do you also have the feeling

that you suck at this game :(



fortunaly, spending time does improve your gameplay thanks to the advice of almost every1 but me ;)

Yup I guess lots of us have been there, or still are to certain degrees. A Recent thread about how easy prince was, I still lose intermittently on this, got to me.

Remember this is a fanatics site and therefore many of us have had our lives kidnapped by this damn game and if you want to get good, for those not weirdly gifted at it, you have to put the work in. You are one of three things with civ, lucky and good at it and still have a life, average or good but with little life, or still have a life but not so good..

I guess for the likes of us yoy need to pick from the last two options and go with that..

Well thats one simplistic view that will quickly get trashed anyway

do now the feeling that when the AI is more powerful or the same and can't beat them its no fun at all. But in another game you are kicking AI bud it is not fun either.

Or for examlpe you kick everyones arse ad Warlord and on Noble the AI seems way to powerful all of an sudden.( i usally play on noble)

In my current game i had to use the WorldBuilder because their was not an single irron recource in the eastern part of my continant. So at least 5 ai's without iron including me makes 6 civs. The rest of the continant has iron...

What about those who actually live in their civ worlds and have now real outside life... been there a couple times in college. Kinda wierd when everyone starts calling you Lord Huber, and the discussion around the pizza is, "So, how do we plan on attacking the Germans...?" HAHAHA

I've been playing civ since the mid 90s, the original, and I still can't beat Noble on Civ4. Mind you, I don't sit down with a calculator and do all the number crunching that goes on, I just play for what I feel at the time...

I feel geeky enough that I have a name and post on this site, no one knows I play this game except my dad. I play with him and no one else. I don't need this game taking over my life any more than it has.

I was going to ask for advice on my current game after reading this too, but now I'm itching to play it so I'm going to go and do that. And probably lose, but what the hell.

I'll be a noble/prince player forever. I just play to have fun and there's no incentive for me to play civ at higher levels, because I wouldn't enjoy the style of game one typically has to play to beat civ at higher levels.

The cool thing to me is that you can play Civ in a variety of different ways and enjoy it. You can be more casual or you can memorize data/formulas/hyperanalyze and beat the AIs when they have significant advantages and anything in between. Any way you play it, civ can still suck up huge amounts of your life!

i rarely play above noble. to me anything higher than that starts to turn into work. i play games for fun.

Yeah, I got that feeling but it's a big step in the learning process. When I started reading, I came across all these things I never seriously considered. Specialization never was part of my strategy, I wasn't smart enough with my national wonders, and I always played each leader in the same general way. Once I start up a new game, I feel like I'll be a bit better than I was before.

I play at Monarch now, for hours and hours at a time: as a retired widower, I have a lot of time on my hands, and find BtS more fun than twiddling my fingers aimlessly. I win rather more han half my games, those I lose being abandoned as hopeless part way through - usually around 1000-500 BC. And there are many techniques and aspects of the game which I haven't spotted for myself until they get pointed out in this forum. Nor have I learned how to win at levels above Monarch, even after seeing advice from better players.
The game's best (and worst) feature is its horrible addictiveness !

And the AI is much improved in BtS which makes even lower levels of difficulty more challenging and more fun to play. I'm still playing at Warlord level and I've been playing the Civ franchise since the beginning.

do you also have the feeling

that you suck at this game :(

Cytral, I've just one thing to say to your question: Of course.

Oh, and: That's why I keep coming back! (Guess that was two things :lol: )

fortunaly, spending time does improve your gameplay thanks to the advice of almost every1 but me ;)

When I first registered on these forums, I was about a warlord/noble player. However after reading all sorts of fun things, I've pushed up to a Monarch win. And although I've never actually won an Emperor game, I've been playing Deity games. I lose them, but at least I can contend with the computer for a while. :p

Once I did not play Civ for a week straight, yet I read about it virtually non-stop, taking in as much information as possible. When I started my first game after that, I tried to execute that information in-game with relative success.

I'm confidant that I'll win a Deity game, eventually. But it'll require the stars lining up just right. Where as I see lots of other people playing Deity games with the hope of victory along every avenue. heh

Oh well, that's just more for me to strive towards. ;)

I play at Monarch now, for hours and hours at a time: as a retired widower, I have a lot of time on my hands, and find BtS more fun than twiddling my fingers aimlessly. I win rather more han half my games, those I lose being abandoned as hopeless part way through - usually around 1000-500 BC. And there are many techniques and aspects of the game which I haven't spotted for myself until they get pointed out in this forum. Nor have I learned how to win at levels above Monarch, even after seeing advice from better players.
The game's best (and worst) feature is its horrible addictiveness !

