What levels are beatable 80% of the games?

[Tapani]

Hi all,

obviously I am not a veteran player.

Been losing badly against the AI recently, and I wonder if I put my expectations too high, or is it just me who needs to learn to play better?

What levels are good players able to beat (say 80-90% of the games), given:
- No cheating of any kind. No world builder, no reloading, no regenerating of maps etc. Lets toss in that a random civ and leader is played.
- No tech trading - not so relevant perhaps since I die too early for this to be of any importance.
- Say standard map, marathon, fractal, high water level, and nine AIs (aggressive, not that it matters).
- Vanilla, no mods. Just start a game and play.


In general, I lose maybe 50% (or perhaps more) against Monarch level. Almost always the losses comes early, before 1000 BC (or 1AD). However, when I survive in good health, I find Monarch too easy. I know I will win, and do every time (at least I am well ahead in all measures and when wont get too bored by the never ending micro). Losing 50% early on is perhaps ok, losing early means I can start a new game quickly.

Recently I have tried my hands on Emperor, to make the middle game more interesting. But I have now lost nine games in a row. Barbarians. AIs taking up all the space and leaving me with 1-2 cities (when they have 5+). Horrible terrain (like never ending jungle, tundra, deserts etc). Founding of a religion (or two!) next to my capital, or just completely out-teching me (having longbowmen when I barely got iron working and are considering to "rush" them).

Watching youtube clips of people playing often has them getting a monster start with double gold and fish from the the start (+plenty of forest to chop), while in my games I get spices and ivory. And a lot of jungle to chop...

 

[lymond]

or is it just me who needs to learn to play better?

This is really the only question you need to ask. (And the answer is indeed yes)


Asking how much some folks might win at some levels is arbitrary and in no way will you gain insight that will make you win more.

Also the parameters you mention are not very popular.

I recommend playing normal settings for now, across the board.

If you want to learn how to learn, check out the Emperor Shadow game thread by NightOnEarth just below.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

What difficulty you play at is largely determined by what constitutes fun for you. Years ago I was very motivated to learn every inch of the game and climb my way to Deity (I never did quite make it to deity, only immortal). Nowadays, I'm older, have kids and many other responsibilities. I don't have time to micromanage a lot, and I usually just want to whip together an army and take over the world before the modern era. So I just play on Monarch. You can waste worker turns, mis-time whips, etc. and it won't hurt you much.

 

[kazapp]

To answer your question:

Some players are able to win 80% of Deity games, or even harder. Other players can't even win 20% of Monarch games.

So I agree there is no relevant answer. My only suggestion is to play at a level where you feel you have a shot at winning (but don't always win), and slowly climb up through the difficulty levels.

My own experience is that you should strive for the Monarch difficulty setting at the very least, maybe winning at least one out of three times. AFAIK that's the level with the least amount of bonuses (to either human or AI).

Your starting position has a HUGE impact - starting in the middle of the map with three grain and a gold (and with copper nearby) is much easier than starting at the edge or with a load of Calendar resources that you will likely never live to use.

Good luck!

 

[Tapani]

What difficulty you play at is largely determined by what constitutes fun for you.

Thank you, and maximizing the fun is the point here

The catch is that the early game is too hard on emperor (and hence no fun), but the middle and late game is too easy on monarch (and hence, also not maximum fun).
So I was hoping to improve my early game to play on emperor - but without relying on cheats or exploits of game mechanics. It is not a challenge, if I am not in danger of losing.

This is really the only question you need to ask. (And the answer is indeed yes)

I recommend playing normal settings for now, across the board.

If you want to learn how to learn, check out the Emperor Shadow game thread by NightOnEarth just below.

Thank you for responding, and for all the advice you have given on these forums. I have read many of your posts, and also followed the game in the thread you mention.

It appears it is another game where I feel the starting location was well above average, it is a "known" map (pangaea), all making the game different from what I think is fun.

But I will keep reading that thread, and to catch up on older threads here.


Is marathon speed and non-pangaea maps really so unusual?

Your starting position has a HUGE impact - starting in the middle of the map with three grain and a gold (and with copper nearby) is much easier than starting at the edge or with a load of Calendar resources that you will likely never live to use.

The scenario you describes sounds familiar, and maybe this is what I am trying to ask: what is the difficulty difference between an Emperor game with a great start vs Prince with a sub-par start?

