Playing Difficulty for Enjoyment

[Eggolas]

Let's suppose for a moment that you can play Monarch and win 80% or more of the time with no reloading. Emperor is much tougher, at around 25% and Prince is almost always a win. [Monarch was used as the default, but we could be talking about Noble or Emperor or any other setting on which you can usually win.]

Which difficulty would you prefer to play and why? Or would you adjust the difficulty to make it easier or tougher, say by taking off barbarians or making them raging?

Do you change the map (if you're not a random player) so that your Praetorians can play on a standard or smaller Pangaea or your Vikings or Carthaginians can roam on an Archipelago?

 

[thefais]

Depends on why I'm playing that particular session. If I want a challenge, I'll make it harder. Otherwise, I'll make it easy.

 

[Sparta]

Emperor, every time. [In this hypothetical,] I've gotta get that 25% figure higher so I can start working on the 5% on Immortal!

 

[lilnev]

Emperor 80% of the time, ocassionally Monarch if I want to try out a new strategy or map, or just relax.

peace,
lilnev

 

[mice]

I like to play within my comfort zone, but try odd maps like archipeligo, or mods, like Genetic or Chazmod.Also Sevo's Mastery victory condition. These are in the interest of enjoyment.

I also add house rules like delete all outmoded units soon after they are obselete,make an ally and dont backstab them. Also I use Blake/Iustus' latest AI with 2.08. With this build my comfort zone is now Noble

For me I dont want to fight the AI at or above my level until the game is patched and balanced as well as it was with 1.61.

 

[manu-fan]

Noble for me. I am playing random games to keep things interesting (maps, leaders etc.) and I win fairly easily, but it's lots of fun beating up the other leaders.

Cheers.

 

[Murky]

Monarch is relatively easy to breeze through with a good starting position.

Emperor is more of a challenge and requires a skilled player to win consistantly.

 

[futurehermit]

I go back and forth. I'll play Monarch if I'm looking for a win or if I'm a bit tired or something like that or if I haven't played for awhile and am rusty. I'll play Emperor when I'm focused and looking for a challenge. Strangely enough these really are the difficulty levels that I go between.

 

[br_casino]

Sometimes I like to play Diety and cheat just to see the looks on those smug civilization leaders' faces. They always seem so surprised in the end

 

[Sisiutil]

I'm still just getting used to patched Warlords, so I play Monarch for a challenge, Prince for a little less of a challenge. Before Warlords I was on my way to Emperor and Monarch for those results, but the AI seems much more capable of challenging me in terms of economics and, thereby, research.

 

[Technocactus]

If you feel like a challenge, then Emporer. If you don't feel like a particularly challenging game, but still want it to be ahrd enough to be fun, then play Monarch. Completely ignore Prince.

 

[Sisiutil]

If you feel like a challenge, then Emporer. If you don't feel like a particularly challenging game, but still want it to be ahrd enough to be fun, then play Monarch. Completely ignore Prince.

[rant]
I don't want to pick on Technocactus and I don't want to start a flame war, but I see a lot of my-level-is-holier-than-thine posts like this around here and they're starting to bother me. Maybe it's just me. I apologize in advance, but I need to get this off my chest.

I'm very glad that some of you are capable of winning at Emperor level or even above, but I'm not there yet, may never be, and a lot of players around here are in the same boat. Just because I don't feel up to playing Emperor and still enjoy an occasional game on Prince doesn't mean that I'm an idiot, so please don't imply that this is the case. There are some very intelligent people posting on the boards who are struggling at Noble level or below it, and trying a game at Emperor or Monarch would most likely be an exercise in frustration for them. The game has several different difficulty levels for a very good reason.

All you have to do is change those "yous" to "Is" in posts like this (as in "If I feel like a challenge...") and then you'll stop seeming like you're trying to make the rest of us feel inadequate, whether it's intentional or not. Thanks. Cheers.
[/rant]

 

[mice]

Back in the 1.61 days I remember a poster saying " Emperor gives me a headache" This is how I feel about Monarch these days. Why get a headache?

I agree with you Sisiutil that there are plenty of intelligent people out there playing at Noble or thereabouts. When I play a game a Noble level I make sure I learn something, impliment something from one of the strat threads, and definitely make sure I enjoy the game.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Let's suppose for a moment that you can play Monarch and win 80% or more of the time with no reloading. Emperor is much tougher, at around 25% and Prince is almost always a win. [Monarch was used as the default, but we could be talking about Noble or Emperor or any other setting on which you can usually win.]

I'd play at Emperor, but I'd perhaps give myself a particularly favorable start (regenerate the map a few times), or pick a good leader, etc. After a few games with favorable starts, probably I would start winning those easily and be able to play random starts with an expectation of victory.

I think most people want to play at a level where they expect to win but it will be a struggle to do so.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I think most people want to play at a level where they expect to win but it will be a struggle to do so.

If you wrote "win in their preferred style", I think you would be closer. I think I'd be playing a level higher if I felt that an early rush made for an interesting game.

 

[1EyedKing]

("rant")

Agreed. As if there was a correlation between IQ and cIV difficulty level (though it would be nice to make such a study)...

 

[DaviddesJ]

[rant]
I don't want to pick on Technocactus and I don't want to start a flame war, but I see a lot of my-level-is-holier-than-thine posts like this around here and they're starting to bother me. Maybe it's just me. I apologize in advance, but I need to get this off my chest.

With all due respect, Technocactus is replying to the OP who said that he can win 80% of the time at Monarch. I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that such a player is beyond Prince and should ignore it totally.

 

[aelf]

Before Emperor, I was ambitious and kept moving to a higher level once I've won a few games on a particular level. On Emperor, though, I reach a plateau where I feel that my games could and should be improved. The EMC series has really helped me in that regard. If not for the 2.08 patch, I would be playing on Immortal now. Now, I need to see how much the changes affect my play style and adapt accordingly. However, if I find that I have to be very aggressive in almost every game, I probably won't move higher up. I don't want to play a game where there's only one method to win. Unfortunately, that might render me stuck on a level. That's why I'm all for nerfing the AI's bonuses according to the changes to enable human players to compete with it economically.

 

[DaviddesJ]

If you wrote "win in their preferred style", I think you would be closer. I think I'd be playing a level higher if I felt that an early rush made for an interesting game.

I think I did say that. I said that they "expect to win", which means that playing as they actually do play, leads to victory. Not just that they could win with some hypothetical alternative strategy.

 

[Jorunkun]

Pre-patch, I was playing Immortal exclusively, getting up to about a third or so wins. Now I'm at the same win-rate, but on Emperor (all random civs, standard fractal maps).

I don't mind, I am still learning something with every game, which is incredible considering how long civ4 has been out. And gotta say I love the new AI, actually staying competitive up until the end now. I used to play most games only until cavalry, thinking if they weren't decided by then, they were probably just tedious to play out. But now the modern age is often where I win or lose my games, and I am really only now discovering that stage of the game, and loving it.

For me, enoyment is in having a challenge and still getting games that feel interesting/different. I get bored on Monarch because there are so many strategies that would work that it doesn't really matter what you decide. On Emperor, I can usually stay in the game if I try, and sometimes I get a shot at doing something fancy and see how it plays out . Mostly I loose, but sometimes I don't and these are special games, and that's why i keep playing.

I think it doesn't matter what level you play on as long as you play to learn.