Is monarch considerd "hard"?

[qnl]

I voted hard, and it's the level I play at. I win most of my Prince games, but I'm finding this particular jump pretty challenging.

 

[Derp]

I voted So-so, personally. Before I was kind of struggling on prince, but after a week or so of it, everything suddenly clicked. I tried Monarch for a few games, and it was still too easy. Now I play emperor, and I win it when I'm "In the Zone." Thinking about maybe trying to go up to Immortal if I ever can pay attention to a game to finish it.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

I voted So-so, personally. Before I was kind of struggling on prince, but after a week or so of it, everything suddenly clicked. I tried Monarch for a few games, and it was still too easy. Now I play emperor, and I win it when I'm "In the Zone." Thinking about maybe trying to go up to Immortal if I ever can pay attention to a game to finish it.

I would start finishing the games. On Emperor the AI is actually capable of winning.

 

[Nyarlathothep]

Starting to finish games was the breakthrough for me in terms of difficulty levels. In 1-2 months I went up from noble to emperor, where I am now (and sadly, I have no time to play atm).

So I went with "used to be hard, now it is easy" - of course, it is also easy thanks to CivFanatics and all the nicely documented games here

For all people who want to know my "method" - for me, it was finishing games and reading some game write-ups which helped me beat the difficulties. Not so much strategy articles, though I'll admit they are fun to read.

Sometimes, you just need to inspire yourself not to play as sloppy as ever.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think there are any monarch starts left where more than 1 city is possible where I'd lose, but that's due to a long time spent here on CFC. Within the strategy and tips subsection, monarch is easy on average. On most other subforums outside HoF and those in GOTM or succession games, the average level seems to drop enough that monarch is a challenge on average.

I'd guess that many of the players who don't show up here would struggle quite heavily on monarch.

 

[Grey Fox]

Monarch isn't hard anymore for me, but it was a hard step up for me since I started playing on Prince.

 

[Inso]

It's a good difficulty if you don't want to be too obsessed with the finer points of the game.

haha agreed. Emperor and above is when a deeper knowledge of the game is required and where one has to start havnig a specific gameplan. I'd say monarch is the bridge between the easier and harder parts of the game for me, I got to monarch quite quickly just teching and building units, not really worrying myself with any of the more intricate aspects of the game, then I was stuck on this difficulty for a while. In order to move up to emperor I had to learn lots of small tricks and more specific strategies (i.e. browse this forum alot), on monarch I would tend to just make it up as I go along. Now that I've got over this hurdle and am planning things much more in advance on emperor+, the real fun is beginning imo

 

[bestsss]

Winning emperor without any diplomacy is not hard as long as one can wage war properly and tech/trade (even w/ the worst enemies)
Monarch is not hard as long as one doesn't get some terrible starting position w/ unsuitable leader (playstyle wise).
My first game on monarch was w/ Darius/marathon and finished w/ over 300k score, I'd encourage everyone to play that once and drop the fear of a higher difficulty.

 

[Gregonar]

Oops thought this was civ 3

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Get thee hence!!

 

[r_rolo1]

Monarch in Civ IV is definitely harder than it was in Civ III. I think it's harder than Emperor was in Civ III - Civ IV AI's are a lot better than Civ III AI's, and the game is much more suited to an AI.

Of course as TMIT said, "It's not intellegence it's garbage code." True. And several others mutterd about this saying that the AI is terrible anyway.

The second quote does not exclude the first Civ IV AI, in spite of being not the brightest possible, would probably eat alive Civ III AI if putted in equal standing.

On topic:

Monarch level was made to be moderately hard. OFC that for some it will not be ....

 

[madscientist]

I voted easy used to be hard.

Unless the map is totally against me or a leader backstabs me with the Armada of hell I can usually win.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It's up there. Not quite punishing, but... "Hard".

I'd say Monarch is the average level for regularly posting forum members. I strove to get here as I felt sort of "behind the curve" being a member since 2006 and not reaching Monarch

 

[dalamb]

Hmm. I guess there are fewer above-Monarch posters than I expected.

 

[CivIVMonger]

I feel dumb going from chieftain to Prince in 3 1/2 months as it is! I feel for you Blitzkrieg!

EDIT: No offence, ehhe... Of course...

 

[dalamb]

I felt sort of "behind the curve" being a member since 2006 and not reaching Monarch

Hey, I've been here since May 2006 and am still working on Noble. But I finish a lot fewer games than most people.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Hmm. I guess there are fewer above-Monarch posters than I expected.

That's what I was told about 4 months ago. The average difficulty level of members is Monarch. Coulda moved up to Emperor by now, I guess.

Hey, I've been here since May 2006 and am still working on Noble. But I finish a lot fewer games than most people.

The only reason I was able to move to Prince and subsequently Monarch was because of the War Academy and looking at the succession/RPCs on the boards. Those SGs and RPCs really rock in letting you see how advanced players adapt and REX.

 

[CivIVMonger]

That's what I was told about 4 months ago. The average difficulty level of members is Monarch. Coulda moved up to Emperor by now, I guess.


The only reason I was able to move to Prince and subsequently Monarch was because of the War Academy and looking at the succession/RPCs on the boards. Those SGs and RPCs really rock in letting you see how advanced players adapt and REX.

Right On!

 

[Malician]

Monarch was very painful when I first started playing it. I had read lots of guides and knew quite a bit about the game, but I was still rejecting AI demands right and left, trading with whoeever I wanted, building empires just one or two cities short of the requirement for national wonders. This + cottagespam didn't leave me with much production, so no army to speak of. I'd blast past the AIs for most of the game, but there's a certain point in the tech chain where they would all triple or quadruple their empire's productivity and my massive tech lead would evaporate.

Monarch can be pretty punishing if you don't have a good grip on expansion or war. However, it's easy enough with those two.. stomping the AIs is as simple as massing axemen in all your cities and slamming their 4-5 defenders with 15 city raider axes..

 

[Meatbuster]

I started this game at Noble, but IMO from the average player's (not average CIV player, but a casual player in general) point of view, I'd say Warlord is "normal", Noble is "somewhat hard", Prince is "hard", and Monarch is "very hard".

In Warlord level, anyone who has a decent grasp of game mechanics can win. I don't see anyone putting up "help me at Warlord difficulty" threads. But there are a couple of "help me at Noble" threads, so I assume that's where average players start having difficulty.