Rolled up a game on the Nation difficulty with the largest map and maximum randomized leaders on Normal speed.

I ended up getting 7th out of 10, which I though twas really strange. I was sitting at 3900 fame and the leader had over 11,000.  I was 2nd in science, first in food, 4th or so in population, and one of the most stable and productive societies, yet the end of the game came at turn 300 with only two civilizations in the contemporary era, and no one with more technology than carbines or iron clads.  

Is this the way the game should end with the updates? I know the snowballing was really crazy before with overpowered science or production civs, and folks burning through the end game techs at 2 turns a piece. But now, it doesn't seem to matter. The end of the game rolls up before we get past the year 1800, no one has even discovered flight yet, and the most famous civilizations aren't the most advanced or wonder worthy, but those who somehow had massive wars and fought amongst themselves for no gain.

This is a big departure from previous games where stable and steady infrastructure were more key than skirmishing your way to fame points without building a single wonder.  Was this intentionally changed or am I just really bad at the game?

I usually played on the longest setting, but in my current game I'm also doing normal speed. The leading AI was already at industrial while I was chilling in Medieval trying to harvest more stars. The problem was, all his techs and therefore units were also in medieval or before. So basically, it seemed like he was far ahead, but his research was far behind (as was mine). He turned out to be not hard to beat once I researched some Early Modern techs (plus his vassal was Mongols so basically you can't attack them until you have Medieval+ technology anyway)

Unless you focus on science, you'll be far behind until you reach Industrial or Contemporary era. But the problem with focusing science early is that the game will basically be over too quick. So yes, I think the balance of progression still needs some consideration.

Yeah that is more or less my experience too.  I noticed at the end actually the leading AI had 11,000 but I could see he most definitely was falling apart with massive uprisings and his empire being picked apart by others.  Yet he still was WAY WAY in advance despite me having superior units and tech.  Its so strange how he could just be that far ahead while not really accomplishing the same things as his neighbors.

I'm petty certain that if the game had gone on for another 100 turns, it probably would have been much much more competative, but as it was, he was just way far ahead.  I don't even know how they can get that much fame with such paltry forces but it is what it is, I guess.  

Glad to hear I"m not the only one finding pacing issues on normal speed.

Do you not get how Fame is gained? Its mostly from era stars. You advanced your era at 7 stars every time. I know because thats that only way you could have such a low score. Try chasing era stars, also known as playing to win. Did you know the 2nd and 3rd stars in each category are worth dramatically more than the first?

I know they are worth a bit more, sure, but are they exponentially more?  Are you saying that military stars, they can just grind troops against each other over and over again and gain more stars than someone who builds multiple wonders or takes over an entire continent?

If so, that sounds like another balancing issue than a bad play style, right?

 100 to 300 is fine, but that isn't THOUSANDS more as I saw in my game.  This sounds like it might have been a glitch if its only 300 for extra stars.

It makes sense to have a risk v reward, sure, but it doesn't seem the goal was to just have folks farm military skirmishes to outmatch moving down the science or expansion trees.

Jastiger wrote:

 100 to 300 is fine, but that isn't THOUSANDS more as I saw in my game.  This sounds like it might have been a glitch if its only 300 for extra stars.

It makes sense to have a risk v reward, sure, but it doesn't seem the goal was to just have folks farm military skirmishes to outmatch moving down the science or expansion trees.

300 (or 200+300=500 total for each extra second/third star)... so if you get 1 star in each category, and the AI gets 3, they are up ~3500 fame per era [actually slightly less since there are other factors].

That would make sense if its that exponentially larger.  That really does incentivize sticking around and wringing out as many stars as possible.  It just doesn't seem to be very balanced.  I looked, I had so many more wonders, territory, and in some cases technology, and I still trailed them.  The only thing i saw were military stars, which seems strange.  Why should a bunch of nonsense wars be worth more than colonizing new continents or building infrastructure?

I just feel like another 100 turns is what Normal needs the way its set up right now.

I was also very surprised in my first few games to see that the AI was beating me in fame so badly! Much of the complexity that the game has right now (as long as it has only this victory condition) is in having the game awareness to work towards multiple stars at once and having an idea of what you can achieve in the next 20 turns or so, as well as making sure you're building up in a way that will allow you to continue to get stars at a good pace in the next era. I really suggesting trying to change up the way you play the next time you start a game. You can get a lot of fame once you get a feel for the game!