I am at my wit's end with this game, and the series

[CraigMak]

I can win easily on monarch on island starts precisely because military is less important and I was looking for advice specific to continents/pangaea

Last time I was here I was told to get N.C. asap. Are you now telling me that's not the case?

Love,
Your favourite bullying target

First off, WTH is Monarch?

Second I already wrote this about initial setup/ how quickly to get NC:

The trick is to get 4 cities ASAP, get caravans running food to grow your cities ASAP, Start your last couple of cities out on libraries so you can get your national college ASAP after planting 4 cities.

Easily grab stonehenge or pyramids because the AI doesn't prioritize them at all in my experience. Rushing for GL is not recommended.

Make cities and workers/ enough units to protect workers, infrastructure trumps wonder whoring.

Even if you are behind in tech you can still destroy the AI because it is epically stupid in battle.

 

[CraigMak]

And yeah, I am sure Firaxis turn every version of Civ into the same crap because of 'fan' feedback. Same old, same old. Lots of choices nominally, but effectively few because if you don't do certain things - you lose. Yawn.

Civ4: Colonization was the absolute worst for this.

Absolutely not true. This is absolutely not true. There are a ton of different viable strategies and openings that are viable at high levels. Liberty, Tradition, Liberty-Tradition Mix, 2 city NC, 3 city NC, 4 city NC, ICS, Etc.. You can be a warmonger or go pure science. Especially below Immortal you can do pretty much anything you want within reason and still win.

 

[dw0]

First off, WTH is Monarch?

I think it's his politically correct, gender-neutral way of saying "King"... which is actually pretty useful for readers to know since his difficulty choice is quite relevant to his question.

 

[Sonereal]

I think it's his politically correct, gender-neutral way of saying "King"... which is actually pretty useful for readers to know since his difficulty choice is quite relevant to his question.

Actually no. There's a CivIV difficulty called Monarch. The same way this game's Prince was called Noble in CivIV.

 

[dw0]

Actually no. There's a CivIV difficulty called Monarch. The same way this game's Prince was called Noble in CivIV.

Right, but if he's talking about BNW... what would Monarch translate to, then?

 

[Txurce]

I feel special, and slightly awful, since I haven't been as faithful.?

I started reading this thread because I hadn't checked in for a while, and was very impressed that Horizons had managed to squeeze out four pages' worth of comments (and counting), on the topic he likes to reintroduce so frequently.

Your post has made my logging in worthwhile. Thank you very much.

 

[Fabio1701]

Just so we start to understand what all the difficulties across versions is called, here's a list. (Couldn't find civ 1, * denotes medium difficulty with no penalties/bonuses either way):

civ2:
Chieftain
Warlord
Prince*
King
Emperor
Deity

civ3:
Chieftain
Warlord
Regent*
Monarch
Emperor
Deity

Civ 4:
Settler
Chieftain
Warlord
Noble*
Prince
Monarch
Emperor
Immortal
Deity

civ 5:
Settler
Chieftain
Warlord
Prince*
King
Emperor
Immortal
Deity

What patterns in evolution can we see? Why did it go from king to monarch back to king?

 

[Teproc]

Off the top of my head, the two highest difficulties in Civ I were King and Emperor.

There were only 4 difficulty levels IIRC, but I'm not sure what the other two were. Definitely lower though, there was no deity in Civ I.

 

[Wodan]

Civ 1 difficulty levels:
Chieftain
Warlord
Prince
King
Emperor

 

[Tabarnak]

To the op :

Most strategies from the S&T forum talk about pangea and continents and for emperor+ level players. From your number of posts you should already know how to get there . At worst, check under my signature.

Edit : I got fun reading this thread. Thanks for that. But, seriously, i'm still wondering if you are acting or saying the truth.

 

[Sonereal]

Why did it go from king to monarch back to king?

Maybe they were channeling Civ2?

But yes, Monarch=King.

Most strategies from the S&T forum talk about pangea and continents and for emperor+ level players. From your number of posts you should already know how to get there . At worst, check under my signature.

It is easier to write an essay about why you hate a game than take five seconds to check out the strategy section or the war academy. As such, this thread is for the general betterment of new players, not Horizons, who again doesn't actually want to learn how to play the game.

Seriously, the War Academy needs to be stickied in more places.

 

[bcaiko]

I assume the OP is talking about BNW. And if that's the case, I think he's overestimating the AI's happiness bonuses. It's really not that huge post-BNW. I regularly see AIs going into unhappiness in the early or mid game when they've overexpanded.

That being said, the OP has a point about early war being totally unviable now (especially with the ridiculous warmongering penalties in the early game that will cascade into every other diplomatic penalty).

