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

[Perfection]

Hopefully never, because if the AI can't beat me when heavily gifted, then it's too dumb.

 

[§L¥ Gµ¥]

I'll never get to that plateau. For me, the highest 2-3 levels of any civ game are an exercise in micro, and I just don't have that kind of time to play a late-game with a million units like that. So I'll be happy to beat emperor, again, and again, and again.

 

[Tarkhan]

I put a year, I take it slow.

I usually don't bother playing at highest, just because in past games, it's just been that the AI cheats/has special advantages.

 

[Earthling]

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'm not sure where you got this idea, because I don't think it's true at all. Could probably be right about chess players, but I'd say it's certainly the opposite for RTS or FPS players or other videogames. For one, most gameplay versus AI in those games often isn't hard at all and players often still don't play single player on the hardest levels - probably more often the opposite, they just goof off or take things easy like in all games.

So I'd say there is a distinction in that for these games, unlike civ, you have to play multiplayer for "competitiveness" but even there it's in no way true the majority of players are probably looking to be competitive. I'd say there are far more players of your average RTS or FPS that are never trying to be competitive at all, just playing for "fun," than those who are.

So I'd say a far better rule, that coincidentally is just like it is in civ, is that most players want to play at a level of the game where they can win commonly enough and be able to do whatever they want and have fun. Your statement just doesn't have much evidence to it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

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?

Well, if it's going to be anything like CivIV, I don't want to be forced to play a certain way/use internet guides/etc. to play. I don't want to feel forced to go for a certain tech first or be screwed. Maybe I want to try to make friends with my close neighbor instead of killing him as soon as I get axemen, like "the book" says I should. I'd like to play though on the game/my own merit instead of counting on one of just a few tried-and-true methods to win.

I'd imagine chess is different because you're obviously playing against one opponent and it's pretty apparent what you need to do. The "map" and winning conditions are the same every time, yaknow?

 

[Seven05]

Whereas Civilization 5 can refer to the standard game or any future "expansions" that may be included, as in previous versions of the Civilization series, so long as you actually start playing any version of Civilization 5 at that point, so if you begin playing the Civilization 5 game a year later when the expansion is revealed, start at that point,

Well, you lost me here. I'll probably play a handful of games before I start modding it, whereas "handfull" refers to maybe one or two.

You should have had a "never" option with all those damn catches... you sell life insurance or something?

 

[Txurce]

Yeah, never for me too. Never did it in any of the predecessors and don't know why anyone would want to do it regularly.

Because people tend to have more fun when winning than losing. And some people like to be challenged. So once they start winning regularly at a certain level, they move up. And having moved up, all things being roughly equal, they'd rather win than lose.

 

[DMOC]

Well, you lost me here. I'll probably play a handful of games before I start modding it, whereas "handfull" refers to maybe one or two.

You should have had a "never" option with all those damn catches... you sell life insurance or something?

I'm still a student. My aim is to be a surgeon, doctor, someone like that.

 

[cyril25376]

Never - I hope i can play on warlord or monarch

 

[Sparthage]

Probably Never. But who knows?

Longer than two years...

 

[ds61514]

This thread really illustrates Sid's quip that (paraphrasing), "I never get complaint letters from fans and gamers saying that they win too much."

I voted within 1.5 - 2 years. I have a feeling that like in civ 4, getting a deity "win" won't be that hard, but getting a win on random settings is going to cause me to tear my hair out .

 

[generalwar]

I hope so that I'll win on highest level sometimes, but I love to play calm, without looking every turn every city. But, when you understand mechanics on game you can play on diety as on noble(well almost : ).

 

[Emstinson]

Haha I'm happy I won once on Prince, Diplomatic victory with a huge map with only 5 or 6 AI, I was able to get all but one religion, spread it quickly enough and got the Apostolic Palace and victory was mine. good thing too because Caesar and Cyrus each had 3-5 times as many cities as me at 1400 AD... Sooo yeah Never indeed, my micro skills are non existant as I like the big picture of pretty icons of research and minimalizing my armies and trying to not piss alot of people off. Not sure how I will anger people without religion, can't wait to figure it out! I roll noble with about a 60% win clip. so as average as average gets!

 

[Bluetooth]

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?

You have to remember that many Civ players are builders. Builders don't like to raze conquered cities neither are they satisfied to build only a couple of improvements in their cities. As I see it it's not possible to play as a builder and win on higher difficulty levels.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Originally Posted by Celevin:
I notice that there's a large amount of people who think "difficult means not fun".

Civ is primarily a single player game which can take many hours, and many sessions to play. Much of the enjoyment I get out of Civ comes from the playing of the game, not just the winning. In previous editions of civ, each successive level of difficulty has meant paying careful attention to increasing facets of the game, often to exacting detail.

When the attention and effort required to move up a level slows the pace of the game too much, I stop moving up; when it takes half of each session to figure out or remember what my plans were for each city, worker, and unit, I stop moving up. The time I have to play Civ is limited - I want to spend it playing, not planning.

YMMV.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ahahaha. Whereas good show, DMOC.

 

[generalwar]

Civ is primarily a single player game which can take many hours, and many sessions to play. Much of the enjoyment I get out of Civ comes from the playing of the game, not just the winning. In previous editions of civ, each successive level of difficulty has meant paying careful attention to increasing facets of the game, often to exacting detail.

When the attention and effort required to move up a level slows the pace of the game too much, I stop moving up; when it takes half of each session to figure out or remember what my plans were for each city, worker, and unit, I stop moving up. The time I have to play Civ is limited - I want to spend it playing, not planning.

YMMV.

I enjoy playing civ on level when everything is easy. I thought noble is too difficult and now I'm having a fun on prince, which I thought, will never happen. So, when overwhealm levels one by one, everything is easy(OK, maybe except diety). When I first came to this forum I couldn't beliave that here are some people that say that immortal is most balanced between human and AI. I was . Now, I understand that it isn't so hard if you play more and enjoy in that.

 

[Shiggs713]

i like to hover somewhere between monarch and immortal, usually playing at emperor level, depending on which civ I play. It took me a few years before I ever won at immortal, I doubt anyone can win consistently at deity, it says "good luck sucker" for a reason.

 

[treadwin]

I like to cut down the micro-management and increase the diffulty in other ways. I will put the game speed at epic and pack 9 civs into a small map, or 12 civs into standard. I find this a larger challenge than cranking up the difficulty levels.

I can occasionally win this on prince.

 

[Seven05]

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?

I can't speak for anybody but myself here, my choice to avoid the 'harder' difficulty levels in Civ games has had nothing to do with historic flavor or not wanting a challenge. My biggest gripe with the 'harder' games is the way they implimented the handicaps, since they apply a bonus to things like production & research it results in an accelerated game pace that I don't enjoy. I'd much rather savor the experience as long as possible as that's the main reason I play TBS games when I do.

One of the first things I'll change will be the handicap settings, but then I won't be playing the base game anymore and this poll will no longer apply to me