Difficulty level - what's respectable?

[cryogenics]

I think I agree with most everyone else replying here... above all else have fun. There are lots of ways to tweak a game to make a certain difficulty tougher or easier... I do think the higher levels become a bit tedious because they (for the most part) require more city micro-management. Whereas on lower levels on can depend on city AI to do the job well for you. That way you can spend more time thinking (in my opinion) about the things that matter most - like overall strategy/management and military tactics.

player_13

 

[Roland Johansen]

I'm not content to just 'play for fun' - I like to have a challenge, or at least be at an even footing with the relatively experienced players....

According to several polls on this forum, the largest group of players plays at noble, prince or monarch. The group that plays above those levels is relatively small. You do have to realize that the gamers who are regularly visiting this forum are the above average players who really like this game. They are still playing it several years after it arrived on the market and have continued to get better at it. Depending on your experience with these kinds of games, it might be tough to reach that level after a few games. Also, the ones who play at the lower levels might not want to react to such polls.

I have to mention again that difficulty level is not the only thing which determines the difficulty of a game. There are settings that make the game easier and harder. Such settings can easily change the difficulty level several steps.

 

[BrantleyL1]

No, but I always lie...

Reminds me of one of the funnier scenes ever. Anyone else like "The Tenth Kingdom"??

Our travelers come to two doors in a castle. There is a Frog sitting there. He says something to the effect of one door leads to certain death and the other to safety. They may ask one question, but the frog always lies. One of the characters picks up the frog and asks WHY is it that there has to be a door that leads to death? He then opens one of the doors and tosses the frog in and slams the door. There is a loud explosion. They decide to use the other door....

 

[KMadCandy]

Anyway, I just wanted to say that to clarify the reason for my original question. I appreciate the folks who recommended just playing for fun, but like everyone, I have my own definition of fun. It's not better or worse than anyone elses', it's just my own. There always seems to be two main groups of gamers...people who just play for fun regardless of the outcome, and people who like to compete with others.

oh that was part of my point all along. you define you own sense of fun, and if you want a challenge where you'll only win 10% of the time, go for it. if you want to go into WB every game and start with 80 nukes, go for it. if you want to compare yourself to others, go for it. (generic "you" of course, i think at least one of those doesn't apply in your case ). sorry if i gave the wrong impression.

i 100% agree with roland. the folks you see on CFC, and forums about civ or any other games, are "fanatics" by definition, motivated enough to go out and find info on the net. but you probably do want to get a sense of what's respectable here, not what's average world-wise, is my guess .

I like looking at what my peers do.

that made me think of some things. i really have no idea if they're the sort of things you'd be interested in, but i have time to type 'em up. spoiler box to save space.

Spoiler :

have you ever heard of Realms Beyond? they have "epics" and "adventures" ... everyone starts from the same save file, and plays their game and reports on the same day at the end. there's often a scoring system, but it's only as competitive as you make it. one guy even tries to get the lowest score he can *giggle*.

anyway, for me those reports are really interesting to read, and they might be for you too, depending on how you meant the phrase i quoted above. the starting saves are still available if you get the urge to try any yourself and see how you do in comparison. even for civ3 games they did years ago! this is a link to the discussion forum, there's a link above the threads to the sub-forum that has the reports. the umm, orby-thingie? (dunno what to call it ) in the top left corner will take you to the main page, and you can find the actual event descriptions and start files from there if you don't want to go thru the threads.

the RB reports are way spiffy when i played the game yourself, since i'm looking at how somebody else dotmapped land i used myself, and it makes me go "oh why i didn't think of that?" or sometimes "nah, i like my city two tiles over much better." and who goes to war when, who goes for which type of victory, all kinds of stuff. i also liked reading them even before i ever played with those folks, i'm a nut tho.

i have fun with Hall of Fame here on CFC. there's also Game of the Month, and Succession Game of the Month, i haven't tried those. in HoF the goal is earliest win, with score as a tie breaker, i think that's always the goal in GotM too. HoF you make your own map and can pick your own settings, including opponents in many cases, which isn't the way a lot of folks play. we talk general strategy in the forum, and i've learned tons. but we can't truly compare since each game is different.

in SGotM they all use the same start, like RB, so they are comparable. each team has their own thread where they talk about what they're gonna do. if you're playing on a team, you can't read anybody else's thread until your team is finished. i like lurking them all, off and on as i have time, so i don't play, i just watch. those threads are much longer than the RB reports (100+ pages vs. 2 pages in some cases!) and they're "brainstorming while the game is in progress", not reporting after the fact. but maybe that kind of insight into what others do is part of what you're looking for, i dunno.

just some stuff out there you might not know about yet. if that's not at all what you meant, ignore it of course. i won't hold a grudge .

