I feel kind of left out

danaphanous said:

Yeah situational difficulty is a big factor. I just started a Deity challenge YNAEMP game as portugal with Spain enabled. Barely had room for one, bad capital city. Not even enough room for a second in Iberia.

Should be a much harder version of Diety haha! I'm already doing things I never do like an ancient era-assault on Madrid to free up Space. Then to Africa a guess but I'm way behind the normal benchmarks just from the scenario.

Click to expand...

There's a series on youtube where filthyrobot defeats 5 deity AIs in a 1v5 perpetual war map haha.
It's really ridiculous but it just shows you how insanely bad of a start you would actually need for a game to not be winnable at all.

That's really the beauty of this game. Almost any start can be won if you play right ( against the AI ), but not that many people seem to manage it on deity and basically no one has ever played a perfect game of CIV V.

Here's the series if anyone wants to check it out, it's awesome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQaYywetOLs

Definitely don't feel left out. There is nothing that states that you have to be able to play the game reliably on Deity to enjoy it or have an opinion about it. Personally, even though I can get a victory about half the time on Emperor+, it's not really all that enjoyable for me. I modded the hell out of my game to allow for more wonder-spammy games/much more faith and culture pressure based, instead of the typical high-difficulty game which practically requires focusing on science above all else and only science. If you're not getting the experience that you'd like out of Civ, or even if you're finding some of the gameplay too difficult (or too easy. There are mods which will improve the AI/introduce new obstacles) then I would strongly recommend looking at the mods you have.

Don't feel left out. Among all the games I play and forums I frequent, this one stands out as being by a wide margin the one least affected by the usual game elitism/condescension. Feel free to post things and chat.

docbud said:

^^We need a good name for this syndrome.

Click to expand...

My wife says we don't need a name, we need a support group.

I wonder if that means she thinks we're not good for each other in here...

poxpower said:

There's a series on youtube where filthyrobot defeats 5 deity AIs in a 1v5 perpetual war map haha.
It's really ridiculous but it just shows you how insanely bad of a start you would actually need for a game to not be winnable at all.

That's really the beauty of this game. Almost any start can be won if you play right ( against the AI ), but not that many people seem to manage it on deity and basically no one has ever played a perfect game of CIV V.

Here's the series if anyone wants to check it out, it's awesome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQaYywetOLs

Click to expand...

That mod seems very OP for single player, honor gives you culture+gold+SCIENCE for kills. This means you can turtle like crazy and win. If you are behind in tech you will catch up in no time since the AI has more advanced units that give you more science. You can safely stay at 2 cities plant a series of defensive citadels, and simply wait for artillery or flight to expand.

claudiupb said:

That mod seems very OP for single player, honor gives you culture+gold+SCIENCE for kills. This means you can turtle like crazy and win. If you are behind in tech you will catch up in no time since the AI has more advanced units that give you more science. You can safely stay at 2 cities plant a series of defensive citadels, and simply wait for artillery or flight to expand.

Click to expand...

Well good single player domination victories are like turn 140-150, way before artillery. The science is not really super relevant but the culture is. I think in NQ mod you get culture from any unit killed, not just from barbs, so that really does make honor a lot stronger.
But to be fair, honor was almost unplayably useless before, so yah.

I think the single most important thing in winning defensive wars on Deity is good terrain. If you have good terrain you can hold the city against infinite units in my experience. And it's way every liberty game I settle the city I think they will attack in a spot that is easy to defend. Multiple AI can continue to suicide way more advanced units against it all the way till artillery. I'll have to check out the series, sounds fun. Any mod that makes warring easier seems kind of unnecessary to me though. The AI is already dumb enough you can run circles around them tactically.

aafritz17 said:

I RECOGNIZE THIS SYNDROME!

I used to do this in hotel rooms, and I'd always wonder "Who heard that..."

But not since last night. Or was it this morning, before the restaurant opened for breakfast? Yeah, it was then.

Click to expand...

'tis bad talking to my computer, or should I say yelling. Although I mostly do it on RPG's or MMO's where combat isn't working as well as I would like. Or the keyboard doesn't seem to be responding to my commands (although too often it's user error ). One scenario I did cuss a lot was playing as the Confederates in the Civil War scenario. It seemed I was facing an endless stream of Union troops. Jefferson Davis may have been screaming like I was at his situation.

