Long Time Player, New Poster

Been playing Civ since Civ II, all the way up to and including Civ V, as well as SMAC. My number one complaint (and with as many hours and huge supporter of the series that I am I feel I'm allowed a number one complaint) is the way the AI doesn't get better with higher difficulties, it just cheats. To me, it's a "lazy" way to improve difficulty, and it's incredibly frustrating to get beat not because of better strategy or smarter choices, but only because hordes and hordes of units overwhelm you because they can build 4 to every one of yours.

So, I tend to live my Civ life on Warlord or so level, and enjoy the game immensely. However, after about a thousand games on Warlord, of course it gets a little boring, or too easy, so I decide to go up to Noble.

And after four games, with all the same result, I'm left wondering what the level of jump it must be. I'm sure I could beat it at Noble, if I played by optimizing my strategic choices, but I prefer a style of play that involves randomness, as it makes it more fun for me. So, instead of choosing techs, whenever a tech is discovered and a list comes up to choose the next one, I shuffle a deck of cards and draw a card for each tech. The high card is the tech I "choose" and if there is a tie between techs, then and only then can I make a "choice" as I can choose between the two (or three or whatever) techs that drew the same card as my next tech to research.

Obviously this can have strategic drawbacks, and make the game harder. Which is fine. But my question, and the reason for this post is this. How big of a jump is it from Warlord to Noble because I am finding it extremely easy to win on Warlord and extremely difficult (impossible?) to win on Noble. Now this could be due to some unlucky draws of the cards, but I'm not so sure.

As an example, in all four games, horses, an early critical resource, were long distances away from me ALL FOUR TIMES. Coincidence, or is the placement of resources also dependent upon difficulty level? I've read FAQ's, strategy guides, manuals, etc. and never has resource placement (or perhaps resource scarcity) been mentioned as one of the things that change via difficulty level.

It is just so frustrating to go from too easy to too hard with one jump. Or, more accurately, too hard the way I play it. I think I could probably win on Noble, perhaps even Prince, but I wouldn't even be interested in trying above that as it is my opinion that the only way to beat anything above that is to "game the system" somehow, and that's just not fun for me.

So what say you experts out here at Civ Fanatics? Is the jump between levels of difficulty pretty large or not? Is resource placement (or scarcity) a factor of difficulty setting? And what can one do to lessen the jump from level to level??? Mods???

Sorry for the length and thanks for any who read and respond.

OldFatGuy

Difficulty depends on very many things, including sheer luck.

That those Horses i. e. were so far away was nothing more than you being unlucky, AI does cheat, but not like that. AI mainly got huge discounts on building-costs and gets stronger with every era, but tbh., Noble is still a very low difficulty, that can be won with Warriors and Axes, and doesn't need any advanced form of tactic. You're probably lacking some very basic info on how the game works. We've seen players go from Settler to Immortal in one month, and me i. e. jumped from Emperor to Deity, which is more difficult and took me at least a quarter of a year, if not even one half.

I'd invite you to read more of the Strategy and Tips forum, it's sub-forum, and the HoF forum has some very good writeups too.
Read a little and watch others play, then you'll beat Noble without problems .

Yes, I believe I could win on Noble, probably even Prince, if I were interested in those play styles. I'm not.

I like "playing the hand dealt me" and not choosing Civs, leaders, or even starting position (seems one of the most repeated bits of advice I've heard is look at your starting place and if it's not good, start over) and to me, that's a form of cheating.

I like playing with bad luck, even horrible luck, and seeing how well I can do. I like not choosing techs and being hamstrung by what techs I know and don't know.

The only way to play like this is to play on the lower levels.

My question is one of relativity. It seemed (although it might be my memory being bad) that the jump from whatever the second level is to warlord wasn't that big of a deal, whereas I'm seeing a huge jump from warlord to noble. And I'm wondering if it's just rotten luck four times in a row or if the jump is quite a bit larger??? And you're sure resource scarcity isn't related to difficulty?

