What level are people are playing at?

[Jaybe]

Normal & Epic speed games are for wimps!

Quick games (speed or just finishing that soon) are for FPS players.
I'm just not into FPS. Besides, my coordination isn't up to it.

[AshenPlanet]

.

If it's a win, it's around 1900s.
Sometimes a few years before, sometimes a few after - 1870-1950.

If it's a loss, it could be anywhen...

Currently, at home, I have another emperor game going where I'm playing viking on a normal speed standard size terra map.

It's a little past 0ad, and I've destroyed ramses and elizabeth, and I'm in a war with ghandi.
I actually started the ghandi war before the war with elizabeth, but his war has been dragging out.
I started non-coastal, but I had copper in my starting city - very lucky.

.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Normal & Epic speed games are for wimps!

Quick games (speed or just finishing that soon) are for FPS players.
I'm just not into FPS. Besides, my coordination isn't up to it.

Personally I find normal about right. I like the occasional epic for a change, but marathon is just dull. I think some people tend to view longer as equal to more strategic depth, but all it really means is more micro and pushing enter a lot of times.

[Krill]

I've played demogames and PBEMs enough to not care about playing and winning using MM to the best of my ability. I play on quick mainly because I play MP most of the time and MP is played on quick, so being able to compare openings of games is useful.

As for difficulty...MP is played on Noble, so I usually play against the AI on Prince (Blakes AI, though I can beat it on Monarch without alot of difficulty). I've beaten an AI Blakes put together on Prince at OCC without rigging the map (small map, tilted axis, quick). Blakes AI on monarch for OCC is an ionteresting game, but the AI has to be screwed over for the player to stand a decent chance there.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by DrSpike
... but marathon is just dull.... and pushing enter a lot of times.

I do not have a problem with pushing the enter key. It is choosing WHEN to just press it that adds depth (in that direction).

Really, I have no problem with other people playing faster-than-marathon games. Marathon works for me well. Perhaps I have a high dullness tolerance.

[Dis]

noble. And I still struggle some games.

I'm missing some fundamentals. Some noble games I utterly dominate. Yet I don't know why. And this is my problem. I don't understand why I'm winning. Or I'd be able to do it all the time. Is it the starting position? I still can't figure it out. My last game I crushed everyone.

Until I can consistantly win on noble, I'm not moving up.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by AshenPlanet
.

If it's a win, it's around 1900s.
Sometimes a few years before, sometimes a few after - 1870-1950.

Now I'm confused. You've taken out 2 civs by 0 AD and then take another 1900 years to win. To me that sounds like a fast start and a slow finish unless perhaps you have huge maps.

What gives

[binTravkin]

Now I'm confused. You've taken out 2 civs by 0 AD and then take another 1900 years to win. To me that sounds like a fast start and a slow finish unless perhaps you have huge maps.

On high diff levels and maps of reasonable size (> standard) early overexpansion kills.

I play emperor.
Immortal is playable too, but the micromanagement gets a bit too hard to relax while playing.
Deity is for people who play only one type of game - world conquest..

[One_more_turn]

When my games finish depend on the victory type. If it's domination, it's usually over by 1500AD. Warlord games will be over 100 years earlier. If it's space ship, it's usually between 1850 and 1900. Cultural victories seem to take the longest for me, often lasting into 1950s.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by couerdelion
So when are you guys finishing your games?

I rarely actually play them all the way out. If I get out to a big lead (which is what I'm playing for, actually), then I tend to go into sandbox mode - perfecting my empire. I forget about pressing on to victory. If I do play it out, I end up building the SS. Once in a blue moon I'll actually press my advantage and dominate. Ditto for UN victory (I've voted myself winner once or twice).

I love the beginning more than the end, and it's not really even the game's fault. The beginning is always going to be better, *especially* if I refuse to step up a level.

-Arrian

[AshenPlanet]

.

Now I'm confused. You've taken out 2 civs by 0 AD and then take another 1900 years to win. To me that sounds like a fast start and a slow finish unless perhaps you have huge maps. What gives?

I don't understand your question.
On emperor, if I take out 2 civs by 1ad, then I'll win, if not, I might not win...

Building up is only part of the reason to go to war.
You can actually build up faster by not going to war.
The main reason I go to wars is to slow everyone else down.
When the ai players are busy defending, they won't be researching, and they'll be fewer players for them to trade with, and I have a chance to keep ahead of them.
Otherwise, they'll research super fast, trade techs with each other, and fly up the tech tree.

.

[couerdelion]

The effect of knocking out two civs is limited for the other civs but costs you a lot. The question was simply about why it takes you so long to finish if you make such a quick start.

I’ve started playing a Terra map game and can see that early wars are more important here. But you still need the right resources even to go to war in the first place. With ideal conditions you might be able to complete a destruction of your nearest neighbour by c1500-1200BC. Nearly ideal will delay this until 1000BC.

And if you don’t get horses or copper then you’ll have to wait until Iron (and trust to luck) before you can even start.

It seems to me that a 0 AD target for 2 civs destruction is very optimistic and is certainly no requirement for getting into a winning position. One civ by about 500AD should be enough to give you the edge that you can turning into a winning advantage which, in time, will be turned on your second target.

If the fear is tech advancement then, where possible, target the richest civ first.

[_BuRjaCi_]

I really need help I've been on a brake from civing for the last three months and I’ve devolved to monarch. The problem is I don't have the time for that many games. I can only squeeze one or two per week, so every one of the games I play has to be a learning experience. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Oh, I can win monarch without an early knock out, so builder or hybrid advice please.

[_BuRjaCi_]

I finish all my games, even the ones where I’ve made too many mistakes or got a bad start. I had a really interesting game as the Japanese, when I fought a 1500 year ancient-medieval war versus Munsa. It was on a normal map on monarch. I had two cities and only horses as a resource. He had a mediocre teach lead, my army consisted of chariots and archers.

The spoils of war where, some nice techs, five cities and iron. I became the second most powerful civ, but Gandhi got a space victory in the end.

But it was one of the most entertaining games I have ever played.

[One_more_turn]

Actually, I find it more beneficial to rush after getting the Iron. Axemen are really ineffective city attackers. Thus, I time the completion of my first settler with researching Iron.

I target 5-6 swordsmen by 1000BC, who will be going after enemy capitals immediately. Cities found on not-so-great locations will be systematically razed. At this early stage of game, no civ can recover from the loss of its capital.

In most of my games, I found no more than 3-4 cities and usually raze a dozen or so.