To all the people who say Civ 5 is too easy compared to Civ 4...

[zonk]

Maybe the problem is that you WANT to win in V (or that the game sort of forces you to 'play to win').

I struggled mightily just to truly "beat" the AI on normal in IV, but I've already won a deity game (and will shortly win another) on V.... Why?

V has taken a way a lot of the detours that made me, to a large extent, not really care about "winning" in IV. Yes, yes -- I was well aware of the 'rules' to win in IV... rush this, then attack that... convert this to later do that... don't build wonders, capture them.... etc. I never employed any of the 'proven' strategies to win in IV because frankly, I didn't really care all that much about winning. I think I played chieftan one city challenge way back in BTS solely to see the victory movies -- but other than that, I was perfectly fine plodding along mixing and matching different aspects of the game.... Building all the wonders I could, maxing out resource benefits, tinkering with different building build sequences, some war, some religion, some espionage, etc.

You get punished more for "detours" in V -- and V just feels more like the whole point is to win, rather than winning simply being the end result of a really fun journey.

I've now won domination (King), Space Race (Emperor), UN (immortal), and should win a culture victory later tonight on deity.... Once I do that - I guess there's still the science victory - but then what?

I've "beat" the game.... What more will there be to do?

 

[ds61514]

Very interesting answer zonk. . I do have a couple questions:

You get punished more for "detours" in V -- and V just feels more like the whole point is to win, rather than winning simply being the end result of a really fun journey.

I'm curious, what was your Civ 5 tech path? In my (only) Deity standard win, I went domination but my early tech went middle path (horses), upper path (writing, philosophy, education) and segued into middle path (chivalry + banking). I eschewed the lower path (all the military stuff) until after I conquered my continent.

In contrast, in Civ 4, going the middle path (aka liberalism) was HEAVILY favored line. A great scientist can pop philosophy, paper (not recommended..), education & liberalism. You could then trade for all the lower and upper techs as needed. Tech trading reduces the need for specialization since you can backfill everything.

However, maybe you're right in that people are trying to win more in Civ 5 than in Civ 4. The Steam achievements are probably a non-significant reason for that...

In any difficulty in IV I could win the early rush and take out the closest three or four AI without breaking a sweat. But then I would not have the infrastructure in place to support all of my captured cities, my economy would collapse, and I would be out of the game.

Build wealth and/or research? Whip your captured cities? What infrastructure did you need in Civ 4 to succeed .

 

[Zogar]

@Zonk : Winning Deity in every mode (try a late domination, should be fun ^^). After that you wait for modders to fix the game .

Also I find diplomacy victory is way too easy to achieve, you just need some gold and not be too far behind in tech.

 

[r_rolo1]

In contrast, in Civ 4, going the middle path (aka liberalism) was HEAVILY favored line. A great scientist can pop philosophy, paper (not recommended..), education & liberalism. You could then trade for all the lower and upper techs as needed. Tech trading reduces the need for specialization since you can backfill everything.

That was just because civ IV AI was more sensible than you and actually tried to make a minimally balanced tech path, allowing you to have something to trade for the lib techs. Try the lib path in MP ( even on pitboss, where things are normally that ruthless ) and you will see maces and knights stomping your archers and axes in the moment people see you going to lib ... just because if you go lib, it means you should have little to none medieval units

Basically, the lib path is only good because the Ai in civ IV is normally sheepish and dull enough for allowing a parasite to suck their techs and go away with it

 

[Zelig]

Don't your horsemen become ineffective from all that unhappiness? Happiness is my primary stumbling block in CiV.

From what unhappiness? I just raze everything.

 

[Psyringe]

If the AI was so good at employing the new mechanics, how come they kept dying to axe rushes? In a game with chops, slavery & AI maintenance cheats, having two archers at a border city @ 500 BC is unacceptable .

I didn't say "so good", I said "decent". Imho, the AI defense strategies in release-day Civ4 were adequate. There were weaknesses of course (the devs probably hadn't expected axemen to be that strong in rushes against cities), and as the players' strategies evolved (axemen rush wasn't conceived on day 1), the AI had to be adapted. That's standard stuff.

Translated to Civ5, if the only complaint was that horsemen were too powerful in early rushes, I'd chalk it up to the same error. And while I'd wonder a bit why the devs made the same mistake twice, I wouldn't be worried that it can be fixed.

However, the complaints about Civ5 are not that a single unit is more powerful than expected and that the AI can be overwhelmed by it. The main complaint about the AI is that it's incapable of dealing with 1upt combat and logistics even on the most basic level. Read the reports about dozens of units embarking piecemeal, two or three per turn, only to be destroyed by the player's ships each and every time. Or the reports about the AI pathfinding being hopelessly out of its depth when trying to move a group of units as a single entity while maintaining sensible army lines. Or the reports about AI ranged units twiddling thumbs when they could fire at enemy units without risk. And so on. That's a very different level of stupidity than "the AI doesn't field enough archers to prevent an early axe rush", don't you think?