Thank you very much for reading and responding.

OldFatGuy

Yes, I'm 100% sure with the resources.

Noble can be won easily, even if getting a really bad map. AIs are actually so bad at that level, that you could research every tech, before they even would reach Industrial times, if you played more efficiently.

I also remember that I once read, that the jump to noble is further, then the jump to warlord. I don't know, as the first level where I encountered difficulties was Prince as I didn't know, that Forrests could be chopped! Once I visited this site and learned this + some other strategies and tactics, I directly won on Emperor.
The last is why I assume, that you're missing some very imprtant but very basic knowledge. Normally, you should be far better than Noble AIs, because you can think. AI is blind and dumb, and on Noble, it doesn't even get bonuses over you. It's just not handicapped anymore, like on Settler and Warlord.

What exactly do you have problems with? There isn't a big gap in difficulty from Warlord to Noble, and Noble is the "neutral" level, where both you and the AI don't have (m)any bonuses or penalties. Perhaps the main change from Warlord to Noble is that the AI is no longer hamstrung in declaring war, while at lower difficulties the AI are much less likely to declare on you.

I also wonder, why not having Horses is a Problem. There are OPhants, Maces, Rifles, Infantries and Tanks. Siege also doesn't need Horses.

Pangaea said:

There isn't a big gap in difficulty from Warlord to Noble,

Click to expand...

Thank you, that's basically what I was asking. I guess the four games I've played so far have been a four game run of bad luck with the cards and resources. I was concerned because the jump from Settler to Warlord wasn't even noticeable to me, whereas I've had four really bad games in a row on Noble.

Just ensuring it's a run of bad luck and not that there is some bigger jump from Warlord to Noble than from Settler to Warlord and that resource availability also wasn't tied to difficulty level.

I think my questions are answered, even though I was obviously less than clear. I apologize to all for that. It's a common problem of mine.

I know I can beat the game on Noble, probably Prince, and maybe higher (not as sure there) but then I would have to become "more efficient" to quote a poster above. And that's not the play style I enjoy. I could pull up a spreadsheet, figure out the maximum bonus and efficiency of every conceivable build, city placement, and tech choice if I wanted to and I'm sure I'd have a much easier time. But that's not FUN to me.

I like being "immersed" in different environments, with different challenges and different possibilities rather than just "maxing out" the most efficient way to play. And, as I said, I realize this play style is not suitable for anything but the lower difficulties, but I thought that winning on Warlord was so easy every time, even when I had horrible luck with resources, techs, etc. that surely Noble would be okay.

But my first four games have all been very bad indeed. But they have had some bad luck, particularly with respect to resource availability. So, I hope that's the case, and my next four games, with random luck determining which techs I get and how I progress, will be much easier. But four in a row concerned me and so I thought I'd post the question here.

Thank you all very much for your input.

OldFatGuy

When I started to play on Deity with non Incan leaders, I surely lost 100 or more starts one after each other. Maybe it also were 500.

As a prince/monarch level player I'll had my two cents to the topic at hand. First of all is the topic of resources. This is randomly distributed across the map forcing you to adjust your game play. Iron, copper, horses, elephants, all of these or some might be within reach of your cities. The availability of each resource dictates your research path and overall strategy, even having to alter your strategy based on what you have access to. Yes it does suck not having what you expect. I'll provide you with my current game as an example. I just started an always war game playing as Charlemagne of the HRE. My UU requires iron. Well I have no iron, so I'm forced to rely on elephants, spears and axes. Kind of screwed my strategy, but that is one of the aspects of civ I like. There are no guarantee's. You must learn to deal with the hand you are dealt. The second topic to consider is the level of micromanagement you are comfortable with. You refer to it as a play style. The levels above noble require an ever increasing amount of micromanagement. Playing on noble doesn't need you to over micro, but it does help. The two other posters that have responded to this thread are much higher level players than I. Listen to them, they will give you good advice. Finally, I suggest you do a YouTube search for games by a player ( Sulla ). Sulla's lets play videos are slow and he explains why he does what he does, and his strategies. Watch Sulla's games and you will improve greatly.

