Hi, and a question

Hi, new forumer here.
First, sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes you may find. English isn't my first language.

Some info. I used to play Civ 2 A LOT back in the years, but never at high difficulty levels. Then I played civ 3 for a couple weeks, but it didn't hook me so much. Don't know why, it was an amazing Civ game. I was in the Dark Age of Camelot phase, I think.
And now I just started with civ 4 (bought civ 4, BtS and Colonization).
I've already realized the potential of this game to hook me for quite some time. And at this moment I have A LOT of free time (recovering at home from a badly banged elbow and following surgery). So I think I'm gonna play this game a bit more "seriously" than its predecessors, trying to climb up the diff levels.

Now my question. At wich point should I start playing at Noble?
My games so far:
- a vanilla game at Chieftain level: easy time victory. Did it on purpose to see all the units and stuff.

Then I moved to BtS (side note: just wow at this expansion; most game developers out there should learn from this example):
- Chieftain: easy Space victory with Bismark
- Warlord: easy Cultural victory with Louis
- Warlord: a very messy game with Mao. This was my first try with a random leader/civ and a semi-random map. Started on a chain of medium-sized islands and ended with a comfortable (but totally unplanned until middle '800) space victory. The main mistake on this game was the lack of a consistent long-term strategy, wich led me to be some kind of hybrid civilization without any chance of victory, beside space or a marginal time victory. Lesson learned.

All games on huge maps.

Now, I'm gonna start my next game tomorrow. Do you think I should already move to Noble, or try some more Warlord games? Maybe with a more aggressive play-style from the start (wich has never been my strong point, in any Civ game...probably because I like modern warfare too much).

EDIT: another question. What's the general opinion about BtS scenarios? Good for starters, pro-players material or somewhere inbetween?

Based on what you told me, I think you're ready for noble. Stack the options in your favor. Pick a good leader and your favorite map and go from there. Even if you lose, you'll learn a lot more than from winning a warlord game. If you want to play a war game, bump your game speed up to epic or marathon to allow your units to travel farther before obsoleting. Epic first because marathon is a gigantic switch from normal (which I assume you're playing).

BTS scenarios are ok. I've only played a few of them and I prefer the real game more. Rhyes and Fall is my favorite.

And welcome to CFC!

Your English is very good by the way.

If you're experienced with Civ2 and played Civ3, even just a couple of times, you can jump right into Noble, no problem. In fact, you'd probably need to play prince if you want a challenge, but the first game is always fun to win, so go for noble. If you play below warlords level, and have even a remote understanding of Civ the game will be a complete cakewalk.

Alright, many thanks to both of you. Going to start the new game in a couple hours.

So it will Noble, going to try an early warmongering approach.
Map will be huge, and I'll switch from normal to epic speed.

My weakest point in the last game has been sea control: Hannibal landed two medium stacks right next to my first 2 cities...luckily it was mostly longbows and some cuirassiers vs my rifles and chivalry. But still, he got them there completely unnoticed. So, no sea in this game: it will Pangaea or maybe Great Plains.

I want to try a leader with the Aggressive trait. Not sure about the second. I like Protective, Charismatic or Creative. So the possible choices are Boudica, Tokugawa or Kubilai Khan.
Kubilai seems more interesting, but I'm not sure. I'll see later.

Thanks again.

Kublai is good for expanding because you don't need monuments or anything to pop borders and the cheap buildings are good. Plus, Mongols have an amazing UU and a very synergistic UB. charismatic would be my choice for traits of your three but Kublai would be my choice of leader because of the Keshiks.

Yeah, the Mongols are good, but I like Boudica slightly more.

Welcome to the Forums Ai Shizuka.

First game with Kubilai Khan was really bad, the main problem being a terrible map choice.

The second Noble game went definitely better.
Here is the link, if anyone is curious about a noobish first attempt at Noble: LINK.

Ai Shizuka,

I find that some of the best "learning" games I've had have been games where I just barely lost. Kick it up to Noble or even Prince and see where that gets you. Even if you lose, as long as you learned something consider the game a success!