 

[floydmcw]

Is marathon speed and non-pangaea maps really so unusual?

Marathon is really slow. IMO there are too many pangaea maps.

The scenario you describes sounds familiar, and maybe this is what I am trying to ask: what is the difficulty difference between an Emperor game with a great start vs Prince with a sub-par start?

The game situation definitely makes a difference. The variables are:
- Leader (not just traits/UU/UB but also starting techs)
- Neighbors
- Land

An Immortal game where I get to push around a wimp like Pacal is easier than an Emperor game with a subpar start and say Alex to deal with.

But two whole levels? That's probably excessive. I win 90% of my Emperor games (I don't reroll starts and choose random leaders) and it's hard to imagine ever losing at Prince.

 

[Fippy]

Some points about difficulty, in random order

Immortal to Deity = more challenging than Prince to Immortal

Mods which are used most (BUG, Buffy..) are not changing game mechanics. They make things more comfy, you could do everything manually without mods but why would we want that?

No reloads & starting posi matters a lot, good points there. You can certainly rank maps from 1-10 in difficulty.
Some reloads for learning reasons, on fun or in general non-competitive games, have good learning value thou.

Marathon makes the game easier (Hall of Fame dates are plenty proof)
Same for high sea level, usually..less space for runaway AIs.

..and more in general, single player can rarely be fully "rated". When playing alone, motivation will always matter a lot.
That being said, winning 50% of random deity games already means being among the very best players (with no or very limited reloading and map picking).

 

[shakabrade]

I think map type also makes a huge difference. For instance, I will win 100% of Archipelago on Deity. I have never lost an Archipelago map. On normal maps types which always take care that you have at least something in BFC (food, 3 hills), I used to be at 90% winrate, now I am rusty and spend less time on the game so 60% probably. But Oasis type maps when you start in a jungle and all your food needs Iron working and Calendar, almost unbeatable.

Regarding reloads, I would say I would consider a morally righteous reload when you forget to make civic switch, forget a whip, or mis-click something important (or if your kid in your lap hits enter to end your turn ), but having 70+ reloads is not the way the game was meant to be played (seen even more than 120 sessions in the logs sometimes, I really would not rate that as Deity, maybe even lower than Immortal, the point of mastering the game is to recognize the timings for your map). Especially during the war.
How I learned to play Deity is that I would play game to the end and then go back to "what if I had taken this path moment" and play it to the end. That is how you get the grip on the grand strategy and diplomacy (hence the signature I have ). If you lose your favorite level 5 unit, be happy for what it had achieved up to that point, no point in reloading. I can also say that now that I am playing GOTM (also used to play HoF long time ago) where no reloads or anything is allowed, I make far fewer mistakes. I think Fippy mentioned that somewhere on the forums as well.

To go back to what Fippy said about motivation, I have seen players like Tachywaxon, Doshin, krikav, BiC and most humble myself, just having a wish to be good at the Deity game and the improvement was visible from game to game. All say they want it but few actually try. Learning the game is a systematic approach, like anything else. You identify the weakness and work to make it go away. The one weakness I have never properly dealt with is micromanagement. I simply hate it. But it is as important as macro. Fippy, on the other hand is great at everything (especially with cavalry units) and always makes me drool. Check those games.

 

[MAvL]

I wonder if @Brennus.Quigley is still active and moved up to Deity on a regular basis. He usually never rerolls, plays on default setting (no cheating, tech trading on, standard speed) and is able to win consistently on immortal.

I'm happy to see you can/was able to pull it off consistently Shaka! Btw I have the same reload policy.

- No cheating of any kind. No world builder, no reloading, no regenerating of maps etc. Lets toss in that a random civ and leader is played.
- No tech trading - not so relevant perhaps since I die too early for this to be of any importance.
- Say standard map, marathon, fractal, high water level, and nine AIs (aggressive, not that it matters).
- Vanilla, no mods. Just start a game and play.

These settings are fine but definitely not the standard ones here. Tech trading is a major skill to master to move up in difficulty, and really help the player, despite what it looks like (well maybe not with only 1-2 AI). Usually people let it on, sometimes with tech brokering off. No tech trading favors AI (on prince and above), and seriously handicap coalition of peacemongers (favors egoist warmongers).

Marathon strongly favors warmonger, especially versus unprepared opponent. In general, it means human is strongly favored over AI (especially chopping/whipping/drafting armies with freshly acquired tech).

