Has anyone else found that the level of difficulty jumps dramatically from Warlord to Noble? After handily whoopin' the AI three times in a row on Warlord, I've now played five or six games on Noble and always lose. Once I thought I was going to win on Noble, only to have a MASSIVE invasion force quickly put down my delusions of granduer around 1950 AD. Anyone else notice what appears to be a huge increase in difficulty between the two levels?
Noble much, MUCH harder than Warlord?
- Thread starter muhahaha
- Start date
Basically, the only serious increase in difficulty from Warlord to Noble and Noble to Prince that I've noticed is that you NEED to maintain a sizeable army at all times. You cannot let your defense slack at all. If you can maintain an army, keep your research going strong and develop your ciities you should have no trouble in noble or prince (I've yet to play anything higher).
Slip de Garcon
Warlord
I won easily on my first attempt at Warlord, but have yet to do so at Noble.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Yes differences between levels are big.
I casually win at Monarch, but on Emperor it's 50-50.
(ok maybe better then 50-50, but when I started at that level it was indeed 50-50)
I casually win at Monarch, but on Emperor it's 50-50.
(ok maybe better then 50-50, but when I started at that level it was indeed 50-50)
muhahaha said:
I had pretty much the same experience. After a whole bunch of easy Warlord victories I stepped up to Noble only to have barbarians run riot (I lost two cities that I never managed to recover), all my invasions blunted and, just as I thought I was getting a toehold back into the game and was looking towards a Space Race Victory, I had France and Germnay gang-up on me! Made for a more intersting exprience, that's for sure
lord_graywolfe
Wolfman
yeah it is more challenging. i find on noble that if i work to keep up tech wise with the AIs that my miltary falls behind and if i keep a strong force that i get way behind in tech and wonders. im sure there is a balance somewhere there i just havent found it yet. im enjoying it since on warlord i always got all the wonders and ran over the AIs now i have to be very careful on what i do lol. walking that thin line
Meffy
humanoid skunk
neriana said:
I was thinking exactly this earlier today. I'm in that "Warlord is easy, Noble is too tough a nut to crack so far" slot too. It can be discouraging. Half-levels would be great if they could be worked in neatly.
Maybe I ought to just try a different civ, one that I've found easy to play in past games.
RandomInsanity
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 162
I actually found the jump to be pretty easy
There are differences, like getting randomly attacked if you let military slip, and barbarians actually being a concern
it's nothing you cant manage if you read the forums often
There are differences, like getting randomly attacked if you let military slip, and barbarians actually being a concern
it's nothing you cant manage if you read the forums often
Abdomination
Warlord
Prince is where you start to see the AI get really aggressive. On Noble, you can have a weak military and get away with it
Yeah i found the jump was very difficult, never getting more than half way up the list at noble in 5 games, then suddenly in my new game im over a thousand points ahead now by 1900. Being extremely aggressive really helped, i now own half the continent and 5 techs ahead when i was behind in the 1500s.
schekker
Chieftain
It was indeed a big step for me, but mainly because I had to learn how to adapt my strategies. What worked on Warlord suddenly no longer worked for me on Noble.
Once you've properly adapted your strategies, the step isn't that big anymore.
Once you've properly adapted your strategies, the step isn't that big anymore.
I wish the 4 AIs that ganged against me in my last game knew that...Abdomination said:
Noble isn't too hard IMO, but if you start in a lousy place (like say... sand everywhere around) and don't have the good religion, things can become hard to manage.
Meffy said:
Would like that too, or rather, the ability to set AI parameters manually, instead of just choosing a difficulty level. For example...I'd like to play against an AI with the same (or higher) research than me, but not with higher production. Yes, it can be set somehow in the XML files, but I'd like to be able to change those things when I start a game...
There are ways to make halflevels by customizing games. Set your civ, AI-opponents, Ai agressivness, map size, map type, barbarian commonness to whatever suits you.
So far plain randomized emperor makes a good challenge for me but when i take the leap to immortal i will probobly fiddle arounds with the settings if it is to much to handle.
So far plain randomized emperor makes a good challenge for me but when i take the leap to immortal i will probobly fiddle arounds with the settings if it is to much to handle.
Lars_Domus
Say No 2 Net Validations
When I started playing I actually jumped straight from Chieftain to Noble by mistake, and I didn't actually think even that was that big an increment in difficulty. I went from easily winning each game to getting beaten at the finish line in each game. When I found out I had accidentally skipped a difficulty it only took me a couple of practice games at Warlord to successfully win every Noble game too.
I don't know specifically what made Noble come so natural to me, but I have this theory:
At lower difficulty levels one can succeed with monotone and repetitive strategies, doing things excactly the same every game, and focusing exclusively on certain aspects of the game. The "threshold" for such strategies seems to lay between Warlord and Noble. I believe it was such habits that made me a mediocre CivIII-player, and when I had to "relearn" Civ with IV anyway, I tried to be adaptive in my strategies from the very beginning.
One specific thing that does come to mind, and has already been pointed out by previous posters, is that it is paramount to keep an adequat sized military throughout the game, even for builder-style players. This will help keep the more reasonable AIs off your back, and let you defend yourself when the aggressive ones attack. At least this is what seemed to make the difference for me.
I don't know specifically what made Noble come so natural to me, but I have this theory:
At lower difficulty levels one can succeed with monotone and repetitive strategies, doing things excactly the same every game, and focusing exclusively on certain aspects of the game. The "threshold" for such strategies seems to lay between Warlord and Noble. I believe it was such habits that made me a mediocre CivIII-player, and when I had to "relearn" Civ with IV anyway, I tried to be adaptive in my strategies from the very beginning.
One specific thing that does come to mind, and has already been pointed out by previous posters, is that it is paramount to keep an adequat sized military throughout the game, even for builder-style players. This will help keep the more reasonable AIs off your back, and let you defend yourself when the aggressive ones attack. At least this is what seemed to make the difference for me.
allhailIndia
Deity
I had it tough a couple of times with noble, but I learnt from my mistakes, was aggressive as hell, and won quite comfortably on standard maps.
Now am trying to play Huge Terra Map as Mongols, just wiped out the Chinese, and hungrily eyeing the puny Romans...
Now am trying to play Huge Terra Map as Mongols, just wiped out the Chinese, and hungrily eyeing the puny Romans...
Similar threads
