Does anyone notice...

[AfterShafter]

Does anyone notice that so very often when someone posts a question/comment/whatever in here, it very often goes like this:

"Last game I was going along merrily killing my fifth other country with Praetorians, my score triple that of any CPU in the world, when I got random event X. What does X mean?"

Sub in Immortals, Quecha, Redcoats, or comments on leader combos like Boudica of the Romans, Darius of the Holy Romans, Will of the Duch on Archipelago, or any power unit/combo of that ilk... There's usually no reason for someone to add in a little bit like this to their query, other than ego-boosting, and I have to ask... How many people actually play on difficulties that really gives them a rough time, or play with leaders who don't have some blatant ace up their sleeve that forms the backbone of their play strategy?

The term "taxing" in the poll is to reflect that this is a relative thing. Monarch is easy for some, hard for others, for instance, so basically this poll is asking whether you play in a manner that's really hard for you, or you play on one where you won't constantly be scrambling and can cruise through the game at a leisurely pace?

 

[djvandrake]

I'm playing my first game on Prince with Gilgamesh and it is downright tough. My main rival is J. Caesar and Catherine the Great. I've never had an outright tech lead, and have never been at the top of the power graph. I've made Catherine so mad she's likely plotting my painful demise, and I just broke Caesar's kneecaps with a huge invasion stack (after he sucker punched me during a war with someone else. Payback is hell Caesar.)

It is the most fun I've had in a while. Games where I'm so far ahead that it's not even a challenge any more are no fun at all.

 

[The Snug]

I already made my rise through the ranks. Now that I've achieved gladiator status, I'm content with feeding off the small frye now.

 

[Snakehead]

I don't think I have enough games under my belt to always play on a challenging level. I might play an easier difficulty with a leader I haven't played before, to test strategies and their particular advantages. I go back to my normal level with random everything and sometimes/often crash and burn, but hopefully learn something with each game.

 

[Sefnag]

I'm all over the place as it all depends on my mood and the day. It may also depend on what I'm up to with a leader. (e.g. working on something specific strategy wise)

 

[glaivemaster]

I've just moved up to Prince, but I seem to be doing quite well here as well, so I'll put myself as non-taxing

I tend to play random leaders, so sometimes I get brilliant ones like Gandhi, sometimes I have to deal with using Pericles. I don't tend to use amazing combos unless I feel like having a laugh

 

[PaulusIII]

Monarch is about right for me in terms of difficulty, and I generally play with random leaders with their own civilizations. Maybe I'd try some broken combination once on Emperor and see how I get it down.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

A while ago someone pointed out that if you're playing at the difficulty level that matches your skill then if you have seven empires in the game, you should only win one out of seven times. I hadn't though of it that way and was surprised. I've been playing on noble (aggressive AI) and that must not be hard enough because I win nearly every time. Not that it's easy, in my last game I faced some serious threats and more than once was convinced I was going to lose, but I won.
Most games usually take me two weeks to finish although that last one took three months for various reasons. So if I was playing at an level equal to my ability I'd win one game every 14 weeks. That a long time to be losing so I'd probably not go much higher than I am now. I'll keep it where it feels like a challenge even if the numbers say differently. Maybe with Civilization: Revolution I'd go higher. If I can play a game in a few hours I could lose a lot but still win as often as with this version. Also watching an empire it took an hour to build be wiped out isn't nearly as hard as with one that took a week.

I try to always pick leaders/civs I haven't played before.

 

[Lord_Zath]

I enjoy a challenge and the ability to refine my strategies with those that I think best suit my style of play.

I tried the random/random thing (unrestricted leaders), but never enjoyed it much...

 

[Iranon]

I vary, playing from Monarch to Immortal... for various reasons.

On Monarch, I can refine strategies and formulate new ones, since I'm usually in control of the game. This is still the level which best helps me improve my understanding of the game.
On Emperor, I will win unless something goes spectactularly wrong... I don't enjoy it as much as the others (needs work, but a win isn't a real sense of achievement). I play it because it helps me develop better instincts and to handle diplomacy better.
On Immortal, I have a chance of winning... slightly better than 'fair' if I use random leaders and maps taking the first start position. Obviously better if I get to cherry-pick something. I'm having a blast on it, but I'm not sure I'm learning much... apart from playing catch-up, and which parts of a strategy are non-essential perhaps.
On Deity... forget it. I'll occasionally play it out of morbid curiosity and it helps understand the limitations of the AI if you can see it squander its potential... but unless I stack the deck those are more experiments than actual games.

