Do you find it more fun to play on a lower difficulty?

[Rohili]

I'm finding it more fun to play Civ V on a lower difficulty. I currently play on King, which I can win all the time, and have not yet tried Emperor (or the higher difficulty levels).

The reason why I am still staying on King is because it seems like on higher difficulty levels, you are forced to play a certain way to win. E.g. You must declare war early, build a particular wonder, do a horseman rush, use REX or ICS, etc. To me, that might be fun once or twice, but it will soon get boring. I am not a super competitive player and I like to have the freedom to play around with some aspects of the game that might not be useful to achieving victory (or might even hinder it).

For example, I like to conduct proxy wars using city states. I would gift lots of mech infantry to the city states surrounding another civ and then goad that civ into declaring war on those city states (or declare war on that civ myself). This is obviously a highly inefficient way of waging warfare, but I just like seeing an enemy civ get owned by advanced units rolling out from nearby city states.

I like to be able to build most of the wonders, maintain a large treasury, try out different social policies, etc. It is difficult to do these things on higher difficulty levels because you are forced to optimise your choices and tailor them narrowly towards winning. I also like warfare in the modern age a lot, and it seems like on higher difficulty levels, you have less control over when to go to war, and the game is over too quickly.

So, am I an anomaly or do many people play on lower difficulty levels that are "too easy" for them?

 

[pi-r8]

I agree, I think the lower difficulty levels are a lot more enjoyable. Deity is especially tedious because you're pretty much required to be constantly at war, killing an endless horde of AI drones. Immortal much less so, but there's still a lot of warfare involved. Emperor is the last level where I feel like there's any semblance of diplomacy, and you can play peacefully.

 

[Zechnophobe]

So, this may sound insulting, but I think it is apt:

"I am finding that I enjoy playing civ on LEVEL_I_CURRENTLY_PLAY_ON because you can have fun with it and try a variety of strategies out. However when you play on LEVEL_ABOVE_WHAT_I_PLAY_ON it requires you to play a certain way."

I've seen almost this exact passage said, about almost every difficulty of ANY game, and Civilization in particular. People play up until they get to a certain point, relative to them, and then decide any further difficulty limits their options.

That isn't to say this is always wrong, but considering how variable the CURRENT difficulty is, I think it is more a matter of perception than anything.

Of course, Immortal and Deity Are totally too limiting in their difficulty, which is why I play on Emperor. Oh.. wait a second...

 

[Lord Khorak]

It can be fun, but some games can still be massively ruined by shoddily implemented or outright stupid game mechanics. While at higher levels you kind of expect to be constantly spending all your production and effort in a huge war with the world and keeping everyone properly beaten down, at lower levels you suddenly develop a new appreciation of just how pathetically unbalanced the puppet state 'feature' is, especially combined with the AI immunity to little issues like say...money or happiness.

I say this because if you sit back and mind your own business, it can be guaranteed that one civ will simply puppet across the entire map, and despite the difficulty level, cheerfully keep up with you thanks to all their free money and research. The rest of the AI civs don't have anything even slightly like the Civ 4 "got too powerful" diplomacy hit that everyone detested, so they do nothing as they just get eaten one by one instead of banding together to protect themselves.

The higher difficulty levels cover up the range of piss poor gameplay mechanics that build up into an enraging perfect storm of poo at the lower levels, with a non-stop world war.

 

[cf_nz]

So, am I an anomaly or do many people play on lower difficulty levels that are "too easy" for them?

I generally but more because I can't be bothered with all the extra micro-management I feel is necessary to succeed at higher levels rather than being forced to play a certain way. Having said that I have beaten all difficulties in Civ V (not a huge feat considering the AI), including a peaceful victory on Emperor.

 

[Rohili]

That isn't to say this is always wrong, but considering how variable the CURRENT difficulty is, I think it is more a matter of perception than anything.

Of course, Immortal and Deity Are totally too limiting in their difficulty, which is why I play on Emperor. Oh.. wait a second...

