What Difficulty Are You Stuck On?

[Dragonxander PR]

Because he decides to only build a few cities. Probobly less than 6.

I usually go with 10-15 cities (stop expanding by the Industrial Revolution), & I only conquer enemy cities via culture or when they settle in what I consider my continent (usually when in Archipelago).

 

[bobbyboy29]

Anyone else noticing a bell curve appearing in this poll? Go maths!

 

[Dragonxander PR]

Anyone else noticing a bell curve appearing in this poll? Go maths!

I did, & it makes sense, given the amount of veteran civvers in existance, as well as how many go for the mid-advanced player strategies of these forums.

 

[CivIVMonger]

The point for the poll was to 1: Understand the "Average" difficulty. And 2: See how many player actually have a good win rate on diety. I noticed that Emp is higher than mon I thought mon would take the cake...

 

[cracked]

The first time I played prince I had an isolated start with no military resources (Just how often I end up disadvantaged in this way is unbelievable. Does the PC just not like me?). I did have stone and was Roosevelt, so I actually won comfortably if not impressively. Managed to vassalise the Khmer later on who had a riduiculously large navy.

The way you play the harder levels changes. I placed more emphasis on going for higher techs then trading them for lots of weaker techs. Used slavery more progressively and actively, built a much smaller army as I was isolated, used the oracle to get code of laws (on noble I'd go for theocracy). Built as many if not more wonders. And used great people to bulb techs rather than settling them (a mixed gp base isn't as detrimental as you might think). When I came to research civil service I got it in two turns thanks to a great priest. Got to then end and I was miles ahead technologically.

In fact, I didn't notice it being all that much harder. So I'm curious to know just what the differences between the levels are and precisely how you are handicapped.

 

[Charonicus]

I play on noble, but I don't feel I'm stuck. I don't feel any need to move to a higher difficulty when this one is still challenging. I'm not trying to climb the difficulty ladder to get to deity, which is what most people seem to be doing.

No one responded to this yet?

Everyone plays for different reasons. For some knowing Civ inside out and being able to defeat the AI when it's given the kind of bonuses it receives on Deity is fun. Personally I know I won't ever get up near deity, but I haven't lost a noble game in so long that moving up to prince, where I've only won once so far is a logical step. I'm not climbing for the sake of climbing, but for the sake of keeping the game challenging. I still enjoy, as I did recently, a totally relaxed Warlord game where the AI can be stomped into oblivion with total ease. And likewise I enjoyed the titanic struggles on Prince that have given me multiple losses and one euphoric victory. (It was a space race that broke out into an all out Modern Armour war between the three civs remaining).

My point is, there's nothing wrong with playing on Noble if that's the level you find challenging and fun. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to become a deity player, whether it's for the perceived kudos of being a member of the elite or simply because it's so damn challenging or even just because one wishes to prove that one is smarter than the computer at the highest possible setting the game allows for personal satisfaction.

Now, if you climbed all the way to Deity and weren't enjoying it... then there's something wrong.

 

[DABegley]

Depends on what you mean by "stuck", the level you can win at or the level that is just one too high for you. I play on Monarch and Emperor. Monarch I win over 50% of the time but Emperor is a bear for me to win. Only a couple of culture wins using the beeline to GL (to drive early research) and Sistine Chapel (for the +5 culture bonus for religious buildings which I actually use as much to win culture border wars as to generate culture points for my big 3 cities). I answered that I am stuck on Emperor as I have only gotten a couple wins and I credit them to great starting positions and geographic isolation, not to having figured out viable strategies. I am still losing any space race or conquest victory tries badly.

 

[Verision]

I'm stuck on Monarch.

If I play as JC (Julius Caesar, not Jesus Christ) and I have Iron, then I usually win. Otherwise, I always seem to loose. I could probably win with some of the other early UU civs, but if I pick a random leader, I lose almost every time.

This drives me nuts since I seem to be able to destroy Prince no matter what leader I use (usually conquest victories using Infantry when the AI only has longbows or muskets). In fact, I find Prince boringly easy, and yet I find Monarch stupidly hard for the most part.

 

[Stoney the I]

I hate the fact the poll says "stuck"

im playing emperor atm but i am by no means STUCK. its where i have landed for now and maybe i will go up maybe i wont, the learning curve isnt complete.

if somebody is stuck it means they make the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[kretes]

I also don't quite get the word "stuck" in the poll.

I was stuck for a long time between Emperor and Immortal. Strangely enough, the former level became quite easy while the latter was still impossible, so I never knew what I should be playing. Thankfully, I learned about the awesome Better AI mod and I'll be cruising on BAI Emperor till CIV V comes along (at which point I'll crash down back to Noble or Prince).