OldFatGuy said:

I know I can beat the game on Noble, probably Prince, and maybe higher (not as sure there) but then I would have to become "more efficient" to quote a poster above. And that's not the play style I enjoy. I could pull up a spreadsheet, figure out the maximum bonus and efficiency of every conceivable build, city placement, and tech choice if I wanted to and I'm sure I'd have a much easier time. But that's not FUN to me.

I like being "immersed" in different environments, with different challenges and different possibilities rather than just "maxing out" the most efficient way to play. And, as I said, I realize this play style is not suitable for anything but the lower difficulties, but I thought that winning on Warlord was so easy every time, even when I had horrible luck with resources, techs, etc. that surely Noble would be okay.

OldFatGuy

Click to expand...

Ok I think what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is you're more interested in enjoying the overall experience in Civ 4 and the random, open possibilities that can happen, and you like dealing with new and adverse situations in each unique game. And most of the Civfanatics posters, on the other hand, we are playing often to win as efficiently/quickly etc. as we can, just trying to optimize the game like it was a math problem sometimes. But I think there is a lot in common in our gaming still, because we all use intuitions when we play too, and speaking for myself I definitely get into the storyline in a Civ 4 game and I do like the randomness too.

With the tech path idea, you're not selecting what to research next yourself, but you're getting something at random. The AIs however are researching based on programmed tendencies and they will get further into certain techs sooner, religious ones will found more religions, military AIs unlock new units etc. Also the AIs are gonna trade techs to each other once any one gets Alphabet so some of them are bouncing techs around and pulling each other ahead. Each game the AIs though will fall into different groups, some hate each other.. some love each other.., you can definitely use that to your advantage to gain for your Civ. It's programmed in but there are always new things every game which I like, some games I have Vikings right there at my doorstep and they won't trade techs unless they like me, and build huge armies, some games I have Gandhi nearby me and he barely builds any military, etc.

Its really interesting to me how many different ways there are to play this game, makes it so this game never gets old. You're playing a different way from me I think but you are getting a lot out of it and enjoying it which is really cool. Hope you keep finding awesome things in Civ 4, because this game has almost like an endless amount of possibilities.

Okay, this is now five in a row. Sorry, but if you were to come across a new coin and began flipping it and it came up heads four, five, six, etc. times in a row you'd start to wonder if maybe the coin was different somehow.

Maybe the resource supply is the same but I have every reason to question whether it's location or something about it is different because this is now five games in a row I've played where resources are just extremely scarce for me in my location.

This is frustrating. Goes from too easy to next to impossible with one level jump. (No, not next to impossible if one "maxed out" their play style, but as I've said in this thread, I've found I enjoy playing with random techs that really shake up how the game evolves. But it's not fun when it's too easy nor is it fun when it's next to impossible because it jumps in so many different ways in just one level.

Always been my number one complaint about this game. Instead of developing a coherent and challenging AI, so that jumping up in difficulty merely made the AI play smarter, they chose the lazy way and change the game depending on difficulty.

Sigh, maybe some day someone will invent the perfect game. Till then, I guess this one is still as close as I'll get.

Have you thought of drafting Rifles already? They don't need any resource and it's a very powerful tactic.

Seraiel said:

Have you thought of drafting Rifles already? They don't need any resource and it's a very powerful tactic.

Click to expand...

I always think about that when I have Nationalism. But when the techs you research come up randomly you don't have any control over when that will be.

This was to your rant that you lacked resources. I know you play with random techs. I still don't understand why, because even real countries direct their research, but it's ok. On Noble, it should be np to go to war with rifles or even Infantries, even with random tech choice.

