what level do you play at?

Sometimes it's more fun to restart when you get low food starts, rather than suffering through every random start you're given

 

Although I can play higher, I generally stay at Regent because I prefer roleplaying to optimal play. From little things to building colloseums instead of cathedrals when playing as Rome, to not conquesting my way out of boxed in starts if I am playing as a pacifist civ.

 

I think you get so much more variety from the game playing it 'in character' like that. That said I don't do that with Civ as I'm always playing multiplayer. What I do do is avoid anything I consider a bit of an exploit (e.g. anticipate barbarian movements, maximise potential for a settler in a goody hut etc). I also don't have enough attention to detail to do intense micromanagement of tiles. All of which means I will never succeed above Emperor in multiplayer and possibly not above Monarch in single player (with the added challenge of war weariness). It is great that the game can accommodate such variations in play preference.

I really need to find the time to try a Game of the Month and find out what my actual difficulty level is.

 

After thinking about this I started a Monarch level game to see if I was actually telling the truth after all this time (all randomised settings on a small world with 6 opponents) and once again rolled a pangaea map as the seafaring Byzantines. I was boxed in and my peaceful expansion phase resulted in about 8 cities, 1 luxury and 0 strategic resources. It's the industrial era and I have a slight tech lead now, but don't see a victory condition here aside from a monumental grind towards domination (which I generally find a rather tedious task).

My personal highlight was using a GSL to 1-turn rush JS Bach's Cathedral in an otherwise pointless size-2 city on the edge of my territory, which as a result flipped an enemy city 2 turns later, and then a 2nd one ~6 turns after that.

 

That's pretty bad. I'm playing at Monarch/Byzantines/Continents. Not quite as bad, but every time I got close to popping another settler a town lost a citizen to disease (I was mostly in jungle) and that crippled my expansion ... happened 4 or 5 times. Even with my tech lead & few res/lux, I'm thinking of just tossing the game and looking for a better map to start on. Haven't decided yet.

 

If you're importing luxes, you probably have good trade rep. Why not go for a Diplomatic victory? In that case, using that SGL on the UN would have been nice.

A nice takeaway is that you lost significant population to disease and still have a tech lead at this level.

 

True ... I'm about even with the Celts, but ahead of the others (Standard map). Still, my position is so ridiculously compact I think I'll just start over and try for a better position (and will go for 4BY or 5BY instead of 3BY ... way too many mountains in the way of everything).

 

The downside to that is that 2 civs have been eliminated, leaving only 4 left, and I would probably have to ruin my trade rep in order to become large enough to qualify as a candidate. I've (probably wrongly) calculated that I might have a slim shot at a cultural win, so I capitalised on my 1/2 cost universities and went for Free Artistry to get Shakespeare's Theatre. I guess I'll see what happens.

 

If you own the UN you are automatically a candidate, even if you only have a single city.
Are you going for 20k or 100k?

 

Ah yes, forgot about that. I rarely go for diplomatic wins because they feel rather cheap. I'll be going for the 100K because I missed out on too many of the ancient wonders to stack in my capital city.

 

For me, 100k is the "tedious task" you claimed not to want in post 84. I'd still pick it over conquest or domination most games, though.

ICS is now your friend, though. Shakespeare's Theater doesn't help much in a 100k game, but you'll want the Internet if you make it into the modern age. Squeeze towns in wherever you can, and remember that you can "pop-rush" in Republic if you know nationalism - draft and disband works nicely. Draft where you have lots of food or when you can't grow any more, move units to towns that need shields, and disband them.

 

Sorry, you'll have to remind me what ICS means. There was an acronym page around here somewhere, but the one linked from the War Academy page no longer works.

 

Infinite City Sprawl; building as many cities as possible (one every other tile) so that you can produce as much culture as possible.

 

Ah, yes. I know the concept but am extremely bad at remembering acronyms.

 

Or, when playing as Japan, resist the use of firearms and hold onto Bushido as long as possible, as per my current game:



While it is only 1772, the world has cavalry and modern infantry, yet I am persisting with samurai for as long as I physically can. Incidentally, that samurai army on the far right cut through 5 Mongol riflemen and cavalry to protect my Scandinavian allies, and the remaining dishonorable Mongols actually ran away back to Erdenet.

Overall the Samurai are somehow holding their own against all technological odds and it's one of the most fun games I've ever played.

 

I play at different difficulties depending on what kind of match I want to play, Deity is as high as I go though. (Done a few Sid games, but not as enjoyable for me as I feel the AI "cheating" is too much.)

 

Japan is such a fun civ to use. One of my favorites cause I like to conquer most of time. Samurai are so versatile as well.

 

Turns out the AI difficulty is pretty much the same regardless of whether playing single player or multiplayer (resulting in no war weariness). Single player is a bit more varied and keeping your population happy during war weariness is more of a challenge, but I suspect the AI also struggles with those elements (whereas in multiplayer AI with a lead can just shrug off war even if Republic or Democracy).

I'll be sticking with Emperor difficulty but with the Cost Factor of the next higher difficulty level. That way I get a big challenge without getting bogged down with excessive corruption and unhappiness. I also suspect Emperor may be the highest suitable difficulty level for more casual players like myself who happily have city governors manage happiness etc to streamline the game.

 

I think we can promote this suspicion to common wisdom.

 

Well, I didnt want to assume on behalf of other players although I appreciate this may be the settled wisdom from 20 years ago! I have severe limitations in my military abilities in the game, but my friend and I can play on Emperor with the cost factor of 7 (from the next highest difficulty level) and raging barbarians and are actually going to experiment with reducing the cost factor to 6 (from two difficulty levels above Emperor).

I would imagine that more capable players could have a good stab at the difficulty above Emperor while still playing quite casually (particularly if on a smaller map or with an agricultural Civ). The extra starting units from the AI (particularly any settlers or workers) would likely make it too difficult for someone of my limitations but that may not be the case for others.