Won my first VP Deity game - strategy for anyone interested

LukaSlovenia29

Emperor
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
1,500
Hi!

I just won my first Deity game on VP. Phew... The VP version was 17-10-1. I played as the Ottomans vs. manually selected opponents (Greece, Aztecs, Songhai, Rome, Poland, Arabia and Egypt), standard size and speed, oval map, all default except strategic balance resources, enabled human vassalage, disabled events and ancient ruins, enabled saving social policies, enabled research agreements and tech trading (but not brokering). (If anyone's interested, I'll post screenshots). I won a scientific victory on turn 295.

From the start it was apparent I was going to be able to get a dyes monopoly. To the north were two city states, a small inland sea and a narrow peninsula to a stripe of land, where Alexander started. To the east and south I had space for a few cities, then sea. To the west there was Rome, a city state and a small mountain range. I moved my settler to a forested hill, then settled and went straight for shrine, using my pathfinder to explore. I decided against pursuing a religion and went for God of all creation (the old one, 1c/1h per pantheon). After, building the shrine, I built a warrior and by then I researched pottery and my capital reached population 3. Since I could gain culture by working the 2 dyes tiles, I didn't focus on a monument.

I built my first settler, using it to build a city to the west, so the new city had mountains to the north, a city state to the south, Roman lands to the west and my capital to the east. I built it on hills so that any enemy could range-attack only from one tile that was two tiles away, which promised a decent defensive position. I followed by building settler number two and settling northwest of my capital, so the new city had the mountain range to the west, sea to the north (but I paid attention to settle away from the coast) and a city state to the east, so it was a decent defensive position. I built another warrior, then another settler and settling my fourth city to the east, just south of the two city states. I then built my first caravan (important as the Ottomans) and sent it to start from my second city (the closest to Caesar) to form an international trade route to Antium. I then went about researching military science (so I could build horsemen for defense and deterring the AI from DOWing me), bought a worker and connected 3 tiles with horses around my cities. Then I built my fourth settler, settling another city to the east (again non coastal, two tiles away from the sea), a horseman, and my final settler (settling to the south). I thus had 6 cities, good enough for my Ottoman strategy. By that time my first trade route was completed and I used the production to build another caravan (from sailing). Then I went to build 3 horsemen and buy one.

My strategy was to be decent enough militarily to not be a pushover, to place my border cities in easily defensible positions, to settle non-coastal cities even at the expense of losing some tiles (but in this way to prevent having to build a navy), and to be as benign and subservient to Greece&Rome by offering free gold to get the positive diplo modifier etc. In time, I made sure to send my first spy to Egypt, Rome's biggest rival, as a diplomat, so I could share intrigue with Rome, and I also rushed civil service to open borders with Greece and Rome. I also didn't use my diplomatic units against the CS in Greek&Roman sphere or go for wonders. It worked for a long time, long enough for me to build up a decent army. I use inquisitors to ensure my cities would remain following Rome's religion.

My social policy strategy was a key part of my overall gameplan. I picked the Progress opener and the two policies on the left side of the Progress tree, which provide the most long-term scaling benefits. Playing with so few social policies in the early stages of the game enabled me to gain lots of culture from trade routes to Rome and Greece. When I finally entered the Industrial era, I immediately used the saved up culture to fill out the Rationalism tree and half of the Industry tree. I then worked on finishing the Industry tree. This allowed me to have lots of science, happiness and trade routes, and also to benefit more from purchasing buildings (I made banks a priority in all my cities).

As for trade routes, throughout the game I only used international ones and always to the closer AI cities, so they were always finished in around 22-26 turns, granting me valuable yields quite often.

After entering the industrial era and setting up banks, I started to mass buy units and buildings. Once my army became modern-ish and my cities had castles&arsenals, I began to venture into actions that could have displeased the Romans and the Greeks. I DOF-ed Egypt and Poland (allowing me to make research agreements with them). I still tried to act as friendly as possible with the Romans and the Greek, even voting for their WC proposals that didn't necessarily always suit me.

Once I filled out the Industry tree, I rushed to enter the atomic age. I selected Order because it's my favourite tree for a science victory and because Egypt and Poland had taken it (Rome took Freedom) and had enough saved up culture to pick 5 Order policies. I used the free GP as a great engineer to complete the Empire State Building and then its free GP for an engineer to finish the Motherland calls. After that I saved up my GE-s to later pop Hubble&CERN and later on spaceship parts. On the last turn Poland had one tech less than me and "only" two spaceship parts completed and Rome had one spaceship part completed. Throughout the game I focused on working GS and GE specialists, somewhat focused on GM, GW and GA, and ignored great musicians.

