Monarch or Emperor

[Brain]

I haven't played Civ for a long time (about 2 months on weekends) but I just won my first Regent level victory. It was extremely easy though. There may have been a very slight challenge up to the early middle ages, but after that I became the only super-power and researched my way up to a space ship victory, while my oponents stayed a whole era behind in tech.

I was wondering whether I should even bother playing Monarch or move to Emperor. I read that Monarch is just a slightly harder version of Regent. If that's the case then I want a bigger challenge.

 

[thetrooper]

Do what you want. I tried monarch first.

 

[Zelda's Man]

If you thought Regent was too easy, Monarch should be just easy. You should gain and hold the tech lead in the MA. Emporer will be a challenge to stay even with research. Good militaristic strategies in the early game can secure a win at the end.

 

[IbnSina]

So much depends on the start - don't get too cocky. I would try monarch first...

 

[Brain]

If you thought Regent was too easy, Monarch should be just easy.

That's it, but I don't want it to be easy. I want it to be challenging. I don't care if I get my a** kicked the first time. At least I'll learn.

So much depends on the start - don't get too cocky.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be cocky. It's just that I don't have too much free time to play and don't want to waste my time on a game that's going to be borring.

And actually my start position was pretty bad compared to the AI.

 

[sadu]

Emperor is a BIG step up from Monarch - I got absolutelty poleaxed for my frst few emperor games, it wasn't fun at all.

Like someone said above, the start makes all the difference. When I want a fair game, I set everything to random except world size - the extra challenge is making use of your traits on a world that may not be suitable (eg seafaring on pangea map)