I play everything on random at Immortal, so for me, it really depends on map type and what VC I go for. For me warmongering is always my best bet of winning - I guess I have a 95% win rate if I warmonger (if it's an ocean map = 100%). Recently I've tried to limit myself to peaceful wins on a Large Pangae map - that makes it a lot harder for me, and I drop to 50-ish %.
How often do you win at the difficulty level(s) you choose to play at?
- Thread starter jango76
- Start date
Xink
King
Regardless of the level of difficulty I like to have that set to a level where I could expect to lose more than I could win. Playing at anything less is too predictable and when I do manage to win the element of pleasure and satisfaction is much greater than dropping a level or two just to weigh the odds better on my side.
Some of my most satisfying games have been where another Civ has won as I am then encouraged to think and approach my next game differently. It also does not allow me to be too complacent in my style of playing.
I would find it incredibly boring to start any game knowing that I am more or less assured of victory.
Some of my most satisfying games have been where another Civ has won as I am then encouraged to think and approach my next game differently. It also does not allow me to be too complacent in my style of playing.
I would find it incredibly boring to start any game knowing that I am more or less assured of victory.
aguliondew
Prince
80% on Emperor it was the first difficult that I could lose late game and ~60% on Immortal. I have only played diety 4 times, first game quit after I was way behind (just wanted to see what it was like), 2nd game lost to an 70turn rush by denmark(rare for them not to get killed off by someone in my games), lost late game when I was going for a culture vic and won the last game 280 turns science vic.
I know how you feel. I find it frustrating to lose at the end.
Which is why I keep detailed logs of every Civ game I have played. That way I can review and most importantly, learn from them. I pay perticular attention to gold/science/culture rates, SP and tech choices, wonders/buildings, unit productions and the timing and rate of all of those. Learning to do better (even for games that I win) is the greatest thrill and generates enthusiasm to play again.
Darkeagle6
Chieftain
I'm about to win my fourth game in a row on King, so I feel it's time to move up to Emperor when I'm done with that one. When I find I can win consistently on a difficulty level, I try to up the level, since I get the most satisfaction in the moment when I finally feel I've learned enough to master a new difficulty. After that, I hang around the same difficulty for a while because I tend to doubt my abilities...
I like to stay on a comfortable difficulty while I'm still experimenting with a new expansion pack, though. Trying out the new leaders is a ton of fun, I like pretty much all of them.
I like to stay on a comfortable difficulty while I'm still experimenting with a new expansion pack, though. Trying out the new leaders is a ton of fun, I like pretty much all of them.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Are you me?
Though I don' have a ton of hours under my belt yet, I've won 100% of the games I finished. Easily won twice on prince, moved up to king and won a OCC with ghandi and have a Siam science game that I'll easily win but can't seem to finish (turns taking a long time to process, hate wating).
I won a duel on immortal, but other games I've played I just can't get enough science going and get behind on military. Out 4 games I've played on emporer I have 3 wins, which is about the level that keeps it interesting.
Just have to keep playing and learning. It's funny how almost every game you notice something that you haven't been doing optimally and what a big effect it has on your gameplay.
I won a duel on immortal, but other games I've played I just can't get enough science going and get behind on military. Out 4 games I've played on emporer I have 3 wins, which is about the level that keeps it interesting.
Just have to keep playing and learning. It's funny how almost every game you notice something that you haven't been doing optimally and what a big effect it has on your gameplay.
Disgustipated
Deity
Interesting, I never finished any of those types of games. I always figured if the Ai has a tech lead on you in the industrial era, there's no hope at all. I never figured they wouldn't build spaceship parts after building Apollo. How often does this happen?
If I can't get the score lead by the industrial era, I do quit. Maybe I shouldn't be doing this.
aguliondew
Prince
Well on Emperor and above its rare to be top in score without going for a domination vic. My immortal games I am never top score but still win with the none domination vics. The AI is smart and sometimes saves up the spaceship part until they can spam the final ones. That was how I lost one of my games on Emperor/Immortal. Sometimes I have to rush to kill a AI if I feel that they have to many spaceships parts build.
Light Cleric
ElCee/LC/El Cid
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 3,225
The AI building parts right after Apollo is usually the exception rather than the rule; the fastest I've seen it happen was a runaway Hiwatha in my OCC Deity science game finish Apollo on 198 and launch at 240, so 42 turns from Apollo to finish. The AI usually takes significantly longer than that.
This i believe entirely depends on the victory condition i choose to focus on. On immortal for a military victory its near 100% other victories run closer to 80%. On diety as i will not play with less than 8 civs, on any victory condition its 0%. However i have gotten close a few times and i learn new tricks each game i play.
I play civ just to "stand the test of time" on max sized maps with 22 civs/~30-40 CS, Emperor level, and I don't focus on a victory type, I just want to see how the world is evolving around my civ... And I quit when it starts to get boring, usually before anyone win 
I suppose civ5 wasn't made for my style of play, my hopes are in modding once the DLL is out so we can make the AI use more role-play behavior than the current fake human MP opponent...
I suppose civ5 wasn't made for my style of play, my hopes are in modding once the DLL is out so we can make the AI use more role-play behavior than the current fake human MP opponent...
I play civ just to "stand the test of time" on max sized maps with 22 civs/~30-40 CS, Emperor level, and I don't focus on a victory type, I just want to see how the world is evolving around my civ... And I quit when it starts to get boring, usually before anyone win
I suppose civ5 wasn't made for my style of play, my hopes are in modding once the DLL is out so we can make the AI use more role-play behavior than the current fake human MP opponent...
And that's where the hope should lie. My strong hope is that they make any future patches, expansions, versions even less of roleplaying behavior to the point where it would not be suited at all for such players to try (and instead, work on strengthening the gameplay and the opponents). But they also need to give better tools for those that want the option to change the game completely or into something else - that would only be fair.
The fact that roleplayers/non-competitors and the like can still play Civ5 (i.e., something for everyone), means that parts of the game doesn't work or is dumbed-down in the minds of those that want a better strategy game. When you try to please to opposite styles, you satisfy neither.
theguy8882
Warlord
- Joined
- May 20, 2012
- Messages
- 201
50% on king because i never build an army fast enough and someone takes me over early. Or because I can't beat the runaway.
Similar threads