I was attacked once in the very early game by Arabia and managed to fend it off without problems, and after that I was left pretty much alone, with the occasional demand for gold/resources, with which I always complied. Even in the later stages of the game I more or less ignored competing for city states. I used my large +GPT to buy techs and I sold some techs I discovered to the less successful civs that weren't a threat to me.

So in my opinion, some of the key elements to my Ottoman strategy are:
1. Keep your neighbour (that you'll be sending your routes to) as happy as you can.
2. Keep other AI civs as happy as possible, try to play "possum" as much as possible.
3. Defensive position should be the main criteria for selecting a settling spot. Avoid settling coastal cities.
4. Keep all your trade routes international, distribute them so that they always end in 22-26 turns.
5. Focus primarily on GS specialists and later on great writers, artists and engineers.
6. Delay as many social policies as you can until the industrial era, and once you've filled Industry and Rationalism, wait for Ideology via Atomic era.
7. Attempt to make at least one strong friend (for being gifted techs and to buy techs from) later on in the game.
8. Rush nukes as soon as possible to act as a deterrent.
9. Propose/vote for world science initiative as soon as possible.

That's it for now, I hope it was useful or interesting to at least some of you. Thanks for any feedback.
 
Not trying to be an *******, but is there a point in playing deity wen you min-max settings?

Research agreements for example are befit those pursuing a scientific victory more than any other type of victory, of the manually selected civs, no other is super focused on a science victory, allowing you to pursue it without many oppositions, no ancient ruins is a much bigger loss to the ais due to the amount of starting units they often get double the ruins a player would.

But the most cheesy of them all is the allow manually saving policies which is a settings I literally never saw anyone use for good reason as the ai has no idea how to save policies to abuse the system.

I would be more impressed at a all random immortal victory than a hand picked, min-maxed options deity victory, but that is just my opinion.
 
Doublex55, I've seen many games mentioned without research agreements, so I decided to point out that they were enabled.

DarkZero, thank you for the feedback. To your points:
1. Research agreements usually benefit the AI more because they need less science yields to discover a technology, so 10 science is more worth to the AI than to the human. Also, on higher difficulties it's very hard to a.) make friends (so very often the best AIs will have more RAs than the human player) and b.) get the Porcelain tower, which means that the AI that built it will benefit much more from RAs than any human player. Bigger benefits from research agreements means stronger science which translates into stronger AI regardless of the victory condition it pursuits.
2. I choose the civs because they are imho among the strongest AI civs in the game and because they make surviving the game (especially early/middle) much more difficult. I played a lot of games against Korea & Babylon and in most cases they were average or below average, especially Korea if it started next to a warmonger, and Babylon usually builds fewer cities than these aggressive AI civs. Poland is a clear culture leader usually meaning more science, Rome is infrastructure king (more science), Egypt's UA and starting artifacts grant lots of science,... All those civs are in my experience and from what I read on the forum from several members among the strongest and most versatile. In the latter stages of the game, Poland and Rome both had 18 cities to my 6, which is imho a fair competition for a science victory in comparison to a 4-city Babylon.
3. Agreed, disabling units is better for the player, but not by that much. I also selected this because the starting RNG ruins-wise can drastically alter the course of a game from an average one to below- or above-average one, depending on what you get in the first two/three ruins.
4. Saving policies -> in February 2017, I started a thread asking about this -> https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/saving-policies-and-ai.610725/ - Funak said he thinks saving policies is almost never the right move because of the lost yields while waiting, and this was "liked" by 4 other members. Peterw1987 also posted that it's not a good idea. So based on this feedback I believe many in the community would disagree with you that it's "cheesing" against the AI. Also, if it were so cheesy and unfair to the AI, I believe Gazebo would probably have removed it by now.
5. You didn't mention the conditions I did use to benefit the AI -> standard/standard speed (as opposed to Epic,...), Oval (which is harder for the human than water-heavy maps), I didn't pick my civ to be good at founding a religion and I picked some AI civs that are especially good at it (like Aztecs and Arabia), I chose to play as a CIV whose UA relies heavily on the AI and its benevolence, without an early UU and with a UB that isn't exactly game-breaking.