Civ 5 takes so long to load that I often don't reload this game. It's good in a way, I just deal with whatever happens. I find I'm better prepared than Civ4 when a huge SOD rolls up on my doorstep, I used to cuss a lot when that happens.

As for difficulty, play at what you like. I like to build more things and have more flexibility in my games, and to just build things because they are fun. Not all wonders are great for my strategy, but if I can build them, I will.

I see that a lot of people recommend those that want to get a little better to watch certain youtube channels. I will say "Don't do it!" If your goal is only to improve and have fun playing as you do it, it is much better to figure out things on yourself, rather than following some "optimal" formula. It feels so much better that way.
Of course, if your goal is to do really good in multiplayer or to play on the same level as the best players then watching videos and reading up on the "optimal" strategies is a good idea. But if you just want to have fun with the game and improve your skill as you go, then it is much better to figure it out for yourself.

And this is the way the game is made to be played by the designers. Following one of several "optimal" routes limits you choices considerably and this was not the type of playing the designers had in mind when they designed the game. I'm not saying that it is a wrong way of playing it, I'm just saying that you are playing it in a different way than it was designed for.
When people have played this series for a long time they usually know which way of playing it they like the most. But the problem is that those that are new to the series might think that following "optimal strategies" is how the game is meant to be played, which is it not.

This problem is not at all unique to the Civilization series, you can find this with many strategy games and RPG's that offers the players a lot of choice. There are often some very vocal players which advocate using certain "optimal" strategies or builds that takes away most of the choices the game offers. There is nothing wrong with helping new players who feel a little confused by all the options offered them, but it is important not to give the impression that doing this and that is the best way to play a game, when that game clearly has multiple choices made by the designers.
Some people are more obsessive-compulsive than others, and these people especially do not need to be convinced that the best way to play a game is to follow this and that route.

My way of playing, which is of course is neither the right or the wrong way, does offer me a lot of fun, and sometimes a lot of challenge as well. I figure out all of my strategies myself. I never reload because I did a mistake or because things weren't going my way, I take on the challenges as they come and either win or lose (and sometimes I just give up).
I use the Civilopedia and the manual and I have only used the War Academy and certain threads on these forums to look up certain game mechanics that I really wanted to know more about, like the diplomacy modifiers for Civ 3. Knowing those was helpful for my planning in the game, but it also took out some of the mystery of my interactions with other leaders. The forums and War Academy certainly is very well written and informative, but I would recommend players to use them with caution so that they do not spoil too much of the fun for themselves.

But people are different. For some people to be at the level, or trying to be at the level of the best players is what they really want to do. For others it can be more interesting to constantly try new strategies, learn more about the game, and play a game that at some times feels like you are watching history unfold. I don't know, since I don't play at that level, but I think that the immersion of the game being a "history simulator" is not that strong at Deity?

To the original poster I will say, like many other said that you should not worry about playing at a different level than others. The difficulty levels are there to give everyone a fun game, no matter their knowledge or skill level. You should play at a difficulty that gives you some challenge but not too much either. But don't necessarily give up when the odds do not seem to favor you. Sometimes you can turn the tides and these are the kind of victories that are the most satisfying.

GoingForTheOne said:

I see that a lot of people recommend those that want to get a little better to watch certain youtube channels. I will say "Don't do it!" If your goal is only to improve and have fun playing as you do it, it is much better to figure out things on yourself, rather than following some "optimal" formula. It feels so much better that way.

Click to expand...

That depends heavily on ones preferences. People who want to just play and improve on their own will obviously not want to watch youtube videos, however, why would such a person even ask in the first place?

People who ask want to become better at a quicker rate than they're improving currently, which may be for a multitude of reasons, not only multiplayer. To be able to actually take part in discussions about strategies you need to reach a certain level of skill for example, otherwise everything you have to contribute will just end up with "No, that's objectively bad". Which I guess is what you're describing when you're saying:

GoingForTheOne said:

And this is the way the game is made to be played by the designers. Following one of several "optimal" routes limits you choices considerably and this was not the type of playing the designers had in mind when they designed the game. I'm not saying that it is a wrong way of playing it, I'm just saying that you are playing it in a different way than it was designed for.
When people have played this series for a long time they usually know which way of playing it they like the most. But the problem is that those that are new to the series might think that following "optimal strategies" is how the game is meant to be played, which is it not.

