Should I Go Up A Difficulty Level?

Lexicus

Deity
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
32,017
Location
Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
I have a question, as you may have guessed.

I've been playing on Regent for several months now. I've almost always been able to win, but it took a lot of hardship and blood and toil to do it.

The other day, I turned on my computer. Playing as the Babylonians with a decent start (desert, but lots of rivers and hills,) I have progressed to the modern age in 1788, and have beaten down three Civs so far (out of 11 besides me.) I have the most population and the largest empire by far. I take up about half of the power graph. The Celts are ahead in score, but only because they destroyed and absorbed the Dutch, the Vikings, and the Portuguese before I got to their continent. They have been broken militarily by a Babylon-German alliance. Taking their cities will be easy, but there are so damn many.

I lead in tech by a lot, and have for the entire game. I don't remember that ever happening before--pretty sure it's a side effect of hanging around here. ;)

Now, at last, the question: should I move up to Monarch?
 
Yes, but you may want to make one run with a std map size and see if you can run away with the score from the start. Large maps favor the human, especially if the map has more water.
 
I've skipped Regent altogether. The big jump is to Emperor. The step from Regent to Monarch is, like Aabraxan said, not that big.
If Monarch turns out to be a bit challenging, it just means you'll have to be sharp. I lose interest when half of the powergraph is mine, don't you? You learn more if you're playing on a level where your mistakes get punished, because you will learn not to make them!
 
Yeah, it's definitely not as fun. I played a little more, and finished off the Celts, marching into Entremont after bombing it to oblivion. The strongest civs have two or three dozen riflemen. The only civ that has infantry is Germany, and even then they still have 60+ riflemen. My army is five cav armies, a tank army, and 30 tanks and mech infantry not in armies.

(I've decided I definitely will move up to Monarch.
 
You can definitely handle Monarch. You may want to pick a reasonably good civilization for your first couple games, but you'll do fine. Emperor, on the other hand...be prepared to get spanked.
 
I'll answer yes, without even reading your post. I tried Monarch right after I won one Regent game and I've gone back to regent for practice but I stick to Monarch.
 
Looks like you could easily handle monarch. I usually play monarch, sometimes regent or emperor. The biggest difference I've noticed is in the type of war you want to wage. I enjoy the ancient age wars fought with arrows, spears and swords, but I have to forget about that on Emperor level where I struggle on defense during the ancient and medieval times and am lucky if I can mount an offensive when cavalry or tanks arrive. I'll drop back down to regent level sometimes just to extend the time spent with hand-to-hand combat. If you prefer modern warfare play emperor.
 
Thanks for all the advice. I think I'll go with Monarch for now until I figure out micro-management better. Unfortunately, it'll have to wait, since I'm really busy for the foreseeable future. I'll be able to do it around Christmas probably.
 
Looks like you could easily handle monarch. I usually play monarch, sometimes regent or emperor. The biggest difference I've noticed is in the type of war you want to wage. I enjoy the ancient age wars fought with arrows, spears and swords, but I have to forget about that on Emperor level where I struggle on defense during the ancient and medieval times and am lucky if I can mount an offensive when cavalry or tanks arrive. I'll drop back down to regent level sometimes just to extend the time spent with hand-to-hand combat. If you prefer modern warfare play emperor.

Personally I don't really care about skill. Monarch is more challenging, but Regent is the, well, funnest. I guess.
 
All this discussion decided me. I finished my first regent last night--address me as, "The Wise" :D --& on a whim immediately started a monarch. After 70-odd turns, no surprises; we'll see how it holds up. Probably switch back and forth through the levels for a while longer, but moving up. Alas, probably won't get more than 20 turns in between now and January :sad:

Aside: I've been methodically running through each seed number in turn--can't get mapfinder to do anything to speak of--& this is 209, standard map, 60% pangaea, warm, temperate & 4gyr, sedentary barbs, as Mayans. A cow, a few BGs, 3-4 luxes & iron within extended reach, horses way, way away. If I get a chance & think of it, I'll post an early save. . . .

kk
 
i recently moved up to monarch myself... its nice to know you can beat that comps. even when they have an advantage (not counting some crappy AI at times) :lol:
 
Just to pipe in with my own experiences..

For me, the switch from Regent to Monarch was not too bad.

I think if your OK on Regent you should be OK on Monarch, just a spend a little longer on your turns.

However the jump from Monarch to Emp is very big so if you go back and play a monarch game, you think damn, I had it easy before.

Anyway g'luck on Monarch, maybe play an emp game aswell as a test to see how you fair.
 
Top Bottom