What's the highest difficulty level you can win on at least 90% of the time?

[MonRiverMonarch]

On Noble I win 50% of the games that I don't quit when it looks like losing a game becomes inevitable. (so i guess it's really about 25%)

 

[Antilogic]

Yessir, I have improved.

Hopefully it won't take four months to win on the new level this time.

I found that it doesn't take nearly as long for the next jump (=> Monarch) as it does this one (=> Prince). You are on the right track.

 

[Learningciv]

I'm a little surprised @ the # of deity-class players here saying emperor and unsure on immortal. Does this mean that if I can get close to 90% on immortal that I should consider playing more deity ? Deity seems completely ridiculous, while on immortal I struggle a bit. It's hard to imagine immortal ever being EASY on a consistent basis (given random maps), but still...

I'm not suprised, much for the same reason as why I listed Monarch when I fall alseep during those games and easily win. As Unconquered Sun said you need to assume random civ, continents/fractal, random opponents, etc. I tend to play Fractal with random civs and find that the map generator can be very unkind every now and then... 3 games in 20 would lead to being under the 90% mark

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Prince.

I play Monarch, but I don't win 90% of the time (actually having a bad string of luck with the AP lately). Prince, on the other hand, I can dominate completely.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I found that it doesn't take nearly as long for the next jump (=> Monarch) as it does this one (=> Prince). You are on the right track.

I actually moved back to Noble a week ago to try out some things with a leader I had never played (Mansa). I had learned quite a few things while playing Prince and I was able to pull off two wins in a row, (I had a lot of free time last week. ), which is unusual for me. I realized by moving up, that I had become a better player than I thought I was, because I can hold my own at Prince now. I still lose so far, but the games are close, like they used to be when I played so long at Noble.

I'll never be a Deity player, but heck, maybe Monarch isn't that far off.

 

[IAM]

I'll never be a Deity player, but heck, maybe Monarch isn't that far off.

Oh, but Lemon Merchant you are a goddess.


Yea I have found the same thing to be true about moving up a level makes me a better player. It seems, for me, to be more about boredom. When I move up a level I'm more intensely into a game. Managing each scouting move, checking diplomacy more often, not getting sloppy on my city builds etc.

 

[Zack]

Oh, but Lemon Merchant you are a goddess.


Yea I have found the same thing to be true about moving up a level makes me a better player. It seems, for me, to be more about boredom. When I move up a level I'm more intensely into a game. Managing each scouting move, checking diplomacy more often, not getting sloppy on my city builds etc.

Same for me, I would win about 50-50 on Noble, then when I decided to move up to Prince I got to be about 50-50 there. I tried a game on Noble (with the Better AI mod in addition) and just totally stomped the competition. I had by FAR the best score and biggest military.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Oh, but Lemon Merchant you are a goddess.

At last! Some respect!

But you're right, moving up makes you a lot more focused. I always think that if some of you guys can do Monarch and above, so can I. "I'm as good at this as any man is," I tell myself. And then I get my knickers handed to me...

Back to Chieftain...

 

[ventrue]

I'm starting to win pretty consistantly on Prince, with random leaders and maps, but I am still winning in the 1900's, instead of the 1800's, etc..

I have a little more work to do before I can jump up to Monarch level.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

For some reason, when I start Noble games, I get these great starts with tons of food and production (or at the very least, tons of production with enough easily accessible cottaging sites and resources). But when I start my prince games, I get these barren starts with a couple food sources, no production, strategic resources within settler reach, but far enough to hurt my economy early.

Also, my cottages don't seem to work as well on my prince games (research rates seem much slower on Prince) and I never have enough food for a good Specialist Economy. My 2 wins I have so far are both Egyptian leaders on extremely food-heavy maps and stone and production tiles appearing right next to the capital (IE perfect for specialist heavy economy with wonder boosts). Also, I got horses close enough to have a good amount of War Chariots.

But any other leaders and I seem to get these crappy starts and I flounder. For example, last night I started a random game medium-small Prince Marathon. I got Louis of France and started on a small peninsula of the small continent crowded in by 3 other civs. The thing is that I didn't reach any of them in time for a quick DoW, march into undefended city. This map was very food heavy (2 clam, 1 corn, 3 irrigated fresh water tiles, 1 rice) which was nice, but I only had 3 forests and 3 grassland hills in my fat cross. No strategic resources within reach at all (not even horse). I was able to grab stone, but everything was grassland after that. Then there were Roosevelt, Mansa Musa, and Hannibal. They all REXed to claim their spots and I was stuck with 3 cities. The small island chains were like my start. A few food resources, no production or strategic resources. I should have restarted. There isn't much you can do with slavery when all you can whip is archers.

I need to post my next game for suggestions.

 

[Ai Shizuka]

Monarch.
I think I'm about 70-30 at Emperor. Never tried Immortal.

 

[Wizard of Void]

Prince. With Monarch I probably lose more than win. So I usually still play Prince, since I like to win....