After reading the forum

[jackdog]

Trying the same thing over ain't so bad, how else do you know how it may work under different circumstances, Its not like is doesn't alter a bit depending on conditions and the map, but if I decide to go full on SE, having chosen a phil leader then you have to decide early and stick to it or you end up between strategies and dead.

There is undoubtely a luck element, that can of course be overcome in some circumstances the better you are, but if you get a foot hold on your continent and the other continent is at war lots rather tha being friendly and constantly trading tech then when you finally meet the other civs from overseas they are behind you rather than that occasional thing when you think you are doing fine and in control and you meet Gandi or Manu Mansa when they come across the water and you are 5 techs behind..I hate that.

I think what has allowed me to start winning perhaps half the time or more on prince is being brutal about sticking to a strategy/specialisation rather than getting side tracked by circumstances that don't actually have longer term effect, early war though a short one usually, and then really sticking to specialising cities is one of the foundation to moving up, but a builder would perhaps disagree with the war part...

 

[Silence101]

I win probably 90% of my games on Prince, but that's a misleading statement. I'm so picky about my maps, I constantly regenerate until I have "the perfect" starting position. Even then, if I'm not able to expand or make any significant advances by the mid-game, I still find Prince quite challenging. My whole main strategy is based around early game expansion either through REXing or warfare... or probably a combo of both.

So, I guess my point here is that there's a lot more you have to consider than the difficulty level. Taking over a neighbor's capital 50 turns into the game with a warrior rush is the equivalent of knocking the difficulty level down a few notches. In my experience, the early game is the most defining part of the game - circumstances, events, build order, neighbors, starting location, etc can also have a significant impact on difficulty.

I think there's reletively few people that can play and win honestly and consistently using multiple strategies at higher levels, and these people have been examining and playing the game for years.

 

[fizsh]

I know I am not good at the game. I get some ideas from the forum, but I don't do specialized cities and such for the most part. I don't start with a specific strategy, I do what I see fit as I go. But I have fun, and that is what matters.

In my current game, I am playing Prince for the first time, after just having my best game on Noble. I thought I was doing well, holding my own, until my "friend" Zara attacked me while I was at war with the Incans. Now I have a two front war, and will have it tough. Guess I shouldn't have left my guard down on the western part of my empire.

 

[L4zXX0r]

You know, my favorite part about these games is developing new strategies. TO be honest, I wish there was a professional civilization league, where we could play for money or something. I'd be all into that. I wonder if they have Civ events at Gen Con?

 

[jackdog]

Yea the map regen thing is a tuffy. I remember in Civ3 could always win the harest level but could tell within 10mins, or even 1 min, if could do it as if the start was crap it wouldn't happen.

I do regen some maps but usually only 4-5 times and don't get stuck into hours of it, that is all too easy to do. But having no-where as much time to play as I would like I don't want to waste time on a no chance map, but am prepared to work for it. I guess if you have to regen loads or indeed never then perhaps you are on the wrong level.

 

[gunter]

It doesn't really matter how old are you,which level you fiddle with,how many hours you spend or how addicted you have become.

Play,enjoy.