 

[ash88]

The higher difficulty levels don't make the AI better - it just gives it more stuff.

Set up a choke point with a citadel, declare war on the AI. Wait for it to run all of it's units into your choke and use canons(or better) to blow them all up. Then walk in and claim the AIs citys.

It works on every level.

The AI is stupid. Beating the AI because it keeps doing the same fail move over and over is not fun.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

[...]

Read the reports about dozens of units embarking piecemeal, two or three per turn, only to be destroyed by the player's ships each and every time...

It's amazing, but true - in fact it actually looks to me as though the AI is sort of trying to attack my ships with embarked ground troops. (It also keeps using them to block one-tile wide straits - which actually works, to be fair, if I don't actually want to start a war just then. But it has to stay lucky.) I think something in its code is telling it that if it floats, it's a naval unit.

Hilarious watching spearmen in boats trying to gang up on a destroyer - I've got to say there are many moments of pure comedy in this game, otherwise I don't think I'd still be playing it.

 

[Murky]

One good thing about Civ V, is that it gives you greater appreciation for what Firaxis accomplished with CIV BTS.

With people who have not done any software engineering it might be difficult to understand how big of an accomplishment that was. To draw an analogy, it's like putting together a million piece jigsaw puzzle without a picture to reference.

I imagine that given enough time to evolve, Civ V might turn into something just as good.

 

[dannythefool]

Translated to Civ5, if the only complaint was that horsemen were too powerful in early rushes, I'd chalk it up to the same error. And while I'd wonder a bit why the devs made the same mistake twice, I wouldn't be worried that it can be fixed.

It's not really only that horsemen are powerful. I don't really think they are *too* powerful. But the AI can't defend its cities very well and will often agree to peace once you take one early city. Rushes aren't working so well because horsemen are strong, they work so well because you can get a huge early advantage without really sacrificing a lot.

For example, I have a 52 turn deity domination win on a duel map where I literally just built warriors and archers and marched them to my opponent to capture his capital. No horsemen involved.

Note that I'm not really complaining about me cheesing a victory - I think it's not entirely valid to complain about early rushes being so effective, we don't have to do them.

 

[zonk]

Very interesting answer zonk. . I do have a couple questions:



I'm curious, what was your Civ 5 tech path? In my (only) Deity standard win, I went domination but my early tech went middle path (horses), upper path (writing, philosophy, education) and segued into middle path (chivalry + banking). I eschewed the lower path (all the military stuff) until after I conquered my continent.

In contrast, in Civ 4, going the middle path (aka liberalism) was HEAVILY favored line. A great scientist can pop philosophy, paper (not recommended..), education & liberalism. You could then trade for all the lower and upper techs as needed. Tech trading reduces the need for specialization since you can backfill everything.

Well, to be honest - the first deity domination took 2 tries... Initially, I always start as a wonder seeker (masonry - calendar - philosophy). This went horribly wrong, as I was stuck on a continent with Monty and Bismark - and they both DoWed me the turn after I finished the pyramids - and given my wonder focus, I was relatively easy pickings.

I liked the map, though - so I restarted and instead, went immediately for all military. This actually worked out perfectly -- Bismark actually built the pyramids AND stonehenge, while Monty built the lighthouse for some reason. I took them out one at a time, and it was pretty much clear sailing.... I puppeted their cities to start, annexing only when happiness allowed. By the end of medieval - I controlled the best continent and had my choice of 8-10 CS allies to pick and choose from.

From there, it was just a matter of working through the "unit on every tile" AI approach, which really just involved a lot of careful naval positioning.... I had a tech lead by the time I attacked (Research Treaty exploit), so it was relatively easy to get through the spam with superior units (thank YOU, CS militaristic allies). I also got rather lucky with an archipelago chain that had 3 scattered ruins -- each of which popped techs (techs I had largely bypassed - I guess in retrospect, getting a 3 turn tech isn't really that big of a deal).

 

[zonk]

However, the complaints about Civ5 are not that a single unit is more powerful than expected and that the AI can be overwhelmed by it. The main complaint about the AI is that it's incapable of dealing with 1upt combat and logistics even on the most basic level. Read the reports about dozens of units embarking piecemeal, two or three per turn, only to be destroyed by the player's ships each and every time. Or the reports about the AI pathfinding being hopelessly out of its depth when trying to move a group of units as a single entity while maintaining sensible army lines. Or the reports about AI ranged units twiddling thumbs when they could fire at enemy units without risk. And so on. That's a very different level of stupidity than "the AI doesn't field enough archers to prevent an early axe rush", don't you think?

This.

