What level do you play on.

[Socratatus]

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.

It`s the internet.

Sure this guy might be a gaming god, but from my experience, such `gods` tend to leave out a lot of details on just how they do so well from so little.

Or in other words, "If they`re no pics it didn`t happen`.

 

[Avatan]

The first time I played immortal, after a victory streak on emperor, I knew I would never be coming back. That was how the game was meant to be played (pre-patch).

Immortal is the perfect difficulty for me, it is challenging, those AI attacks are scary and the players are really good at pursuing victories.
Large Pangea immortal is a real pain.

My only grudge is that the game end too fast post patch (t300) and some runaway can be really scary. I played a game where Cathy ended up with 57 cities end ended up winning arm round turn 260.
Also early rushes can sometimes be basically unstoppable.

 

[Dr. D]

I play Emperor. I win every time, but I play this game for fun and Emperor is the difficulty where I feel it is most fun. I do like getting wonders from time to time... I like how the AI will beat you to a lot of them but I also enjoy getting to build some myself. I also like to be able to settle the land around my capital, and due to the happiness constraints, that can be hampered on Immortal.

In my experience, Emperor is the last level where it can still feel like a classic game of Civilization... once you hit Immortal, it just seems like a big anti-expansionist game of warfare to me. Granted, my favorite (and only) victory condition is domination but I also like to build a few cities before wiping everyone out. The downside for me here is that by the time I win, I've just gotten infantry or tanks... usually haven't even really gotten to Flight. People talk about Gandhi using nukes all the time and this is new to me because the Gandhi I know is usually dead by the middle ages.

Emperor is also the level where it maximizes the balance between difficulty, enjoyment and time invested for me personally. Similar to Civ III, there came a point where if I jumped a level, I'd still win but the game would take twice as long due to the number of battles I'd have to fight. If I'm going to win, I like my time to be a little more efficient, especially since the early game of settling and discovering really is my favorite part of the game... shorter games equals more games of Civ I get to start and explore!

 

[jblank]

King and win maybe 50% if the time post fall patch.

 

[smallfish]

I play Emperor. I win every time, but I play this game for fun and Emperor is the difficulty where I feel it is most fun. I do like getting wonders from time to time... I like how the AI will beat you to a lot of them but I also enjoy getting to build some myself. I also like to be able to settle the land around my capital, and due to the happiness constraints, that can be hampered on Immortal.

In my experience, Emperor is the last level where it can still feel like a classic game of Civilization... once you hit Immortal, it just seems like a big anti-expansionist game of warfare to me. Granted, my favorite (and only) victory condition is domination but I also like to build a few cities before wiping everyone out. The downside for me here is that by the time I win, I've just gotten infantry or tanks... usually haven't even really gotten to Flight. People talk about Gandhi using nukes all the time and this is new to me because the Gandhi I know is usually dead by the middle ages.

Emperor is also the level where it maximizes the balance between difficulty, enjoyment and time invested for me personally. Similar to Civ III, there came a point where if I jumped a level, I'd still win but the game would take twice as long due to the number of battles I'd have to fight. If I'm going to win, I like my time to be a little more efficient, especially since the early game of settling and discovering really is my favorite part of the game... shorter games equals more games of Civ I get to start and explore!

Perhaps I may offer you an alternative view of things, good sire?

Emperor is the level where people have fun and play when they go on vacation; Immortal... and to a certain extent, Deity, is the level where you can enjoy the One More Turn feature to its fullest extent but the cost tends to be less wonders and more a-conquering.

 

[ense7en]

Emperor mainly.
Used to do Immortal a fair bit too, but since the hotfix brought back AI who settle every single spot of land in existence, starting with right outside your borders, i am not enjoying it much anymore.

 

[Zezima]

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.

This is a really narrow-minded post. There is no reason to believe that every other person has the exact same experiences or skills as yourself.

Personally, I was able to jump to King by my third game. Chieftan -> Prince -> King. And it wasn't much longer until I was comfortable playing Emperor. And I am completely new to the Civ series entirely. Might he be lying? Sure. Do some people like to brag or gloat? Of course. But what's the use in getting upset about it? Especially on the internet. We are all here to share our interest in this awesome game and support each other in our tactics and interests, not shoot someone down because we are ashamed of allegedly having less skill than them.

Right now, I play Emperor almost exclusively. Best balance of challenge and fun for me. Have tried a couple Immortal games but I really struggle to keep up with AI tech and military.

