How Long Will it Take You to Win Regularly on the Highest Difficulty Level?

[Shurdus]

Probably never since I still play on whatever level will allow me to play in a role-playing manner. I probably will not try tip beat this game at the highest levels as it feels tip me like that requires way more patience and planning than I can muster for a relaxing hobby.

 

[generalwar]

I've gotta admit that I have just overwhealmed prince difficulty in civ 4 .
But, I have start reading for serious this forum at the begining of this year and I have undestood first things in March. And then, suddenly in June and July, noble became piece of cake and now, I can say that I'm a prince player. But, I don't have will to play civ so much because I don't have time and school just exhausts me too much and kills my will to play civ. But, I'll be playing civ 5 for real and I'll try to be as better as I can and I'll be experimenting more(because I hate experimenting and I always have that feeling, I'll lost on Terra-never played it, and probably, I could win it, but...).
I think that if I start playing civ 5 and exchanging experiance with fellow civ fanatics
I could be at highest level about 1.5 year. But, only if I will have will for it to play during school and playing on different kinds of maps and know to play with every leader it shouldn't take longer than 1.5 year(25.3.2012.).What do you think?

 

[GeoModder]

My option (never) is not in the poll.

 

[Namaspamus]

I want my games to be a novel rather than an equation.

I want each game to be a tour through time in an alternate world, not a relentless pursuit of perfection.

I've won at the highest difficulty a couple of times, but playing a game on noble and making up my own rules and settings to handicap myself rather than the ones dictated by the game at high levels keeps my games varied and exciting, without ruining my sense of immersion.

Same for me. A good way to add difficulty to a game is to strongly defend civs you like when they're attacked. It can bring you a lot of problems and enemies, especially if one civ you help is really weak and a good target for everyone.

 

[Akar]

Never.


I play on warlord in BTS because its the lowest level that allowes me to roleplay the game without getting pwnd by the AI when I play the way I want.

 

[Ondskan]

Moderator Action: *snip* no flaming here.

 

[12agnar0k]

i cannot vote in this poll as there is no never option. I have never played on the highesty difficulty in civ, because i don't see handicaps as a desriable measure of difficulty. If they had different settings for AI difficulty that would be preferable.

_edit again, posting on my bro's account, where is that log out button.

 

[Schuesseled]

^ my post, there thats better.

 

[cccv]

Never.

I prefer to hover around Noble/Monarch and just play to enjoy the game.

Yep, that exactly. My goal is to play a fun game, not win at higher and higher difficulties. I find the level I can win at more often than I lose while still having enough of a challenge that I have to be trying to win, and I play there. I've never won a civ diety game and have no reason to try.

 

[Celevin]

I notice that there's a large amount of people who think "difficult means not fun". Out of all the games I've played, it seems unique to Civ. RTS, FPS, chess players and most other gamers want to play the level of gameplay that will challenge them the most. That's why most games set up challenges that pit players against things their same skill level.

I wonder, if Civ kept gameplay the exact same but with no historic flavour, would this non-competitive player base remain the same? Or is there a general consensus that Civ can't be a game meant for competitive players, so it doesn't draw those type of players as easily?

 

[wilebill]

Longer than two years, like Never. Thing is, high difficulty levels require things like skill, thought, planning. Which sounds too much like work!

 

[vranasm]

It will depend on a lot of things... and the amount of bonuses AIs get.

It's completely possible you eventually will own highest level sooner because of the changes in the combat

 

[Thyrwyn]

Add me to the "never" list. I tend to hover around Monarch.

 

[Dearmad]

NEVER needs to be an option. I've played civ since 1 and have never mastered the highest levels ever. Selected 2 years.

 

[Bino]

I can barely win at emperor, but im stuck with my weaknesses and habits, which make me a crappy player even if i still enjoy playing, so my choice is "longer than 2 years" ;-)

 

[Bluetooth]

Never if game play on the highest level is as boring as it has been in Civ 3 and Civ 4.

 

[azzaman333]

Never.

 

[Purpureus]

I wish to also say: "NEVER!".
It doesn't make sense for me. I wish to have fun and relax, not get involved into some ultra-competitive rat-race... No offence to you hardy players intended!

 

[Disgustipated]

LOL, no option for never.

I have never been able to win at the highest dificulty level in any game. The closes I came to was SMAC- and that's because the ai couldn't really handle all the concepts in that game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I was able to do it in Civ 1, 2 and SMAC. But after this I had too much personal life, so starting from Civ 3 I play for fun at average levels.