I am at my wit's end with this game, and the series

Teproc said:

Monarch is still not an actual level of difficulty in Civ V though.

I don't feel that there's a shaming of non-Deity players around these parts. People mention Deitya lot because it's basically a different game from Immortal, which is a different game from everything below that. People should play the game at whatever level is most enjoyable to them.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by this, do you mean, its not actually difficult or it 'doesn't count' because its too easy?

Either way, that kind of wording is probably what compounds the feelings of the OP when he basically says he's a failure cause he loses on Monarch pangea. Didn't he say he blocked someone for their comments?

And you're right, there's no 'shaming' of people per se, but there's very definitely a show offy kind of attitude when posters like the OP ask for help that tends to make them feel worse

P.S. the reason why immortal is its own thing and diety is its own thing is as I said, the game isn't balanced on those levels. They are special challenges for really good players. A goal for everyone to aim for where its more about exploiting the mechanics than playing the game as intended and still being able to enjoy it.

The AI does get very OP at the end when using the deity level. Research leads, mass armies and early dows make the deity level much more challenging. Stealing technologies sometimes works on deity but then you have to wait that much more time since the AI also has it a lot easier to get the police stations up on time. Deity is a challenge but victory still is possible. I have seen it done and even I have done it before in multiplayer.

Monarch is not the name of a difficulty level. That would be King. It was source of confusion earlier so I was a little annoyed that you were using the wrong term

This thread got heated for reasons I didn't completely get, apparently some people said thathe OP had been trolling for a long time or something ? In any case it's not the typical way these kinds of threads go for what I've seen.

P.S. the reason why immortal is its own thing and diety is its own thing is as I said, the game isn't balanced on those levels. They are special challenges for really good players. A goal for everyone to aim for where its more about exploiting the mechanics than playing the game as intended and still being able to enjoy it.

Click to expand...

Now you're sounding like Deity/Immortal is not a valid way to play the game . I get what you're saying though.

Teproc said:

Monarch is not the name of a difficulty level. That would be King. It was source of confusion earlier so I was a little annoyed that you were using the wrong term

This thread got heated for reasons I didn't completely get, apparently some people said thathe OP had been trolling for a long time or something ? In any case it's not the typical way these kinds of threads go for what I've seen.



Now you're sounding like Deity/Immortal is not a valid way to play the game . I get what you're saying though.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I still get mixed up from the roots as a Civ3 fanatic. I don't touch King, so i just assume its Monarch

And no, props to players who are very good at Diety/Immortal. I didn't mean to say its not a legit way to play the game just different, which you agree with (i think)

I can only play at immortal with some difficulty myself.

Before choosing deity, and the level 8, the caption says that the deity level is only for the best players in the world.

reddishrecue said:

Before choosing deity, and the level 8, the caption says that the deity level is only for the best players in the world.

Click to expand...

It's definitely an overstatement. I mean that kind of implies that only 20 players in the world would be able to win on Deity, or somewhat to that effect, which is simply not true.

@dexters : Yeah, we agree. I generally play on Deity but I also like playing on Emperor for a more relaxed and experimental game (especially with mods, doing an Iroquois game on YnAEMP, it's pretty awesome).

Sonereal said:

You're trying to join a club that you have admitted you don't have the qualifications to join.

Click to expand...

I never admitted such a thing. You're seeing this through your own broken prism.

Secondly, I never said I was being nice. At this point, you're just narrating. Does this thread need a narration? I don't think this thread needs a narration, Naokaukodem. I don't think it needs a narration at all.

Click to expand...

Said by the guy who spams uselessly and endlessly. Jesus Christ just narrated, shame on him, and shame on me.

Finally, you keep saying "spamming", but I don't think you actually know what the word means, which is a remarkable feat considering you joined this board at them time I was still in elementary school.

Click to expand...

Spamming is not just creating nonsense replies in a row, it can be also creating scattered nonsense/bullying replies. Period.

As remarkable as you not understanding why people are telling you your opinion is irrelevant when you don't have Brave New World.

Click to expand...

Well you are the only one, with those now two supporters of you. Go found a sect ! You should be the man to consult then.

That's quite clear from your posts. So far, you've admitted you're not here for the OP, to talk about elements related to the OP's post, and that you don't even own the expansion the OP owns.

I am trying my best to find which, if any, of your points so far have been relevant, and I am failing.

Click to expand...

I'm here for the OP. I'm defending him. Is that more clear now ? Do you still fail ?

And I'm sure half the people here commenting don't appreciate Horizon's constant complaining about a game he clearly doesn't like, which is why most people have decided to ignore the OP entirely to just post helpful hints, tips, and strategies that are helpful to everybody.

Click to expand...

I've tryed to see his other posts, and I never felt on any in about 3 whole pages of threads, so...

Too bad you can't actually make definitive statements about how difficulty advantages vary in Brave New World, since you don't own it.

Click to expand...

(singing) You don't have expansion, euh, Nananananèreuh

I was counting on you to confirm this, but you were too busy to denigrate people.

Moderator Action: Do not accuse others of spamming. If you have a problem with someone's post, report the post; do not engage like this in the forums.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Naokaukodem said:

I'm here for the OP. I'm defending him.

Click to expand...

You aren't doing a very good job of it.

I've tryed to see his other posts, and I never felt on any in about 3 whole pages of threads, so...

Click to expand...

I'm starting to wonder if you're actually reading the same thread all the rest of us are reading.

Horizons said:

I have managed to win a number of games on Monarch on randomly-generated archipelagos and been finding this quite fun.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with having FUN playing King level archipelago games.

Horizons said:

However whenever I get a start on an pangaea or an island with other civs I get slaughtered. I understand the basic strategy in BNW is 'grow a large population or lose' and that ancient warfare has been relegated to barb-hunting, so the strategy is to expand and grow and forget about warfare until at least the Renaissance right?

