Vox Populi very very hard after update?

[glider1]

It is awesome that I have to drop down in difficulty even two levels really happy because it produces more interesting games. If I had a word of advice for people playing CIV6. STOP playing it if you want a better AI. Firaxis will never improve the AI unless people stop playing. They don't improve the game for love.... but for money.

Finally in VP we are no longer playing that twisted sick catchup routine against bloated handicap infantile AIs. We only used to put up with that in the past because we had no choice and were addicted to the civ series. NOW with VP we have a choice

 

[anip94]

yeah it got noticeably harder for me. neighboring AI seems hell bent on declaring war now on early stages despite little to none diplomatic dispute.

 

[GoatsHeadSoup]

Its been the opposite for me. The last time I lost in VP was almost a year ago, although I have only played one game with the most recent update. The AI is still pretty easy to crush on Prince as long as you play aggressively and constantly wage war on any weaker civs. The AI, as good as it is with VP, is still not great at defending against player controlled carpets of doom. I wonder if the people who are struggling against the AI are playing too peacefully.

 

[Txurce]

yeah it got noticeably harder for me. neighboring AI seems hell bent on declaring war now on early stages despite little to none diplomatic dispute.

The AI's aggressiveness isn't affected by the changes. The difference is probably that you are not as prepared to stand up to them as you used to be, because they're more efficient -- including the building of an early army. If the AI finds you weak at any level, it will likely attack. This has always been true.

 

[Stalker0]

Its been the opposite for me. The last time I lost in VP was almost a year ago, although I have only played one game with the most recent update. The AI is still pretty easy to crush on Prince as long as you play aggressively and constantly wage war on any weaker civs. The AI, as good as it is with VP, is still not great at defending against player controlled carpets of doom. I wonder if the people who are struggling against the AI are playing too peacefully.

Time to upgrade to king!!

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

The only "easier" thing is that it's significantly easier to get a religion than before because the bonuses are less front-loaded. That's what's been keeping me afloat in certain Deity games I've played.

 

[Soren L]

Its been the opposite for me. The last time I lost in VP was almost a year ago, although I have only played one game with the most recent update. The AI is still pretty easy to crush on Prince as long as you play aggressively and constantly wage war on any weaker civs. The AI, as good as it is with VP, is still not great at defending against player controlled carpets of doom. I wonder if the people who are struggling against the AI are playing too peacefully.

It was quite the opposite for me. I was in constant war from very early on. So building units and cities in production-mode made me come sooo behind in policy's. When I retired, I was 20 policy's behind the leader, who attacked with Modern destroyers and planes against my Frigates, in the year 1913!!! I ended on a -35 happiness and had to fight of hordes of barbarians as well... It was laughable.

 

[ElliotS]

The only "easier" thing is that it's significantly easier to get a religion than before because the bonuses are less front-loaded. That's what's been keeping me afloat in certain Deity games I've played.

Also there were those bugs that allowed the AI to get a discount on great prophets, and the settling handicap bonus on their first city, enabling turn 1 shrines in every AI city.

 

[tu_79]

It was quite the opposite for me. I was in constant war from very early on

This is weird. Do you play with Transparent Diplomacy? If so, can you say what do your neighbours think of you?
Normally, when all civs pick on a human player that early it is due to a lackluster army. This is more true in lower difficulties. But this has been default behaviour for a long time, no related to recent changes.

I can see how being constantly at war without being prepared for that ruins your game.

 

[andersw]

A few things struck me in my latest game (and one that I watched on youtube).

a. AI picking more useful beliefs and making a good benefit of their religion instead of seemingly just choosing something random.

b. Pulling units together for strong waves of offensive attacks.

c. Doing well in science, I need to work to stay ahead on king diff.

 

[GoatsHeadSoup]

Time to upgrade to king!!

Yeah, you are probably right, but I don't like the idea of the AI getting cheats. Usually when I want an extra challenge I set the number of AI to 22, that always makes the game much harder.

 

[Maddiekins]

I've also had to go down a difficulty level from immortal to emperor, and I'm very pleased! While the AI still makes mistakes, I'm really glad to see them overall better choices. The only thing I would say that if I have a close warmonger neighbor, I usually choose to restart if my capital isn't an tactically ideal location that's easy to defend.