And the balance of the game has moved too far from wide to squarely in tall's camp. There is almost no circumstance where going wide early is the optimal strategy. Yet staying small early makes certain that spots you will almost certainly be taken by an expansionist AI.

The game is in a good place overall, but it does need a patch. I understand the OP's feelings, even if I don't entirely agree with them. For now, I'd advise the OP to do smaller maps on the difficulty he's playing (say, Small, King/Prince...maybe with an extra AI and 2 citystates added in). That tends to allow for making mistakes. Also, you can always put on Random Personalities and laugh as Atilla tries to go for a cultural victory while you improve as a player.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I feel really sorry for the OP, who harvested his lot of sour reactions, and nearly none positive. Some are nearly insulting, like this guy who spams the thread (and most probably the whole forum).

I understand you OP, I myself got very frustrated a long time by how the global happiness works in this opus. And I still have difficulty to keep me calm when I see the AI whore-expanding when I have only 2 cities, or when they multi-declare and I can't face the AI units flow, especially being a wonder builder. That's on Immortal. I tried first to play on archipelago, but it was damn boring. Then I tried on pangaea on small with 22 civs, quited because I was feeling too much aggressed. I was doing well though in my last game where I managed to build Hanging Gardens (on Immortal, yummi !), but I had an isolated start, and I quited when my longswordman DIED entirely versus a WOUNDED mousketaire. (on rough with no upgrades on my part, should have looked at the combat simulator maybe)

All this to say that this game is hurting common sense more than it should be, it should please hardcore gamers of our times, you know, yes, those ones lol, but the very essense of a good game is flavor, and we can perfectly taste it in Settler, while upgrading the difficulty level would just add some free spice. Unfortunately the way difficulty levels are set, Prince which doesn't seem too unreasonable is the level where G. happiness becomes very scarce. Fortunately, it does not go down in the upper ones ! In vanilla at least.

Well, what to tell you... I don't own BNW, and probably the balancing have done its job... a sure thing I can't help you. I'm mostly done myself with vanilla, the only flavor I can find it now is beating the higher levels, but as I do not seem able to do it, I'm just harvesting frustration. One sure thing, Civ5 looks too much on the side of mechanics (badly) than it does of flavor. I hope this will be corrected by Civ6, because I would like to find back the feelings I had from Civ2.

 

[Sonereal]

Well, what to tell you... I don't own BNW

In the future, lead with that sentence so we can dismiss your criticisms quicker.

 

[Novalia]

I feel really sorry for the OP.....................

if you had spent two minutes reading some of the OP's other threads you would have realized he isnt interested in help and would have saved yourself five minutes of typing equaling three minutes you've lost forever.

 

[Wodan]

That being said, the OP has a point about early war being totally unviable now....

Correction: war -> conquest.

There's no problem with early war. It's when you start taking cities and wiping whole Civs off the map that you get those penalties.

But you can fight all day long, pillage to your heart's content, and kill as many units as you want. Just don't take more than 1 city in the early game, if that. Unless you are OK being enemies with a lot of the other civs as a result.

 

[Teproc]

I think warmongering hate is slightly overrated around these parts. It is a little too strong too fast, but there are ways to mitigate it, like getting other people to fight with you in your first few wars. Some civs will still be pissed at you of course, but you don't need eveyone to be friends with you, just a few of them.

 

[Lay_Lay]

If you play CiV intuitively, you build a bunch of catapults and swordsman and go conquering.
The superiority of archers, the human ability to defend with only 1 archer... these things confuse new players, and rightly so.
It's a big let down to a new player who expected to have fun use siege and swords. Or when he sees a huge army coming at his only city - it is not intuitive that the human could defend against that army with only a comp bow.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In the future, lead with that sentence so we can dismiss your criticisms quicker.

Are you saying that I can't be a part of your small community because I didn't bought all expansions and all DLCs ? Hey, I bought a fair number of DLCs.

if you had spent two minutes reading some of the OP's other threads you would have realized he isnt interested in help and would have saved yourself five minutes of typing equaling three minutes you've lost forever.

Well I didn't read his other threads, although by reading this one I know he made another where he posted a save.

I won't blame him, frustration is sometime too high to ask for help, you must evacuate it first. I don't think a game that creates frustration is a good game.

it is not intuitive that the human could defend against that army with only a comp bow.

On Immortal you can't defend with a single archer on Pangaea. Unintuitive things are global happiness, science tied to population, things like that.

 

[Wodan]

Frustration is sometime too high to ask for help, you must evacuate it first.

Some people are going to appear to be frustrated no matter what, because that's their personality. They find negative in most everything. They don't really want good-intentioned help, because that would turn them into happier, more contented people, and that's antithetical to their outlook on life.

I don't think a game that creates frustration is a good game.

The aforementioned people should not be used as indictment of anything. It does not logically follow that someone who refuses help means help does not exist.