The game is too fast and too easy

[japanesesamurai]

The game should be tested and written in/for deity mode.
Then if the game plays nicely on deity, give the AI penalties for easier modes.
So but then deity becomes the normal difficulty and new/casual players might not like that...
The problem is that the game is tested on/for easier modes.

Also, the game becomes much harder if you play on tiny land maps. Populated with tons of civs.

You need to edit some game files and mod a map script mod like Got Lakes. And its only for people who enjoy playing on small maps.

 

[JesseS]

I think the first step towards addressing a lot of these issues of wide play being always optimal, research being too fast, etc., is to start requiring amenities for the first population. Currently, cities only start needing amenities at 3 population. With this change, in most cases, a crappy, newly settled 1 pop city would actually drag down yields elsewhere by taking up an amenity from your luxuries. Amenities can be quite punishing (look at that bankruptcy thread), but they are currently quite easy to manage. This change alone will reduce your starting growth by 15% and non-food yields by 5%. A pop 5 city with no amenities will be at -30% growth and -10% to non-food yields.

Then, I would take out the district adjacency component of rationalism (district adjacency itself is its own reward, especially early on) and the 10 population threshold. Instead, turn rationalism into a card that boosts campus buildings by 5% per population (rounded down to the nearest whole number). This way two 10 pop cities are producing only a little bit more science than one 20 pop city, and one mega city is going to produce more scientific output than two tiny ones with high adjacency campuses.

I think these two changes would move the game towards a decent balance between "tall" and "wide" play. It would be worth it in almost every instance to have more cities, but you would feel the pinch of amenities slightly more and would not receive as many direct bonuses towards spreading out population in more cities. Late game science would be more about total population, as opposed to the distribution of population throughout an empire. You would cap city growth based on amenities as opposed to an arbitrary population threshold for policy cards.

While I would like to see Firaxis put the commercial hub before the campus in the tech tree (humans were trading with each other way before they were doing anything we would call research), that's way too big a change for them to make at this stage in the game's development. Besides, gold really only becomes plentiful when you either trade with the AI or build commercial hubs/harbors. To the extent that early gold is too abundant and easy to get, I think this is more an issue with the AI's trading behavior and how you can trade away early luxuries or diplomatic favor for a lot of lump sum gold.

 

[agonistes]

I'm not sure about too easy. I like easy (because you know, I'm a builder) and I feel the silent majority does as well. ^_^ but if Deity is too easy, then maybe adding an extra difficulty level would be in order?

The issue for me with regards to difficulty is that the game isn't that fundamentally different on higher difficulities anyway. The AI just gets a crapton free stuff (extra prod, extra cities, extra workers, extra units) but otherwise still play largely the same.I hate difficulty scaling like that (which is also the reason why i will NEVER play Immortal or Deity. I don't want the AI to get an advanced start over me. What's the fun in that? Screw that.); so I personally just stay on King/Emperor and roleplay. :shrug:

However, I definitely agree that the game pace is screwed up badly. I think it's in large because techs are *way* too cheap and yields are generally too easy to get by (adjacency bonuses, policy cards, envoy bonuses and... *sigh* Secret Societies). I really like the wealth of yields myself so I hope the devs add in MORE techs/Inspirations or some other mechanics that slow down the game a bit more.

Perhaps (and I don't mean "Perhaps", but "THIS IS URGENT AND SHOULD PROLLY BE LOOKED INTO #SOMEONETAGANTONTOTHISPOST") an alternative way to spend your Science/Culture would be nice (for instance, wouldn't it make sense that when constructing Space Ship Parts, the city STOPS producing research? All the research should go into making the damn' rocket, dammit). Spending culture to boost Tourism (or making buildings better => every heard of World Heritage, Firaxis? Countries invest a TON of cultural capital into that which fuels the prestige of their Universities, National Parks and whatnot). The lack of alternative uses for Science and Culture is what contributes to the game finishing EXTREMELY quickly in the hands of skilled players. Civs 1-4 tied Science and Culture rates with the tax rate. I woudn't mind if that feature were to be reintroduced...

I don’t consider it a strategy game anymore. Its a builder game for sure.