I play Emperor. I win every time, but I play this game for fun and Emperor is the difficulty where I feel it is most fun. I do like getting wonders from time to time... I like how the AI will beat you to a lot of them but I also enjoy getting to build some myself. I also like to be able to settle the land around my capital, and due to the happiness constraints, that can be hampered on Immortal.

In my experience, Emperor is the last level where it can still feel like a classic game of Civilization... once you hit Immortal, it just seems like a big anti-expansionist game of warfare to me.

...

especially since the early game of settling and discovering really is my favorite part of the game... shorter games equals more games of Civ I get to start and explore!

This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about Emperor

 

[Gdown94]

I'm beginning to play on emperor; Civ V is the first civilization game I bought, so I had to learn the ropes. I've been able to win every game on King (6 or so), so I feel that Emperor is where I'd be best suited. But man, it's rough so far... I like it that way, though.

I play on huge maps, by the way.

 

[adwcta]

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.

Thanks!

I did take getting into Civ V very seriously. I remember I bought Civ 4 on a lark a few years back (for something like 4$ off steam). I started on Prince, the tutorial was... poor, I had no idea what I was doing, didn't have that much fun, and ended up hopelessly out-everything-ed by the AI. So, after that one game, I never touched it again. After hearing Civ V is much more newb-friendly, I decided to give it another go, determined not to repeat the horrible experience that was trying to learn Civ IV. The Civ V tutorial is much better, the in-game pop-ups that tell you what's going on is much more useful, and I really enjoy learning it.

I read the basic guides in the war academy on this website, read the G&K changes article on this site, and after I get leads in my games, I would screw around to try to test different mechanics and AI responses to improve my play. I'm personally very surprised that I am doing so well so early, since this is a really complicated game. I do not use any non-default game settings, except I allow for saving up policy points, which I almost never actually use, but after the first few games, it felt like a stupid mechanic to me. I use the default # of enemy random civs, city states, etc for the given map size; standard speed. I've played on all map sizes, gotten all victory conditions, etc (even gotten OCC). So far, I think space race is the easiest

I think the key to most players' having problems advancing beyond Prince/King is two-fold. 1) They play too fast. By mid-game (200-300), an average turn takes 5-10 minutes. By end-game (300-400), an average turn takes 15 minutes. I keep hearing stories about playing a game in a night or two, and that's way too fast for a standard sized/speed map game. Thinking a strategy game helps. 2) They don't re-act to the AIs. Every turn, I check my detailed diplomacy tabs to see who likes/hates who, who is building an army, wonder-mongering, city-state mongering; who has resources to trade. This lets me adjust who I want to be friends with, who I want to appease, who I want to piss off, and who I need to keep an eye on. If you just friend everyone who tries to friend you, it'll be a tough road ahead, and you won't have many friends. The AI is a giant calculator, so every time you get screwed, you most likely asked for it. Especially on large maps, alliances and diplomacy is probably the most important path to any victory, allowing you safe time periods to build infrastructure, expand, etc. I've read a number of posts that begin with "why did the friendly AI attack my defenseless new settlement near their borders?". Makes me think most people don't quite get how diplomacy works in this game.

 

[Zezima]

*snip*

That is actually great advice, and I agree. I found that once I got the basic mechanics down, I started to blow through turns because I was getting anxious to complete some overarching goal (like finishing a wonder or reaching a certain tech). What ends up happening is that I pay much less attention to the finer details of each turn. I start to neglect things such as manually controlling my worked tiles, setting specialists, keeping spies active, or checking the diplomacy between other civs.

You can get away with this all the way up to Emperor, but I think beyond that you begin crippling yourself to the point where you put yourself at a serious disadvantage. I've started to take my time with turns so that I can focus more on all these finer details, and it really makes for a more satisfying experience.

In addition to playing Emperor, I usually do Small/Standard size, Standard speed (haven't tried Epic/Marathon yet but I'm eager to), and my favorite map types are Continents and Pangaea. I see Fractal get lots of love around here so I've been giving that a try, and I'm starting to enjoy it too.

Additional settings I play with are always abundant resources and policy saving. I don't like being forced to select a policy I don't necessarily want, but I do understand the appeal of having to plan out your policy growth and selection.

Used to play with the unlimited barbarian EXP mod, but have stopped since I got G&K so I can start getting achievements again. That was pretty much the only mechanic changing mod I used, the rest were just UI and model improvements.

