black_kitten
Chieftain
You perfectly described my attitude towards difficulty settings. Depending on my mood I'm somewhere in between king and emperor. I voted king beause until now that's the majority of games I played.
what is your highest difficulty level in g&k
- Thread starter jimbbq
- Start date
You perfectly described my attitude towards difficulty settings. Depending on my mood I'm somewhere in between king and emperor. I voted king beause until now that's the majority of games I played.
I think you're drastically underestimating how much small differences can affect the game.
You can have 2 more production early on for free just for having better terrain - you might not even notice it, but you'll hit your worker a couple turns earlier, which will give you even larger bonuses fast, which will hit your first settler 5 turns earlier, hit your second city that much earlier, give you a resource to sell that much earlier, and so on and so forth. You can easily snowball out to be 15 or 20 turns ahead just because you had a better start and made use of it well, which can very well mean you win a war instead of fighting to a draw... and now you're the runaway civ on your continent instead of being just another player.
As far as religions, they might be getting 1 or 2 a turn from several more cities than you, or they might have three religious city-states feeding them faith, or they might have a strong faith producing Pantheon, or they might hit two faith goody huts, or they might be one of the various civs (Celts, Ethiopia come to mind especially) that have bonus faith.
In addition, AIs vary from game to game in how much they will expand, both on how the map is arranged and in terms of their own preferences, plus different leaders have different personalities. It's perfectly possible to get a game where the AIs don't expand and don't want to fight, it's just unlikely; usually at least a few will want to expand.
Point being, small changes in start location, goody huts, neighbor behavior , etc can add up to huge differences in play experience.
Disgustipated
Deity
I'm pretty sure the reason I was doing so well before was because the AI was not expanding properly.
The problem with automatic patching is I don't know if they did something to fix it. I have a feeling they put in a quickfix to the problem of AI's not expanding.
Now my question is: Why can't I expand as fast as them on Prince level without running into happiness or money problems?
The problem with automatic patching is I don't know if they did something to fix it. I have a feeling they put in a quickfix to the problem of AI's not expanding.
Now my question is: Why can't I expand as fast as them on Prince level without running into happiness or money problems?
DateOfRebirth
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 8, 2012
- Messages
- 28
My highest was with Boudicca standard cultural by 1890. Anything less than deity is cheating
omnishakira
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 142
mostly play on diety
unless I want to do ******** stuff then I go back on emperor or immortal depending on how stupid is the thing I wanna try
unless I want to do ******** stuff then I go back on emperor or immortal depending on how stupid is the thing I wanna try
IMHO the issue with difficulty settings in Civ5 is if you pick your rivals, and favourable map types, it's almost a loaded game. Game speed also changes difficulty. For best results, stick to standard speed, as marathon speeds is a setting the game was not balanced on.
I have spammed 1 map type (Pangea) on standard setting Emp/Immortal for my last 30 or so games from vanilla into GnK I feel like I can speak to the 'feel' of the game because I'm not dicking around with my rivals, game speed and maps (I only change the Civ I play, and yes I do play some of the more OP civs like Inca), I can say civ-mix and positioning is indeed a huge factor. Easy early games can mean a dominant late game, regardless of difficulty. Difficult early games with lots of dogpiles means certain loss.
Games are still very much civ dependent. I think the toughest games will be continents or pangea with a bunch of builders and a few warmongers to gobble them up and strong CS civs far from the human player. No early wars, lots of building, Immense distance for the humans to play their tricks.
Siam or Greece both militarily competent with a strong CS UA bonus spawning half a world away with no immediate rival next to them, or worse defeating their nearest rival, is almost a guaranteed difficult game as they run away with all the city-state bonuses and they can outspend anyone on keeping their CS and probably go ahead and steal yours as they are financed by their large empire.
I have spammed 1 map type (Pangea) on standard setting Emp/Immortal for my last 30 or so games from vanilla into GnK I feel like I can speak to the 'feel' of the game because I'm not dicking around with my rivals, game speed and maps (I only change the Civ I play, and yes I do play some of the more OP civs like Inca), I can say civ-mix and positioning is indeed a huge factor. Easy early games can mean a dominant late game, regardless of difficulty. Difficult early games with lots of dogpiles means certain loss.
Games are still very much civ dependent. I think the toughest games will be continents or pangea with a bunch of builders and a few warmongers to gobble them up and strong CS civs far from the human player. No early wars, lots of building, Immense distance for the humans to play their tricks.
