Hardest difficulty you have beaten the game on!

Lord Olleus said:
what is the anarchy exploit?

Strategy is described on the forum Civ4-Tips&Strategies. It refers basiccly to Romans but theretically can be implemented with other nations.

You absolutely neglect economy. Workers are used only to build roads and chopping forest. Money are rapidly going down, cause of great corruption. Many small cities, without improvments and builing, which only produce soldiers. Anarchy is needed to avoid loosing to much money, so once for 4 turns you change civics. That's called Anarchy Exploit :]

Never tested it and never will :]
 
I recently won my first game on Prince. It was a cultural victory in 1983 playing Catherine.

OK - 1983 is not early, and Catherine is not the hardest to win a culture victory at at, but it was my first cultural victory and only my second Prince game so I was impressed :) I was expecially impressed because I got Monty and Mao as neighbours who got chummy and ganged up on me. I beat the stuffing out of them with cossacks and still won a culture vitory - I thought when the war started, my chances of culture victory were disappearing, so I was very pleased to win, beating Washington's spaceship project by about ten turns.:p
 
No promised Deity beaten yet, but found myself in a good position 500BC. 10 cities and some place for more, 3k gold. Weak neighbours. Holy city owned (but without shrine yet). Only relations spoiled a bit due to several wars.
If someone of you have experience on this level, I leave you the initial savegame. 9 oponents, Tokugawa, Agressive rivals so watch out, to not to fall to early. It is my 3rd attempt on this map, but I'm happy. One said here that start position is very important ... holy truth.

P.S. So one hundred posts is on my acount
 
prince
i got a crap start next to cathrine she expanded fast into my peninshula(or whats called
 
I am winning on emperor.
However, I play Sevomod, wich makes it more easy because of the tech you gain by conquering cities.
It might be worth a monarch-victory in vanilla civ.
 
Deity, every victory except Cultural (i need to win Cultural just to see the movie :p)
then again, UN was a fake win (had 3/4th of all the votes)
Spaceship was sort of the same, 1 enemy left with 1 city

All victories on small maps 5 AI's
 
With all due respect, way too many people are responding noble and below.

I tend to play on prince; I haven't tried monarch or harder yet.
 
Whats wrong with Noble and below?
For some (many?) this is their very first Civilization experience...
 
Indeed. Noble is supposed to be the "average setting" so I'd expect at least half the posters to be noble or below.

I can beat monarch 90% of the time, and have come very close on emperor, but never managed to win so far.

I've beaten diety on a duel map quechua-rush, but obviously that doesn't count for anything.
 
DigitalBoy said:
With all due respect, way too many people are responding noble and below.

I tend to play on prince; I haven't tried monarch or harder yet.

Civilization IV is a huge game and get a bit overwhelming for new players. These people are still learning the game. Besides, Noble is indeed the 'medium' setting. And isn't Prince just one level above it? :p

I have done one Monarch cultural win in vanilla, but I'm trying to learn and improve some new strategies, which I tend do in the 'balanced' Noble. When I feel comfortable with my new approach, I'll just up the difficulty whenever I think I can manage.
 
Gozert said:
Civilization IV is a huge game and get a bit overwhelming for new players. These people are still learning the game. Besides, Noble is indeed the 'medium' setting. And isn't Prince just one level above it? :p

I always thought of "prince" as the medium difficulty. The thing about noble is that the AI plays by all the same rules you do (well, except for diplomacy, I don't think real players care if you aren't the same religion) but without any real intelligence.

As for what's wrong with playing noble and below, I dunno, I guess I just sort of imagined that everyone here was the kind of guy who plays on Emperor difficulty.:king:
 
There is no need to enlarge my big e-pen even more, so I'm going to stay with noble and prince...:rolleyes: :p
 
Been playing exclusively on Emperor (mostly small to large maps, standard settings, random CIV, shuffle maps) since January and manage to dominate in about 2/3 of my games. I don't actually play the game to finish much anymore though, as I find the endgame a bit tedious. Will be moving on to Immortal as my new default level soon.

I must admit I am surprised by how many people reload or set up the game to their advantage just so they can say they beat the higher levels and boast of high scores. I mean, if this is your idea of fun, fine, but it doesn't say much about your skill as a player. In fact, I would argue that using reload makes you a worse player, as it makes you take risks that in a fair game would be imprudent - and you never learn to plan for and deal with what happens when things don't go as planned.
 
DigitalBoy said:
I always thought of "prince" as the medium difficulty. The thing about noble is that the AI plays by all the same rules you do (well, except for diplomacy, I don't think real players care if you aren't the same religion) but without any real intelligence.

As for what's wrong with playing noble and below, I dunno, I guess I just sort of imagined that everyone here was the kind of guy who plays on Emperor difficulty.:king:

i care different religion are going down:lol:

i play prince, i did play monarch once, but it got really laggy, i had number 1 score, but behind in techs...but couldnt finish..it was really laggy for realism mod
 
Back
Top Bottom