Thanks to all again for the replies.
 
Doublex55, I've seen many games mentioned without research agreements, so I decided to point out that they were enabled.

DarkZero, thank you for the feedback. To your points:
1. Research agreements usually benefit the AI more because they need less science yields to discover a technology, so 10 science is more worth to the AI than to the human. Also, on higher difficulties it's very hard to a.) make friends (so very often the best AIs will have more RAs than the human player) and b.) get the Porcelain tower, which means that the AI that built it will benefit much more from RAs than any human player. Bigger benefits from research agreements means stronger science which translates into stronger AI regardless of the victory condition it pursuits.
2. I choose the civs because they are imho among the strongest AI civs in the game and because they make surviving the game (especially early/middle) much more difficult. I played a lot of games against Korea & Babylon and in most cases they were average or below average, especially Korea if it started next to a warmonger, and Babylon usually builds fewer cities than these aggressive AI civs. Poland is a clear culture leader usually meaning more science, Rome is infrastructure king (more science), Egypt's UA and starting artifacts grant lots of science,... All those civs are in my experience and from what I read on the forum from several members among the strongest and most versatile. In the latter stages of the game, Poland and Rome both had 18 cities to my 6, which is imho a fair competition for a science victory in comparison to a 4-city Babylon.
3. Agreed, disabling units is better for the player, but not by that much. I also selected this because the starting RNG ruins-wise can drastically alter the course of a game from an average one to below- or above-average one, depending on what you get in the first two/three ruins.
4. Saving policies -> in February 2017, I started a thread asking about this -> https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/saving-policies-and-ai.610725/ - Funak said he thinks saving policies is almost never the right move because of the lost yields while waiting, and this was "liked" by 4 other members. Peterw1987 also posted that it's not a good idea. So based on this feedback I believe many in the community would disagree with you that it's "cheesing" against the AI. Also, if it were so cheesy and unfair to the AI, I believe Gazebo would probably have removed it by now.
5. You didn't mention the conditions I did use to benefit the AI -> standard/standard speed (as opposed to Epic,...), Oval (which is harder for the human than water-heavy maps), I didn't pick my civ to be good at founding a religion and I picked some AI civs that are especially good at it (like Aztecs and Arabia), I chose to play as a CIV whose UA relies heavily on the AI and its benevolence, without an early UU and with a UB that isn't exactly game-breaking.

Thanks to all again for the replies.

Those are all good points. I both enjoyed reading about your game, and learned from your turtling strategy. About the only place where I disagree is on saving policies. It doesn't matter if some players think it's disadvantageous -- you obviously don't think so, or you wouldn't have chosen it, and you were apparently very happy with the results. On the other hand, the AI is unlikely to benefit from the option. So I would say that this made your game somewhat easier that a more "standard one. But it doesn't take away anything from the achievement vs some pretty tough civs.
 
My social policy strategy was a key part of my overall gameplan. I picked the Progress opener and the two policies on the left side of the Progress tree, which provide the most long-term scaling benefits. Playing with so few social policies in the early stages of the game enabled me to gain lots of culture from trade routes to Rome and Greece. When I finally entered the Industrial era, I immediately used the saved up culture to fill out the Rationalism tree and half of the Industry tree. I then worked on finishing the Industry tree. This allowed me to have lots of science, happiness and trade routes, and also to benefit more from purchasing buildings (I made banks a priority in all my cities).

This is nothing but a exploit, the ai will never be able to do this, and Gazebo did not remove this option because not only it is disabled by default, it is a VANILLA option, and you know when something is really imbalanced when vanilla civ 5 disables the option by default.

In the very tread you asked the question if the ai is coded in any way to make use of this option and the answer is a massive NO, the ai has in no way shape or form balanced whit that option in mind so they auto pick policies the turn they are available, no one answered that question in the thread but i did it right now, and like the guy above me said, it would be very hard to me to believe that you use this option to get even more of a challenge, seems like a no brainer to me to ignore the policies that have to do whit religion, city states and tourism wen you can insta complete the rationalist that is fundamental for science victory and that there is no way shape or form to complete as soon as you enter the era they are available.

1.Research agreements are another tool to keep an ai from declaring war on you, as I found if i manage to get a research agreement whit a civ they will NEVER attack me before the agreement is over on their own, only if bribed defense pact shenanigan, in a game where your main strategy is to be friendly whit everyone so you have to invest in the minimum military possible to win in science I would say its about as effective for the player as it is for the ais.