 

[Arithmion]

I have to say, as somebody that just tried another immortal level game, got attacked by multiple barb camps by turn 45 (during which time I was actively searching for barbarians without sending troops excessively far away to explore), then got surprise DOW'd by Genghis on turn 50, with his 48 strength horsemen, while personally having no nearby strategics, I find topics like this kind of insulting.... Now, I know that I stink at the game. I always have. I have 4-500 hours of active playing time in the game, but I've still never beaten deity. I'm sorry ladies and gents, but in my inexperienced and definitively not expert opinion calling deity level "too easy" is simply incorrect.

 

[hhhhhh]

then got surprise DOW'd by Genghis on turn 50, with his 48 strength horsemen

Genghis' horsemen at Turn 50 should be strength 45 right? 36 base, +6 from diplomatic visibility, +3 from his LA.

 

[Arithmion]

Genghis' horsemen at Turn 50 should be strength 45 right? 36 base, +6 from diplomatic visibility, +3 from his LA.

+3 from difficulty.

 

[hhhhhh]

+3 from difficulty.

What speed is this game? How about Magnus-chopping some horsemen?

 

[JesseS]

I have to say, as somebody that just tried another immortal level game, got attacked by multiple barb camps by turn 45 (during which time I was actively searching for barbarians without sending troops excessively far away to explore), then got surprise DOW'd by Genghis on turn 50, with his 48 strength horsemen, while personally having no nearby strategics, I find topics like this kind of insulting.... Now, I know that I stink at the game. I always have. I have 4-500 hours of active playing time in the game, but I've still never beaten deity. I'm sorry ladies and gents, but in my inexperienced and definitively not expert opinion calling deity level "too easy" is simply incorrect.

Oh, for sure, the early game on higher difficulties can be legitimately challenging in a way that topics like this often fail to acknowledge. The problem is that, if you're in a decent position by turn 70, you pretty much know you're going to win, even on deity. The AI is crap at developing land and using policies. It also seems hard-coded in some ways to avoid victory (always researches space project techs last, usually doesn't launch any laser projects to speed them up, doesn't use nearly enough rock bands for culture, fails to launch successful offensive wars after walls). This means that, even on deity, being able to win before turn 300 or so is usually plenty to beat the AI, which players doing far from optimal strategies can do. There's a lot of focus on this forum on reducing turn times as much as possible, because that's the main challenge deity presents after surviving the early game.

 

[tanktop4158]

Try it now......if a rival civ gets vampires ur screwed dude

 

[JesseS]

Try it now......if a rival civ gets vampires ur screwed dude

Meh. I played a game where I ended up in a war against Rough Rider Teddy’s American vampires and, though they had ridiculous combat strengths, they just wandered around while I rush upgraded units and built walls.

 

[Arithmion]

What speed is this game? How about Magnus-chopping some horsemen?

Standard speed. I didn't have any horses. I also never got the opportunity to make a builder. And his horse would have even killed my only spearman (only on turn 50 don't forget, and I had been under barb siege for nearly 20 turns before the war).

@JesseS I do agree that the AI doesn't choose a VC to pursue that early, but I myself struggle to win before turn 300 even when playing warmonger style. Maybe I'm just not playing focused enough.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

This is the reasons why I joined modding community and make mods. to reduce gaming speed into safety level, enough to add more units and reorganize unit lists.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I think the first step towards addressing a lot of these issues of wide play being always optimal, research being too fast, etc., is to start requiring amenities for the first population. Currently, cities only start needing amenities at 3 population. With this change, in most cases, a crappy, newly settled 1 pop city would actually drag down yields elsewhere by taking up an amenity from your luxuries. Amenities can be quite punishing (look at that bankruptcy thread), but they are currently quite easy to manage. This change alone will reduce your starting growth by 15% and non-food yields by 5%. A pop 5 city with no amenities will be at -30% growth and -10% to non-food yields.

100% agree here. I played some games with this change in place - and those playthroughs felt so different in a positive way. The happiness yielding districts become way more of a deal and unless a new city instantly gives access to a new luxury, it is an investment first with the ROI coming later. Often new cities start with the red unhappiness warning. Or your capital grows in the first couple of turns after the game and becomes unhappy. And you have to cope with it - or encouraged to find a way to compensate. You could actually be encouraged to spend some gold for buying a luxury ressource from an opponent... It is even a change the AI can cope with or even profit from - they care for Entertainment and Luxuries anyway.

Sadly, that is also likely the reason why it doesn't work that way unmodded - the fear to "frustrate" the player instantly after one of the key "lucky moments" in civ (city founding). IMHO, this is very short-sighted - in the long run you get more fun out of the game, if you are presented with meaningful and though decisions instead of getting pampered all the time. Luckily, it is at least one of the things everyone can easily correct him/herself, if desired.

