Prince too easy, Monarch too hard.

[blarghy]

Alright, I'm at a crossroads.

When I play on the Prince setting, I pretty much invariably wind up far ahead in score, production, tech, and power to the point where the game simply becomes non-challenging and boring (this usually happens around the time I get Knights).

On the otherhand, when I play on the Monarch setting, the AI apparantly is suddenly able to quickly settle huge areas (on standard sized maps), develop massive armies, and somehow keep their economies afloat. I inevitably wind up pulling up the rear in most stats. This is similarly boring, since the game tends to devolve into me just watching the AI play each other.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to overcome this problem (either via strategy suggestions or tweaks to XML difficulty settings -- I would particularly like the AI to keep most of their advantages except the ability to quickly build huge numbers of military units).

[Unimatrix11]

Did You play around with the advanced game-setup options, yet ? Like ´no-tech-brockering´, ´aggressive AI´ and ´raging barbs´ ?

[ce61agg]

its just the normal transition to a highel difficulty level.

Monarch will seem impossible for a few games, no doubt about that. What you could try is to take a leader that gives you a serious advantage (see the other thread with sure-win leader recommendations) or even re-generate your start until you have a solid one. Then you have an advantage to get you started but you still need to adapt to the more difficult level eventually...

Dont give up, you'll master it eventually, and then you'll have to master Emperor

[rah]

I do agree that those two levels seem to have the biggest gap between them.

[Supr49er]

Which civ and leader do you play?

What game settings do you use?

Welcome to Apolyton blarghy.

[snoopy369]

Basically, learn to expand faster and build units faster. The biggest difference prince -> monarch is that - speed and efficiency. You can win being inefficient on Prince. You cannot easily do so on Monarch...

[joncnunn]

Things to try:

If not already on the largest map size your computer can handle, you might try Prince on that larger map next since I hear it's a bit more difficult on larger maps.

More importantly if your constantly winning Prince with the same or similiar civs, you may want to try Prince with a civ competely different to broaden your range.

[blarghy]

I generally play Rome/Caesar with BtS, Quick speed, and large maps (though I've shrunk down to normal sized maps while experimenting with Monarch settings). I like Pangea maps the most, though I've been playing Hemispheres a lot lately.

I think the problem might be expansion speed, since one of the things I've been doing lately is reducing settler output to keep me from bleeding money. Unless I get lucky with goody huts early on, I usually always wind up scraping up against a zero gold treasury and having to either cut back research or start wars simply to pillage enemy improvements for cash.

[Unimatrix11]

beeline for code of laws and currency (but you already know this, probably, since you constantly win the level, i usually play on)

[joncnunn]

Yep, because inflation is higher on Monarch level than Prince, that's an easy trap to fall into.

Especally because both Julis Caesar & Augustus Caesar are Imperalistic and thus produce settlers quicker.

Also there's one less Big option and one more lots of Barbs from goody huts so there's less gold events to bail you out.

I would sugest paying a closer attention to your tresury rather than just waiting for it to automaticly drop.

Of note is you can expand at a bit faster rate as Julius than Augutus since Julius is organized.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Basically, learn to expand faster and build units faster. The biggest difference prince -> monarch is that - speed and efficiency. You can win being inefficient on Prince. You cannot easily do so on Monarch...

Fast expansion and mucho soldaten cost big geld. Money limits both, primarily number of cities. What do you do to offset this, so your science doesn't rapidly approach zero just as you go after currency and CoL?

Note: The gap from Noble to Prince is also quite wide. Each higher level rewards careful play a little less, but punishes playing errors much more heavily.

[joncnunn]

Some ways is I classify civ sites in way techs they need to be useful and lower the priority of the cities that need distant technologies vs technologies I already have.

And I also classify some cites as infill; those that I should bypass now (while having founded cities past them so they are still available)

I also periodicly check what the break-even level currently is even if I did get a lot of gold events and also unless coming off a war don't have more than two cities building settlers at the same time at 80% science or below, or more than one at below 80%. (With the exception of I've built the Great Lighthouse and the new city is a costal [on my main landmass] since experence tells me the commerce alone pays for itself at the Monarch level with the GL in costal cities with all those trade routes).

(I have yet to over-expand via military. I supose it's possible to do so but I'm a bit too much of a builder.)

[unclethrill]

This was a tough transition for me too. My advice is to always have a game plan. Don't just play to get to a win. Plan for a specific win and make every turn count towards that goal. ON monarch and higher, you have to be more mindful of the micro management. You can't effectively set the workers to be automated and cities need to be more specialized ie. don't try to build every building in every city.
Try a specialist economy a few times to and that may help with the higher difficulties.

[Supr49er]

Welcome to Apolyton unclethrill.

[rah]

Agreed. Always have a plan and stick to it.
Granted, there are always going to be the exception where you're forced to change your strat, but let it be game directed and not self directed due to lack of focus.