Winning Civ V on Deity

[Fug]

You weakling try this. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=404448920 It's now about what difficulty you are playing, it's about what game you are playing.

Ew, what is this weeaboo garbage?

 

[Norfleet]

AI in Civ V let's you kill its archers and siege weapons while at the same time makes no effort to kill yours.

I imagine that if it tried harder to kill them, it would be easier to lure their units into traps.

Higher difficulties only make the AI cheat harder, it's still just as idiotic as before. AI was never Civ's strong suit, but at least in Civ 4 with more straightforward mechanics the AI managed to suck less.

That's pretty much it. In ancient times, the lower difficulty settings actually disabled specific AI subroutines that made it smarter, so it gained brains at higher difficulties. It only received a bonus at the very very highest.

Also, someone mentioned ITT the "stacks of doom". Check Realism Invictus. That mod takes the thinking man out to the problem and adds a logistics and supply system to the game.

I'm sure the AI handles THAT well...

 

[Raghar]

You weakling try this. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=404448920 It's now about what difficulty you are playing, it's about what game you are playing.

Ew, what is this weeaboo garbage?

7 posts and this edgy?

...


Hi Drog.

 

[Grimwulf]

This guy has plenty of Diety victories of both Civ 4 and Civ 5, if you have the patience to sit through the entire thing (browse his playlists and pick your poison). I don't normally watch this lp thing unless so drunk I can't play myself, but this one is a bit different. He mostly talks of AI - how it behaves; what works; what doesn't work.

Honestly, he makes Civ series look way better than it actually is.

 

[Absinthe]

Well, this thread just inspired me to do a Deity run as Venice. I won with a Diplomatic victory. Safe to say that shit is easily doable, but boring. It was a straight pacifist game where I kept everyone happy, allied with every citystate I could find, and abused world congress. I had my share of fuck-ups, but it ended up not mattering. I could probably do much better next time around, but I have to say it doesn't get much more boring than a pacifist 1 city game with your victory arriving in the late game. This was standard speed on a standard size Continents map.

For the record, AI will not accept a deal to vote you in as supreme leader on Deity. Don't know about the other difficulties, but I assume on some level the AI is actually stupid enough to vote for your victory, since that's a tradeable option. Then again that might be an option strictly for dictating surrendered civs' votes, but I think they should be auto-voting for you anyway.

 

[MilesBeyond]

Civ V Deity is roughly as hard as Civ IV Emperor. Maybe even Civ IV Monarch. Trivially easy game. And BE is even easier. Beating Deity even without cheesing isn't too hard, you just have to learn how to toss out more intuitive strategies for optimal playstyle.

 

[Fug]

Civ V Deity is roughly as hard as Civ IV Emperor. Maybe even Civ IV Monarch. Trivially easy game. And BE is even easier. Beating Deity even without cheesing isn't too hard, you just have to learn how to toss out more intuitive strategies for optimal playstyle.

Yeah, Deity in V is the same as any of the higher difficulties on the other civ games, just abuse the shitty AI, rush military, burn every city down.

 

[Lady_Error]

For the record, AI will not accept a deal to vote you in as supreme leader on Deity. Don't know about the other difficulties, but I assume on some level the AI is actually stupid enough to vote for your victory, since that's a tradeable option.

I don't know if it was just the type of Civ I was up against, but when I played a duel against Denmark, they had way too much money for me to win a Diplomatic victory (cannot outbuy the city states). Though the nice thing about a duel is that they cannot vote for anyone else but you, so you get their vote for sure.

 

[Lady_Error]

Has anyone here won a Science victory on Deity?

 

[kris]

Thread inspired me to leave popamole difficult levels to see how this was. The Polynesian archipelago tactic was a failure, so I changed to a tight city pangea game. for combat having cities as close as possible from each other is the optimal strategy, combined with some nature you can defend at far superior numbers. and defend I did! The AI sent a endless stream of troops, from first one, then two and lastly three directions. In the end it becomes boring to kill units of that endless stream, especially when they are almost always one step ahead in technology. My only real problem arrived just before I finished for the night when they got the three square shot artillery which I really couldn't counter, knights hardly damaged them and that was the few times I could even get close enough.

 

[kris]

I am a bit surprised to hear about possibility to win under other forms, isn't the AI hellbent on warring you on deity? Even the AI that was friendliest backstabbed me (i was ready for that) out of nowhere, Gandhi of course!

 

[Lady_Error]

Try a duel game against Denmark on a non-water map (removes their advantage). They do not spam cities and are pretty peaceful, if you don't build cities right next to them.

 

[MilesBeyond]

Yeah, Deity in V is the same as any of the higher difficulties on the other civ games

No, it is not. It is substantially weaker. The AI simply does not understand the new combat system, and is incapable of warring effectively. I am not using an ounce of hyperbole when I say that Civ I had better AI.

I am a bit surprised to hear about possibility to win under other forms, isn't the AI hellbent on warring you on deity? Even the AI that was friendliest backstabbed me (i was ready for that) out of nowhere, Gandhi of course!