 

[Navarre]

I play Noble, and win every game, one way or another. Sometimes it's challenging, but that's rare. I take a different leader every time, and try different strats, sometimes weaked ones, just for fun. I don't care about proving myself better than the AI, I keep it a game and I just want to have fun building my empire. I'm thinking since a long time to move up to Prince or Monarch, but in the end I always prefer to take a leader I haven't played for long and try something new with that crappy traits and UU of his.

 

[Bob-san]

I'm not a great player, so I simply play at Noble. I win some games somehow or another. I quit when I'm out of troops and there's a huge SoD outside my capital. Last game I won by forcing razing a dozen or two cities. It was an OCC, so I had no choice. Still, I would look explicitly at their capital city and then go after it. I was behind in techs most of the game, so I relied on slightly pre-modern units (basic tanks, eventually marines and paratroopers, basic fighters, no stealth destroyers, missile cruisers, or attack subs) to get the job done. It was a space race, and I was so far behind. Not a single enemy tried really spying, despite their 25000/5000 EP ratings. I razed about five capitals to stop their spaceship, making sure my slower pace would be enough. I couldn't maximize my hammer output either... I was already up to the 8 engineer max and fully working all possible tiles (I lost 2 tiles because of mountains, and was on about 3/5 sea with Maoi Statues for the extra hammers). I said FU to the Globe Theater, and just ran HR the entire game. My only regret? I had no iron and no uranium. I had to rely upon "allies" (I didn't keep them the entire game) to get iron and then corn, for Std Eth as a tax on the AI.

 

[Stoney the I]

monarch and happy with it.

win 1 out of 4 or so and proud of it.

 

[LegionSteve]

At the moment I'm playing monarch/marathon, and that is taxing for me. Recently though I'm starting to get the hang of it - I win a bit more than I lose. I'm playing with random leaders at the moment. In my current game I got Izzy, tried to go for a military victory, don't think it's going to work, but I might still do a space race win. Before that I had a complete failure with Alex, which is a leader I normally like but I messed it up. Before that a cultural win with Stalin who I don't like at all.

A while ago someone pointed out that if you're playing at the difficulty level that matches your skill then if you have seven empires in the game, you should only win one out of seven times.

I understand the point but I don't think it's necessarily true. The AIs can make it hard for you but they just aren't very good at achieving the victory conditions. If left alone, a peaceful builder AI can do a cultural win or a peaceful techer AI can do a space race. It is widely reported that the AIs can do diplomatic wins but I don't remember seeing one. I have never seen one get anywhere near a military victory. So if you play against 6 AIs you are probably only competing with one or two, the rest are just there to annoy you and slow you down. Monty is never going to win, nor Toku, nor Sitting Bull.

 

[Nestorius]

The last game I dropped from Monarch to Prince, but with aggressive AI and raging barbarians on a marathon large Big and Small map. So far its been fun. Since its Prince, I'm trying to play ethically, with no slavery or vicious backstabbing. Aggressive AI keeps them attacking me so I don't get bored. I was sort of surprised 500BC when the Cambodians snuck up with a six unit stack of swordsmen and axemen on one of my cities.

 

[Supr49er]

I play various maps with random leaders.

 

[Napalm102]

I play Monarch/Epic/Normal/Fractal (mostly) and pick a new civ every time, sort ACC (all civ challenge for me ), I'm prone to making mistakes and occasioanly loose a game. But I recon with above settings I have about 4 out of 5 chance of winning the game. Problem is I sometimes don't know why I have lost i.e. I have no idea where I went wrong. So I guess Monarch is right for me and I'm getting more and more comfortable on it.

I think I have to get rid more of a "builder" attitude before I can move up a level. But it is alot better now, no more "oh let me build that library before axeman.....and maybe a coliseum and an aqueduct....etc" when I have no need to raise happy cap and my city is far away from hitting the health cap.

 

[Dagta]

I play on Noble with a random leader, random civ, random barbarians, random shoreline, random climate and the shuffle script. I do not regenerate the map. I plan what I am dealt.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I just remembered another reason I don't want to go too high in difficulty. I've heard it said that you should never keep your forests for lumbermills or preserves because you'll need those hammers just to survive early on. Also I've heard it's a bad idea to try and found a religion because you'll need other tech sooner again just to survive, and that you shouldn't build wonders and instead capture them.
I'd hate to have to play in that way, where one choice between tech means I'd lose or where there are only one use for a resource. I'd rather maintain the illusion that there is still a choice in strategy. It's still better than in earlier versions with densely packed cities that build units and never buildings.

 

[peacenik]

I play on Noble with a random leader, random civ, random barbarians, random shoreline, random climate and the shuffle script. I do not regenerate the map. I plan what I am dealt.

I do the same, except I use the RandomScriptChooser mod, which I believe is better and more unpredictable than the shuffle script.