Raw is War?
Soul Reaper
I play on regent.
What level are people playing???
- Thread starter Oakes
- Start date
JonathanValjean
Porschephile
Wow, after 275 votes, the results approach a perfect bell curve. Interesting to see.
I play Regent usually and Monarch occassionally. I'm a builder more than a killer. Trade and negotiations, etc. In Regent there is no rush to conquer whereas in Emperor or Deity you gotta rush to conquest to stand a chance. Monarch is a challenge as it's in between those points. As it's been said;Play at the level of most enjoyment to beat the cheating AI.
Ninakoru
A deity on Emperor
I like to play a game on witch i can design strategies while it not becomes way too easy.
I am playing Monarch. Never tryed Emperor because i find it much of a
not being able to build Wonders and that horrible unhapiness with the 2nd pop 
.
It's fun to perform strategies on Monarch, but the problem is when you get industrialization with a decent portion of the map. The game it's usually yours.
In my opinion when the game turn the tide on your favor, there's no way back and no more challenge...
I am playing Monarch. Never tryed Emperor because i find it much of a
not being able to build Wonders and that horrible unhapiness with the 2nd pop .It's fun to perform strategies on Monarch, but the problem is when you get industrialization with a decent portion of the map. The game it's usually yours.
In my opinion when the game turn the tide on your favor, there's no way back and no more challenge...
Kennelly
Starfleet Admiral
I have to admit almost only Chieftain,very few Warlords (and a saved game on Monarch,but doesn't look too well for me there 
)
)
Praetorian
I came I bought I played!
I'd say that the entire game was designed quite well
DrOrgaZmo
Chieftain
I used to play emperor on Civ2 but now I have to start from the bottom (warlord) in Civ3.
Sorry everyone, it's not a kind of boasting, but... i play on Emperor or Deity.
To tell the truth I don't have much plesure playing Deity - because it's possible to win only if you follow one and the same strategy (I think you all know it quite well) ... it's so boring!!!
But playing on Emperor.... mmm... I enjoy it !!! Unlike Deity games you may develop either culture or military to win (or both). I always have many wonders built, have a high cultural level, good military; but the only thing I have to develop while playing on Deity is large military. It's really Dull
To tell the truth I don't have much plesure playing Deity - because it's possible to win only if you follow one and the same strategy (I think you all know it quite well) ... it's so boring!!!
But playing on Emperor.... mmm... I enjoy it !!! Unlike Deity games you may develop either culture or military to win (or both). I always have many wonders built, have a high cultural level, good military; but the only thing I have to develop while playing on Deity is large military. It's really Dull
Phantom Lord
live by the sword
Mostly regent, sometimes monarch using "strong" civs like persia. I guess my playing style just don't fit higher levels ... 
Yzman
Deity
Originally posted by Bifrost
Sorry everyone, it's not a kind of boasting, but... i play on Emperor or Deity.
To tell the truth I don't have much plesure playing Deity - because it's possible to win only if you follow one and the same strategy (I think you all know it quite well) ... it's so boring!!!
But playing on Emperor.... mmm... I enjoy it !!! Unlike Deity games you may develop either culture or military to win (or both). I always have many wonders built, have a high cultural level, good military; but the only thing I have to develop while playing on Deity is large military. It's really Dull
Not to burst your bubble but that is not really something to boast about. Many people as you can see by the poll play on emperor and diety, me being an emperor player.
General_Rommel
Chieftain
After dozens of unsuccessfull games, I just won my first game on warlord. Cultural Victory! Woooohooooo I rule! im the best! Diety here i come!
Lemmy
Chieftain
Right now I'm playing Monarch level but am finding it kind of difficult. I've won a game at this level but I am not yet good enough for consistent success.
Blind Guardian
Chieftain
I play Deity (i lost in deity is better = P)
But i win some times and this wins gives me energi to try another game on Deity = )
But i win some times and this wins gives me energi to try another game on Deity = )
Monsoon
Chieftain
I only play Chieftan, mostly because I can't stand losing. I've been known to abandon a game if I don't have coal in my resource box within a few turns of getting Steam Power. I accidentally tried Regent once, because I hadn't noticed that the game defaulted to that when I started a cooperative game with my roommate in PTW. I seemed to be doing okay, but that was probably because we were trading tech back and forth, giving each other whatever we had just researched.
Beating deity can be done many more ways than one. Huge military, tiny military, cultural, diplomatic, space, with Great Library or without, trading techs, beating techs out of people, etc. Yes, they're all harder than on emperor but basically every tactic, when well executed, can be successful.
Arathorn
Arathorn
planetfall
Emperor
Interesting. I thought most would be playing emperor. I am about ready to try an emperor game just for the experience, but will have to reset my bix file first and play an all default game and then...
== PF
== PF
I play Emperor. Monarch got a bit easy and I'm now on my second Emperor game. First was a win and this one also looks like a win, after hundreds of years of suicide galleys I found the second continent and am reaping the rewards of being the only civ in the game to have contact with all the others.
freaked
Chieftain
Warlord.