I don't think I'd like to achieve Diety even if I could. For me, it would mean that I have become a victim of micromanagement, warmongering and optimal-choice playing. The joy behind the game is the multi-choice factor, not playing by a learned optimal schematic every game.

 

[CivIVMonger]

I also don't quite get the word "stuck" in the poll.

I was stuck for a long time between Emperor and Immortal. Strangely enough, the former level became quite easy while the latter was still impossible, so I never knew what I should be playing. Thankfully, I learned about the awesome Better AI mod and I'll be cruising on BAI Emperor till CIV V comes along (at which point I'll crash down back to Noble or Prince).

I don't think I'd like to achieve Diety even if I could. For me, it would mean that I have become a victim of micromanagement, warmongering and optimal-choice playing. The joy behind the game is the multi-choice factor, not playing by a learned optimal schematic every game.

Thats what really shines about this game. Theres beuty in so many areas that it pleases even the most skeptical crowds.

Some, well all, like the music. Some like the strategic challange. Some like the awesome multyplayer mode! Some like the ability to dominate the world on the lower levals. Some like the ability to play a relaxing or challanging game. And some, including me. Love all of it combined into one of, if not the greatest strategy game of all time!

 

[Hunter Noventa]

I'm having trouble moving up to Warlord. I've been trying to randomize my settings more, not playing with the same leader/map tpye all the time. Even still I have to turn off Diplomatic victory or get owned by religious civs, turn off vassal states because theyr'e just annoying. And turn off Espionage because it's just such a huge pain to deal with. And even then I tend to get trapped between larger civs.

Take my last game for example, I started on a small peninsula with no copper or iron, at the top of which was mostly desert and mountains. I was able to fit two cities there before being hemmed in by the AI and having to expand overseas, which I did a decent job of I'd like to think. I still got my butt pretty much handed to me, only a couple of wars...well 2 atonce that didn't last too long, and I was consistently in the bottom part of the power rankings. Not dead last, but nowhere near first.

I still try though.

 

[Charonicus]

Hunter, those religious civs winning by diplo victory? Try making them your primary war target. Also, even if you don't have the same religion as them, if it spreads in one of your cities, spread it to them all to increase your voting power. If you prefer not having diplo on then that's fair enough, but with it on you should be able to improve your diplomacy skills and learn how to better prevent them from winning.

Your last start just sounds like bad luck, happens to us all. I had a game with no copper or iron once too. It was certainly a struggle. In the end I buddied up with Ragnar who was the power leader by far and used him and Shaka to protect me from everyone else while I beelined to gunpowder. I came back reasonably well after that but still couldn't manage a win.

Keep trying though.

 

[Bei1052]

Monarch for me. I don't quite understand why I have so much difficulty with Emperor. I can almost always win on Monarch, with me just messing around for 90% of the game, but I can't even begin to scratch the surface of an Emperor game. That is, I fall behind early and never catch up. It makes me mad.

 

[Hunter Noventa]

Hunter, those religious civs winning by diplo victory? Try making them your primary war target. Also, even if you don't have the same religion as them, if it spreads in one of your cities, spread it to them all to increase your voting power. If you prefer not having diplo on then that's fair enough, but with it on you should be able to improve your diplomacy skills and learn how to better prevent them from winning.

Your last start just sounds like bad luck, happens to us all. I had a game with no copper or iron once too. It was certainly a struggle. In the end I buddied up with Ragnar who was the power leader by far and used him and Shaka to protect me from everyone else while I beelined to gunpowder. I came back reasonably well after that but still couldn't manage a win.

Keep trying though.

My problem is I'm a terrible warmonger, I much prefer to be a peaceful builder,and I can never seem to build enough military. For example, last game I was stuck between three larger civs, two of whom were my religion, one who wasn't. I expected the attack from the other guys at some point, and had about 7 units in my captial, way more than I usually do. Well war gets declared,a nd teh guy shows up on my doorstep with around 40 units and takes my captial in two turns. My other cities had no chance of producing anything fast enough to do anything (this was on epic speed).

How the heck do you counter something liek that and still have improvements in your cities? i was having trouble keeping the places happy and healthy as it was. I couldn't even get my religion buddies to join in on the battle!

Very frusttrating.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

No one responded to this yet?

Everyone plays for different reasons. For some knowing Civ inside out and being able to defeat the AI when it's given the kind of bonuses it receives on Deity is fun. Personally I know I won't ever get up near deity, but I haven't lost a noble game in so long that moving up to prince, where I've only won once so far is a logical step. I'm not climbing for the sake of climbing, but for the sake of keeping the game challenging. I still enjoy, as I did recently, a totally relaxed Warlord game where the AI can be stomped into oblivion with total ease. And likewise I enjoyed the titanic struggles on Prince that have given me multiple losses and one euphoric victory. (It was a space race that broke out into an all out Modern Armour war between the three civs remaining).

