When to move to a different level?

[FrankTimJr]

How does one determine if it's safe to move onto a new level and not get crushed by the competition? I'm a newbie to the Civ world (not quite newbie, I did own the original and Civ 2, but didn't play very often).

Would I have to completely annihlate my opponents before moving up? I'm starting out at the easiest level, standard size map with 2 other civ's. I did win, but barely by the skin of my teeth. I was able to just stay ahead of them in terms of scientific research which probably was what kept me on top. To win this particular game, I needed to dominate more than 66% of the map. At the end of the game, I dominated only 40% and the other civ was 60%, but my score was 451 and theirs was 439. That's probably why I was the victor here.

I guess if I just moved up a level to see how far I get, that wouldn't hurt, but I don't want to get frustrated if I can't succeed at higher levels.
Thanks,

 

[t0mme]

Well, since CivIII vanilla came out I've only played chieftain games, but this week I upped the ante to warlord. If you're a good chieftain player you're also a good warlord player. Next week I'll be trying a <whatever comes after warlord>-game.

You really should try to!

 

[llib_rm]

How does one determine if it's safe to move onto a new level and not get crushed by the competition?

Probably everyone has their own way to make this determination. What I do is play standard sized maps against random civs/barbs/topography. When I win five in a row, I move up one level. I also try to win through different conditions, SS, Domination, etc...

 

[Volstag]

My goal, before moving to the next difficulty level, is to obtain a win for every victory condition (w/ the exception of a generic histograph/score win) while playing on huge maps against the default (or increased) number of enemy civs. If I'm really murdering the competition, I'll move up earlier.

The "big" jumps, IMO, are from Warlord to Regent and Monarch to Emperor (by "big" I mean: the tactics/strategies used in prior difficulties probably won't cut-it anymore. Your mileage may vary, of course).

-V

 

[Bluemofia]

I move up when I feel ready to move up.

@Volstag: I feel it is a bigger jump from Regent to Monarch, than from Warlord to Regent, as I easily adapted from Warlord to Regent, but took a while to go from Regent to Monarch.

 

[gmaharriet]

I feel it is a bigger jump from Regent to Monarch, than from Warlord to Regent, as I easily adapted from Warlord to Regent, but took a while to go from Regent to Monarch.

I agree. I'm struggling with Monarch now. The AI seems to research so much faster and is more aggressive, and I get frustrated. It seems like anything I didn't get around to trying on Regent is now a problem for me on Monarch, so I often wonder if I should go back to Regent to master it.

I spent 6 months on WarLord and found moving up to Regent fairly easy. I only spent 2 months on Regent...maybe I need more time there.

It takes a very long time to try different combinations and different civs when each game lasts so long.

 

[FrankTimJr]

Thanks for the tips. I definitely have a lot to learn before getting to the upper levels. I read in another post that people are already using tanks by 1500! That's insane! Probably not unheard of for all you veteran players.

 

[Own]

I feel Regent to monarch and monarch to emperor are easy. Emperor to demi though, is huge cause the AI gets a free settler. Deity to sid is also huge.

 

[Babbler]

You should jump levels when you are not getting challgend to much. I remember how easy I was owning on Warlord, so I jumped to rengent. Man, did my ego get a beating. I am still trying to get ahead in some of my regent games, but it is getting better.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

I change difficulty levels when the one I am playing becomes just too easy.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

i move up when i win three games no matter what the victory condition is.

 

[Sadan01]

I agree. I'm struggling with Monarch now. The AI seems to research so much faster and is more aggressive, and I get frustrated. It seems like anything I didn't get around to trying on Regent is now a problem for me on Monarch, so I often wonder if I should go back to Regent to master it.

Sorry to take this thread a little OT:

I am kinda in the same boat here. I have recently moved up from Regent (got bored with kicking the A.I's ass in 95% of the games started) to Monarch. Well.. I've started 5 games so far and haven't been able to win a single one - came close once, went for a diplomatic victory. I thought I did everything right - no broken agreements/no ROP rape, ROP with ALL civs (6 left) - which made the cautious ones polite, all had either resource or gpt deals with me etc; dealt out tech the turn before the UN was built.... Well I lost the vote.

I just dont understand the seemingly "large" difference considering that the difference between Regent and Monarch is really only the 10% difference in build rate (and tech cost??)

I can certainly keep up with the A.I. now on Monarch - thanks to all the great strategy posted here and also depending on the starting location - but still having trouble picking up a victory. Civ always has some way of throwing something unexpected at you

In my current game I am the Aztecs; I have conquered my continent, there are 4 other civs left, 3 on another continent and 1 other on an island with no further room to expand. I have 68 cities and the closest is the French with 19. I think I'll win this one. Going for domination... It is around 1300AD and I have 57% land and 50.1% population.

Back On-Topic:

I used to just play Civ for fun and not worry about the difficulty level etc. But after reading lots of SG's, well I feel that I should push myself to become a better player and thus the following: I now use the rule that if I can win a difficulty level with the following victory types below consistantly, then it is time to go up. What I mean by consistantly, is that if I can win 4 out of 5 games (with the 5th "lost" game being a really bad start), then that is fine for me. In other words, an acceptable win ratio.

1. Conquest/Domination - Teaching the military aspect of the level.
2. Space Race
3. Culture/Diplomacy - whatever I feel the need for. I have never gone for a 20K Culture victory though

Obviously I dont just play 5 games and then move up (with the exception of Chieftan). I think I've played about 30 games on Regent in the last 3-4 months before deciding it was time to make the move.