This problem is not at all unique to the Civilization series, you can find this with many strategy games and RPG's that offers the players a lot of choice. There are often some very vocal players which advocate using certain "optimal" strategies or builds that takes away most of the choices the game offers. There is nothing wrong with helping new players who feel a little confused by all the options offered them, but it is important not to give the impression that doing this and that is the best way to play a game, when that game clearly has multiple choices made by the designers.
Some people are more obsessive-compulsive than others, and these people especially do not need to be convinced that the best way to play a game is to follow this and that route.

Click to expand...

But I have to heavily disagree with this. It's really two different things:

Do you want to take part in discussions about personal playstyle, immersion, roleplaying, unique strategies that may not be optimal but still offer a different gameplay experience? In that case everything is fine and you don't need any knowledge to take part in such discussions. People who would invade those threads and making them about efficient strategies are of course in the wrong.

But do you want to take part in discussions about good strategy, Civilization Tier lists, etc? In that case you need to have a basic understanding of what is objectively good, otherwise what you're saying is just gibberish that will at best be corrected by people who know better than you and at worst disrupt the conversation (if the person is one of the kind who has 10 experienced people arguing against him and yet keeps convincing themselves that their personal opinion is better informed than they are).

Civfanatics is heavily tilted towards the second category so it makes perfect sense to tell somebody who feels left out because they can't quite compete with the knowledge of other people to increase their knowledge. The alternative is of course to look for a community that is maybe more tilted towards the other type of discussion, or at least look for threads within this community that are less tilted towards pseudo-competitive play (a lot of stuff about modding for example).

Play whatever level you like. I have played many thousands of hours (around 19k) and don't even know what level I play. I like playing with a lot of cities which contemporary wisdom says is bad. However, I enjoy the game that way as it is - in my mind- more interesting.

If people sit there with calculators to win on deity- that is not my go. I want to be able to get up and get a coffee or a beer and not have to worry if I have forgotten something I wanted to do 5 minutes ago.

And also, a lot of tales here arenot always what they seem.

Ryika said:

That depends heavily on ones preferences. People who want to just play and improve on their own will obviously not want to watch youtube videos, however, why would such a person even ask in the first place?

People who ask want to become better at a quicker rate than they're improving currently, which may be for a multitude of reasons, not only multiplayer. To be able to actually take part in discussions about strategies you need to reach a certain level of skill for example, otherwise everything you have to contribute will just end up with "No, that's objectively bad". Which I guess is what you're describing when you're saying:


But I have to heavily disagree with this. It's really two different things:

Do you want to take part in discussions about personal playstyle, immersion, roleplaying, unique strategies that may not be optimal but still offer a different gameplay experience? In that case everything is fine and you don't need any knowledge to take part in such discussions. People who would invade those threads and making them about efficient strategies are of course in the wrong.

But do you want to take part in discussions about good strategy, Civilization Tier lists, etc? In that case you need to have a basic understanding of what is objectively good, otherwise what you're saying is just gibberish that will at best be corrected by people who know better than you and at worst disrupt the conversation (if the person is one of the kind who has 10 experienced people arguing against him and yet keeps convincing themselves that their personal opinion is better informed than they are).

Civfanatics is heavily tilted towards the second category so it makes perfect sense to tell somebody who feels left out because they can't quite compete with the knowledge of other people to increase their knowledge. The alternative is of course to look for a community that is maybe more tilted towards the other type of discussion, or at least look for threads within this community that are less tilted towards pseudo-competitive play (a lot of stuff about modding for example).

Click to expand...

To me this is the same issue as whether to hire a teacher or coach to improve your skills at, e.g., an academic subject or athletic endeavor -- some prefer to learn on their own and others find value in being taught/coached. Neither is right or wrong, but being taught or coached does usually result in faster progress, in my experience.