Gotta reply, as another old guy (61), living in the SW. Played Civ from the
beginning, ie 1990. Used to win bigtime on Civ2, playing Diety. Since Civ 3
I've found it harder, Usually winning at Monarch on Conquests, and at
Warlord on BTS. Have tried to win on Noble. Haven't managed it yet. Sure,
it can be done but I hate micromanagement and early wars. Guess Civ 2
was more my style. Better scenarios too. Cheers from Cornwall.:) ;)

What bugs me a bit is that I have a range of strategies depending on leader type, all from this forum, and play them fairly consistently and sometimes like my current game prince is almost a walk over (Currently facing maces with tanks having wiped out the guy who did manage to get to reflemen) and I get all motived, 'i've crakced it', then with the same strategy loose hopelessly for a several games in a row. I guess the fine tuning tweaks that lead to consistent perfomance take some more experiance

Thats because you are trying the same thing over and over, in different circumstances.

I never go into a game with a pre thought strategy, other than to get ahead early and start waging wars before they knock on your door.

Everything else is subject to how things are on the map.

Ever since BTS came out I have not been able to win on noble either. Been reading these forums and learning but AI still kicks my ass and it would be to big a blow to my ego to go back to an easier level.

I can win on noble, but thats only after dropping down from Prince pre-BtS.

Another month or two and I will try up at prince level again!

I have won on noble almost all victory types,except apostolic palace.
I am playing now on prince,until today I won just 2 games(Joao and Asoka,both cultural).
I have really serious problems during war.And yes,I suck;)

Noble is too easy but still I think I suck in this game, I have stupid feeling that until I'm not able to beat deity without cheating I suck because it is always possible to play better. On noble I have had games when I have 2 legendary cities, apollo built and I've most popular to win by UN so I've choice which victory to pick:)

Trying the same thing over ain't so bad, how else do you know how it may work under different circumstances, Its not like is doesn't alter a bit depending on conditions and the map, but if I decide to go full on SE, having chosen a phil leader then you have to decide early and stick to it or you end up between strategies and dead.

There is undoubtely a luck element, that can of course be overcome in some circumstances the better you are, but if you get a foot hold on your continent and the other continent is at war lots rather tha being friendly and constantly trading tech then when you finally meet the other civs from overseas they are behind you rather than that occasional thing when you think you are doing fine and in control and you meet Gandi or Manu Mansa when they come across the water and you are 5 techs behind..I hate that.

I think what has allowed me to start winning perhaps half the time or more on prince is being brutal about sticking to a strategy/specialisation rather than getting side tracked by circumstances that don't actually have longer term effect, early war though a short one usually, and then really sticking to specialising cities is one of the foundation to moving up, but a builder would perhaps disagree with the war part...

I win probably 90% of my games on Prince, but that's a misleading statement. I'm so picky about my maps, I constantly regenerate until I have "the perfect" starting position. Even then, if I'm not able to expand or make any significant advances by the mid-game, I still find Prince quite challenging. My whole main strategy is based around early game expansion either through REXing or warfare... or probably a combo of both.

So, I guess my point here is that there's a lot more you have to consider than the difficulty level. Taking over a neighbor's capital 50 turns into the game with a warrior rush is the equivalent of knocking the difficulty level down a few notches. In my experience, the early game is the most defining part of the game - circumstances, events, build order, neighbors, starting location, etc can also have a significant impact on difficulty.

I think there's reletively few people that can play and win honestly and consistently using multiple strategies at higher levels, and these people have been examining and playing the game for years.

I know I am not good at the game. I get some ideas from the forum, but I don't do specialized cities and such for the most part. I don't start with a specific strategy, I do what I see fit as I go. But I have fun, and that is what matters.

In my current game, I am playing Prince for the first time, after just having my best game on Noble. I thought I was doing well, holding my own, until my "friend" Zara attacked me while I was at war with the Incans. Now I have a two front war, and will have it tough. Guess I shouldn't have left my guard down on the western part of my empire. :blush:

You know, my favorite part about these games is developing new strategies. TO be honest, I wish there was a professional civilization league, where we could play for money or something. I'd be all into that. I wonder if they have Civ events at Gen Con?

Yea the map regen thing is a tuffy. I remember in Civ3 could always win the harest level but could tell within 10mins, or even 1 min, if could do it as if the start was crap it wouldn't happen.

I do regen some maps but usually only 4-5 times and don't get stuck into hours of it, that is all too easy to do. But having no-where as much time to play as I would like I don't want to waste time on a no chance map, but am prepared to work for it. I guess if you have to regen loads or indeed never then perhaps you are on the wrong level.

It doesn't really matter how old are you,which level you fiddle with,how many hours you spend or how addicted you have become.

Play,enjoy.