Going up a difficulty level?

[biratets]

I've been playing prince games for some time now and I'm planning to begin my first monarch level game soon. Before I do that, I would like to hear from more experienced players whether you think that playing, let's say monarch/emperor games, is still fun? Or is it just about survival and learning to face and accept one setback after another? How long did it take from you to get accustomed to the game again when you went up a level?

Even now in my prince games, I find myself occasionally pulling my hair out with my blood pressure levels going through the roof. And because I don't want to end up as a bald heart patient because of this game, I was wondering when did you change the difficulty level? Did your games begin to feel too easy before you did it and what do you recommend as the right time to move on to a more difficult game?

 

[eric_]

FWIW, I knew I was done with Warlord when I utterly dominated every aspect of the game, could've won whatever type of victory I wanted (except maybe diplomacy) and was getting techs WAY too early.

It happened pretty suddenly, though. I wasn't used to Civ IV, so I was on warlord. As soon as I started picking up on the differences compared with past Civs I started dominating.

Getting good at Noble has been more about really mastering the techniques that set this Civ apart.

I imagine after noble it's all about fine tuning to compesate for AI bonuses. So if you really know how to specialize a city, I'd say step it up and start working on the fine-tuning stuff. Best way to learn is to get yourself in a little over your head.

Although, fwiw, I always have the computer randomly select my civ for me. I won't be moving up to Prince until I can consistently win with a Spiritual/Philosophical leader as often as I can with an Aggressive/Expansionist leader.

 

[sandman_civ]

The right time to move is when your current level is becoming too easy and you are winning by a large margin every time. No fun in having tanks while your opponents languish with crossbows eh. The jump to monarch is not as large as the jump to emperor in my opinion. It also depends if you want a challenging game each time, or you just want to "relax" and kick butt.

 

[eric_]

How's the jump from Noble to Prince compared with the jump from Warlord to Noble?

 

[AtriumComplex]

For Prince, just remember that, if left unihibited, the computer will most likey win.

 

[eric_]

Hrm...the kinds of aggressive strategies I'm adopting on Noble will be useful then.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Not really. I'm annhiliating the AI and I haven't harrassed them at all

 

[Rameau's Nephew]

The biggest shift to me on the Monarch-Prince jump was the level of barbarian activity. You'll see more barbarians, earlier. And there will be archers where there once were only warriors. You need to either get a resource on-line (for axemen or chariots) or get archery yourself within your first 5-6 techs. You will also need axemen or horse archers (or a whole lot of chariots & archers) to take out a barbarian city.

 

[Zombie69]

How long did it take from you to get accustomed to the game again when you went up a level?

I never got accustomed to the game because i never played a difficulty level more than once or twice. I started with one game on noble, then one on prince, then two on monarch and now two on emperor (actually one emperor game but restarted after it was clear i had lost).

I also never played the same type of map more than twice, which makes it even harder to "get accustomed". Tried Pangea, Lakes, Pangea, Islands (one civ on each), Terra. Next game i'll try Emperor again but with no tech trading, which should give a completely different feel (can't count on the AI to do the job for you).

I've also never played the same leader twice.

This game really is great for its variety.

 

[akots]

... whether you think that playing, let's say monarch/emperor games, is still fun? Or is it just about survival and learning to face and accept one setback after another?

It is about killing the AI.

Even now in my prince games, I find myself occasionally pulling my hair out with my blood pressure levels going through the roof. And because I don't want to end up as a bald heart patient because of this game, I was wondering when did you change the difficulty level? ...

Actually, I think you'll end up as a healthier person. It feels good, it relieves the stress and all you do is slaughter imaginary enemies, no harm done to real people. Tension is good, it mobilizes a human player and makes him think hard which should have positive impact on mental and general health imho. I find that though on higher difficulty level games, I'm smoking more which is of course not good at all.

 

[Ominous]

I really enjoyed moving from noble to prince. The jump wasn't too big and enjoyed the new AI level.

I'm now in the midst of moving from Prince to Monarch and I'm finding it a bigger adjustment. With a good start and a more refined strategy, I won my first full monarch game (I tend not to finnish games sometimes). But you're question about the "fun" element is quite valid. I know I do have more "fun" when it's a tight race and I pull ahead, or I get beat on and retalliate well. But, I'm still trying to decide if Monarch is more "fun" for me.

It's hard to say what you're going to find fun though. Some people love the challenge and others hate the added "stress". That said, make the jump. I started a few new games with the intent of refining my early game strategy. I've learned the value of specializing my cities (which is definitely fun!) and have developed a greater appreciation for the finer points of terrain and worker management - this worker micromanagment doesn't constitute "fun" for me once my civ grows.

My aim is to refine my gameplay to a point where I can focus on the fun stuff and let the not so fun stuff slide or be automated. If I can do this on monarch, then prince it is. But, I expect I can do this on Monarch. I was able to win quite handily in my game at the end of it all. I'm starting my second full monarch game tonight and I expect (hope?) that I can do even better.

Good luck to you, I'm sure you'll pull through.