My point is, there's nothing wrong with playing on Noble if that's the level you find challenging and fun. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to become a deity player, whether it's for the perceived kudos of being a member of the elite or simply because it's so damn challenging or even just because one wishes to prove that one is smarter than the computer at the highest possible setting the game allows for personal satisfaction.

Now, if you climbed all the way to Deity and weren't enjoying it... then there's something wrong.

I have to agree with this completely. Well said.

 

[CivIVMonger]

My problem is I'm a terrible warmonger, I much prefer to be a peaceful builder,and I can never seem to build enough military. For example, last game I was stuck between three larger civs, two of whom were my religion, one who wasn't. I expected the attack from the other guys at some point, and had about 7 units in my captial, way more than I usually do. Well war gets declared,a nd teh guy shows up on my doorstep with around 40 units and takes my captial in two turns. My other cities had no chance of producing anything fast enough to do anything (this was on epic speed).

How the heck do you counter something liek that and still have improvements in your cities? i was having trouble keeping the places happy and healthy as it was. I couldn't even get my religion buddies to join in on the battle!

Very frusttrating.

Just play the difficulty you are comfortable with until you have mastered it.

 

[Th3 PuNiSh3R]

I can own them all.

 

[CivIVMonger]

I have to agree with this completely. Well said.

Whoa Lemon! You posted 2 seconds after me!

 

[Charonicus]

My problem is I'm a terrible warmonger, I much prefer to be a peaceful builder,and I can never seem to build enough military. For example, last game I was stuck between three larger civs, two of whom were my religion, one who wasn't. I expected the attack from the other guys at some point, and had about 7 units in my captial, way more than I usually do. Well war gets declared,a nd teh guy shows up on my doorstep with around 40 units and takes my captial in two turns. My other cities had no chance of producing anything fast enough to do anything (this was on epic speed).

How the heck do you counter something liek that and still have improvements in your cities? i was having trouble keeping the places happy and healthy as it was. I couldn't even get my religion buddies to join in on the battle!

Very frusttrating.

Yup. I had this trouble when I was playing on Warlord. War skills are something you need to improve.

Consider this. Which AI seems to do best in your games? The ones that war, thus taking more cities and growing large? Or the ones who sit teching, get declared on and end up as a vassal?

The AI that attacked you... the best defence would have been to see that coming and attack him first. Building up a stack of only ten to twelve axes or swords early on can pry two, probably even more cities from an opponent. Try it one game. Settle three or four cities then build a stack of axemen and declare on the nearest guy. See if you can take him out. An AI capital is usually a much better city than any you can site by yourself and will give you a significant advantage and set you up for a better game. In most of my games I only ever build 4-6 cities and then capture the rest from the enemy. Remember you'll also be capturing workers most likely which will save you having to build your own and will be gaining gold, allowing you to do some more research. If you don't kill them entirely you may even get a tech or two in exchange for peace.
Once you've given your enemy a kicking, settle down and get your newly expanded empire under control but importantly, keep building units. Use slavery to whip some out. You don't necessarily need to war all the time but you should always be ready for it. Watch the power graph and make sure you're not on the bottom. Pay attention to who's furious with you. Where is their closest city? What's defending it? etc.

It's all about practice. Warlord really is pretty easy and as you grasp the finer aspects of warfare you'll wonder how you ever got defeated on it.


Try this in your next game.
In your capital, build a worker first. Have the worker improve the land while you build a warrior for your capital. Then two more warriors and one settler. Send one warrior and settler off to plant a city. Have the second warrior escort your worker to the second city, building a road as he goes. Get your capital to build a worker for the second city then a settler and another warrior. Get those cities out there before the AI steals all the land.
Research the techs you need immediately. You don't need agriculture if there's no corn or wheat. Research Animal Husbandry to see if there are horses. If so, consider an army of chariots early on. If not, bronze working will reveal copper, allow slavery and also allow workers to chop forests to get those settlers built faster. If no copper then Iron Working is your last resort.

Once you have 4 or more cities and your research is starting to plummet due to lack of gold get that army coming. Ten to twelve of either chariots, axes or swords. Find the nearest Civ and get as close to his city as you can. Chances are he has three archers or less defending it. If you managed to whip or chop barracks in any cities then promote to city raider and start attacking that city. When you've taken it you're gonna want to leave one unit behind to guard it, preferably a unit that doesn't have city raider. How many units do you have left? Given your success there, could they take a second city from the AI? If not then hole up in that city while the AI tries and fails to retake it then make peace. Make a bigger army, finish them off.

Practice and have fun. ^^