Ive been playing VP for a few years on and off, and am i the only one who thinks it gotten easier in time? i used to find it super difficult on Emporer, recently ive been playing on Immortal and breeze thru most my games. Currently playing Rome on Emporer, not a tech focused civ at all, I had a pretty cruddy spot getting forward settled to hell by everyone (i only ended up settling 3 cities and one was subpar) and having to go to war asap to spread. Figured id gain some spread and then have to play catch up on science and culture, but by the renaissance era, with near-nonstop wars i had 3 capitals, and was a whopping FIFTEEN techs ahead of the runner up. Seems pretty crazy of a snowball for Immortal difficulty, idk if maybe ive just gotten better or if the mod has gotten easier, but i havent had a game in the last 4 runs which i didnt breeze thru and wipe the comp, and theyve all been on immortal diff. Is anyone else experiencing this?
Too Easy?
- Thread starter Violett
- Start date
ShadedSkies
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2014
- Messages
- 89
If Immortal is too easy then you should probably play on Deity. I have a hard time comparing difficulties because there have been patches where you could win a cultural victory on Deity in the Medieval era just by spamming wonders as Arabia and some where you end up in constant revolts due to unhappiness in the Industrial era.
I do wish it was harder, maybe by giving the AI more bonuses across every difficulty. Does anyone actually play the lower difficulties?
I do wish it was harder, maybe by giving the AI more bonuses across every difficulty. Does anyone actually play the lower difficulties?
I have to agree, the AI just doesn't keep up with me anymore. I've had times where I felt I was doing quite poorly because things had gone wrong and my build order was taking forever, but then I look and my empire of 6 cities with 0 councils is ahead in science somehow. I think there has been a noticeable drop ever since the major changes to food. These days I only struggle against happiness, or against very, very early aggression (like immortals).
Yes, they do get played. Ideas to add difficulties beyond Deity have been suggested before, but even Settler difficulty is used.
Deljade
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 312
Beware of giving more bonuses to the AI as it can bar the player from the most finer aspects of the game such as wonderbuilding and religion and peaceful expansion, therefore leaving warfare as the ONLY viable route to victory. Want a diplomatic victory but didn't get a religion (which already feels very hard to get without a faithmonger civ)? Just conquer your neighbour that got one and reform it. Didn't get any wonders for your cultural victory? Just take it from an AI and loot their great works. AI expansion is choking you out? Just take their own cities.
In my view, any further bonuses to the AI should be directed at specific eras where the computer usually falls behind and specific areas so that the player's options remain open. Always considering the case of runaways of course.
In my view, any further bonuses to the AI should be directed at specific eras where the computer usually falls behind and specific areas so that the player's options remain open. Always considering the case of runaways of course.
tu_79
Deity
You put it as if the AI was fixing itself... :'D
It's Gazebo and ilteroi's work to fine tweak the AI. I think they watch AI games, see what they are not doing well, and modify AI behaviour, but this takes a lot of work and time. Even worse, sometimes the tool they use to put all the changes together fails and some of their work is not loaded into the released code.
It may help if we find the patterns that made the AI fall behind, such as building settlers when they should not, or the opposite. But you know, with a savegame so they can replicate and test the values.
To be fair, you're talking about using aggression to help catch up in situations where you have fallen behind from mistakes. And that is exactly what VP wants to do, encourage more direct interaction between civs, which in many cases is war.
Turns out when you slowly strip away AI handicaps for years this happens...(lots of people have demanded over the years that we strip AI handicap bonuses like growth out. They made a difference).
G
tu_79
Deity
Because it handles its units much better now. Maybe not growth (it meddles too much with the happiness system), but it could regain some handicap yields, especially in early game.
A different thing I noticed is that, at least in King, I can keep fighting the same war for 50+ turns and take 3 cities in a row, before war weariness stops me.
I remember the push to remove their growth bonuses, I think it made more sense back when there was a ton of bonus food.
Also, does the AI still have that feature that if you play on Deity, they respect your military more? I remember ElliotS really wanted it, but it is bizarre. I see reports of AI aggression on King which don't match Deity aggression even if my military sucks.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
The AI believes that Deity-level players can do with a smaller military than a King-level player. Is this correct?
And I'm still in favour. AI had too much hammer bloat with never ending waves of units. I prefer how it is now. I've been playing Emperor with equally tweaked starting units (warrior and scout for everyone with no starting worker for AI) and I'm enjoying it personally.
If changes are made, I wouldn't do it at the beginning, but somewhere in mid game. Bonuses in early game feel the most unfair, and has the greatest snowball effect. You start off behind at the beginning any way, more bonuses just makes you feel moreso.
By midgame is when you are generally starting to catchup, so increasing the bonus around this time can help keep the AI in step with you.
Also...I would only boost diety. If your not playing diety yet, you can't claim the AI is too easy
If diety players want more punishment, let them have it!
By midgame is when you are generally starting to catchup, so increasing the bonus around this time can help keep the AI in step with you.
Also...I would only boost diety. If your not playing diety yet, you can't claim the AI is too easy
If diety players want more punishment, let them have it!Yes EDIT: No, it doesn't G clarified below.
Another factor is on Deity there are a lot fewer barbarians than lower difficulties, because city states start with 3 warriors and clear the first wave of camps. So early military really isn't important, it encourages a really greedy build order.
Last edited:
We could tweak the handicap A/B/C values a bit for deity. I forget how we had that formula set up.
G
G
tu_79
Deity
The bigger number is for early game. Be it A or C. B is for mid game.
I suggest toy boost the early game since I'm feeling that AI is struggling with the early expansion, making it easier for the player to defend until he can catch up with technology.
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
CrazyG, any chance you could do a video on you playing on Deity? I'd love to see you play and a video would IMO be even more informative than your playthroughs with screenshots. Even if the video was without audio, I'd find it very helpful and I imagine many others would as well, considering how good of a player you are.
Or for that matter I'd love a video of any other player playing on Deity on standard size&speed
Thanks to anyone for doing videos or posting links to existing ones!
Or for that matter I'd love a video of any other player playing on Deity on standard size&speed
Thanks to anyone for doing videos or posting links to existing ones!