 

[BrantleyL1]

Seriously, I think it's possible to have fun while learning. BUT, I don't want to be completely frustrated. There are some simple things to do to get "a little" better - which is one of the purposes of this forum.

Read, Read, PRACTICE.

Get to a good point & save the game. TRY something new. Run for an hour. If things go very poorly, go back to the save and try something else. It's NOT CHEATING. This is not a competition.

Some people like the challenge of pulling out a victory from a bad situation. You might learn something, but if you don't have fun, why do it?? Once you get really good - then don't let yourself load an old save....

 

[needsomesleep]

I'll add that if I DON'T win, it's not fun. I'm not a good sportsman, so I NEED to win to have fun. I get less of a thrill though from winning a close fight than from stomping the crap of out someone. So, I'll take a clear victory on Noble to a close one on Prince any day.

 

[Brian Boru]

My opinion is "If the general concensus says 'This is where an experienced player should be', then that's the goal I set for myself.

In that context, you should become able to beat Noble regularly on fully random settings. At that stage imo you're in good shape and well set for Prince. If you can do the same on Prince, you've probably mastered the major threads of the game, and how they inter-relate.

Up to Warlord, you can react and win. Eg Alex attacks you, you'll have time to scratch a defense together and beat him off. Or you meet Mansa from the other continent and he's miles ahead on tech--you'll be able to focus and catch up.

At Noble and Prince, reacting won't cut it--you need to anticipate to win. So you must maintain a certain level of military, economy and research "just because" to be competitive.

Monarch I've found is where you start getting punished for execution errors, like my favorites of forgetting to change civics, or to switch a specialist back on, or leave my fishing boats undefended for 'just one more turn'

I've only won at Emperor when I've played most of the game before making a move. Ie, a careful analysis of my circumstances, and some rough plans to capitalize on my strengths and minimize my downsides. Obviously refined and changed as the saga unfolds, but always focused.

So that's how I see it break down:
* React - up to Warlord;
* Anticipate - Noble & Prince;
* Accuracy - Monarch;
* Focus - Emperor and above.

I personally don't like the focus constraint much, so I play mostly in the Noble to Monarch band where there's more than one way to skin a cat--but you must keep your knife sharp. Emperor for me is more like bathing the cat

 

[shyuhe]

So that's how I see it break down:
* React - up to Chieftain;
* Anticipate - Noble & Prince;
* Accuracy - Monarch;
* Focus - Emperor and above.

That's a nice breakdown I'll add in:

Luck - Deity.

CIV is a single player game so you shouldn't worry too much about playing at a "respectable" level. If it still bothers you, try MP, the GOTM, or the gauntlets. They're all fun in their own way and will give you an avenue for comparing yourself to other players.

 

[gdgrimm]

I'd say that Noble or Prince would fit the description of the level at which having a respectable knowledge of the game would still be fun and challenging.

 

[jessiecat]

In that context, you should become able to beat Noble regularly on fully random settings. At that stage imo you're in good shape and well set for Prince. If you can do the same on Prince, you've probably mastered the major threads of the game, and how they inter-relate.

Up to Chieftain, you can react and win. Eg Alex attacks you, you'll have time to scratch a defense together and beat him off. Or you meet Mansa from the other continent and he's miles ahead on tech--you'll be able to focus and catch up.

At Noble and Prince, reacting won't cut it--you need to anticipate to win. So you must maintain a certain level of military, economy and research "just because" to be competitive.

Monarch I've found is where you start getting punished for execution errors, like my favorites of forgetting to change civics, or to switch a specialist back on, or leave my fishing boats undefended for 'just one more turn'

I've only won at Emperor when I've played most of the game before making a move. Ie, a careful analysis of my circumstances, and some rough plans to capitalize on my strengths and minimize my downsides. Obviously refined and changed as the saga unfolds, but always focused.

So that's how I see it break down:
* React - up to Chieftain;
* Anticipate - Noble & Prince;
* Accuracy - Monarch;
* Focus - Emperor and above.

I personally don't like the focus constraint much, so I play mostly in the Noble to Monarch band where there's more than one way to skin a cat--but you must keep your knife sharp. Emperor for me is more like bathing the cat

You left out Warlord. What's that? React and Anticipate?

 

[3 EMS]

I'm not content to just 'play for fun' - I like to have a challenge, or at least be at an even footing with the relatively experienced players. I know saying that I don't 'play for fun' makes it sounds as if I don't have fun when I play, but that's absolutely not the case. 'Play for fun' is simply a phrase now that means you don't take it seriously - it doesn't really have any bearing on whether you enjoy the experience or not.

Personally, I need a challenge. Not an insurmountable challenge, but enough to keep my interest. I like looking at what my peers do. My opinion is "If the general concensus says 'This is where an experienced player should be', then that's the goal I set for myself. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to get there if others can get there."