I used to play Civ 2 at Deity level all the time, and almost always scored 250 to 350 percent. One day, for a break from the intensity of trying to do well at Deity, I played a couple of games at Monarch to Warlord levels. Like the "Sultan Bhargash" above, I thought it would be go back and mop up.
And found that it wasn't really that different. Just less frustration from population being "born" unhappy at the higher levels, as the biggest difference. It also seemed like the AI at Monarch was a more skilled opponent than at Deity. <shrug>
It also seemed as if the scoring system was biased slightly in favor of higher difficulty levels. Looking at the various scores submitted for games of the month, I think that's probably still true in Civ 3. In other words, it's impossible or nearly so to get a really kickin' score at Warlord, but not as impossible at Deity.
Having long since proven my point to myself that I could play and consistently beat Deity level, I didn't really feel like I had anything to prove anymore. I settled comfortably into Warlord level, because it has the least frustration from unhappy population. My life already has more than enough sources of frustration; no need to seek more from the games I play. Most of the pleasure I get from playing Civ is the model-railroad type. I sometimes even played at Chieftain, depending on whether I wanted an opponent AI that was more crippled or felt like being able to see certain game information only visible at Chieftain, or wanted to be able to switch a city from producing one thing to another without losing half the shields accumulated so far, etc.
So, now I play Civ 3 at Warlord level. Some day I'll take a shot at Monarch or so, just to see if it recaptures those first few games I played at Monarch and Deity with Civ 2. There was a real high that came from hanging on in those games and surviving, and then getting good enough to clobber those games. But I'm not sure there's a lot of learning curve in doing the same thing with Civ 3 that would interest me at all. Most (not all) of that learning curve I've already figured out with Civ 2 or Warlord-level Civ 3.
I'm an old-school wargamer, by today's standards. Cut my teeth on Avalon Hill and Tractics, followed by SPI. So not a _true_ grognard by standards I grew up with. True grognards would be those who were veteran gamers before the publication of Tactics II, meaning that they were limited to miniatures gaming and no board games. Much less RPGs, lol. Anyway, I'm originally more a wargamer than model railroader, so when it's time for my little Civ empire to grab some resources from another empire or retaliate against aggression, I still enjoy getting all adversarial against the AI instead of being content with merely pruning my garden all day.
I turn off all victory types besides diplomatic and conquest. I don't really want my game to tell me when I'm done playing for score. I should be the one to decide that. I paid my $40 and want my money's worth, dangit.
-freaked
I used to play Civ 2 at Deity level all the time, and almost always scored 250 to 350 percent. One day, for a break from the intensity of trying to do well at Deity, I played a couple of games at Monarch to Warlord levels. Like the "Sultan Bhargash" above, I thought it would be go back and mop up.
And found that it wasn't really that different. Just less frustration from population being "born" unhappy at the higher levels, as the biggest difference. It also seemed like the AI at Monarch was a more skilled opponent than at Deity. <shrug>
It also seemed as if the scoring system was biased slightly in favor of higher difficulty levels. Looking at the various scores submitted for games of the month, I think that's probably still true in Civ 3. In other words, it's impossible or nearly so to get a really kickin' score at Warlord, but not as impossible at Deity.
Having long since proven my point to myself that I could play and consistently beat Deity level, I didn't really feel like I had anything to prove anymore. I settled comfortably into Warlord level, because it has the least frustration from unhappy population. My life already has more than enough sources of frustration; no need to seek more from the games I play. Most of the pleasure I get from playing Civ is the model-railroad type. I sometimes even played at Chieftain, depending on whether I wanted an opponent AI that was more crippled or felt like being able to see certain game information only visible at Chieftain, or wanted to be able to switch a city from producing one thing to another without losing half the shields accumulated so far, etc.
So, now I play Civ 3 at Warlord level. Some day I'll take a shot at Monarch or so, just to see if it recaptures those first few games I played at Monarch and Deity with Civ 2. There was a real high that came from hanging on in those games and surviving, and then getting good enough to clobber those games. But I'm not sure there's a lot of learning curve in doing the same thing with Civ 3 that would interest me at all. Most (not all) of that learning curve I've already figured out with Civ 2 or Warlord-level Civ 3.
I'm an old-school wargamer, by today's standards. Cut my teeth on Avalon Hill and Tractics, followed by SPI. So not a _true_ grognard by standards I grew up with. True grognards would be those who were veteran gamers before the publication of Tactics II, meaning that they were limited to miniatures gaming and no board games. Much less RPGs, lol. Anyway, I'm originally more a wargamer than model railroader, so when it's time for my little Civ empire to grab some resources from another empire or retaliate against aggression, I still enjoy getting all adversarial against the AI instead of being content with merely pruning my garden all day.
I turn off all victory types besides diplomatic and conquest. I don't really want my game to tell me when I'm done playing for score. I should be the one to decide that. I paid my $40 and want my money's worth, dangit.
-freaked
Similar threads
