Different difficulty levels for GOTM

[Drool]

I was thinking, for people like myself that have struggled in the last 2 GOTMs, especially GOTM4, that how about having the same map and settings but have say three difficulty levels to choose from. So someone like myself can attempt say Prince, whereas someone more experienced can play the same map but on Emperor. Just a thought.

 

[al_thor]

Well, that's why they have the Adventurer class, which is what I should have played. Didn't they get an extra Settler, a Worker and a couple of Archers or something like that? I coulda killed that game with that. As it is, I lost horribly.

 

[solenoozerec]

It will make different games. More different then, say, if you were playing the same map, the same difficulty level, but with additional cash or an additional tech or unit.

But the idea of GOTM is that many people play the same (or very similar) game.

And what is the problem with a struggle at a high level? No struggle - no learning. Afraid to loose? Don't be - everyone looses at some point

 

[Sarek]

I'm asking only because I simply do not know, not trying to be difficult......

I too am simply not an "above Noble" player...yet! But, are you saying that, aside from the obvious advantage of the extra Settler, etc., there is nothing different about the GOTM's (or ANY level of difficulty) after the starts?

I get smoked on anything above Prince.

 

[DonaldKipper]

the problem is, a game on prince, and a game on emperor are fundamentally different, which defeats the whole purpose of game of the month - comparing how you did to others

now 2 (or 3 but 3 is maybe pushing it) seperate game of the months on different levels i could see

personally, i could quite enjoy playing both, as i already played this gotm - im not inclined to play a bunch of practice games or micro manage every city every turn

 

[Thrallia]

I too get smoked on anything above prince...but I've noticed that now that I've played a game on monarch and a game on emperor...I get beat half the time on noble also lol something about underestimating the stupid noble AI

I do think overall playing above my skill level, with the bonuses that the GOTM people give us adventurers, will eventually make me a better player. I've learned more about AI tendencies and in depth civ workings than I did before I did this....and surprisingly, I did a lot better in GOTM 4 than in GOTM 3.

 

[ainwood]

BTW - the next game will be easier.

 

[Thrallia]

woohoo I might actually have a shot at beating the computer for once then

 

[Ribannah]

I'm sure it will be compensated by starting us on a two-tile island in the middle of the ocean.

(Now, at Civ2, you could still win with a 4-pop polar OCC on deity ...)

 

[Thomas G.]

I was a noble/prince player when I attempted the Gotm 3 (monarch) and Gotm 4 (emperor). I lost both (1 space race, 1 city loss) But after playing those 2 games I became a monarch player.

I can appreciate that the players need a challenge for the Gotms. Going back to Warlord/Noble now, would only be amusing the same way squashing an anthill is amusing.

I do support the idea of extra semi-official Gotm's for those that fail at the main Gotm. How about an OCC for an alternate Gotm? I mean, I'm gonna need it to satiate my addiction when immortal/deity games start arriving...

P.S. If it was in any way unclear, I do not enjoy squashing anthills, and neither wish to condone such behavior. I was simply trying to make a point.

 

[solenoozerec]

I'm sure it will be compensated by starting us on a two-tile island in the middle of the ocean.

Then you won't suffer from overexpanding saving your economy and it will take a while for AI to come and destroy you.

 

[Markus5]

I too have stepped up my game to monarch level. In GOTM4, I ultimately lost, but learned a lot. I don't like playing games when I don't have a snowball's chance, and wouldn't normally play anything at emperor. But, the GOTM4 at adenturer was the exception. Now, if every game was at emperor, I'd be outta here.

I got a little smug in the current game I'm playing, thinking "wow, I'm really cleaning up at monach", and checked the settings - noble. I'm a lot less smug, and thinking "is noble really this easy?"

Note to self: "play game" and "custom game" remember their own last levels.

I'd kind of enjoy a "builder's game" in the next GOTM.

 

[Redbad]

I'd kind of enjoy a "builder's game" in the next GOTM.

But I'm afraid GOTM4 featuring Ghandi is nearly as builder's as a builder's game can get.

 

[ainwood]

I do support the idea of extra semi-official Gotm's for those that fail at the main Gotm. How about an OCC for an alternate Gotm? I mean, I'm gonna need it to satiate my addiction when immortal/deity games start arriving...

You're free to play any game you like as a OCC. Often people note this in the pre-game discussion and challenge others for their own competition-within-the-competition. You just need to remember not to build settlers.

 

[al_thor]

Emporer level in CivIV is tough enough without a semi-crappy start like we just had with C4-GOTM4.

 

[Pazarius]

Didn't they get an extra Settler, a Worker and a couple of Archers or something like that? I coulda killed that game with that. As it is, I lost horribly.

To be honest, I think I would have done better without the extra settler. I'd never played Emperor before and so was just tempted into expanding too quickly, and my economy collapsed. Thanks for that 'bonus' Ainwood!

How about some technology as an adventurer bonus next time?

 

[Methos]

You're free to play any game you like as a OCC. Often people note this in the pre-game discussion and challenge others for their own competition-within-the-competition. You just need to remember not to build settlers.

The problem with this, is it really cuts back on the benefits you get from playing an OCC game with the OCC box checked at start up.

I wonder how tough it would be to play an OCC game as Ainwood has stated? Could be interesting.

 

[Thrallia]

To be honest, I think I would have done better without the extra settler. I'd never played Emperor before and so was just tempted into expanding too quickly, and my economy collapsed. Thanks for that 'bonus' Ainwood!

How about some technology as an adventurer bonus next time?

if an extra settler tempts you into expanding too quickly, then you probably would have expanded too quickly anyway...on anything over noble, there's rarely ever a reason to have a second city up and built really fast anyway...especially since the only reason to get such a city would be resources, which you would not be able to do anything with yet anyway, since you had no roads or worker techs.

 

[Pazarius]

if an extra settler tempts you into expanding too quickly, then you probably would have expanded too quickly anyway...

Very possibly, but at least I'd have had to spend all those turns building it myself, and my overexpansion wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

on anything over noble, there's rarely ever a reason to have a second city up and built really fast anyway...

So why give us an extra settler from the start then, if we shouldn't actually use it until such time as we could have built one ourselves? And why expect that those people who are playing Adventurer class because they don't think they're good enough to compete otherwise will be able to use the settler properly. It just seems like you're giving a child a bar of chocolate and expecting them not to eat it.

 

[Thrallia]

Very possibly, but at least I'd have had to spend all those turns building it myself, and my overexpansion wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

And after building one, you would have quickly built 1 or 2 more because you'd have felt you needed to expand very fast to avoid the AI

So why give us an extra settler from the start then, if we shouldn't actually use it until such time as we could have built one ourselves? And why expect that those people who are playing Adventurer class because they don't think they're good enough to compete otherwise will be able to use the settler properly. It just seems like you're giving a child a bar of chocolate and expecting them not to eat it.

I didn't say you shouldn't use it until you would've built one anyway...but wait until it would be useful. If you see must-have resources to settle next to, then plop your settler and one of those archers there, and research the techs needed to get the improvement built on the resource, and a connection to it, cause having that resource does squat for you unless you are able to improve it.

Now, if it were gold, you've already got the mines researched, and don't need to connect it to get the major benefits of it...and that would be the extra commerce from it...but then that extra commerce would counteract anything that expanding so fast would have caused.

So I guess just chalk that up to something to remember for next time...cause I think that if the settler was used correctly, it was an excellent bonus for adventurers on this difficulty.

And if you are wondering, I played adventurer too, used the settler correctly, and still lost...but if not for that settler I woulda lost much, much sooner.