2.At this point we all have to agree to disagree because the bias affects everyone, I had a game where an ai korea was so far ahead of everyone the game was not even fun, literally 2 eras ahead of the second civ, yet here you tell how weak they are.

3.I would never say that standard benefits the ai, but rather that epic benefits the player, marathon makes the game a sure victory, and quick is the only one that really benefits the ai, I dont see any reason why in heck oval is harder fro humans, I dont think any human has any problem in any map, rather the ais are not very good in certain maps, the majority of civs in the game are not good at founding so this is a not even a point, and any ai can found whit the Stonehenge and the deity bonuses so the fact that you picked civs that are good at it also dont matter, and I never had a single game where a I could not make friends whit a single ai, and even them its pointless because ottoman ua works on city states so to say you rely on ai benevolence is also false.
 
Last edited:
Txurce, thank you for your feedback!

To answer you and DarkZero, I think this here illustrates the difference between an exploit and strategy that AI would be very hard to comprehend, but is not an exploit. The difference is the degree of risk that the option/strategy brings. In my opinion, exploits are strategies that the AI cannot comprehend and are without risk (or very little risk) for the human player. An example of this would be the production overflow from investing that was recently addressed. It was an exploit because it present zero risk to the human player utilising it.

On the other hand, you have certain strategies/options that are very hard/impossible for the AI to comprehend, but also present a big risk/gamble for the human player. One example would be a human player from the start deciding that he'll forgo founding a religion, and thus picks a non-founding pantheon and doesn't build shrines in the early game, but banks on conquering a holy city later or simply not bothering with religion. It's a strategy that I doubt the AI uses (i.e. decides to abandon options towards founding, to not build early shrines,..), but it's a viable strategy for a human player, one that poses a lot of risk, a gamble that it might not pay off, but rather leave the player far behind. And just because the AI might not be able to decide to abandon the religious race, we still don't eliminate non-founding pantheons that in abstracto provide more benefits to the human player than the AI.

Analogous to that, delaying policies is a gamble, a huge risk. It's not a guarantee, but a risky strategy that might or might not pay off for the human player. It's entirely possible to miscalculate your strategy and come out further behind in the industrial era than you would have if you had been selecting policies all along, because of "lost" yields, inability to compete for (certain) wonders,..., you might be faced with too big of a gap to close even with additional industrial era policies. Not only that, but you might get eliminated/crippled because of the lost yields, because you have fallen so far behind that an AI will see you as a juicy target. And just like forgoing the religious race is imho not an exploit, so isn't delaying policies.
 
To the rest of DarkZero points:

Gazebo routinely alters/eliminates exploits. If he considers saving policies an exploit/cheesing strategy, he'll eliminate/alter this option and I'll adjust accordingly.

What you write about research agreements preventing the AI from declaring on you might be true and seems concerning, so I encourage you to report it to Gazebo. But I think it's possible they don't attack you because of the DoF (that is prerequisite for a RA), since that would constitute backstabbing.

Agreed, there are games where AI Korea is a huge runaway, but in my experience they're quite rare and almost never happen when there's an aggressive civ nearby them. I didn't say they are weak per se, but that they have difficulty withstanding early AI aggression, so that they're more hit-or-miss kind of civ, depending on other civs around them.

If something benefits the player, that means it weakens/puts the AI at a disadvantage relatively speaking. If playing on epic is easier for the player than standard, then playing on standard is better for the AI. Oval/pangea is usually harder for the humans because you're more vulnerable to early AI agression, because on water heavy maps naval warfare (where the gap between human and AI seems to be bigger than land warfare despite recent big improvements) is more in favour of the human player, because on pangea/oval it's easier for the AI to mass-missionary-spam you than on watery maps, it's easier for the AI to settle quickly, to steal your territory with GGs etc. Again, saying AI is not very good in certain maps means that NOT playing on those maps is a bonus for the AI, relatively speaking.

Founding - it's possible to found on Deity for a human player from what I hear from Deity players. But if you're going against religious civs with a non-religious civs, it will be much harder than if you're going against non-religious civs with a religious civ.

There's a difference between being friends with a single AI or being friends with several AIs, especially against such bloodthirsty as the Aztecs.

On Deity it's very hard to keep CS allies, so sending TR to them is quite risky because they can be plundered at any moment via a DoW by the AI.