 

[acluewithout]

snip

Agree, more or less.

This is why I think more complex empire management, including things like making happiness / amenities harder, is really stuff for an optional game mode. If it's a game mode, then not only can you turn it off, you have to actually turn it on. That should stop new players getting frustrated, because it just shouldn't impact their games till they want to try the mode and turn it on.

 

[Melkus]

If it's a game mode, then not only can you turn it off, you have to actually turn it on.

But isn't that what difficulty levels are for? It makes sense to give new players a smooth buildup experience, but surely immortal or diety players won't (well, shouldn't, we all have heard from entitled deity players) complain about getting punished. I just don't understand why higher difficulties can't be tougher for the player (Vox Populi does this well), or why it's preferable to gift the AI a horde of settlers and play through a turbocharged version of the game.

 

[acluewithout]

But isn't that what difficulty levels are for?

Why can't there be more than one way to tweak difficulty?

I mean, even just the base game lets you turn on / off barbarians, goody huts and victory conditions, adjust speed and maps, and change the number of civs and city states, all of which change the difficulty of the game. That's all in addition to actually changing the difficulty level.

 

[Myomoto]

100% agree here. I played some games with this change in place - and those playthroughs felt so different in a positive way. The happiness yielding districts become way more of a deal and unless a new city instantly gives access to a new luxury, it is an investment first with the ROI coming later. Often new cities start with the red unhappiness warning. Or your capital grows in the first couple of turns after the game and becomes unhappy. And you have to cope with it - or encouraged to find a way to compensate. You could actually be encouraged to spend some gold for buying a luxury ressource from an opponent... It is even a change the AI can cope with or even profit from - they care for Entertainment and Luxuries anyway.

Sadly, that is also likely the reason why it doesn't work that way unmodded - the fear to "frustrate" the player instantly after one of the key "lucky moments" in civ (city founding). IMHO, this is very short-sighted - in the long run you get more fun out of the game, if you are presented with meaningful and though decisions instead of getting pampered all the time. Luckily, it is at least one of the things everyone can easily correct him/herself, if desired.

Interesting, any mod in particular you recommend for this change? I will try this for my next game I think.

I would also really like to see a corruption style mechanic, where cities more distant from the capital and/or government plaza would suffer yield losses (more heavily penalised on gold) due to corruption and poor management. Governors could exert a small radius to counteract this penalty as well, and later techs/civics like radio and internet could help counteract corruption as well.

This would help balance going too wide, although densely packed cities are maybe less affected. Likewise, a health mechanic that increases chances of epidemic outbreaks in tall cities would help keep tall cities from dominating, and diseases spread more easily to nearby cities to penalise too densely packed cities. Basically any city development should carry with it a number of benefits and disadvantages/risks, so there is no easy 'optimal' city layout.

I agree this kind of advanced management is probably better fit for optional game modes.

 

[Melkus]

Why can't there be more than one way to tweak difficulty?

Sure, maybe that came across a bit more antagonistic than necessary. If it's a rule change for everyone, it could probably be a mode.

But the problem with the current difficulty settings is exactly this: if you tweak the map settings to your advantage and neutralize the AI (diplo logic helps a lot here), the difficulty doesn't matter that much. It's basically the same game with faster opponents.

I'd still prefer if Firaxis would focus on making a sane standard version of the game, which is played well by the AI (they are making progress there) and gets the rhythm of eras and tech progress right. That base can then be stretched into weirder directions by game modes (and mods) and made harder or easier for the player by difficulty settings (mix of empire management penalties and AI bonuses).
If they introduce modes that aim at making the game more challenging and more strategic, they have to juggle them all later while balancing the game - not to mention the necessary AI programming.

 

[Pietato]

Standard speed. I didn't have any horses. I also never got the opportunity to make a builder. And his horse would have even killed my only spearman (only on turn 50 don't forget, and I had been under barb siege for nearly 20 turns before the war).

@JesseS I do agree that the AI doesn't choose a VC to pursue that early, but I myself struggle to win before turn 300 even when playing warmonger style. Maybe I'm just not playing focused enough.

Sounds like you need to kill more barb scouts. As for Ghenghis, sometimes you just have to declare war on him first, before he can send you a trade route. I know, it sucks.

 

[Pietato]

The game should not be decided by turn 100, with the rest being filler.