Of course the current difficulty will be variable for each person. I never said otherwise. I'm simply asking whether you choose to play on a difficulty level that is a bit "too easy" for you. That difficulty level can be anything from Settler to Immortal (Deity is the highest difficulty level, so you have no choice but to play it even if it is still too easy for you).

 

[Rohili]

I say this because if you sit back and mind your own business, it can be guaranteed that one civ will simply puppet across the entire map, and despite the difficulty level, cheerfully keep up with you thanks to all their free money and research. The rest of the AI civs don't have anything even slightly like the Civ 4 "got too powerful" diplomacy hit that everyone detested, so they do nothing as they just get eaten one by one instead of banding together to protect themselves.

That is true, but that's the whole point of playing on a lower difficulty level. On lower levels you can afford to let an AI run ahead of the pack for a much longer time before they become a real threat to you.

For example, in my last game on Earth map, Darius gobbled up three other civs and his empire basically covered the whole of Asia and Europe. His score was twice that of mine. Nonetheless, I started a war with him in the Modern Age and eventually still managed to win a conquest victory while surpassing his score as well. I doubt I would be able to do that on higher difficulty levels.

 

[alaric1112]

That is true, but that's the whole point of playing on a lower difficulty level. On lower levels you can afford to let an AI run ahead of the pack for a much longer time before they become a real threat to you.

For example, in my last game on Earth map, Darius gobbled up three other civs and his empire basically covered the whole of Asia and Europe. His score was twice that of mine. Nonetheless, I started a war with him in the Modern Age and eventually still managed to win a conquest victory while surpassing his score as well. I doubt I would be able to do that on higher difficulty levels.

I agree in my latest game as japan its been great fun and the romans are very powerful our showdown is coming soon!

 

[UknowsI]

So, this may sound insulting, but I think it is apt:

"I am finding that I enjoy playing civ on LEVEL_I_CURRENTLY_PLAY_ON because you can have fun with it and try a variety of strategies out. However when you play on LEVEL_ABOVE_WHAT_I_PLAY_ON it requires you to play a certain way."

...

Of course, Immortal and Deity Are totally too limiting in their difficulty, which is why I play on Emperor. Oh.. wait a second...

No no, you're wrong. Emperor is not fun. Immortal is very fun, but on deity I am too limited in the number of strategies I can use. I am forced into a more cheesy play style. Oh... wait a second...

 

[}{ELL/\/()]

I've won a couple of deity games now but I dont play them exclusively. It really depends who i playing with, what map type and how I intend to play. Not doing a OCC on Pangea on deity. The AI diplomacy system is so ******ed they'll all declare on you after like 80 turns regardless

 

[sabinfire]

Prince (and even King) games are generally very easy, but I absolutely cannot stand playing against a cheating AI. Strategy and logic go out the window when the AI Civs don't have to follow the rules of the game.

 

[Varanid]

I like my wars to be industrial age through current age (I don't know why, but i do!) and in the higher difficult levels I have a hell of a time avoiding conflict that long.
So yeah I play lower level difficult I just lov ewaiting until at least infantry, preferably GDRs, to go wage conquest.

 

[Ashwind]

Here's a thought. People play a game to win, or most people do. It is not unbelievable that most people would not spend hours on something to get trounced badly by the AI.

Hence we have people who cheats. Or people who play at easier than what they might be able to play at.

And to win is fun. If only to have a feeling of superiority in the end. But isn't that one of the draws of forum debates? To win and be right?

To the OP's question: I probably am most of the time. Because I don't like to play to lose.

 

[operatesea]

I think the best level to play at is the level at which you can beat the AI, not causally but with some effort, and without doing much S/L

 

[troytheface]

"I currently play on King, which I can win all the time"

not much of a game

reminds me of that "twighlight" zone episode where a guy died and thought he was in heaven and won all his bets and card games was was bored out of his mind and then the fat angel guy told him he was in hell

i do the exact opposite- find a level i can't beat- then try for the next few years until an expansion pack comes along and messes up all progress made

"you are forced to play a certain way to win"

not really- i suggest what can actually occur in kinda the opposite - you try to win your way in spite of the mechanics or advice

"I like to conduct proxy wars using city states. I would gift lots of mech infantry to the city states surrounding another civ and then goad that civ into declaring war on those city states (or declare war on that civ myself). This is obviously a highly inefficient way of waging warfare, but I just like seeing an enemy civ get owned by advanced units rolling out from nearby city states.

