What are the Hardest Possible Difficulty settings?

[IceMatrix]

So recently on my "Beyond the Great" Series. I played what I believe is one step below maximum difficulty(update on this coming soon, as the final part will be released in a couple days), but I am wondering before I start my next series if that was a correct presumption.

The stats: "I first selected The Great. Then Set AI Development to Massive(5 cities, and 5 techs), default for The Great is "Advanced"(4 cities and 4 techs), AI to High Advantage(one step below max, default for The Great is "Moderate". Then selected 9 opponents and all other settings that would be needed for The Hardcore Achievement."
Obviously if I increase the AI Handicap setting to "Very High Advantage" I know that would be what I would consider the max difficulty.

Are there any other settings you would consider to change to maximize the difficulty in your opinion?
Thank you for suggestions.

[Siontific]

I think adding in more players for the map size will make the game easier. Though it does increase the possibility of seeing more than one nation with 10 cities.

The issue though is twofold; more nations with a higher development setting on a map will take up more space and thus reduce the number of tribes on the map; tribes are often a bigger threat to the human player at the start of a game than a nation is.

If you want a really difficult time, put yourself into the middle of nowhere surrounded by tribes in raging, especially if some are off the coast.

But the other issue is, with few spare camps around on the map, that reigns in potential expansion opportunities for the computer nations. So for example on a medium map, with massive development, you're going to have 20 cities go to the computer opponents and about 35 cities go to tribes.

If you doubled the computer player count, now that's 40 cities going to computers and 15 to tribes. I think the first map is harder on the player.

I can't be 100% sure though - but another issue is that any time two computer nations fight, the human player benefits; so more cramped spaces likely means more wars between different factions that allows the human time to catch up.

Outside of those thoughts, if you've maxed out all of the settings of the game, then the last box you could probably tick to make it then most hard on the human player is to lower the victory point threshold on the map.

Between both Massive Development and Massive advantage, it should be quite difficult for the human player to win with low points on in time before the computers cross the threshold on their own.

[mk11]

Tribes only no Barbarians.

Realistic Mortality.

Year turns.

Resource Density Low.

[IceMatrix]

Originally posted by Siontific:

I think adding in more players for the map size will make the game easier. Though it does increase the possibility of seeing more than one nation with 10 cities.

The issue though is twofold; more nations with a higher development setting on a map will take up more space and thus reduce the number of tribes on the map; tribes are often a bigger threat to the human player at the start of a game than a nation is.

If you want a really difficult time, put yourself into the middle of nowhere surrounded by tribes in raging, especially if some are off the coast.

But the other issue is, with few spare camps around on the map, that reigns in potential expansion opportunities for the computer nations. So for example on a medium map, with massive development, you're going to have 20 cities go to the computer opponents and about 35 cities go to tribes.

If you doubled the computer player count, now that's 40 cities going to computers and 15 to tribes. I think the first map is harder on the player.

I can't be 100% sure though - but another issue is that any time two computer nations fight, the human player benefits; so more cramped spaces likely means more wars between different factions that allows the human time to catch up.

Outside of those thoughts, if you've maxed out all of the settings of the game, then the last box you could probably tick to make it then most hard on the human player is to lower the victory point threshold on the map.

Between both Massive Development and Massive advantage, it should be quite difficult for the human player to win with low points on in time before the computers cross the threshold on their own.

Hmmm I like the way you think, with the more tribes. Maybe the biggest map but let's say 4 computer opponents instead of 9? Not sure the human player benefits if they fight. Especially when one nation wipes out the other. That's a bunch of new cities for that nation that wins. But still I think I will consider this pending other responses.

Only thing I don't like is the thought of lowering points threshold. I feel like at some point with how much advantage they get 10 extra orders, 5 cities and 5 techs, that a low point threshold would not be a winnable game by anyone, I could be mistaken though. For now let's say what I will take is the possibility of less computer players and therefor more tribal locations. I usually always end up in the middle of nowhere on maps. I never reroll my maps either. Just play whatever I get.

Do you think playing with "choose leader after seeing start" gives me an edge? Cause I am playing that in a multiplayer right now and it was fun to kind of have dexterity depending on what I see. But figure that might be too much of an edge. Or maybe if I lowered point threshold to just high instead of very high, I could allow that option to balance it?