 

[Koiranputki]

Yes...these last to posts give good advice.

I've finally started playing consistently at the Emperor level. ...and it's like a different game. I've slowed down and spend more time thinking things through....I don't worry as much about wonders though I do try to get a few...like Stonehenge....and have even managed in one of the games...which I still eventually lost ....to get Stonehenge and the GL...

Out of about half a dozen games played through to the end, I've only been able to win one of them.... Typically at the King level I would go for a science victory.....that seems, so far, to be much tougher on Emperor....

My win was a carefully planned attempt to win a Diplomatic Victory.... which included, of course, Patronage.... Even as it was it was close...the AI...in this case Hiawatha ...was far, far ahead in technology and at the end was only one component away from his Science Victory....

But it's all fun...trying different strategies and seeing which work best. I prefer to do that, rather than complain about a "broken game", or "bugs", or whatever. Eventually I'll figure out how to regularly...if not consistently, win at Emperor...and then it will be on to ... ....Immortal....

 

[Smokeybear]

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.

Well, you guys must live on a high, misty gaming plane of existence far above us mere mortals, then. And I suspect you are a far better player than your modesty permits you to state. The simple fact you can win at deity completely proves that out. Also, don't judge the difficulty of CiV 5 for everyone, based solely on your personal experience. Some gamers are no doubt naturals at this game, likely yourself included. I'm sure not, even though I am a quite experienced overall gamer. I just haven't spent the past 20 years playing CiV, and it certainly isn't 'easy' past King for me. But then, my memory isn't the best in the world, I don't keep notes or crosscheck tactics spreadsheets, and I don't spend hours studying all the fine points of master deity stovepiping strategies, either. I'm not one of the few Civ wunderkinds, and that's just the way of it. I don't play perfect, flawless games without plenty of mistakes, and I never will. Or honestly would ever want to. If making the game a real chore to play is what it takes to win at the top levels, then I guess that leaves me out of the 'winning civ at deity is soooo easy' crowd.

 

[Smokeybear]

I think the key to most players' having problems advancing beyond Prince/King is two-fold. 1) They play too fast. By mid-game (200-300), an average turn takes 5-10 minutes. By end-game (300-400), an average turn takes 15 minutes. I keep hearing stories about playing a game in a night or two, and that's way too fast for a standard sized/speed map game. Thinking a strategy game helps.

My apologies for doubting you earlier. I must admit, if I diligently spent 10-15 minutes nitpicking out every tiny detail of every turn, microscoping every last tile on the map and noting every single time any other civ farts, I probably would be a lot more successful, too. Unfortunately, that length of time playing every turn in every game, is an unbelievable level of time investment that is never going to happen in any game I will ever play, ever. Maybe if I was playing chess for the master champion of the world tournament (and millions of dollars), but not in a game that's supposed to be fun for me. If that's the harsh cost of eventually becoming a deity champion, I'm pretty sure I never want to become one.

 

[Matthew.]

No mods, I am in that uncomfortable in between stage with Emperor and Immortal. If I play science/domination raze burn etc., Emperor is a joke. But if I try a CV or slightly oddball strategies, Immortal becomes a struggle which ends in slowly breaking my empire down with endless wars until I ragequit.

My favorite way to play is what a mod I created that helps the AI through various ways not implemented in the core game. Boosts to culture for more policies, passive combat strength bonuses to help their troops to stay alive longer, etc.

 

[adwcta]

Yes, it's the slow methodical anal-ness of this game that I enjoy though. If I wanted faster paced action, I'd go back to starcraft 2. I used to be a top 0.01 percentile ranked player in starcraft 2 in the first few months that game was out; before people figured the game out more, and the novelty of my home-cooked strategies couldn't keep up with someone clicking literally 3x faster than me and running a build order they got from pros; blah). So, to each his/her own. I played for two hours tonight and got through literally 20 turns, and only because there was absolutely nothing to do for 4 of those turns and I'm not involved in any war.

 

[Zezima]

If making the game a real chore to play is what it takes to win at the top levels, then I guess that leaves me out of the 'winning civ at deity is soooo easy' crowd.

Who is to say that taking more time to play the game at a slower pace isn't enjoyable for others? Just because it's a chore for you doesn't mean it's a chore for others.

There is a lot of hostility and cynicism coming from your posts, and I have to admit I don't really see any justification for it.