Seraiel said:

This was to your rant that you lacked resources. I know you play with random techs. I still don't understand why, because even real countries direct their research, but it's ok. On Noble, it should be np to go to war with rifles or even Infantries, even with random tech choice.

Click to expand...

Have you ever played a game on marathon, huge map, continents, low sea level, 6 total Civs (yours plus 5), standard game rules, Noble difficulty, and random selection of Civs, leaders, and techs?

OldFatGuy said:

Have you ever played a game on marathon, huge map, continents, low sea level, 6 total Civs (yours plus 5), standard game rules, Noble difficulty, and random selection of Civs, leaders, and techs?

Click to expand...

No, I haven't. I played many Huge / Marathon when I was still new to CFC. Those were all on Deity though, and as I play for HoF, I'm forced to take at least 10 opponents on a Huge map.

I'm guessing that with so few civs, that there is really very much land for everybody.

Seraiel said:

No, I haven't. I played many Huge / Marathon when I was still new to CFC. Those were all on Deity though, and as I play for HoF, I'm forced to take at least 10 opponents on a Huge map.

I'm guessing that with so few civs, that there is really very much land for everybody.

Click to expand...

What is your preferred setup? Or at least preferred speed?

Oh, and what does CFC stand for? (Sorry, not sure I heard that before)

EDIT: Never mind about the CFC question, I saw the link in your signature and read what it was. Interesting stuff.

OldFatGuy said:

What is your preferred setup? Or at least preferred speed?

Oh, and what does CFC stand for? (Sorry, not sure I heard that before)

Click to expand...

CFC = Civ Fanatics Centre.

I like Space Races on Marathon quite a lot. All speeds except Marathon are ridiculous imho, because units just outdate way to fast, but I have played them too for Elite Qattromaster.

I also like Huge Marathon Highscore games. I'll try to beat the current 4.8mio highscore from in 2 months onwards.

Seraiel said:

CFC = Civ Fanatics Centre.

I like Space Races on Marathon quite a lot. All speeds except Marathon are ridiculous imho, because units just outdate way to fast, but I have played them too for Elite Qattromaster.

I also like Huge Marathon Highscore games. I'll try to beat the current 4.8mio highscore from in 2 months onwards.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the fast obsolescence is why I also prefer Marathon. I've never played to try to get a high score before, in fact I don't even know how to "max out" scoring like you can max out the other efficiencies, but I'm sure there's a way to do that too.

Thanks for the insight. If you're ever bored for a new challenge, try a marathon game on huge map with continents and only six total Civs and use random chance to choose your Civs and techs. It's amazing how different the game is depending on what order the techs come up and adds a whole new challenge, which IMO makes it impossible on the harder difficulties, and it seems pretty hard on the middle ones.

The six Civs does leave a lot of land for everyone, but, it also makes barbs a bigger issue than they usually are, and IMO that's fun. It's fun to see a "barbarian civilization" with six cities (I've seen this often) that are all hooked up and working like a little Civ despite being barbs. And it's really neat trying to figure out how to survive the Barbs if you weren't able to build the GW and keep them out of your borders because the masonry tech came up late in your random result of techs.

It's a whole different way to play, and IMO, after all the thousands of hours of playing it's added a whole new dimension for me. To me, it started being basically the same game over and over again, mapping out your tech tree depending on your Civ's traits and strengths and then just always following the same script. Random tech choices really changes things up.

Thx, but my love is in playing as optimized as possible, to get the fastest finish date or the best highscore, I'm a perfectionist .

I can imagine that random tech choices make things more difficult, but if it's possible to beat AIs with 400% and more bonuses, then it's also possible to simply completely out-expand and out-research them without those bonuses. I'd probably simply REX to as many cities I can get 'til random choice chooses HAs or gives me Elephants, and then I's roll over all AIs on my continent. To defend against Elepult, AI would need Rifles, it's almost impossible that that would happen. There's no limit for production, so I would simply go by numbers.