Siam or Greece both militarily competent with a strong CS UA bonus spawning half a world away with no immediate rival next to them, or worse defeating their nearest rival, is almost a guaranteed difficult game as they run away with all the city-state bonuses and they can outspend anyone on keeping their CS and probably go ahead and steal yours as they are financed by their large empire.
Polycrates
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,288
Just to counter the impression that this forum gives - that everyone is playing on deity and that playing on any lower level makes you somehow less of a man - here's some stats from steam:
Won a game on:
Settler 18.8%
Chieftain 27.9%
Warlord 17.0%
Prince 15.5%
King 6.4%
Emperor 3.4%
Immortal 1.8%
Deity 1.3%
Won a game on:
Settler 18.8%
Chieftain 27.9%
Warlord 17.0%
Prince 15.5%
King 6.4%
Emperor 3.4%
Immortal 1.8%
Deity 1.3%
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
Before G&K came out, I was consistently winning Emperor and thinking about trying Immortal. No more.
After getting the expansion it felt like I had to completely relearn the game. I had a couple of failed attempts on King, both of which were quite a lot of fun. Attempt three, I cruised to an easy Cultural victory with Ethiopia. I can see myself getting consistently good at King and moving back up before too long, but I got a hell of a shock when I first played.
About to win my first attempt at Prince - ridiculously easy and rather a lot less fun, so much so that I keep flicking back to the failed King games when I get bored.
After getting the expansion it felt like I had to completely relearn the game. I had a couple of failed attempts on King, both of which were quite a lot of fun. Attempt three, I cruised to an easy Cultural victory with Ethiopia. I can see myself getting consistently good at King and moving back up before too long, but I got a hell of a shock when I first played.
About to win my first attempt at Prince - ridiculously easy and rather a lot less fun, so much so that I keep flicking back to the failed King games when I get bored.
AwesomeAustin99
Chieftain
I either play on King or Prince , but I normally don't even play just to win , I play like I'm an actual Nation/empire , take a certain personality for that certain game , like am I going to warmonger , try to form an alliance against a certain foe , be very peaceful and try to avoid war? Usually I end up with a 4 or sometimes 5 way alliance that breaks in half in the mid-game , usually I pick to go with who I like the most in that alliance , but alot of times it's not up to me , but up to the AI. So yeah I like to kinda Roleplay like I'm an actual country not worried about winning , which I think is what Civ is about , just having fun.
I find warlord games challenging to start, but a curb stomp near the end. Prince was a fine scrape through the earlier eras, but a slightly more challenging end game. That was a year ago
Now Gods and Kings is back, I'm place firmly in Prince, but trying my hand at King. I like room for mistakes (playing for fun) but want a challenge at the same time. The near perfect planning the higher difficulties seem to require doesn't make me want to try them at all...
Now Gods and Kings is back, I'm place firmly in Prince, but trying my hand at King. I like room for mistakes (playing for fun) but want a challenge at the same time. The near perfect planning the higher difficulties seem to require doesn't make me want to try them at all...
omnishakira
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 142
To be fair, I think ppl that hangout in a Civ forum are more likely to do better than the global average
I've beat it at emperor, haven't tried immortal. The thing is that I'd be challenged on king to survive an early rush which is a big change from vanilla. On vanilla I was able to play out the initial turns on diety with 2 AIs declaring war at once and beat off their armies with one archer and a jaguar using terrain tactics and attrition (after that I got creamed because I can't compete against that second AI settler setting up shop so close his city attacks my worker when he tries to improve my nearest lux).
G&K rebalances combat and fixes some of the weaknesses in the basic tactical AI. It's no longer possible to win pre-renaissance defensive wars with nothing but a few ranged units and good terrain. At the same time though the AI won't keep up with a human run vertical empire, it seems too easy to out tech the AI and then either do a science win or go around and nuke them all while they have bi-planes and all you need to do it is a relatively isolated start - in the same way game speed alters the difficulty the size of the map seems to change it too now - small maps on King+ are often murder.
I've started playing on a lower difficulty but going for wide empire early era military wins just to mix things up.