[Siontific]

For the record, I do think lowering the point threshold will make it very hard to win, i assumed it was impossible until someone in discord did it. There's a player who maxes all settings but raises the VP point threshold and when I explained the point raise technically makes the game easier, they dropped it to low and beat the game anyway (presumably to prove a point)

Ultimately just play with what's fun for you -- obviously if you "pick later" that's slightly easier too because you could choose a husbandry nation if you're surrounded by pasture, or a patrons nation if you're surrounded by precious, etc.

Being able to tailor your start perfectly is going to make it a better start. However, that's also fun for many people so it doesn't matter.

Also, I don't think LOWERING the amount of nations isn't necessarily a good idea, either - because eventually you'll gain momentum over tribes and have enough territory to win, though the first half of the game would definitely feel harsher than usual.

Setting changes can have fickle results - for player count id just keep defaulted to whatever the map size suggests.

Also some other thoughts;

- Avoid map scripts with lots of water
- look for map scripts with lots of open territory and few choke points

Coastal Rain Basin comes to mind

Originally posted by IceMatrix:

Hmmm I like the way you think, with the more tribes. Maybe the biggest map but let's say 4 computer opponents instead of 9? Not sure the human player benefits if they fight. Especially when one nation wipes out the other. That's a bunch of new cities for that nation that wins.

Cities that would have been tribal sites, that the computer nation would have gotten with way less effort without losing half of its army to do it.

You want strong healthy opponents, if a nation spent 30 turns at war with another nation, that's 30 turns where it's orders aren't being used in development, but conquest. It's also losing units in combat and positioning them somewhere on the map. If this is away from your border, it creates opportunities of attacking even into stronger nations since it simply takes time (in turns) to move around the map.

Its much less fun narratively, but I'd say ideally you don't want any of the computer nations to fight at all, so that when it comes time for you to attack one of them, they are at the maximum level of strength they could be at that point in the game.

Conquering a nation - unless it's an absolute steamroll, is quite taxing on a nation. So even if a nation doubled in size, that doesn't mean it's going to be twice as powerful - typically when nations go to war it creates a clear opportunity for the human to take advantage of it.

[RobAlca]

nations are harder to fight than tribes

[IceMatrix]

Originally posted by mk11:

Tribes only no Barbarians.

Realistic Mortality.

Year turns.

Resource Density Low.

Realistic Mortality is part of the Hardcore Achievement, I always play with year turns, but I will add in the other 2 suggestions Tribes only and Resource Density low. THANKS!

[IceMatrix]

Originally posted by RobAlca:

nations are harder to fight than tribes

Agreed Siontific only felt tribes nearby with all their raids make early game harder. But definitely as things roll on tribes are much easier to eliminate.

[IceMatrix]

Originally posted by Siontific:

For the record, I do think lowering the point threshold will make it very hard to win, i assumed it was impossible until someone in discord did it. There's a player who maxes all settings but raises the VP point threshold and when I explained the point raise technically makes the game easier, they dropped it to low and beat the game anyway (presumably to prove a point)
...
...
Also, I don't think LOWERING the amount of nations is necessarily a good idea, either - because eventually you'll gain momentum over tribes and have enough territory to win, though the first half of the game would definitely feel harsher than usual.

Setting changes can have fickle results - for player count id just keep defaulted to whatever thr map size suggests.

Also some other thoughts;

- Avoid map scripts with lots of water
- look for map scripts with lots of open territory and few choke points

Coastal Rain Basin comes to mind

I will use Coastal Rain Basin, never even played that map, I really only ever play seaside. Will be good for me to try other maps.
I raise the VP settings too, to give myself more time. As sometimes you meet a nation and they are 5 points from winning in turn 50 when you meet them. and you only have 4 cities. or so but they have 20 or something ridiculous.
But if another player pulled it off...I could try...do you know if they recorded the win? Would love to study what they did.

I already know I am going to have to master city planning and pins better than I know those topics now. I am good at meta decision making, but I am lacking in city planning stuff and little game tricks. But figured if I can pull this off it will teach me to get out of the game newer improved mechanics techniques.

[Groo the one]

To make use of Dynamic Worlds, Dynamit Units, Dynamic Battlefield and Morale mod, if you like to raise the games difficulty level, should be an option, too.