I feel like I'm playing chess with a child.... as the AI moves its seige unit directly in front of my melee front line, seemingly because its boxed it to the sides and thinks it MUST expend that move this round, I feel like I'm teaching my nephew to play chess.... "Are you sure you want to move that Queen to take my pawn, when there's a rook right behind it? Yes - I know the only move for her is forward, but do you think maybe she should just stay put this round, out of harms way, while another piece moves instead?"

I've run into those "unit on every tile" AI setups -- they look scarier than they are. When you look at the actual composition -- it makes you want to tear your hair out... why are those fast mobile units way in the back? Why are those ranged units upfront? And why are you embarking MORE units when you just saw me whack 3 defenseless pieces in the general vicinity?

 

[dexters]

cIV5 Is not easier or harder than Civ4.

It's a different game.

 

[dexters]

RE: AI ranged units not doing anything.

Unless you're in debug and can confirm unit has movement points left, it's speculation.

I've had continental invasions go south because my infantry was obliterated by AI artilerry parked further inland. They can 1-2 hit your units.

AI needs to move groups of units cohesively in a more sensible fashion. I agree, but I sense a whole lot of hyperbole here.

 

[Murky]

cIV5 Is not easier or harder than Civ4.

It's a different game.

Which game are you playing? Have you even played Civ4?

From my play testing Emperor in Civ V is about the same difficulty as Prince in Civ IV.

The AI just can't seem to adjust to 1UPT as easily as people can.

 

[zonk]

Which game are you playing? Have you even played Civ4?

From my play testing Emperor in Civ V is about the same difficulty as Prince in Civ IV.

The AI just can't seem to adjust to 1UPT as easily as people can.

Right -

That WAS the plus thing about stacks... You COULD get around the limitations of an AI simply by giving it the ability to support a bigger army, build units quicker and cheaper, and giving it a tech boost.

There just isn't a way around fixing the AI in 1UpT.... you have to teach the AI to properly group and position units because spam isn't an option (though - that certainly seems to be how they attempted to handle it).

 

[dexters]

Which game are you playing? Have you even played Civ4?

From my play testing Emperor in Civ V is about the same difficulty as Prince in Civ IV.

The AI just can't seem to adjust to 1UPT as easily as people can.

Well they can give Emperor Civ5 AI 10% combat bonus and call it a day. I've suggested the existing method of production bonuses only for Civ5 AI at higher difficulty is not the way to go.

But the 'lets give the AI a larger army' is a crutch the franchise needs to get out of anyways because it leads to really unbalanced play on the top end where all you do find exploits that mitigate AI production bonuses, like for example playing on advantageous map settings or only on certian map types.

 

[Psyringe]

Well they can give Emperor Civ5 AI 10% combat bonus and call it a day.

Wh..

*calms down*

Sorry, but if a rules system is so difficult to grasp for an AI that they need a combat cheat to be competitive, then it'd really be better to call it a day and scrap the rules system. So far, no Civ game has ever sunk to these depths, not even Civ1 with its massive arsenal of AI cheats, nor has any other serious TBS game to my knowledge. I hope that Civ5 won't be the first one, and i really can't imagine them doing this. Implementing a combat cheat in a TBS game is basically an AI programmer declaring bankruptcy.

 

[dexters]

Wh..

*calms down*

Sorry, but if a rules system is so difficult to grasp for an AI that they need a combat cheat to be competitive, then it'd really be better to call it a day and scrap the rules system. So far, no Civ game has ever sunk to these depths, not even Civ1 with its massive arsenal of AI cheats, nor has any other serious TBS game to my knowledge. I hope that Civ5 won't be the first one, and i really can't imagine them doing this. Implementing a combat cheat in a TBS game is basically an AI programmer declaring bankruptcy.

You mean giving AI massive production bonuses in 4 wasn't a cheat?

OMG.

AI being able to build 2 cavalry in the time you build 1 is pretty much like saying you have to kill a cavalry twice.

 

[Murky]

Well they can give Emperor Civ5 AI 10% combat bonus and call it a day.

That wouldn't help much and it would just make the AI even more of a cheater. Firaxis needs to tap their best AI programmers and come up with some better algorithms.

I've suggested the existing method of production bonuses only for Civ5 AI at higher difficulty is not the way to go.

Bonuses for the AI = cheating. But short of using a super-computer they just aren't going to match the best players with advanced AI algorithms alone.

At levels above Prince some AI bonuses would be OK with me. Like give them them a free tech at King and maybe have give them a 10% bonus to gold, production, science and cultural for the first 100 turns. At Emperor give them 2 free techs and a 15% bonus, Immortal a 20% and so on.

They are still going to need to refine their algorithms.

But the 'lets give the AI a larger army' is a crutch the franchise needs to get out of anyways because it leads to really unbalanced play on the top end where all you do find exploits that mitigate AI production bonuses, like for example playing on advantageous map settings or only on certian map types.

Easier said than done, but certainly there are limits to how much having extra units helps in Civ V.