 

[Noob Fanboy]

I was really surprised today, without ancient ruins my neighbour Attila rushed Mathematics and then attack me in turn 70, inmortal level, standard speed. I delayed walls 10 turns without need, and i payed for it. Really well played, sneaky bastard.

Edit: It was my mistake too, i wanted to grab a natural wonder, the city wasn't defensive enough without walls

 

[BiteInTheMark]

The increase in difficulty is mainly based on the building order improvement. Former (culture) buildings were ignored, making AI cities less efficient than the human ones. This major increase in AI strenght wasnt compensated by less handicap or less extra yields by events. It stayed the same. (Only the yield gain by GP was cut down)
The handicap and extra yields were balanced to the bad building order AI, but now the same advantages are going to the much better AI. Making the same difficulty much more difficult.
There is no shame to go one step down.

I would like to see atleast the starting units reduced to human level (or atleast only 1 scout and no worker but 2/3 warrior in higher level) cause its nothing else than the catch up we had in vanilla. Before iam able to build one worker, the AI can already create 2 farms, maybe at river, which gives them +4 food or +2 settler production. If I do that, thats sometimes a huge delay or deathblow to a good pantheon or religion.
I wished, we had less handicaps for the AI (cause I like the better decision making of AI in higher difficulty but without being outproduced in nearly ever manner), cause the AI dont need such high handicaps, to play as same as dificult than 6 month ago.

The extra worker also distort AI starts. On the one side AI with capital in jungle/forest are in the disadvantage, cause their worker cant do anything, while other nations on river may improve the fields to 4 yield tiles. And on the other side, in 70% of the game i automatically declare war on my closest neighbor to steal worker, at turn 10, something AI would never do.

 

[tu_79]

I would like to see atleast the starting units reduced to human level (or atleast only 1 scout and no worker but 2/3 warrior in higher level) cause its nothing else than the catch up we had in vanilla.

I hope we can move everything to avoid catch ups. Recent experience with AI handicaps has shown that it works well when AI advantages are fewer at the start, feels more natural. Free units is the next step. If AI needs more (or better) units to deal with the increased barbarians of higher difficulties, so be it, but workers might not be needed for this purpose.

 

[Soren L]

This is weird. Do you play with Transparent Diplomacy? If so, can you say what do your neighbours think of you?
Normally, when all civs pick on a human player that early it is due to a lackluster army. This is more true in lower difficulties. But this has been default behaviour for a long time, no related to recent changes.

I can see how being constantly at war without being prepared for that ruins your game.

Yes, played with transparent diplomacy. They all hated me (hostile) except for one. I had more units than was 'allowed', but it was all land units for a very long time and taking a city took forever. My war weariness was high too (guess it adds to unhappiness)

 

[tu_79]

My war weariness was high too

Here.

War weariness is a mechanic to slow down warmongers. You need to make short wars with specific goals. If war takes too long or you lose too many units, war weariness strikes. Also, if you went all expansionist, AI is not going to like you. See what the tooltip says hovering over the icons of each leader in the bar to the right. There you can see numbers on how AI opinion works.

 

[Soren L]

War weariness is a mechanic to slow down warmongers

I was not a warmonger per se. I was attacked early on. I made peace but as soon as peace treaty expired was attacked again. The another civ joined... and another and another. I was only defending. I didn't look at their opinions of me and the save game has been overwritten. I assume they were angry because I had spies stealing and they got caught all the time. But I had to do it coz I was so far behind...

 

[Txurce]

I was not a warmonger per se. I was attacked early on. I made peace but as soon as peace treaty expired was attacked again. The another civ joined... and another and another. I was only defending. I didn't look at their opinions of me and the save game has been overwritten. I assume they were angry because I had spies stealing and they got caught all the time. But I had to do it coz I was so far behind...

I suggest you start another game, and make sure you have at least an average military from the start. See what happens.

 

[Soren L]

I suggest you start another game

I did It's going much better now, but now my game crashes. I seem to be struck with bad luck here...