Map types favor widly different types of econ and military strategies. I think AI sucks all over the board, but his bonuses at monarch+ probably prepares him best for pangea (but pangea marathon can mean easy early conquest starting early for human).


Personally, I would dare say I could manage monarch, but I haven't played enough to say. I can confidently say I can beat prince soundly even on crappy starts. I could probably win an equivalent of 5% (with reloads) on emperor and learn in the process too. That's what I did in civ 3 (and eventually did not need the reloads), but I probably won't put too much effort in it any more, as it kind of breaks the 4th wall (you have to exploit AI weaknesses in a way which makes you really conscious that it is totally cheating rather than just good).

 

[6K Man]

the quoted text struck a bit of a chord:

What levels are good players able to beat (say 80-90% of the games), given:
- No cheating of any kind. No world builder, no reloading, no regenerating of maps etc. Lets toss in that a random civ and leader is played.
- No tech trading - not so relevant perhaps since I die too early for this to be of any importance.
- Say standard map, marathon, fractal, high water level, and nine AIs (aggressive, not that it matters).
- Vanilla, no mods. Just start a game and play.

I would dare say that relatively few players are this strict with themselves. Avoiding reloading and Worldbuilder seem like reasonable prohibitions to have in place if you want to test your skill, but why force yourself to play a leader you don’t like, or a map that will be an unpleasant slog due to Tundra, excessive Plains, or just a Plains Cow for food? Civ is supposed to be fun and most of us have a finite amount of time in which to play a game that usually takes several hours to finish.

(The exceptions you see on CF are forum games, where someone gets a bad start and posts it as a test of skill for others to play and compare)

I usually play on Emperor or Immortal and I win most of the games I play out, but I wouldn’t call myself an Emperor or Immortal level player because I cook maps and don’t play settings I don’t find fun. If an abandoned/regenerated game counts as a loss, I probably lose 90+% of my games.

Anyway, to answer your question, you could probably stand to play better. If you like a challenge and are willing to do what it takes to get better, I am pretty sure you could work your way up to win most of the time on Immortal on random maps without reloading or other “cheats”. But if you read this forum regularly, you’ll see lots of posts by people who say they can win Deity, but they don’t want to deal with the pressure of Deity all the time – FlyinJohnnyL pretty much said the same thing about Immortal, in this thread.

The catch is that the early game is too hard on emperor (and hence no fun), but the middle and late game is too easy on monarch (and hence, also not maximum fun).
So I was hoping to improve my early game to play on emperor - but without relying on cheats or exploits of game mechanics. It is not a challenge, if I am not in danger of losing.

I had the same issue – I could crush Monarch in the post-classical period, but Emperor was usually too hard in the early going. As you probably realized, Civ4 is all about getting off to a good start, because early advantages compound over time. What I wound up doing was playing Emperor and cooking my starts, which made the early game easier. The mid game was still hard, because it was Emperor and not Monarch. Over time, I started making fewer and fewer edits to my starts, and eventually switched to Immortal because the Emperor midgame was getting too easy. I still cook immortal starts, but less than I used to, and less than I was initially doing on Emperor.

Does this mean I have gotten better? Maybe.

Does this make me an Immortal or Emperor level player? No, but who cares? If anyone asks, the level I can beat consistently is Noble. Give me a game or 2 to reacquaint myself with stock BtS and then put me in a random Noble-level game, and I’ll win it. Maybe even the level up from Noble (Prince?), LOL.

Am I having fun doing things this way? Yes.

 

[MAvL]

but why force yourself to play a leader you don’t like, or a map that will be an unpleasant slog due to Tundra, excessive Plains, or just a Plains Cow for food? Civ is supposed to be fun and most of us have a finite amount of time in which to play a game that usually takes several hours to finish.

Some people like adversity. It makes it harder to adjust difficulty, but it also makes more diverse start. In my current playthrough (Earth1000AD as Aztec, Monarch while I'm used to prince), I had to relearn everything, especially that cottage are useful and how to fight from behind (espionage economy). I found myself buildning a lot of courthouse (sac altar) early on and opting for castle spam ad nationhood as an economic civic, and finding than G engineer and G scientist are the worst possible G personnages, consideration I would never have had on a typical good start (I still consider it a very good start vs AI, but very atypical).

That being said, not every one feels the same, and it's true the OP should only inflict it to himself if he enjoys it.

