Wanting to have more fun playing Fall from Heaven

[Elyssaen]

I've been playing it for a week or two now and I'm hitting much the same problem I have with normal Civ 4.

I'm a casual player and I've never bothered to work out how to optimise how I play, so I play on Settler – Noble, and on Normal speed. Other than the early bumpy part of Fall from Heaven where the barbarians are very dangerous, a game of FfH goes much the same as a normal Civ 4 game for me: my nation is more advanced, larger and the enemies seem to know neither how to attack nor defend.

I know I play on too easy a mode, and am considering switching it up.

I'm also wondering if there's a modmod that would help me get the game experience I'm after. Since I play casually and I guess don't really know the intricacies, I still want to have a bit of a head on the AI in infrastructure, but I also really want them to be able to put up a fight.

They don't field large enough armies. Ever. They're also rarely aggressive enough… left to their own devices, the AI never seems to manage to kill each other off. If you're at war and you don't go on the offensive, they never really put much effort into attacking you.

I've tried an experiment playing at Deity but giving myself World Builder freebies to keep the difficulty level the same, but I haven't played it enough to know if it's working. If it does make a difference to AI cleverness I'd be happy doing it.

Nothing seems to stop them having six workers all working the same raw mana, all turning it into different mana nodes, though.

What configuration of difficulty setting, speed, game settings (Aggressive AI?) and modmods do you think would work best for me? I'm never sure about moving up from Normal to Epic/Marathon as while I want slower research times (more fighting in each era) I don't really want slower unit production times. I should also note I'd rather not add new features to the game for now, so I'm avoiding Fall Further.

Thanks for any advice (particularly about modmods that make the AI less stupid).

 

[Lone Wolf]

Experiment in moving up 'till you find a level with suits you the most. For me, Monarch/Emperor with some AI early research tweaks is quite balanced.

There are also AI modmods in the respective section, although they need to be updated to the patch f.

 

[Elyssaen]

Is Orbis the one I've read about which convinces the AI to use much better armies? I'd consider that, but it also seems to add a lot of new civilisations. I'm fine with – and in some cases would love – a modmod which rebalances a few things, but not changes the game massively. (Not yet!)

I'm looking at FFH TweakMod, though I don't know if it makes the AI any cleverer in war. Also, can multiple modmods be used at once? So if I did like TweakMod and I find one that improves the AI (assuming TweakMod doesn't), would it work?

 

[Jet]

They don't field large enough armies. Ever. They're also rarely aggressive enough… left to their own devices, the AI never seems to manage to kill each other off.

I've never seen that. In my games they field large enough armies and kill each other off.

I play with default settings, just No Tech Brokering. At Emperor+Increasing or higher. Typically Tectonics, 30% water, "small" size (like normal/large because of the low water level), 12 civs. The large number of land contacts and civs might promote war. I also include some random Good/Neutral/Evil to make sure there's some alignment conflict.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Also, can multiple modmods be used at once?

That depends.

On higher levels, while technically the AI doesn't get smarter at war, it may seem that way due to their bonuses overcoming some of their flaws.

I've never seen that. In my games they field large enough armies and kill each other off.

The OP plays on Noble...

 

[Jet]

The OP plays on Noble.

So what? I read the post. It's not obvious why the lower level would cause them to not kill each other, anyway.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's not obvious why the lower level would cause them to not kill each other, anyway.

It does, though. Mainly because the AI operates on "quantity, not quality" principle when managing units, and with less bonuses it lacks the necessary quality.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

play Wild Mana at noble, then up the difficulty level if it's still too easy.

 

[Cupric Leane]

In many ways, you have answered your own question. I suggest playing on a higher difficulty level, but, instead of jumping all the way to Deity, go up to Monarch. The AI will have certain advantages but you will still be able to keep them off. Play with aggressive AI and Raging Barbs. I say Monarch rather than Emperor (which is where I have started to play and have finally met a reasonably competent AI challenge) because you need to figure out the mechanics of the game better. There are many, many aspects of gameplay that are just too enjoyable not to exploit. I guess what I am saying is that it sounds like the issue is more attitudinal than game-mechanical (other than AI on lower levels just isn't much of a challenge anyway).