Lastly -> before making a permanent opinion about the easiness of this strategy, I invite you to perhaps try a Deity game or three with "saving policies" enabled and see whether it's really as easy/easier as you think it might be. I hope you'll find it an interesting novelty even if your opinion is confirmed.
 
Last edited:
If something benefits the player, that means it weakens/puts the AI at a disadvantage relatively speaking. If playing on epic is easier for the player than standard, then playing on standard is better for the AI. Oval/pangea is usually harder for the humans because you're more vulnerable to early AI agression, because on water heavy maps naval warfare (where the gap between human and AI seems to be bigger than land warfare despite recent big improvements) is more in favour of the human player, because on pangea/oval it's easier for the AI to mass-missionary-spam you than on watery maps, it's easier for the AI to settle quickly, to steal your territory with GGs etc. Again, saying AI is not very good in certain maps means that NOT playing on those maps is a bonus for the AI, relatively speaking.

There is literally no reason to think or say something like this if you're not trying to brag, something I said I find quite amusing wen using so many min-max options, its hardly semantics to play whit words saying silly things such as "well if epic is easy to the player them default is better to ai" is very dishonest, standard is balanced for ai and human play and to brag about beating ai on standard is like bragging about beating ai on normal instead of easy (epic).

But I guess you're not hurting anyone so its okay for you to brag about this epic deity game you won, in a single player game all that matters is that you had fun, just don't be surprised wen other people don't find a single epic thing about a strategy that only works whit very specific non default settings.

And very single person who beats games using exploits has a justification about how what they are doing is not an exploit but a valid strategy, I wonder why them its disabled by default and they ai does not have a single line of code to play whit this setting, after all it opens up so many new possibilities.

You know your strategy is amazing and super helpful to other players wen you have to go out of your way on the advanced options of the game to make it even possible, lmao.
 
Last edited:
4. Saving policies -> in February 2017, I started a thread asking about this -> https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/saving-policies-and-ai.610725/ - Funak said he thinks saving policies is almost never the right move because of the lost yields while waiting, and this was "liked" by 4 other members. Peterw1987 also posted that it's not a good idea. So based on this feedback I believe many in the community would disagree with you that it's "cheesing" against the AI. Also, if it were so cheesy and unfair to the AI, I believe Gazebo would probably have removed it by now.
This was before you could gain culture from trade routes. Especially when paired with the progress policy that boosts trade routes when behind, its pretty gimmicky (given that you took God of All, I doubt you were behind by much early on). Its not really fair to get culture for being behind on policies, when you aren't behind, you just haven't claimed the policy

With that said this was a creative strategy, I never would have thought of it. Great win
 
Last edited:
I never play with tech trading, too gimmicky for me.

Kudos on a well thought out and executed plan though, however cheesy it might be is still a feat in and of itself =)
 
No, because it is a 'for funsies' option. Just like... random personalities

G

Random personalities is "for funsies" ? I thought it adds an element of danger to the game from unpredictability. Yes the AI won't always play to their strengths (like Austria not pursuing DV would definitely qualify as 'for funsies') but there are plenty of AI that are also super flexible and can go any way
 
Random personalities is "for funsies" ? I thought it adds an element of danger to the game from unpredictability. Yes the AI won't always play to their strengths (like Austria not pursuing DV would definitely qualify as 'for funsies') but there are plenty of AI that are also super flexible and can go any way
Unpredictability from what, for how long? as if on turn 50 you cant tell what a random personality from a leader you scouted is trying to do,oh wow ghandi went authority and has a huge army, guess hes going for a diplomatic victory!
This option is for funsies because the civs who have bonuses in specific victories lose their edge while more generalists civs dominates, is it worth to cripple half if not more of the civs in your game just to see a peaceful atila trying and failing to achieve a scientific victory?
 
4is it worth to cripple half if not more of the civs in your game just to see a peaceful atila trying and failing to achieve a scientific victory?

Have you ever played with this option ?

Affects diplomatic decisions (backstabbing, friendliness, reactions to warmongers etc) more than their overarching strategy I would think. Strategy is after all somewhat flexible, AI can adjust along the way and doesn't decide theyre going for world military domination by turn 50- for awhile I routinely took authority no matter what end result I was aiming for, its a good choice for anything. I just played a game where china was focused on tourism the entire game, didnt stop them from winning a SV.
 
Back
Top Bottom