problem. Only the human player is going to be perhaps less likely to sell luxuries, but even for the new reduced amount, it's still easily worth it isn't it? From the games I've played so far, I always felt like I got the best deals when selling luxuries. Strat resources I didn't seem to do as well with. It was pretty much to the point where deciding new city sites was mainly about securing more luxury resources so they could be sold.

Re: AIs putting less emphasis on TPs, yeah - maybe not the best idea.

I never sell strat resources. Mostly because you don't quite know how the AI cheats with resources to begin with (so horrible they had to resort to that instead of proper AI), and so the last thing I want to do is give them even more of a chance to build horsemen, swordsman, frigates (yeah right), etc.

As for luxuries, they also cheat on happiness so it's hard to tell how much of an advantage it is to sell them still even at half price.

I still sell them when I need the $$$ right now - either for CS assistance to soften the blow when one declares war on me, or me them (always pick the one bordering them if possible) or if I need an immediate unit for support.