My motivation has always been competition with others. I'm not keen on playing this game's multiplayer, since I usually like to watch TV or a movie when I play Civ games. When I want to do multiplayer, I go for Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike Source, Planetside, WoW, etc.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that to clarify the reason for my original question. I appreciate the folks who recommended just playing for fun, but like everyone, I have my own definition of fun. It's not better or worse than anyone elses', it's just my own. There always seems to be two main groups of gamers...people who just play for fun regardless of the outcome, and people who like to compete with others.

Playing " for fun" doesn't mean a person doesn't take it seriously. Ever play a game of football with your buddies? Fun or not, you still want to knock his @$#k into the dirt.
If you want to know where you stand as a player. Go read some Hall of Fame or GoTM games. There are some people out there that can really play this game. If your aspiration is to become as good as them, then the reading will help your understanding of the game. Good luck. You have a long journey from Warlord level but if you perservere you should make it.

 

[Silence101]

Try not to go any lower than chieftain.

 

[biggamer132]

I'm a Noble player myself, mostly because I'm a devout builder and I don't want to have to constantly fight for my very survival.

I'd play whatever you feel comfortable with. No one's going to tell you what makes your game worthwhile, because at the end of the day, the only one who can make that decision is you.

 

[Brian Boru]

You left out Warlord. What's that? React and Anticipate?

Grr, I always mix up Chieftain and Warlord I meant Warlord, not Chieftain--original post edited to correct. Thanks for catching it

 

[Slip de Garcon]

Play at the level that gives you the most enjoyment - it's a game!

I play Noble FWIW.

 

[Werechipmunk]

That's a nice breakdown I'll add in:

Luck - Deity.

Or, alternately...

World Builder - Deity.

Let's see how well Joao II does completely surrounded by mountains. Yeah Joao, I just made 10 arrogant demands in a row. What are you going to do about it?

 

[quill18]

For some reason, this question really tickled my brain, so I'm going to wade in as well.

Let's get it out of the way:
Obviously, the POINT of this GAME is to have fun, so that should be the only thing that matters.

BUT! For the sake of discussion I'd like to wade in with my opinion.

At Noble, neither the AI nor the player get any game-based advantage. That being said, a human should generally have more success than the computer at this setting. If you cannot regularly win here, it is likely that there are aspects of the game that you don't properly grasp yet. Things like how to develop a basic economy, or how to the right amount of military units (whether builder or warmonger). There's probably a "hole" in your game if you get beat here.

You beat Noble? Okay, you're no longer a "noob".

(NOTE! I'm assuming a military and/or space win here. Cultural/Diplomacy wins bump the difficulty by a notch, I'd say.)

At Prince, the AI gets a minor advantage over you. In my opinion, this balances out the natural "trickiness" that humans possess and is the most "fair" difficulty setting. To win at Prince, you need to have no glaring shortcomings, and it helps to have a trick or two.

I'd say that Prince indicate a fair amount of practicing, and either enough brains to figure out a "trick", or enough brains to go online and research strategies.

I think Noble is "competent" and Prince is "respectable". Monarch and above would be "quite good", at least in one or two parts of the game.

For me, I can beat Monarch with a warmongering civ and a strong start, but not convincingly...and not that often. I can usually hit my closest neighbour hard, but subsequent conquests tend to fail and I end up working on squeaking out a space win.

I am a solid "Prince" player though. I really can't lose there, though I don't always accomplish my goals and have to settle for a space win instead.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Who cares? Play at what ever level you enjoy the most. Kmad has already said what I think should be said, so I won't beat that horse anymore. The one thing that playing WoW has taught me about games is that fun should always be first. It truely defeats the purpose of games when you are playing for any other reason (especially when it's to get things with purple text that make your character have higher numbers on the screen...).

 

[digitCruncher]

I love a challange, and thus, I have fun on Noble, in which it is a REAL challange (for me) to survive. I can do a respectable job at it, but as soon as I can beat Noble routinely, then I will move up. If I don't have a challange, I'm not having fun, and thus, I don't like the difficulty.

Do what you like doing. If you are bored with the old level, try a new one (or a new map, or a new scenario). Keep doing whatever you like the most.

If you have the most fun on a certain level, keep at it. Just remember, 'fun' doesnt always mean 'easy'. Challange yourself occasionally, and don't feel bad if you lose, just look at the things you did better than expected, and improve on the things you didn't do so well.

 

[BurN]

Respectable difficulty? A human being "should" have superior reasoning, planning and adapting over some scripted AI. So I'd say noble (and up) shows that you at least understand and can apply the basics of the game.

But hey, if you're having a blast playing on settler.. please do so.