Which difficulty level do you play with

[Rhye]

Useful to determine how many levels we actually need

 

[Skojardu]

I play Prince when I am testing stuff. I'll try a harder difficulty with the Huns, who I won with.

Should I be testing the scenarios at the highest level instead?

 

[Rhye]

I usually run all my tests with Prince. Do not bother testing other levels for now because I changed some modifiers for the next version, so any feedback would be outdated.
I want to understand if we need two categories King and Immortal, or we can make one instead

 

[Skojardu]

I usually run all my tests with Prince. Do not bother testing other levels for now because I changed some modifiers for the next version, so any feedback would be outdated.
I want to understand if we need two categories King and Immortal, or we can make one instead

There seems to be a sort of tier difference between Emperor players and Deity players, so I think two levels of Hard makes sense. Immortal seems like an option that experts use to play worse civs/leaders (cf Henrik playing Brennus on Immortal in Civ IV)

 

[Jet]

In RFC4, some combinations of civs and strategies/victory conditions were too easy for me on Monarch once I knew how to achieve them, but too hard on Emperor. I think more difficulty levels, or sliders to customize difficulty, would have added more replayability.

In RFC5 some things were too easy on the hardest level (for example, doing anything as England after surviving the Viking invasions). But I attributed that more to limitations of the base game (it's less flexible / rich / expressive than Civ 4) and to the immaturity of the mod (for example, conqueror armies could be OP) than to not having enough difficulty levels.

 

[Logoncal]

King seems to be my confort zone as im a huge (Mediocre) DoC player, so its my confort zone to test out the mod.