Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Mr.Ummoid, Jun 19, 2008.
Emperor is hard but not impossible. I can't even imagine diety yet.
ok ok! you convinced me guys! next game i will try immortal current game is emperor/huge/34 civs/earth map and i'm getting a blasting victory. i left my arch-enemy MAO far behind after two very succesful military punches. he was stronger in military but i had better tech, his biggest mistake was in the second war, the AI put a huge stack +40 units in one city... i just needed two tactical nukes to send them all to hell!! luckily no onw ever developed nuclear weapons but me, and now they are banned but i still got some under my pillow
i also used spies massively to destroy as many science/gold buildings in his cities. that really slowed him... GOD BLESS ESPIONAGE now i am building the spaceship components and have a powerful military. he is trying to recover, but still using infantry and has no airforce. i just updated my troops to mobile infantry and i'm about to get mobile armor and advanced flight... if starts to climb i will have to kick the crap out of him again... muahaha!
just 2 deity level players in 168 ! just over 1% !
This game is amazing. I play at monarch / prince and wonder if i ever can play at deity !
I'm between monarch and emperor. I voted monarch though, because there's only a handful of leaders I can play on emperor with.
im still at noble level usually i win the games at early 20th century and once or twice earlier than that...im a peaceful player though. When did u guys tried the prince level?
Noble...managed to get a Prince win pre-BtS, but that one was a prime example of the adage 'war doesn't determine who is right, only who is left' - my economy was in ruins, units were disbanding (where do they go?), longbows in 1700AD, but monty finally capitulated for me to get the conquest victory.
Post-BtS, I'm probably 50/50 in Noble. Definitely need to put more time into CIV
Having won on higher difficulties (this is a much-repeated query), have to go for Monarch. Fun vs. Effort...
I know what you mean. I play monarch level and it's a jump from prince. The civs get techs faster.
A hard one . . . I voted Noble because I always win, although I'm playing on Prince at the moment and can't seem to.
Let them. On Monarch and Emperor you can afford to build one or possibly two wonders in the early game. IE, it is OK to build Stonehenge or Pyramids, but otherwise stick to your expansionist goals.
I enjoy Prince the most. I find it a challenge and tend to get frustrated on the higher levels seldom winning.
Monarch is to easy. But I'm struggling on emperor.
Anything below emperor, usually you pretty much know if you're gonna win while still in BC. Monarch and below, it's just a case of getting a reasonable start; even if your still behind (even half the score of the leader), it's just a matter of time for catching up if you know what you're doing, you have to be strategically-impaired to not be able to come up with a way to exploit the AIs in one way or another to close the gap.
I like chieftain because I am a noob at this game (just got it in May) and it is more fun for me. However, that being said, I have bumped up to Warlord (the next one up) to start learning how to play the game when it is not all laid out on a silver platter. Thanks largely in part to many of the find strategists on this forum.
I play it on Warlords all the time, mostly because I really don't like stacks of units, but also because it seems to me, that on higher difficulty levels the only thing that makes a difference is micromanagement. I wan't to play this game, use all of it's content, see some progress with science and want war's without 500 units pulled together on 5 Stacks. Furthermore I'm the builder type and somehow on Warlord it almost feels like Civ1 with two spearman in each city. Strategies are nice, but I don't want to adopt "you HAVE TO do this for winning"-strategies, it would spoil the experience for me. I think the only difference is the rate of production the AI has, so it does not make much of a difference anyway. Or do I miss something?
edit: ah and I forgot: I suck - badly - at harder levels. Never learnt it.
I like Immortal most; it's a challenge and I can still employe many different strategies which seem equally valid.
My Deity games are pure chaos topped with a generous layer of cheese. Fun once in a while, but I find the game actually loses most of its depth there.
I play Monarch, but for 'most preferred' I'd probably pick Noble, on the grounds that I don't like insane AI bonuses. I know they are unavoidable, will always be unavoidable, and the game would be much poorer without them- hence why I play Monarch - but I still enjoyed it more when I was still playing Noble.
Tried Emporer the other day. Got grassland gems and gold in the start with a financial civ... and still lost. Definitely still a Monarch player then...
Separate names with a comma.