Watching youtube clips of people playing often has them getting a monster start with double gold and fish from the the start (+plenty of forest to chop), while in my games I get spices and ivory. And a lot of jungle to chop...

A lot of people reroll or even cook their start. Even for those who don't will still be more likely to post really good rolls than bad ones. Also, ivory starts are not necessary bad, elephant are incredibly strong. If you want to see yt video about strategies on bad start, I guess you could be a bit more specific, wonder what strat, no matter how unconventional, you would apply on a map and make a research based on it. For example, you could research :

• warrior rush
• archer rush (ice archer rush for a less serious variant)
• longbow rush
• elephant rush (or its refinement amphibious elephant rush)

Archer and Longbow rush are often especially showcased as something you can pull off even on crappy starts.

In general, if your starting location is really bad, you want to grab more and better lands early on with rushes. Other more common early rushes (axe, sword, HA, UU) are also things you may want to look into.

In jungle start, I guess aim at size 3 cities and whippe workers at size 4.

 

[kazapp]

Again, what I am not seeing as often as I would like to is the importance of your start location. Not the usual decisions "settle in place?" or what's in your big fat cross. I'm talking where on the continent you find your starting settler. (I usually play the map type that generates an Earth like world, with one larger megacontinent and an "Americas" to discover later. Pangea is too large, and any island map script is a huge crap shoot in my opinion)

Back to my point!
At least I find there's a HUGE difference if you start at the edge of the map, along the coast. As opposed to a central inland start. With the exact same resources at hand.

The point I would like to emphasize is the ability to expand. Starting along the coast means at least one cardinal direction is cut off. If you start on a remote peninsula you could even find three out of four cardinal directions are cut off. This makes a HUGE difference.

Contrast that with an inland start (with enough river irrigation, that is, not blocked by desert). Even if you do have a neighbor (and the AI heavily favors expanding in your direction) you usually have enough space in the other directions.

Being able to find decent city spots close to your capital is a real bonus: maintenance costs, workers spending time building roads etc

(Sure on some map types with enough rivals you can get blocked in)

Also: I play on marathon Haven't played a non-Marathon game in years.

Never liked how your invasion army essentially gets obsolete before it reaches its target on Normal speed. Marathon comes the closest to historic reality, meaning once war erupts "time slows down" and the war is over long before any new tech arrives. (99% of historic wars are over in a few years - within the space of a single game turn during the early eras. The idea of being at war with a rival Civ for 400 years straight - meaning several whole dynasties never mind individual rulers - is an unfortunate aspect of the game's design)

(Wars during the modern era might be different, but I believe it is nonsense to experience obsolete units in Ancient wars. And to be honest 9 out of 10 games are decided long before machine guns and fighter planes)

 

[krikav]

Again, what I am not seeing as often as I would like to is the importance of your start location.
At least I find there's a HUGE difference if you start at the edge of the map, along the coast. As opposed to a central inland start. With the exact same resources at hand.
The point I would like to emphasize is the ability to expand. Starting along the coast means at least one cardinal direction is cut off. If you start on a remote peninsula you could even find three out of four cardinal directions are cut off. This makes a HUGE difference.
Contrast that with an inland start (with enough river irrigation, that is, not blocked by desert). Even if you do have a neighbor (and the AI heavily favors expanding in your direction) you usually have enough space in the other directions.

I cut and pasted the key points I really agree on. Very well stated!

 

[Fippy]

The point I would like to emphasize is the ability to expand. Starting along the coast means at least one cardinal direction is cut off. If you start on a remote peninsula you could even find three out of four cardinal directions are cut off. This makes a HUGE difference.

On deity it can be (much) easier starting in safe areas, if you start very central you can get
a) overrun by Barbs.
b) attacked by an aggressive AI.

Also might get long borders in wars, while when cornered planning is uncomplicated ~~
If not playing deity, being central has more advantages but other difficulty levels are not really relevant for this thread topic.

 

[rah]

Yeah, the higher the level the nicer it is to have coast to protect you. (obviously can be overdone, but usually not)

 

[ArchGhost]

Again, what I am not seeing as often as I would like to is the importance of your start location. Not the usual decisions "settle in place?" or what's in your big fat cross. I'm talking where on the continent you find your starting settler.