 

[Smokeybear]

Who is to say that taking more time to play the game at a slower pace isn't enjoyable for others? Just because it's a chore for you doesn't mean it's a chore for others.

There is a lot of hostility and cynicism coming from your posts, and I have to admit I don't really see any justification for it.

Sorry about that, if it came across that way. No hostility intended. A little cynicism? Perhaps... I do get tired of being told the top levels are easy-peasey, but without the necessary addendum of "oh, but only as long as you play this exact way." That way being as far away as possible from fun, for a large number of people.

 

[adwcta]

Sorry about that, if it came across that way. No hostility intended. A little cynicism? Perhaps... I do get tired of being told the top levels are easy-peasey, but without the necessary addendum of "oh, but only as long as you play this exact way." That way being as far away as possible from fun, for a large number of people.

Fair enough, but I don't play with a specific strategy, or a specific build order, or anything resembling a settled gameplan really... I just pay a lot of attention to detail (which is fun for me, since that's why the game is so deep) and adjust my gameplan to what's happening in the world.

No offense taken, I imagine there are quite a few also cynical people on these forums who beat diety regularly and get annoyed with being told that emperor is difficult, but without the necessary addendum of "oh, but I automate all my workers, piss off my neighbors for fun, and expand where I want to, not where the luxury resources tells me to."

 

[SouljahAtWar]

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.

This.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I think the key to most players' having problems advancing beyond Prince/King is two-fold. 1) They play too fast.

Absolutely. But that's really 'the chicken or the egg' question. Do they play fast because they don't know what they're doing or do they not know what they're doing because they play too fast? I used to click next turn on autopilot, do some useless random stuff and think the levels above monarch are not supposed to be played by humans. I used to follow advisors without having any clue what will be the long term effect of the choices I make. I still tend to play fast, though, overlook things and do all kind of stupid mistakes. Not because I don't know, purely because I'm too lazy and bad at multitasking.

Well, you guys must live on a high, misty gaming plane of existence far above us mere mortals, then. And I suspect you are a far better player than your modesty permits you to state. The simple fact you can win at deity completely proves that out. Also, don't judge the difficulty of CiV 5 for everyone, based solely on your personal experience. Some gamers are no doubt naturals at this game, likely yourself included. I'm sure not, even though I am a quite experienced overall gamer. I just haven't spent the past 20 years playing CiV, and it certainly isn't 'easy' past King for me. But then, my memory isn't the best in the world, I don't keep notes or crosscheck tactics spreadsheets, and I don't spend hours studying all the fine points of master deity stovepiping strategies, either. I'm not one of the few Civ wunderkinds, and that's just the way of it. I don't play perfect, flawless games without plenty of mistakes, and I never will. Or honestly would ever want to. If making the game a real chore to play is what it takes to win at the top levels, then I guess that leaves me out of the 'winning civ at deity is soooo easy' crowd.

Not at all. I know perfectly where you're coming from and do get your frustration. Back in Civ3/4 times I honestly believed anything above monarch is not meant to be played by humans. Then I've met several civ communities (this one included) where hard core players were beating deity/sid. And I thought to myself: 'what a bunch of blowhards, they must be lying and cheating'. Well, turned out I was wrong. Civ, like any other 4x game, is basically a set of rules. If you learn them, you know how to play it. Same way people learn how to read, to program, to drive a car etc. The more effort you put into learning process, the faster you learn and the deeper your knowledge is. Nobody says you personally have to do that, just don't think nobody can only because you don't want to and find this to be too burdensome.

I do get tired of being told the top levels are easy-peasey, but without the necessary addendum of "oh, but only as long as you play this exact way." That way being as far away as possible from fun, for a large number of people.

Again, this is just not true. You don't have to play the same way all the time. Although if by 'this exact way' you mean the necessity to plan ahead, then yes, you're right. Lack of focus and planning becomes more costly the higher the level you play on. Which is the fun part for me personally and for many others. As I said, I used to play 'the other way' and felt constantly frustrated.

No offense taken, I imagine there are quite a few also cynical people on these forums who beat diety regularly and get annoyed with being told that emperor is difficult, but without the necessary addendum of "oh, but I automate all my workers, piss off my neighbors for fun, and expand where I want to, not where the luxury resources tells me to."

...I want to build wonders, all wonders and nothing but wonders, don't want to have military and don't want to be DoWed by this fat cheaty AI that spamms me with its OP units. It's always about the same things. Wonder addiction and automation.