what is your highest difficulty level in g&k

[jimbbq]

That you have played and won?

 

[Harv72b]

Prince. Almost have the hang of King, though.

EDIT: You're welcome.

 

[fuzzatron717]

Prince but for some reason I find warlord more likable.

 

[jimbbq]

In vanilla i won at emperor level once. I would not play emperor ever again (too stressful)

thanks for your help with the poll!

 

[thadian]

I can win emperor but i just don't have "the right cards in my deck" to win immortal, i just get creamed and out-teched.

In G+K i find king the most enjoyable because it's possible to build wonders and play a "neutral, uncommitted" style with a peacemongering intention. I do stumble to battle at times, but my troops don't leave my borders unless im preparing to well... "enforce peace" and "spread harmony" to the violent psychopaths.

 

[Andulias]

Won on Immortal, but just like in IV, at that difficulty level it's just not fun any more, you are constantly trying to catch up with the AI while fighting several wars at once. Emperor is much more to my liking.

 

[noontide]

I can win emperor but i just don't have "the right cards in my deck" to win immortal, i just get creamed and out-teched.

exactly my situation as well.

 

[thadian]

i think difficulty level is less about "OOOH I CAN WIN DEITY" and more about finding the difficulty with the game-pace that suits you.

Want to build a lot of buildings and wonders?
play prince.

Want to have a shot at wonders, getting "most" buildings?
Your a king.

Want to have about a 50/50 chance on wonders, while having to watch your building maintenance and social policies a little closer?
Emperor, it is!

Want to spend the game playing catchup where the next enemy is ALWAYS around the corner? Immortal can be fun! Despite that your always behind, remember - it's how you finish, and i've won on the bottom of the scoreboard.

Want to dope up with teenage rage and scream at the sky? Well, want a game where you have to make "every right move" without mistakes?
Deity is ok if you want to "play your starter deck against my teferi deck..." just hope i get mana screwed and never draw counters! (trust me, i would mulligan to 4.)

Now, i used to be able to do as bad on king as i do on immortal, once you get "good enough", you can apply most of your current strategy with a little improvement to bump up a level, and keep the same "fun you like" without changing too much. I admit, my plans just don't work on deity but one deity game i built 14 wonders and 0 troops and it wasn't until about turn 200 on normal settings that i got attacked, my poor "One Wonder City"... Maybe if i had taken it seriously and put out 3-4 more cities to meet needs i could have come farther.

 

[Wuddel]

Immortal is where I have the most fun. You can still get a lot of wonders when you have marble/and a decent capitol. I stepped up from Emperor since I learned how to effectively defend against the early rush that almost always happens. But I play on Standard maps. Which is easier than LArge/Huge.

Inspired by MadJinn i am currently also playing a deity game on Large Islands with Carthage, and I am (barely) holding up. But probably someone will out tech me and go for a space victory.

 

[Slvynn]

Immortal. Last game incredibly interesting and challenging, while Emperor feels to easy.... There big difference between them too.... Last win scored with Nabby and i got my 1st conquered city Sigtuna when i was in info_age. Second city was 39 (19 aftrr) pop Stockholm with approx. 15 wonders. 2x lvl 8 rockets with double 4 tile attack per turn rocked...

 

[headcase]

I quit a Prince game after being pretty sure of victory. Playing a promising King game with the Maya currently

 

[qyll]

Immortal, but it just feels less fun, so I play emperor most of the time.

 

[jimbbq]

in Civ iV, I could never play higher than Warlord! I am still unsure if Civ IV is harder to play or is it harder to understand. I didn't really fully understand the mechanics underlying CIv IV to be honest (I didn't even know I had to build roads to connect resources in Civ IV untill fairly recently )

 

[smallfish]

Immortal, but it just feels less fun, so I play emperor most of the time.

Immortal is like the level where its unfun at the beginning, but once you've set down and become a real sovereign power with the cool toys, it becomes so much more fun than the lower levels.

The trick is to survive long enough to matter.

 

[Bad Wolf]

Emperor is easy, haven't beat Immortal yet.

The difficulty curve is actually really steep, each level is quite a bit harder than the last. I remember breezing through Prince, having my first issues on King, getting my ass handed to me at first in Emperor... in Immortal I still haven't gotten the hang of both establishing myself and fending off the inevitable early rush.

 

[themascarasnake]

in Civ iV, I could never play higher than Warlord! I am still unsure if Civ IV is harder to play or is it harder to understand. I didn't really fully understand the mechanics underlying CIv IV to be honest (I didn't even know I had to build roads to connect resources in Civ IV untill fairly recently )

I'm not sure which I'd say is harder overall (V is harder for me so far), but IV definitely has a lot more stuff you have to learn and 'get' than V does. Doesn't necessarily make it harder than V, just takes more effort to learn at first I guess.

 

[Vatras]

Reading the manual in Civ IV is not really optional (unless you knew Civ III), especially when playing BtS It also feels harder to me than Civ V, but I love the incredible mods for it a lot, which aren't around for V (FfH and it's scions are my all-time favorites).

 

[Becephalus]

For me it is always about matching a difficulty level with style of play. I like to roleplay, and I don't exploit the AIs biggest flaws (particularly I don't make deals with them I wouldn't make if I were them), and I do not beeline to one victory type or other, but as though I am trying to get them all simultaneously.

So Emperor is where I play. I can power-game Diety easily because the AI is just terrible compared to a competent human, but I would rather play on a level where I don't need to agonize over every single decision, and if I feel like being a dick and starting a war with someone because they bugged me for the 15th time I don't suddenly "ruin my game", and if I want to go for Culutre with 15 cities I can do that too. On Deity you cannot make those kinds of choices, you need to play a very specific kind of game, which ruins 90% of the fun for me.

People should just play where and how they have fun.

 

[Becephalus]

I'm not sure which I'd say is harder overall (V is harder for me so far), but IV definitely has a lot more stuff you have to learn and 'get' than V does. Doesn't necessarily make it harder than V, just takes more effort to learn at first I guess.

Meh I play them both at the same level. I don't think that Civ 4 is "harder" there is just more stuff to keep track of. The strategic AI is a little worse overall in 4, but the combat AI is much better (relatively) because of the horrible and overly simple combat system. I suspect the 5 AI is actually a lot better than the 4 AI, it is just trying to solve a much harder problem.

 

[bayes]

I won like 5 games on immortal and tried like 4234234 times on diety. I could beat diety in vanilla with cheesy riflemen rush, but my cheap strategy doesnt really work anymore. Immortal to easy and diety to hard ...