Why Do I Suck So Bad?

[Powerwise]

I seriously can't move past the industrial era, or perhaps immediately before it, without every AI suddenly accelerating past me technologically, militarily and in every other way possibly imaginable. The game simply ceases to be fun at this point. Shortly thereafter my populace becomes absolutely miserable and my approval rating drops into the mid-to-low thirties, never to recover. And I'm only playing on king.

Seriously, how the hell do you do this? It's fun up until this point, but then becomes unplayable. And since your population is absolutely miserable, your soldiers are useless, too. Do I just suck at this mod? Or is it designed to be so frustratingly challenging?

 

[Drakle]

Industry is underrated as a policy tree. It is very powerful in managing happiness, and is really helpful at getting over the Industrial unhappiness hump. Rationalism is pretty weak at happiness management, and Imperalism is only good for warmongers.

City states are key for happiness management. Luxuries, yields, free units, etc.

 

[Powerwise]

Industry is underrated as a policy tree. It is very powerful in managing happiness, and is really helpful at getting over the Industrial unhappiness hump. Rationalism is pretty weak at happiness management, and Imperalism is only good for warmongers.

City states are key for happiness management. Luxuries, yields, free units, etc.

I seem to just lose my mojo, as it were, around this point. My hat's off to the developers of this mod, however, vanilla being what it is.

 

[azum4roll]

You're probably doing something wrong. Can you screenshot your territory?

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Powerwise, I encourage you to share a video of your play or game screenshots with a bit of description as to what policies you chose, what tech order you followed etc., so we can help.

If you want to, you can change the A-B-C bonuses so that the game will be easier in the later eras. Would that interest you?

 

[Stalker0]

And I'm only playing on king.

So first thing is to reset your expectations. VP is night and day harder than vanilla on the mid difficulty levels. So its not "only King" its "I have set on the challenge that is King".

So I would drop back to prince and practice your fundamentals until you win more games than you lose, than go back up to King.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

So first thing is to reset your expectations. VP is night and day harder than vanilla on the mid difficulty levels. So its not "only King" its "I have set on the challenge that is King".

So I would drop back to prince and practice your fundamentals until you win more games than you lose, than go back up to King.

Something is up though... I do think B values are maybe a bit high. I've played a few consecutive King games with some weirdness that seems to kick up around late Renaissance/Industrial. The new PW buff is solid though and definitely helps on the happiness front.

My current game (Standard / Continents / Carthage / Progress / Statecraft / Industry) has seen me first in score for almost the entire game through 275 turns with a 12 city empire and world religion + dominant congress control, yet all 7 of the other AI are somehow ahead of me in both techs and policies, some of them by 2, 3, or even 4 techs -- also no 3/4UC this game so none of that is from yield bloat or extra power spikes. Granted most of them went Rationalism, but a 5 city Authority/Imperialism France with exactly 0 conquered cities or waged wars (except the war he just got brokered into against me, despite me being arguably his best ally lol, but I know @Recursive is already on it) is somehow ahead of me in both departments aside from score. Like, come on... I also have 6 CS allies with 14 active trade routes alongside nabbing both Sistine and most recently Eiffel. I am the only Progress civ while everyone else is either Trad/Authority with no more than 6 cities so their should definitely be some breathing room or separation.

Here's me beating a dead horse again, but why even play peaceful wide when the only advantage seems to be bigger supply (supply I can't even fill because most cities have absurd %increases to unit cost/production with the slightest bit of local unhappiness)? What is the point of me playing wide Progress successfully and having to struggle with the negative aspects of wide (more unhappiness, increased unit production%, more micro, harder diplo, etc.) if there's no tangible benefit and it doesn't pay off in the long run? Civs can just 5 city turtle on not only Tradition, but now seemingly Authority, and still somehow be on par with a peaceful wide civ who's objectively dominating the game in every other facet? Hopefully it's just the B value...

I'm going to repost this in the main thread alongside some picture examples if I get the chance.

 

[Eddie.exe]

Yeah, I have to agree with Kim here, progress is in a weird spot viability-wise. Still leagues better than liberty was in vanilla civ V

 

[Zanteogo]

Yeah, I have to agree with Kim here, progress is in a weird spot viability-wise. Still leagues better than liberty was in vanilla civ V

Wide progress is still crazy good. I agree the happiness issue needs a good look at, and perhaps some minor tweaks to keep endless unhappiness from being the norm.

When ever this is brought up the positive effects of wide play are ignored. Things like monopolies, blocking access to other civs and easier religious control.