 

[andrew_yaweb]

The more advance I take the levels, the smaller the maps I have to do. I can't keep up with maps bigger than small as I move up to the mid-levels. To much goes on and I just can't keep up with all the maintaince. I've been finding 'tiny' maps fun on the advanced levels.

 

[WineShark]

Is the AI play-difference on Prince+ levels still measurably better than on Noble with the "no cheating" option enabled? Or is the advantage what makes the AI opponents that much tougher?

I want the best challenge the AI will put up, but the idea of it getting "free" stuff annoys me. I know Noble is the “even” level, and wonder if the higher ones allow for more efficient, ruthless play form the AI.

(I have not yet approached the multiplayer scene yet for a truly wiley foe, but that's around the corner!)

 

[Corbeau]

I realized that I needed to bump up the difficulty level when I was able to win each type of victory without losing games trying to obtain that victory. I started with Noble, and have won Domination (not so hard), Space Race (easy), Diplomatic (almost too easy, being an Alpha Centauri vet), Time (a tough game, actually, but that was because I got lazy), and finally Culture (it was almost close, but that was because I was waffling about going for the Culture victory).

So I jumped up to Monarch. It's been a significant challenge so far, but nothing impossible. Mostly it's about avoiding foolish plays and not being lazy when making choices.

 

[eric_]

(I have not yet approached the multiplayer scene yet for a truly wiley foe, but that's around the corner!)

The thing that most deters me from online play is that I rarely have time to sit down and play a game from start to finish, and I'd hate to bail mid-game.

I do think I'd be MUCH better by now if I were playing online.

 

[biratets]

I guess my situation is pretty much the same as Corbeau's. I seem to win 9/10 games on prince so maybe it's time to move on. I'm not having my tanks against crossbowmen even now, but I'm usually first or second in the tech race. I'll give it a try, hope the culture shock wont be too big.

@Zombie: By "getting accustomed to the game again" I meant the time, after chancing the difficulty, it takes from you to get back the feeling, that you actually stand a chance against the AI if you don't do stupid mistakes. This is also what I define as a fun game - there's a tight challenge, but you know that with hard work and not fooling around too much, you have a good chance of winning or at least being in the top-3. Maybe you're so good player that you have that feeling always. I seem to be a born pessimist just fearing and waiting the AI to begin tossing me around

 

[Yzen Danek]

My answer is different than most people's, I guess.

I don't like to play on any difficulty level where I feel that my chances of winning are better than 50/50. It's not about consistently winning on a difficulty level for me; if I can do that, I feel like I've already wasted my time playing a lot of games that were too easy and where my play wasn't improving.

If I don't feel like the underdog, I don't feel like I got better playing it. When you win easily, it's hard to trace your win to the individual decisions you made that worked for you; when you barely lose, it's much easier to critique your game and see what you could have done differently that would have improved your position. Quite often I go back to points where I thought I might have made a crucial error and play forward with it corrected, and then compare the outcome 50 or 60 turns later to see if it worked.

Playing on Immortal now. About one in 5 games do I even feel like I'm in the running, and in 3 out of 5 of them I know that I'm in an unwinnable position by about 1 ad. I try to mix up the map types, but I nearly always play standard size, standard number of Civs, random leader, marathon game.

 

[Yzen Danek]

The thing that most deters me from online play is that I rarely have time to sit down and play a game from start to finish, and I'd hate to bail mid-game.

I do think I'd be MUCH better by now if I were playing online.

Much better at multiplayer for sure, but don't assume that becoming really good in mulitplayer Civ necessarily makes you a better single game player, nor vice versa. Playing both ways may give you better insight into some of the overall nuances of the game, but strategies don't transfer very well.

Human players come at you with strategies that it would be immensely suboptimal to defend against in single player. The Incans will never, ever, chop rush you with Qechuas in single player. In the time you take building the army that would be required to defend against this in a single player game, you could have had 3 more cities built.

I do hope that some AI tweaks are in the works that will make them play a little less predictably. The AI never lands its invasion fleet on your back doorstep, for instance.

 

[Zombie69]

@Zombie: By "getting accustomed to the game again" I meant the time, after chancing the difficulty, it takes from you to get back the feeling, that you actually stand a chance against the AI if you don't do stupid mistakes. This is also what I define as a fun game - there's a tight challenge, but you know that with hard work and not fooling around too much, you have a good chance of winning or at least being in the top-3. Maybe you're so good player that you have that feeling always. I seem to be a born pessimist just fearing and waiting the AI to begin tossing me around

I always feel that i have a chance. If i didn't, i don't see why i would even keep playing! But the only tight, challenging game i've had so far was my first emperor one, which i lost (well, more like gave up on to try something different).

I'd like more of those games. I'd rather lose than win too easily.

I want to have a chance, but i also want to have to work really hard to make it happen.

 

[cleverhandle]

When you win easily, it's hard to trace your win to the individual decisions you made that worked for you; when you barely lose, it's much easier to critique your game and see what you could have done differently that would have improved your position.

Interesting point, YD.