Who were your enemies? I don't believe that the AI's war algorithms change on higher difficulties. What may be causing the change is that the AI becomes more likely to declare war on enemies that have low power rating (e.g. few military units and buildings). Also, on lower difficulties you may have gotten into the habit of rejecting tribute demands, which isn't always a good idea on Deity (when one Civ gives another tribute, it enforces ten turns of peace between them).

Even if they do declare on you, though, it's not a big deal. What you need to understand is that the AI is terrible at waging war. Like, really, really awful. You also need to understand that combat in Civ V is horrifically balanced, and ranged units are by far the best. Seriously, a handful of Crossbowmen with a Longsword or two to manage ZoC can hold off a near-infinite enemy force with just a bit of micro. ZoC is the important mechanic here - if you've got a unit in front of your ranged unit, then the enemy can't engage your ranged unit in melee until they kill the unit in front of it. You can exploit this like crazy to crush forces that are larger and more advanced than your own with minimal effort.

 

[Fug]

Yeah, Deity in V is the same as any of the higher difficulties on the other civ games

No, it is not. It is substantially weaker. The AI simply does not understand the new combat system, and is incapable of warring effectively. I am not using an ounce of hyperbole when I say that Civ I had better AI.

I am a bit surprised to hear about possibility to win under other forms, isn't the AI hellbent on warring you on deity? Even the AI that was friendliest backstabbed me (i was ready for that) out of nowhere, Gandhi of course!

Who were your enemies? I don't believe that the AI's war algorithms change on higher difficulties. What may be causing the change is that the AI becomes more likely to declare war on enemies that have low power rating (e.g. few military units and buildings). Also, on lower difficulties you may have gotten into the habit of rejecting tribute demands, which isn't always a good idea on Deity (when one Civ gives another tribute, it enforces ten turns of peace between them).

Even if they do declare on you, though, it's not a big deal. What you need to understand is that the AI is terrible at waging war. Like, really, really awful. You also need to understand that combat in Civ V is horrifically balanced, and ranged units are by far the best. Seriously, a handful of Crossbowmen with a Longsword or two to manage ZoC can hold off a near-infinite enemy force with just a bit of micro. ZoC is the important mechanic here - if you've got a unit in front of your ranged unit, then the enemy can't engage your ranged unit in melee until they kill the unit in front of it. You can exploit this like crazy to crush forces that are larger and more advanced than your own with minimal effort.

The AI in V falls victim to the same weaknesses as the AI in every other Civ game, they are incapable of handling a military. Did you even read the whole post?

 

[Mozg]

Doomstacks are much more manageable for AI than having to do do the improvisational shit you need to handle 1UPT. Civ 5 tactical AI will absolutely disembowel itself trying to get through a gap. Nothing like having a big enemy force embark three new units per turn into a 3-tile inland lake to have them all get one-shot, then plow three more units in the next turn.

 

[MilesBeyond]

The AI in V falls victim to the same weaknesses as the AI in every other Civ game, they are incapable of handling a military. Did you even read the whole post?

Right. And in Civ V this is far more egregious than in past installments. Like, at least the AI in previous Civs was capable of things like capturing cities.


Also, that's only one flaw from a very long list that, again, is much longer in V than it was in previous installments.

 

[Fug]

The AI in V falls victim to the same weaknesses as the AI in every other Civ game, they are incapable of handling a military. Did you even read the whole post?

Right. And in Civ V this is far more egregious than in past installments. Like, at least the AI in previous Civs was capable of things like capturing cities.


Also, that's only one flaw from a very long list that, again, is much longer in V than it was in previous installments.

Beyond Earth was the final nail in the coffin for the Civ series. Trying to copy what made Alpha Centauri great without actually copying the good parts, plus using the same exact setup as V was a massive mistake.

 

[Mr. Pink]

Artillery breaks the game. The AI just can't deal with it, and arty rush is mandatory in multiplayer.

Whoever makes artillery first will win a war guaranteed. There's no counter for it.

I really wanted to like civ5 because the tactics were super interesting but the AI just isn't strong enough to deal with chess like games and the game itself is too unbalanced. I think a different ruleset based on lowering the number and increasing the value of units by abstracting them into "armies" would be easier for the AI to cope with.

Boil down all the units into melee regiments, cav regiments, ranged regiments and siege regiments. Melee can be split into anti-cav, anti-melee and anti-archer using the upgrade system. You get a free upgrade after spawning if you make barracks. Ranged should do no damage against cities, and cav should have more movement points. Seige shouldn't do much damage against units, and cities shouldn't be so goddamn strong early game before castles.

By lowering the number of units but raising the amount of customization available, AI will have an easier time competing with humans, and tactics like endless streams of pikemen stop being effective since losing units becomes a bigger deal.

 

[MilesBeyond]

Honestly making cavalry able to partially ignore ZoC would go a long way towards making combat more balanced, IMHO. Right now it's just ludicrous because literally two or three melee units are all you need to make your wall of ranged units completely inaccessible.