The only other reason to possibly move up is if you are getting bored with the current level you are at - i.e. it is too easy...

Just my 2 cents..

Sadan01

 

[gmaharriet]

I used to just play Civ for fun and not worry about the difficulty level etc. But after reading lots of SG's, well I feel that I should push myself to become a better player

That's exactly what's happening to me. It's not that I can't still have fun playing a solo game on Regent, but I read the SG's and they're almost all at Emperor and above. They look like they're having so much fun together, and I want to play SG's too, so that means improving my skills to be able to keep up.

I'm really pushing myself to learn more...not just playing a higher solo level, but reading and reading and reading the posts here. But when I try to put all the things I read into effect in a game, I find I've forgotten most of what I read, and I get very frustrated, so I read some more. I find I'm spending far less time playing because there's so much to read. There are so many things I haven't had time to try.

Probably by the time I've learned enough to play, oh, say emperor level, Civ IV will be out and nobody will want to do C3C SG's.

 

[Pentium]

It's not that I can't still have fun playing a solo game on Regent, but I read the SG's and they're almost all at Emperor and above. They look like they're having so much fun together, and I want to play SG's too, so that means improving my skills to be able to keep up.

There are (or at least were) some Monarch training SG's, and you can always start a new one. I think there is plenty of Regent/Monarch players.

 

[gmaharriet]

There are (or at least were) some Monarch training SG's, and you can always start a new one. I think there is plenty of Regent/Monarch players.

Thanks for the suggestion, Pentium. I have talked with a few people about the idea of joining one, and I'm just waiting until my job slows down the 2nd week in September. (I'll have a week off on vacation then too. ) I'm kind of pushing myself to learn as much as possible before then.

Actually, Bede suggested I try one of his games at Emperor level. He knows I've been playing at Regent, and I know he's very patient with people who are still learning. I'm really looking forward to that!

I'm on Team K.I.S.S. in the Multi-Team Demogame, the same team you're on, and most of the team members are big SG players as I'm sure you're aware. Everyone is so helpful in answering my questions, so I feel very fortunate. I'm just impatient with myself that I can't remember everything right now.

 

[Sadan01]

That's exactly what's happening to me. It's not that I can't still have fun playing a solo game on Regent, but I read the SG's and they're almost all at Emperor and above. They look like they're having so much fun together, and I want to play SG's too, so that means improving my skills to be able to keep up.

Seems we are both very much in the same position there. I still have a lot of fun, even though I may not have won a game yet on Monarch. I found Regent was getting a little boring due to being able to beat the A.I. without much of an effort. And nothing will keep you coming back unless the game is a challenge...

I'm really pushing myself to learn more...not just playing a higher solo level, but reading and reading and reading the posts here. But when I try to put all the things I read into effect in a game, I find I've forgotten most of what I read, and I get very frustrated, so I read some more. I find I'm spending far less time playing because there's so much to read. There are so many things I haven't had time to try.

Exactly. I have made a binder where I have every article in the war academy printed out; cracker's articles are in there... We are talking about 100-200 pages of information. Trying to take ALL that information in, and use it in a game is extremely difficult. I then find I go back to the binder and read, read, read some more.. The same with this website. I am on here everyday and based on my post count, it is easy to tell that I lurk mostly.

Probably by the time I've learned enough to play, oh, say emperor level, Civ IV will be out and nobody will want to do C3C SG's.

I have been thinking about this too. I will definitely buy Civ4 when released and with any luck there will be training succession games created here based on it. I do intend to take part in those as I am sure there will be plenty changed.

In so far as the current SG's, yes most of them are at Emperor or above, and I am certainly not good enough to play in those. Besides, quite understandably, most hosts of SG's wants people with prior SG experience and track-record. I guess that because Civ3 is now a little "old", most people will be waiting for Civ4 to start over again.

 

[Soil]

I've played 2 to 3 games on Chieftain/Warlord. Fairly easy considering no Micro Management is needed... Read a few posts here and started my first Regent game. Outplayed the AI well. (Was on a Huge 2 continent map. 16civs? err whatever the max is, took 6 out and claimed the island mine.) 2nd Regent game I managed to somehow reach the 2nd age before both my neighbour's could and built quite a large empire.

Starting my first Monarch game now. All this is only possible for me due to reading loads of articles here. I feel I will stay on this difficulty for a while now and is the challenging one for me.

It all depends on how easy you can learn and how well you are doing in the current level you are on.

EDIT: Oops this is for C3C, just noticed this is in the Civ3 original forum (am new here :S) Dunno if it's harder or easier gameplay on Civ3 as I've only ever played the expansion.

 

[Padma]

The difficulaty between the different expansion is pretty much equal, although those used to playing Vanilla/PTW may want to step back one level for a game or two when first attempting Conquests; there are enough differences that many players have been thrown for a loop at first.

 

[Volstag]

@Volstag: I feel it is a bigger jump from Regent to Monarch, than from Warlord to Regent, as I easily adapted from Warlord to Regent, but took a while to go from Regent to Monarch.

Oh don't doubt it. For me, personally, it took about six of seven games to get my first Regent win. I was able to win on Monarch my 1st or 2nd game.

 

[gunkulator]

If you can win as Portugal with a mediocre or bad starting position, you're ready to move up.

I always start the next level as the Iroquois, since I find them to be the easiest civ. If I can beat that easily, I'll try random civs. If I have a hard time with the Iroquois, I'll try the Dutch or an Agr civ.

The hardest jump for me has been Emp to DG. That extra AI settler is a killer. Mon to Emp was tricky because of the unhappiness but it does train you to start using the
lux slider early.