G&K rebalances combat and fixes some of the weaknesses in the basic tactical AI. It's no longer possible to win pre-renaissance defensive wars with nothing but a few ranged units and good terrain. At the same time though the AI won't keep up with a human run vertical empire, it seems too easy to out tech the AI and then either do a science win or go around and nuke them all while they have bi-planes and all you need to do it is a relatively isolated start - in the same way game speed alters the difficulty the size of the map seems to change it too now - small maps on King+ are often murder.
I've started playing on a lower difficulty but going for wide empire early era military wins just to mix things up.
Polycrates
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,288
I'm sure that's true, but with that comes this forum's sneering condescension towards anyone who has the temerity to ever play at anything lower than Emperor, as if they're the thickest most incompetent idiots to ever use a computer and their opinion is worthless, which really gets up my nose. It's not everyone of course, but there's a lot of it. And yet it turns out that the vast majority of people who play the game never win on higher than prince, and that we the obsessives are actually very much the odd ones out.
I don't know if they are sneering at people that can't/don't want to play on Emperor, it's just very seldom I... ehehemmmm those nerds get the chance to brag about anything so when they do see that chance I.... I mean they, sure as hell are going to rip on you King playing noobs!
Seriously though, do what ever makes you happy! And don't let those serious folk make you feel bad or tell you otherwise!
PreLynMax
Your Lord and Master
For someone that can barely get past Prince in Civ 4, I'm surprised that my skill ballooned to Emperor/Immortal after switching to Civ 5.
There is far less city micro management in Civ 5 and far less little tricks you need to know to get a huge GNP going like there was in civ 4.
Disgustipated
Deity
Strange. I seem to be the only one that struggles more with Civ5 than Civ4. I'm not sure why that is. If the game is supposedly dumbed down, I should be doing better, right? And it isn't combat I struggle with. It's getting stuff built in a timely manner. Like troops, although maybe I should be buying them? My last game going cultural I bought all my troops, and that helped a lot. I think that was a better investment than getting a city state ally early in the game. But then I still struggle with gold and happiness in the early game. I suck.
I also learned one other thing I may be doing wrong. I should have been buying settlers instead of building them. It's a long build time on marathon, and I never really considered buying them. It's a huge turn advantage.
Immortal. Won 7 games in total (very recent). All VC except diplo.
But Immortal rides on a bit of luck and I can easily screw up and get butt-f'd. I'm in the process of mastering this one.
Most common screw-up is getting greedy with wonders. And AI finishing before me. Or just terrible AI diplo that results everyone hating me because I'm friends with their enemy and then getting dog piled. I cannot fight 2 immortals at once in the first 150-ish turns.
Emperor is my favorite. Not a free win, but I can beat it playing as random Civ with any VC on standard-all settings.
My only vanilla diety win (for the achievement) is shameful. Archipelago, Duel, no CS, Domination-only VC, as Elizabeth and abused the instant embark kill so badly. I don't count that as being able to defeat Diety lolol.
But Immortal rides on a bit of luck and I can easily screw up and get butt-f'd. I'm in the process of mastering this one.
Most common screw-up is getting greedy with wonders. And AI finishing before me. Or just terrible AI diplo that results everyone hating me because I'm friends with their enemy and then getting dog piled. I cannot fight 2 immortals at once in the first 150-ish turns.
Emperor is my favorite. Not a free win, but I can beat it playing as random Civ with any VC on standard-all settings.
My only vanilla diety win (for the achievement) is shameful. Archipelago, Duel, no CS, Domination-only VC, as Elizabeth and abused the instant embark kill so badly. I don't count that as being able to defeat Diety lolol.
black_kitten
Chieftain
Strange. I seem to be the only one that struggles more with Civ5 than Civ4. I'm not sure why that is. If the game is supposedly dumbed down, I should be doing better, right? And it isn't combat I struggle with. It's getting stuff built in a timely manner. Like troops, although maybe I should be buying them? My last game going cultural I bought all my troops, and that helped a lot. I think that was a better investment than getting a city state ally early in the game. But then I still struggle with gold and happiness in the early game. I suck.
You're not the only one, I also find CiV harder on higher difficulties. While I usually play emperor on Civ4, I find myself most comfortable with king on CiV. I think, like you described it, I still have some problems getting used to the high importance of wealth and buying things instead of building them. Unless you built the pyramids in Civ4, this possibility used to turn up only late in game when (and if) you adopted Universal Suffrage, and I still sometimes just forget about it.
For me, gold being about the most important thing to have and something to compensate almost everything else is so far the biggest change between the editions.