Click to expand...

Even if you do not intend to go to war, you still need some military units for defence/deterrent when playing a pangea map. I have even been attacked whilst playing Chieftan level because of a lack of units!

Horizons said:

I literally don't see any opportunity for war until at least the mid game ... is that intentional? Is warfare supposed to be disastrous and unviable for most of the game? (Why did they bother making so many different units when you can't get any use out of them? Why bother having longswordsmen why by the time you can build two of them the AI has moved on to musketmen?)

Click to expand...

I personally did not enjoy G&K, partly because of the reasons you have mentioned, as a consequence I havn't even bothered to purchase BNW. I still play the Vanilla game and have a lot of fun playing at the lower levels, at least I can attack with three warriors and take a City if I want to!

The civ fanatics forums are a wealth of information that has been put together by philosophers, mathematicians and tacticians, it is up to us as individuals just how much we want to know, and how we go about putting it into practice.

Horizons said:

What am I missing? Is it time to uninstall and forget about this franchise? Or stick to playing in the Prince sandbox with a punchbag AI?

Click to expand...

I don't know how much you play or at what speeds you play, but with a little practice you should be able to overcome the difference between prince and king levels. I would recommend playing Epic or marathon for domination games because your army will not become obsolete as quickly as standard and quick speed!

Many people around the World have close relationships with their pets and just maybe your avatar of a cat has inspired some people to give you some very helpful advice, maybe you should take on board some of the advice given!

GL

but with a little practice you should be able to overcome the difference between prince and king levels.

Click to expand...

He's been having the same problems for two years.

TractorBoy said:

I personally did not enjoy G&K, partly because of the reasons you have mentioned, as a consequence I havn't even bothered to purchase BNW. I still play the Vanilla game and have a lot of fun playing at the lower levels, at least I can attack with three warriors and take a City if I want to!

Click to expand...

BNW changes and improves many G&K issues. Plus, if you watch for a sale, you can get it dirt cheap now. There's no reason not to get BNW.

BNW truly makes Civ5 peerless in the sim games out now. You really need to get it.

Wodan said:

Correction: war -> conquest.

There's no problem with early war. It's when you start taking cities and wiping whole Civs off the map that you get those penalties.

But you can fight all day long, pillage to your heart's content, and kill as many units as you want. Just don't take more than 1 city in the early game, if that. Unless you are OK being enemies with a lot of the other civs as a result.

Click to expand...

That's a fair statement. Not much out there to pillage, though, at that point. I don't think the rewards for conquest or war are high enough in the early to lend itself to Civs with early units. That pendulum swing needs to be looked at.

bcaiko said:

That's a fair statement. Not much out there to pillage, though, at that point. I don't think the rewards for conquest or war are high enough in the early to lend itself to Civs with early units. That pendulum swing needs to be looked at.

Click to expand...

Simple land denial is an underrated benefit. A civ with a strong early UU could get huge gains from that, even if refraining from actually conquering or razing any cities.

Haven't had time to read through the rest of this thread yet, but here's my update haha.

So I played through a King game as Brazil on a pangea (I was lucky enough to get one this time - the random generator seems to have a heavy preference for archipelago). A fairly comfortable win, remembering to build few wonders or buildings (until required), not have much of an army except for defence, and be peaceful with all other civs and generate city-state alliances as much as possible.

I used the normal strategies: build three (max 4) cities, concentrate on trade and building and have a small military with walled/well-defended cities, then burst out once cannons are available to expand a bit, then go back to turtling and wealth generation, then explode onto the scene in modern times and conquer. Once again a diplomatic victory circa 2000 AD.

Same old problems. No time to research tanks or helicopters before victory. Nobody anywhere near getting a science victory. Early warfare is completely disastrous - you have to build so many units because defenders have the advantage and cities are 'born strong'. By the time you have an army the opponent has upgraded his army and wipes the floor with you. Meanwhile the lost production and gold sets you back hundreds of years and your diplomatic relations are shot to pieces for the remainder of the game.

Considering that early - i.e. ancient, classic, medieval and renaissance - warfare is so disastrous why don't the devs just take out the ability to build units altogether, and we can just sit nicely on our backsides building granaries and caravans and giving money to city states?

Talk about one-dimensional gameplay.

Play the Huns and see if you still think that early warfare is disastrous

I would say to the OP that he should invest some serious time in watching others play the game, on deity level, on YouTube. I would recommend videos by Marbozir among others. Videos are essential to getting significantly better at the game. I have beaten Immortal numerous times and am having my best game on deity ever as I type this (I've never beaten it in about a dozen tries; currently I'm almost to the Atomic era). I owe a lot of that to Marbozir's "Let's Play Japan" series.

I used to play a lot of online poker. That game has training sites where you pay a monthly fee to watch training vids from really good players. My poker game improved by leaps and bounds after I watched them. I could never have gotten to my level of play on my own, no matter how many books I read. And in Civ I feel it's the same thing. Yes, forums and the 'printed word' are great learning resources. But eventually, if you're at wits end and want to get better, you have to go to YouTube and watch some Deity videos. There's no competition, in Civ, between printed words and videos--you will need both to get really good.

I hope the OP hasn't given up on the game.

Horizons said:

Haven't had time to read through the rest (any) of this thread yet, but here's my update (effort to keep thread going) haha. (suckers)
<snip>
Talk about one-dimensional gameplay. (bait)

Click to expand...

I edited your post.

Moderator Action: Please do not troll in the forums. You are responsible from what you quote and how you change a quote. This is not acceptable.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Novalia said:

I edited your post.

Click to expand...

Troll. Reported.

Moderator Action: When you report a post, you are not allowed to post that you have because you are trolling when you do.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889