I like to be able to build most of the wonders, maintain a large treasury, try out different social policies, etc"

in essence forcing yourself to play a certain way (in this sense for the "fun")
but failing to win at a higher level

the real trick is to play the way you want and win- which is hard - but civ is a hard game for most -so most don't play

the evidence is clear- Atomic Civ5 Master in the Valley of the System

 

[GenericPlayer]

Only one thing upsets me about higher difficulties, the unit upkeep inflation. I really like warfare in the modern age, and at that point in the game inflation is so high I spend most of my time bean counting instead of playing the game. I have won the game multiple times at higher difficulties, but its not that fun. At the lower difficulties the AI does not seem to develop advanced units as fast as me, so its not as fun as it could be. Basically if there was Civ mod that had fixed linear unit upkeep I would enjoy Civ 5 a lot more.

I am aware of whats out there in terms of mods claiming to do this, I tried them and they don't work.

 

[bhavv]

Im only enjoying it up to king difficulty too. I actually used to enjoy playing Civ IV on Immortal, but Civ V just doesnt look like it is going to appeal to me that much.

I already find it a lot more tedious and boring than earlier Civ games, and the latest patch causes my game t black screen or crash far too occasionally when capturing barbarian encampments, so I'm really not enjoying it too much.

My favorite strategy in every civ game has been builder. That strategy is just completely shot in the foot in Civ V with building things taking far too long and being too frustrating overall. I read in the past that one of Firaxis manifestos for the Civ series was to keep it fun, but I'm not finding much of that at all in Civ V, its more like 66% frustration, and 33% fun.

 

[Bandit17]

I enjoy playing on King-Immortal levels the most (not too much diff between them). If I want more of a slower builder game I go king and if I want a military romp I amp it up accordingly. I dislike Deity because it is just one huge world war non-stop. It is fun to do every once in awhile, but like I said Im more of a builder. I too like to tinker with game mechanics and try different off the wall strategies. As a builder my biggest enemy is the ai-ai city surrender fiasco. It usually goessomething like this:

I will spend the begginning of the game perfecting my 5 city build with the typical border war or two. Than around gunpowder age I look up and one civ will have a huge sprawling puppet empire. This is almost always due to the ai devalue of their own cities in peace agreements (I ALWAYS refuse to accept cities). So now I hit a cross roads. Do I continue to slowly expand and build or do I turn warmonger to keep huge ai civ down. This can result in some fun war but I keep seeing this happen over and over in my games. On King it's not so much of a problem as I can ignore them for a longer period of time. On Immortal I would definitly have to wage war to either "keep up" or to prune the puppet masters.

Disclaimer: The difficulty levels used and described in the above text are based on opinion, personal play styles, different experience levels and how many beers consumed. Cheers!

 

[pagh80]

I also prefer to play at prince/king/emp
I have a feeling its because im a builder. I enjoy building my empire more than waging war.

Also it feels like deity is very strict. You have to do this and this otherwise you dont stand a chance. At lower levels you are allowed more different playstyles.

 

[eric_]

i do the exact opposite- find a level i can't beat- then try for the next few years until an expansion pack comes along and messes up all progress made

Haha, me too. I destroyed on Prince, so now I'm on King. I succeeded handily in my first game, which was non-patch for the first half, patched for the second half.

My current game is my first post-patch King game, and it has been a doozy so far, although it's more because of my starting location than anything else.

It's ~1500 AD now, and it will be interesting to see if I can pull myself up from the middle of the pack. I had just *really* gotten the ball rolling when I CTDd last night.