I enjoy building Pact of the Nilhorn, buffing them up to 100 and neighbor-stomping with them. You may not.

Set the game to double armageddon counter and play as a good civ set on destroying everything evil. That will challenge your game-skills. Gift Ashen Veil (through WB) to one or more of your enemies along with the tech that allows it to be used and watch yourself scramble to contain the damage.

I hope some of this helps.

 

[Bill Bisco]

You need to play MP. That's the only way you'll ever get a challenge, and actually be tested in order to win. Higher difficulties generally mean turtling a little longer until you can get sufficient powerful troops to win.

 

[Elyssaen]

I can see that the AI might be better at fighting wars on a higher difficulty level. Perhaps the AI aren't as stupid as I thought, but on lower difficulties they can't cope with the player advantages / lack of bonuses and end up rather being very passive.

Has everyone else seen the AI stacking numerous workers on the same raw mana mode, all refining it into a different type? That really frustrated me. If they do stuff like that, their economy is going to be shot to hell on any difficulty level – well, arbitrary bonuses will fix it, but still.

When I'm playing Fall from Heaven it's the roleplaying aspect I like most. I know that my level as a player is limited when I research technologies and manage production according to roleplaying rationale rather than gaming rationale, but it's how I have the most fun. Of course, roleplaying requires suspension of disbelief and the AI are too passive not to ruin it the way I'm playing now.

I've installed Wild Mana for the AI improvement. I'll try Aggressive AI and am still deciding about Raging Barbarians. The challenge of it is good; the tedium is not. I'll try Prince first, and hopefully Prince + Wild Mana will mean I'm not so frustrated with the AI's stupidity. That, more than a more difficult game, is what I'm after. I'm probably going to go with Luchuirp and try this Erebus Continent script, set to have very little bad terrain (little jungle, desert and tundra) so every nation has the potential to be powerful, regardless of starting position.

For checking out whether the AI is playing reasonably enough (decent score by turn X, able to defeat each other, not having workers act like morons) in Wild Mana, is there a convenient way to play a game as a 'watcher'? I did try that at one point but all I could think of was using WB to make a mountain-trapped island for myself, and then using WB-produced Shadows so I wasn't blind. Somehow invisible Shadows still manage to make diplomatic contact, so my role as invisible observer was ruined and I abandoned the trial.

 

[JonathanStrange]

Heh. The experience of NOT having to struggle against the AI, Deity only means "turtling a little bit longer", not seeing large AI armies, not seeing enemy AI civs destroyed by other AI civs, of MP the only way to be challenged? Totally different experience and reality from what I've seen: civs overrun by their neighbors, gigantic AI stacks, and a struggle in all stages of the game.

I've played enough MP to prefer them if we could actually finish a game, but I think it's completely misleading to tell someone who's only played FFH2 a short while that MP is the only way to get a challenge. The FFH2 AI is disappointing compared to a human but I've found Deity level, pangaea games (with no WorldBuilder goodies all over the place), with Raging Barbs and the rest on, those games are challenging throughout.

Anyone who can only be challenged in MP games and finds the higher levels only mean "turtling a little longer" should be in the strategy subforum telling us how the game should be played. That would be simpler than us bothering with certain ideal research paths or civ strategies.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would recommend using either the Increasing Difficulty or Flexible Difficulty Option, so the game will be easier when you are weak early on but will get tougher when you have a big lead. Personally I prefer Flexible Difficulty, so it will get easier again if and when you fall way behind again. I usually start on Noble, fall down to Chieftain at some point, and then quickly rise to Deity where I spend most the game.

