(POLL) In which difficulty level do you find the balance between enjoyable and challenging?

[liv]

This poll did not ask for low difficulties which is an issue
Also I think at least for civ 5 remember reading that most people probably played lower than prince
Civ vi seems easier to play so maybe it is different for this version.

 

[WillowBrook]

Just curious, I see most here play emperor. Do you think that is the typical level played outside civfanatics?

I'd have thought a large proportion of buyers stick to prince

According to current steam achievement stats, here are the percentages of players that have won at the listed level or harder.

Settler 40.8
Chieftain 35.9
Regent 33.2
Prince 29.6
King 14.5
Emperor 8.5
Immortal 5.7
Deity 4.8

These stats don't catch all games, but are probably a decent relative comparison.

Note that the biggest gap is from prince to king.

 

[KyivanRusCivPlease]

According to current steam achievement stats, here are the percentages of players that have won at the listed level or harder.

Settler 40.8
Chieftain 35.9
Regent 33.2
Prince 29.6
King 14.5
Emperor 8.5
Immortal 5.7
Deity 4.8

These stats don't catch all games, but are probably a decent relative comparison.

Note that the biggest gap is from prince to king.

People from these stats might begin to play Civ 6 on lower difficulties and move to higher ones as they become more familiar with the game. That's why these stats don't say much to me)

 

[WillowBrook]

People from these stats might begin to play Civ 6 on lower difficulties and move to higher ones as they become more familiar with the game. That's why these stats don't say much to me)

But it does suggest that the typical player base is different from the sample responding to this poll (which is what I was addressing). Only 8.5% of those getting steam achievements have won on emperor or higher, but 2/3 of those responding to this poll prefer emperor or higher.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Just curious, I see most here play emperor. Do you think that is the typical level played outside civfanatics?

I'd have thought a large proportion of buyers stick to prince

Generally speaking, people that actually take an interest in game mechanics and strategy, as well as asking for/dispensing advice are more likely to take the game a bit more seriously.

There's also more to brag about, if you can beat the game on deity, then say, settler.

 

[trev1972]

According to current steam achievement stats, here are the percentages of players that have won at the listed level or harder.

Settler 40.8
Chieftain 35.9
Regent 33.2
Prince 29.6
King 14.5
Emperor 8.5
Immortal 5.7
Deity 4.8

These stats don't catch all games, but are probably a decent relative comparison.

Note that the biggest gap is from prince to king.

Interesting thanks, so that suggests 60% never finish a game?

I think the endgame is a problem, i just finished one, and the last hour was dull - i hope that will be addressed

 

[Archon_Wing]

Late game performance issues I'd imagine would deter many from finishing especially if they have effectively won.

 

[trev1972]

Late game performance issues I'd imagine would deter many from finishing especially if they have effectively won.

i think there are three issues with endgame

1) the huge number of cities you get means lots of micro management ..plus added annoyments such as having to reassign spies

2) performance issues

3) you can tell youve won well before winning

i abandon a fair few games at the endfame stage

anyway interesting stats!

 

[Depravo]

People from these stats might begin to play Civ 6 on lower difficulties and move to higher ones as they become more familiar with the game. That's why these stats don't say much to me)

I expect more experienced players are more likely to use mods, too, which obviously means any victories won't register as an achievement.

 

[Vahnstad]

I'm now playing on immortal and it looks like i have a decent chance to win. After my Indonesia game on Immortal, i will play as Alexander on Deity and go for domination victory.

 

[genyl]

I voted deity but only with a decent civ. I win about half the time of those.

Would say immortal with a weak civ.

 

[WillowBrook]

I expect more experienced players are more likely to use mods, too, which obviously means any victories won't register as an achievement.

Mods don't disable achievements in civ VI (unless they use a new rule set like the scenarios - things like adjusting the pace, adding new units, anything with the UI, etc are all okay for achievements)

 

[Frostburn]

Immortal for early warmongering and "OP" civs, Emperor for more peaceful game/weaker civs

 

[empresskiova]

I generally only play on Prince. So there’s my vote.

 

[chazzycat]

my 2 cents:
King is a very fun level for role playing non-ideal strategies and weaker civs and it won't be TOO easy
Emperor is kind of the middle ground that allows for some roleplaying, but you have to understand the game mechanics thoroughly, you can't just do whatever
Immortal is where weaker civs and roleplaying start to become non-options, you gotta play tight and with a good civ/starting location.

 

[KyivanRusCivPlease]

my 2 cents:
King is a very fun level for role playing non-ideal strategies and weaker civs and it won't be TOO easy
Emperor is kind of the middle ground that allows for some roleplaying, but you have to understand the game mechanics thoroughly, you can't just do whatever
Immortal is where weaker civs and roleplaying start to become non-options, you gotta play tight and with a good civ/starting location.

What map size do you play? I am playing on a small map now after playing on a tiny map before and am not sure whether I can win a Culture Victory on Immortal without conquering any cities. It is harder on a bigger map. What do you mean by roleplaying?

 

[chazzycat]

By roleplaying I mean basically playing strategies that you think are fun but you know aren't necessarily "ideal". For example if you play as Spain, they are pretty bad civ on high levels because they need religion but get no benefits to help found one. But at King you can actually get a religion without gimping yourself too hard, and actually play Spain the way they are intended. If you're into history at all (which I am) it's WAYYY more fun going crazy with inquisitors & conquistadors than doing a standard archer rush on your neighbor, which you're pretty much forced to do on immortal just to gain parity.

Last game I played on King was as France going for a peaceful culture victory. Wanted to see if I could stick to just a few "tall" cities and really focus on wonders & chateaus . Is that the best strategy for culture victory? No. To speed up culture victory you want more cities (culture districts) and more land for resorts. So the "ideal" strategy involves conquering for sure. There is no way around it. But it doesn't feel right, for a culture victory, you know? So you make the arbitrary decision "I'm gonna win peaceful culture victory", you're roleplaying.

 

[Rosty K]

Higher levels (especially where AI gets extra settlers denying you space) basically force you into a single 'optimal' strategy (which happens to be early conquest aka 'let AI build things for me' in Civ 6), which is sort of boring, I think. Also, the game with multiple victory conditions and multiple 'characters' and so on should really allow multiple strategies to achieve these conditions and utilize them characters as well. Currently for me this only works on King and below. Tried to move up to Emperor and it very much looks like 'wipe out anyone close, or hopelessly fall behind'. Well, and somehow I don't feel inferior because I've never won on Deity in any version of the game (played them all, from the first).

Also, after the Fall update (with all its problems, of course), the AI seems able to provide some entertainment even on King

 

[Disgustipated]

I did change my vote to King. I still like Prince to do crazy stuff, but it really doesn't challenge me at all. I still don't use optimal strategies to go any higher I think. I still don't "pre-plop" my districts to lock in lower costs. I need to get better at planning my cities before they are even built. I tend to be more reactive instead of proactive. I often just like to go with the flow of the game and change things willy nilly. And same thing with the chop strategy outlined in the trade routes thread, I'm not optimizing chops nearly as well as I should.

 

[trev1972]

Im actually playing my first immortal game at present and loaded it in my favour (tsl earth, australia)

Too early to see if its winnable without stealing settlers etc, the main difference is i lost the petra race! (i was due to complete on turn 74, it went at turn 69!!!!!!!!)

Still- it is more enjoyable knowing i might actually lose.