Browd said:

To me this is the same issue as whether to hire a teacher or coach to improve your skills at, e.g., an academic subject or athletic endeavor -- some prefer to learn on their own and others find value in being taught/coached. Neither is right or wrong, but being taught or coached does usually result in faster progress, in my experience.

Click to expand...

Mhh... I slightly disagree with the comparison, I think it's missing a third category, because just "learning by playing" is more like not looking into the book at all and instead just experimenting and drawing conclusions directly from the outcome - which will undoubtedly lead to false conclusions on the "objective" level, but is also a pretty fun process.

To make an example from my personal experience:
If you want to improve your drawing skills you basically have those three choices:
- Just draw a lot
- Draw a lot and watch other people draw, communicate with other artists, etc.,
- Draw a lot and get an actual teacher.

So when people tell somebody to watch other people play on youtube, that's a lot like that second category to me, the middle-ground - it doesn't prevent the person from developing their own style and making their own conclusions to progress instead of just relying on another person's progress, but instead adds a lot more information that makes progression easier.

Referring them to guides would be more the third category, quick progression, but a lot of the "personal style" is lost in the process (although a good teacher of course knows how to prevent that as much as possible), and a lot of the progression is shortened (which is great when the goal is to get good, but of course less interesting for people who are in it for the progression, or just for the fun).

The first category is what GoingForTheOne suggested, very slow progress compared to the other categories, but also the most freedom.

Of course all three categories are valid ways of playing, I totally agree on that.

FWIW, I've learnt very little off youtube videos (both IV and V) by various recommended youtubers. I find after 15 minutes of watching someone go click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click with very little explanation of what they're actually doing and why, that it's been waste of time.

I have learnt lots on these forums OTOH, and by my own mistakes. But not enough to make me more than an average Emporer player.

For this forum I think king/emperor is about the average level of play, I play emperor/immortal and can win on immortal sometimes, but fail also because I cannot resist trying to build wonders at really bad times and cannot be bothered to micro/macro manage every detail.

Guess I fall into the 4th 'dark zone' of Ryika's list. 'Could do better'

Nah, the list is just about different types of learning, just having fun by building wonders although you know you shouldn't if your goal is to win the game (quickly) doesn't really have much to do with that.

Hell, back when I played Civ I constantly maneuvered myself into losses because I just enjoyed picking on weaklings too much and ignored that I'm actually falling behind overall. ^^ Not that I bothered much until someone showed up with an overwhelming army and quickly put an end to my picking on others.

Yes, the good(?) old days when 'goodie huts' were potential barb encampments and a diplomat could defeat a battleship with his top hat

Primary question has to be: "Are you having fun?". If you are, then you're doing it right.

It doesn't matter if you prefer playing on Warlord and spelling your name out in cities, or hardcoring it to beat a 196 science victory on Deity or slugging it out on multiplayer, if you're having fun, then it's entirely the point.

But there's always stuff to learn. I would say, don't worry about the level that other people are playing at, pick up whatever tips and suggestions you can and apply them if they work for you.

Watching high level games on Youtube does teach you a lot of how to really squeeze the potential out of every resource and opportunity, but don't fall under the impression that it's a standard you have to meet.

Other than that, trial and error. It's what seen me through from the original Civ when there was no interweb to ask for support!

BigChiefLizzy said:

Yes, the good(?) old days when 'goodie huts' were potential barb encampments and a diplomat could defeat a battleship with his top hat

Click to expand...

More than barb encampments, they would spawn 8 barbs, kill your scout and potentially go after your city, which in the good old days barbarians could capture.

Ah the amusement of trying to get the Barbarians to grow a civ empire. So many fruitless hours...

I've played Civ since the original in 1991, and I still can't do the highest levels. Using the forum here and some vids has helped - I do a lot of things right instinctively, but I am a LOT less focused than the best players. They pick a strategy and know exactly what selections will drive them unerringly down that path. I tend to take too many side selections, taking me down paths that delay or forestall victory. As a result, I can't win at the highest levels. I can beat Prince almost all the time, but King is where I settle for a good, competitive game. I can win 60-40 there.

My suggestion is to not only try GOTM, but try the Minor Gauntlets. They are challenging and you can replay them, rolling a new map, to see if you can beat your last best game. Then you can benchmark yourself to the medal winners.