Difficulty Level

[madrius]

For these games, whith wich difficult level you play ? (first, second,...)

[Dis]

I was just going to make the same thread, but with a poll. . This was after a couple threads about people saying they can't beat noble.

I play noble and warlord about 50/50. Half on noble, half on warlord. I still cannot consistantly win on noble. Especially on the earth map that came with the original game (unless I play germany).

the problem I have is I totally dominate warlord games to the point they are not fun. But some noble games (like on the above mentioned earth map) are too tough for me.

[MasterDave]

I can usually dominate monarch, I get beaten 95% of the time on Emperor. I probably win 80% of the games I get into on Multiplayer.

I also find that the game gets easier to beat on Marathon and harder to beat on normal. Also, larger maps seem to produce tougher games at higher difficulty levels since the AI can grow their empires with far less restrictions than the human plays under.

[Solver]

the problem I have is I totally dominate warlord games to the point they are not fun. But some noble games (like on the above mentioned earth map) are too tough for me.

Map has a BIG impact on the actual difficulty of the game. Just play Noble on, say, Continents maps or Terra maps to the point where you are able to win most of those, and then you'll be able to tackle the harder maps on Noble.

[Dis]

yeah that's the key. I can beat continents. But my last noble game I was playing huge world continents. But my continent was essentually a pangea. There were many civs, and the continent was huge. I just couldn't get ahead.

[Solver]

I find that in Pangaea or similar situations, a well-timed war can be key. Just get a bit more land through war, or hurt your close neighbour enough. That can let you take the lead on your continent.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I've played 4 complete games and am almost done a 5th.

Setter-win, Chieftain-win, Warlord-win, Noble-loss, and Noble in my current game which I am well on the way to winning.

I'll probably play a couple more Noble games to ensure this one wasn't a fluke, but I doubt I'll be moving up past Monarch as quickly as I got to Noble.

[Dominae]

Immortal. Hard enough that you're not guaranteed a win even if you stick it out, but certainly not impossible.

[fani]

Monarch...winning most of my games....trying to move up to emperor...

[Caligula 37 AD]

I've been losing/quitting 3-4 monarch games as my favourite leader Asoka.

After Cathy won the poll for "best leader", I decided to try her out.

So now I'm losing monarch as Catherine.

- Cal

[Prussia]

Can occasionally beat Prince, play mostly noble though.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Dis
I was just going to make the same thread, but with a poll. . This was after a couple threads about people saying they can't beat noble.

I play noble and warlord about 50/50. Half on noble, half on warlord. I still cannot consistantly win on noble. Especially on the earth map that came with the original game (unless I play germany).

the problem I have is I totally dominate warlord games to the point they are not fun. But some noble games (like on the above mentioned earth map) are too tough for me.

This is a lot like how I was, although I've got to the point where I can consistently win on Noble if I pick my leader and use certain strategies and usually win with a random leader. I hate the idea of fighting an AI that has production and research advantages, so instead of upgrading from Noble I've been playing random leader almost exclusively along with the Shuffle map option.

For a long time I was stuck at a point where I could never win at Noble, but always won at Warlord - that was frustrating. Then I got to the point where I could usually win at Noble, but only if I played as certain leaders and on certain map types (and if I wasn't next door to an aggressive leader), and I still played on Warlord a lot of I wanted to try more esoteric strategies or try different leaders.

Lately I've been modifying the civ4leaderheadinfo.xml file to make the weaker rulers more effective so I can have a more fun game on Noble. Without the changes, if I have a game with several "weak" rulers (i.e. Montezuma, Napoleon, Tokugawa) it's pretty unfun as they fall far behind and I'm only in real competition with one or two rulers. After my changes, Tokugawa is a real contender and Montezuma almost always comes in the top 3 on the score charts, though Napoleon is still rather disappointing.

[DrSpike]

I prefer Monarch and Emperor, though will play Immortal for a change. I don't play Deity or the lower levels, unless it is a comparison game.

[Jaybe]

Modified Noble

I play at Noble with some CustomAssets modifications to the HandicapInfo.xml file.

For the barbarian & animal creation variables, iHealthBonus & iHappyBonus, I use the Monarch values.
Player & AI combat bonuses vs. barbs are all set to zero. Three iBarbarianDefenders.

iCivicUpkeepPercent & iInflationPercent at 100.
iUnitCostPercent to 100 (the Deity value). I couldn't believe my eyes when I found at Noble that the AI pay twice as much for troop maintenance as the player!

[Datajack Franit]

Emperor. So far I didn't win a single game, but I managed to win most of the games on the previous difficulty settings, so..