Well, this alone is always intertwined with a couple other things, like your given BFC (with wiggle room for moving) and the immediately surrounding land's quality. With a decent enough BFC, or even a crappy one but good surrounding land, map position can be almost moot sometimes aside from things like who is on what continent. The reason BFC matters so much (and why the awesome starts do so awesome) is it starts the expansion race ball rolling that much harder. I don't need to tell you that though.

I get what you are saying. I don't play up on Deity level so barbs are much more manageable, but starting in a corner or on the coast helps with controlling them easier as opposed to in the middle of a continent. If your opponents are close by and surround you quickly (such as close/smaller Pangaeas) they can be even less of a factor altogether though.

As for opponents, I'm not really sure what's harder: being cornered or being surrounded. With good diplomacy and grabbing "enough" land you can do rather well in either situation. When you're cornered or plastered up against a coast it's a bit easier to defend (especially in multiple-participant wars) and the path is clearer -- you're gonna have to beat someone up at some point in the future or will fall behind into obscurity, which leads into planning for incorporating war spoils (Whose wonders do I want? Who is a good buffer state if I take them?) and possibly vassal help for teching going forward. When centralized a bit a more I find it's more about the overall allotment of general land area and starting positions, along with the AIs themselves, that determine this more, and things can be a LOT more volatile especially with expansive/pushy AIs. Starting with a nearby Genghis or Cathy can make things uncomfortable quick, no matter how far away everyone else is, for example.

Starting near tundra/ice often creates more barb problems. You have less incentive to settle it out for free spawn prevention though vision, and the same goes for the AI, so unless you actively bust it, barbs will stick around spawning in this terrain for longer.

Where the jungle belt is relative to you and everybody else can factor in empire development. Jungled over areas are fairly crappy until later when you can spare time to chop them clear, and most cities put down there are investment heavy (even if they turn out AWESOME in the late game). This won't stop the AIs from settling right into these areas rabidly just to snag away resources though, potentially squeezing you. It can make a start near the jungle belt with nowhere else to really go a a kind of lose-lose situation for you (perhaps an over-exaggeration). At the very least, AIs get slowed down by taking them too. I run into this one a lot because I always play with Tropical climates for more green tiles and low seas, so jungle belts tend to be larger, no-man's-land type areas on my random maps.

 

[kazapp]

I guess my point was more: we can't just discuss levels. A good start (whatever your definition) is easily worth a level, compared to a poor start (again, according to what your style and skill defines as poor).

And that what I miss in "starting location" discussions is your general ability to expand, if not in one direction then in another. Too many threads focus on the ultra-specifics: whether to settle in place or one step to the NW; whether cows or corn is better and so on. In my experience, that's all useful but it pales into insignificance compared to what's almost never discussed - your number of unblocked cardinal directions.

 

[sampsa]

And that what I miss in "starting location" discussions is your general ability to expand, if not in one direction then in another. Too many threads focus on the ultra-specifics: whether to settle in place or one step to the NW; whether cows or corn is better and so on. In my experience, that's all useful but it pales into insignificance compared to what's almost never discussed - your number of unblocked cardinal directions.

Well, the decision on T0 is done with the information that is available. Whether you can get 3 or 10 cities pre-war is mostly beyond your control, it's just what the map happens to give you, so there isn't really that much to discuss.

If someone doesn't really know how to build up the empire for a construction or HBR attack, getting boxed in might indeed make the game difficult. If you are very comfortable with those strategies and peaceful strategies, it matters less how many cities you can expand into. Of course, the war is more difficult if you are forced to attack Sitting Bull than if you are attacking Lincoln, again something that is just what the map happens to give you.

I do agree with your initial point. Some maps just happen to be much harder than others, no matter what your capital area looks like.

 

[Fippy]

I still somewhat disagree with that point, Immortal is just so much easier than deity and Lain i.e. would never lose on Imm.
Minus specials like starting on an island with no space for a 2nd city, ofc
But overall, good starts are not worth a deity level cos it's not comparable, which also shows in details like too much land around you can actually be harmful on deity.

 

[sampsa]

I still somewhat disagree with that point, Immortal is just so much easier than deity and Lain i.e. would never lose on Imm.
Minus specials like starting on an island with no space for a 2nd city, ofc
But overall, good starts are not worth a deity level cos it's not comparable, which also shows in details like too much land around you can actually be harmful on deity.

I guess we are understanding kazapp's point in a slightly different manner. Of course Lain (or you) would never lose on immortal! Some maps might offer a few chances to go wrong though.