 

[Bill Bisco]

I can see that the AI might be better at fighting wars on a higher difficulty level. Perhaps the AI aren't as stupid as I thought, but on lower difficulties they can't cope with the player advantages / lack of bonuses and end up rather being very passive.

The AI is not smarter at higher difficulty levels. The AI simply has more bonuses to shore up its poor research and building decisions. Its more passive at lower difficulties because they aren't able to make armies as quickly and make up for bad tech decisions.

Heh. The experience of NOT having to struggle against the AI, Deity only means "turtling a little bit longer", not seeing large AI armies, not seeing enemy AI civs destroyed by other AI civs, of MP the only way to be challenged? Totally different experience and reality from what I've seen: civs overrun by their neighbors, gigantic AI stacks, and a struggle in all stages of the game.

I've played enough MP to prefer them if we could actually finish a game, but I think it's completely misleading to tell someone who's only played FFH2 a short while that MP is the only way to get a challenge. The FFH2 AI is disappointing compared to a human but I've found Deity level, pangaea games (with no WorldBuilder goodies all over the place), with Raging Barbs and the rest on, those games are challenging throughout.

Anyone who can only be challenged in MP games and finds the higher levels only mean "turtling a little longer" should be in the strategy subforum telling us how the game should be played. That would be simpler than us bothering with certain ideal research paths or civ strategies.

It's more challenging because the AI gets huge bonuses to make big stacks for them to blunder into your cities, and raging barbs means you spending more time micromanaging to kill barbs off.

Just make a big host of archers and defend your cities and territories until such time as you can tech to a unit that wins the game (IE vamps and Firebows and Fireball Golems).

 

[Lord Yanaek]

I would recommend using either the Increasing Difficulty or Flexible Difficulty Option, so the game will be easier when you are weak early on but will get tougher when you have a big lead. Personally I prefer Flexible Difficulty, so it will get easier again if and when you fall way behind again. I usually start on Noble, fall down to Chieftain at some point, and then quickly rise to Deity where I spend most the game.

Flexible Difficulty looks nice, but works only for single player.
Would it be possible to make it work for a team of 2 human players and the other players being AI. Since all humans would be in a sinlge team, they would both be either on the lead or lagging behind, it's not very different from a single player, thought i have no idea how hard this change would be to code

 

[Emptiness]

Turning up the difficulty has already been suggested, and that's a good idea. Flexible and Increasing difficulty might be a problem, if you're not comfortable with the higher difficulty levels. Yes, it will make things tougher, but you might not enjoy it. I'd suggest just raising the static difficulty at which you play, at least until you're able to play comfortably at Emperor difficulty.

I also recommend that you play on Pangea maps. The AI has trouble coping with isolation, including islands and continents as well as the mountain chains produced by the Erebus and Erebus Continents mapscripts. This problem is worse at lower difficulty levels. When all the civs have access to one another there is more chance that strong civs will gobble up weak ones, so that you'll have a half-way decent opponent.

Additionally, I like to play with Permanent Alliances enabled. This allows two AIs to group up against you, which can allow them to challenge you in a way that individually they cannot. Likewise I suggest that you leave Vassal States enabled, because this can help the AI cobble together multiple civs into a worthwhile foe.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Without Vassal States, however, empires of conquest are more common.

 

[Fafnir13]

I also recommend that you play on Pangea maps. The AI has trouble coping with isolation, including islands and continents as well as the mountain chains produced by the Erebus and Erebus Continents mapscripts.

I would rate this as the biggest problem the AI has. I have seen the AI mount an amphibious assault (I was overjoyed), but they lacked follow through and didn't make a second attempt.

 

[Senethro]

There are AI improvements coming to the main mod soon. I suggest putting the game aside for a bit so you don't burn out before they get added.

 

[hbar]

I had the same problem as the OP about a year ago, and the only way I found to cure it was to up the difficulty and lose several times. Once I got an idea of why I was losing, I got a lot better at the game and now I can play an enjoyable game at Emperor (although I still lose/don't finish many games).