Does anyone notice...

[needsomesleep]

I play on noble and play with as much randomness as I can. I usually chose either continents or fractle, but I will quit and start a new game after a few turns of exploring if I am surrounded by jungle and desert, or I'm on a space that allows only two or three cities to be built before needing to leave my homeland. Otherwise, I TRY to take what I'm dealt, but some times I'll look at a map and just not feel like they will be fun for what I look for in a game.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

I like to play on a Fractal map as either a civ that is very foreign to me, or just one that looks especially enjoyable without being OP. Monarch difficulty is plenty challenging for me atm.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

...Monty is never going to win, nor Toku, nor Sitting Bull.

think again

I played a hemispheres game where I started out on a continent with one other civ, and monty was on a massive continent with at least three others. Well... by the time I had discovered him he was a massive juggernaut, having already subjugated the English empire, he then proceeded to crush and vassalize Huayna Cupac who had built all the world wonders It was basically game over for me so I gave up

 

[LegionSteve]

I played a hemispheres game where I started out on a continent with one other civ, and monty was on a massive continent with at least three others. Well... by the time I had discovered him he was a massive juggernaut, having already subjugated the English empire, he then proceeded to crush and vassalize Huayna Cupac who had built all the world wonders It was basically game over for me so I gave up

Wow, I've never seen that. I have seen him get quite a big empire, but he always falls way behind in technology in my games. Then because he is constantly declaring war on people he eventually gets vassalized by someone with an up to date army.

 

[idle]

I posted a question like that just the other day...

For me it was not so much boasting as a feeble attempt at humor and trying to be light-hearted. While I admit it wasn't funny at all, I kinda thought so at the time.

Now to answer the question, I usually play at monarch with leaders I'm familiar with, and at prince when trying someone I'm having trouble with. This gives me about a 50-50 chance of winning.

Also I try to include as much randomness as possible, using Refar's "RandomMapScript".

 

[Iranon]

The problem is: Monty needs to win his wars decisively in order to not suck. If they end up in a stalemate, he will keep trying for a long time and become incredibly backwards.
If a victim puts up too much resistance for Shaka to conquer them, he will make peace extorting a tech or two and pick on someone else.

Monty only has one chance. If he takes it, he can become a monster but that is quite rare from my experience.

***

Incidentally, I like setting where I have 50/50 chances to win. It means I'm the biggest fish in the pond given 10ish players in total, but it feels like an accomplishment.

 

[Mik1984]

I had a bad time fighting on Immortal, so I chose a power leader in the last game, but the next one I'm going to play with an underdog.

There should be some calculator that would classify your leader per type of the game played and map type and would indicate weather you are playing an easy, balanced or hard combo, especially for unrestricted leaders.

However i.e. Immortal vs. Emperor is such a jump, that a power leader on Immortal is still more difficult as an underdog on Emperor.

 

[mjs0]

I have won games all the way up to immortal but did not enjoy the style of play I had to use.

Now I play mostly Prince (which I allow to be fairly challenging by refusing to change my play style from what works on Noble), leading to the following outcomes (estimated)

20% lead to an early winning position which I typically abandon.
70% lead to a clearly lost position which I typically concede
10% lead to an interesting/competitive situation which I play out, winning maybe 1 in 3.

I always play random leaders for myself and the AI, I enjoy the exploration part of the game and discovering who is in play is part of the fun for me.

Since there was no option for random leaders I had to pick "I'm all over the place".

 

[JBConquests]

Really, this depends on when you ask me.

A couple months ago I had moved up to Noble and would say I am struggling to even get a win. Now, I can win on Noble with Ace Leaders most of the time. Non-Ace leaders I can win with 1/2 to 2/3rds of the time.

If I turn on Aggressive AI I lose more often than not. I don't play with this on as it doesn't seem that fun to me to have most of the known world just up and declare war on you every game.

If I could find more time to play Civ, I would say soon I will move to Prince then I will likely be back in the mode where I am struggling for a win.

I usually play with everything random. (Except for the skill level of course. I don't know that there is a random setting for that?)

 

[Mik1984]

I would dare to say that on some things you cannot get a general agreement only because players who play prince/monarch and players who play emperor/immortal are actually playing two different games. This game started to look entirely differently for me, when I switched from emperor to immortal.

I never was a prince level player. My roommate was and I couldn't look how he was playing, because I would rip all my hair out, because of how flimsy he was in the game.

 

[jkp1187]

I almost always play civs that have a late UU. I like to play a game all the way to the modern era.

 

[pi-r8]

Sometimes I want to push myself and give myself a challenge with difficult leaders and difficulties. Other times I just want an easy ride. More often these days, I want to try out an unusual strategy on a moderate difficulty, so I really have no idea how hard it will be.

 

[one2tieyourshoe]

I almost always play civs that have a late UU. I like to play a game all the way to the modern era.

I like the early game planning and building cities and I like the modern era.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

I almost always play civs that have a late UU. I like to play a game all the way to the modern era.

I'm like the exact opposite. Imo the game is basically over by the time you hit the modern era and most everything interesting that can happen will have already happened. Early game UUs ftw

 

[Ormur]

I'm hopelessly addicted to HC of the Incas and I just went up to Prince after winning every game on noble for quite some time.

I'm probably still a noble player for every other leader though.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

A noble player, pshhhh. I'll be the judge of that.



jk of course my man

 

[Iranon]

@ Ormur: Incas become even more appealing on higher levels, thanks to the abundance of archers. I consider them the best civ by a wide margin as well.

***

Generally I agree that high-level games are totally different, instead of simply being harder.

At high levels, being able to grab land limits the expansion, not maintenance. Rushing and early war becomes a lot more attractive since there will be more prizes. Vassals become a lot more potent; leaning back and letting your vassals clean up isn't feasible on lower levels. In my experience, AI wars are less decisive on Immortal, so I'm actually less afraid of someone going on a conquering spree and getting a monstrous empire.

 

[McLMan]

I voted all over the place. Never the same difficulty 2 games in a row. If I win I move up a level the next game and if I lose (or stop playing before the end, a quit's a loss) I move down.

 

[Barada]

Had Civ IV for about 10 months now, mainly play on Noble level. Had a lesson taught to me on every occasion so far!

Had a 4th place finish once when 2050AD arrived and that's about it, the usual finale of my Civilization is to be wiped off the face of the planet.

 

[Titus]

I'm having fun playing, I never reduce the game to mathematics (things like meticulously calculating whether a spy, specialist or cottage economy is more profitable is totally uninteresting to me).

I play on emperor, always with random (but not unrestricted) civs/leaders, and I'd say I lose more often than I win (maybe 2/3 of all games). I don't actually play with victory in mind, it's more like I just watch the game unfold, try to stay flexible to meet complications, create or look for opportunities, and grab those that arise. Sometimes circumstances lead me to war, sometimes not. I never really decide on a victory condition to pursue, and usually don't even form a coherent strategy until the middle ages, or even later, when the huge power blocks are beginning to crystallize.

Winning a game of civ 4 is actually pretty boring. Many of my losing games have been far more memorable. I find experimental, dynamic games a lot more fulfilling than playing out the same obsessive strategies (Pyramids-Representation-mania, axe rushing, "Oracle gambit", and so on) game after game.