What level do you play on.

I play on huge maps as well, probably all the time except on multiplayer.
 
I also like to point out that play huge size maps. I think the map size has direct effect in the difficulty level. The bigger the map, the more challenging is the game.

Good point. Since the fall patch I've been playing huge maps exclusively, which may add in to the challenges I've had with King.
 
I love playing on the biggest maps with the most Civs. I guess that makes Prince a tad tougher.
 
I ragequit Prince about 75% of the time, but I find that I'm cheating if I play with any lower difficulty.

I always play on earth-style maps (Terra, Continents, North vs South, etc.).
 
I Like to win but i like a challange to.. Ive noticed on Warlord Im definatly going to win everytime. So if Im playing with a civ im good at I play on prince for a challange. Yeah map and speed have alot to do with all this.. And amount of resources you allow. It all has alot to do with it. First time I played on prince was with the celts. I thought I was going to win nuh uh. thats a tought civ to win with.
 
I just moved up to Emperor. After the patch, and a few decisive Prince victories, I moved to King. When I got to winning that handily, I moved again. I lost my first four on Emperor, but finally won. I usually play huge maps, raging barbarians, abundant resources, and extra CS's. I love getting the UUs from the military states. I'm currently losing my game, but I have a plan to snatch a victory in the last age. I don't sit around with notes or spreadsheets, probably why I lose most Emperor games now. Maybe I need those spreadsheets.
 
Mostly Immortal although I can enjoy Emperor/Deity from time to time.
 
King for a stressful challenge and plenty of ragequits, Prince for fun games. That's down from Emperor/King, before the fall patch.
 
I almost always play prince
 
New to civ. I've played one game on each difficulty level, moving on up from Chieftan, diff civ / strat / win condition / map size / map type each time to try things out. Haven't lost one yet, or really been in much danger of losing. Immortal's up next, I think that might be a good difficulty level to stay at (doing the math, the AI gains from Immortal --> Diety is ~3x the relative gains the AI got from Emperor to Immortal... so I don't think I'll be trying that any time soon).
 
New to civ. I've played one game on each difficulty level, moving on up from Chieftan, diff civ / strat / win condition / map size / map type each time to try things out. Haven't lost one yet, or really been in much danger of losing. Immortal's up next, I think that might be a good difficulty level to stay at (doing the math, the AI gains from Immortal --> Diety is ~3x the relative gains the AI got from Emperor to Immortal... so I don't think I'll be trying that any time soon).

You're totally new to Civ 5, you've played a total of 6 games, won them all, and are ready to tackle immortal for game 7? Winning settler through prince, I could see, sure... but beating King and Emperor on the first try with practically no game experience at all, and NO experience on higher difficulties? Not believing it, sorry. There's a lot more you need to learn about how to play and win at this game than you can learn in a tiny handful of settler to prince games, before you're cleaning up in King and Emperor. If you truly did that, and they weren't cherry-picked wins with all easy settings and maps, then you sir, are a quite mighty game god indeed.
 
You're totally new to Civ 5, you've played a total of 6 games, won them all, and are ready to tackle immortal for game 7? Winning settler through prince, I could see, sure... but beating King and Emperor on the first try with practically no game experience at all, and NO experience on higher difficulties? Not believing it, sorry. There's a lot more you need to learn about how to play and win at this game than you can learn in a tiny handful of settler to prince games, before you're cleaning up in King and Emperor. If you truly did that, and they weren't cherry-picked wins with all easy settings and maps, then you sir, are a quite mighty game god indeed.

Way back in Vanilla, there was this inspiring fellow who played his first three games on Prince, Emperor and Immortal. He got extremely bored with Prince, Emperor just a bit better... but Immortal, boy that was where the real goods lay.

He certainly inspired me to get this game and get it crackin' :)
 
I'm comfortably between King and Emperor, with the exception of Huge maps and wonky maps like Small Islands
 
You're totally new to Civ 5, you've played a total of 6 games, won them all, and are ready to tackle immortal for game 7? Winning settler through prince, I could see, sure... but beating King and Emperor on the first try with practically no game experience at all, and NO experience on higher difficulties? Not believing it, sorry. There's a lot more you need to learn about how to play and win at this game than you can learn in a tiny handful of settler to prince games, before you're cleaning up in King and Emperor. If you truly did that, and they weren't cherry-picked wins with all easy settings and maps, then you sir, are a quite mighty game god indeed.
Don't judge based on your personal experience. I was monarch-emperor(barely) Civ4 player. When Civ 5 was released, I played one game on king, which was incredibly boring. My next game was on emperor several month later after the big 'June patch', that supposedly made the game harder. Same effect. The next one was immortal and a month or so later I won my first deity game. I'm not telling that to brag. In fact, I'm not that good of a player. My point is the opposite: Civ 5 is easy. And there is no reason for fast learner not to fly through difficulties if s/he is willing to pay attention and actually learn. And adwcta's other posts suggest he's taking this Civ business very seriously. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom