What level do you play?

[Jaguar]

It's nearly symmetrical.

[Harovan]

Yea, reminds of good ole Gauss. Which is, by the way, normal and means, that the difficulty levels are somewhat balanced.

[tishco]

i like playing on warlord as i dont play much cos of time. i also didnt really play civ2 much and the stratagy is different.

i love playing on tiny map with 16 civs, they arent peaceful and boring like usausl but like civ 1 [sigh] "the romans have been destoyed by the celts" only now it just says [i think] "the raomans have been destroyed."

[Arrian]

Monarch. Like Skanky Burns & Spectator said, it's a good balance between fun and challenge. Regent is enjoyable too, but at least with 1.16, I found it a bit too easy. The truth is I'd probably be having more fun on Regent with 1.17, but having already gone up to Monarch (and having beat it a bunch) with 1.16, I'm unwilling to back down.

-Arrian

("That's just pride, f****ing with you." - Marcellus Wallace, Pulp Fiction)

Edit 3/1/02 - Ok, I think I'm getting used to 1.17... there will be no regressing to regent.

[Thrawn05]

Where's option for "I've edited the game so that the AI will win as soon as it's their turn"

[Jawa Jocky]

Monarch. I'd rather have it a little too hard than have it a little too easy. I don't like Emperor or Deity because the ai cheats so it takes several starts to get a civ worthy of challenging the ai.

[Blaupanzer]

Worked my way up from Warlord to Monarch. As others have noted, I find this level to be a challenge without being gut-wrenching. Have tried Emp and Deity, but considered myself lucky just to survive. I play on large, 8-civ and huge, 12-civ maps and find Monarch to have the right balance of play (fun but not simple). Despite the advice given by others regarding Deity, the initial unit advantage and production advantages given the AI seem impossible to overcome. This is even more true now that Soren and crew have eliminated picking up quick cities using the follow-the-settler tactic. (The cities are now destroyed.) Having adapted to the rules of THIS game, which is not Civ II, I now find I enjoy the challenge at Monarch.

Do wish the maps would follow the selection of the user, though. (Too many archipelago maps end up being a big continent surrounded by a few one- or two-civ small continents.)

[August Borms]

Regent or Monarch, usually

[dennis_caver]

For playability and realism

I like Emperor the best. It seems more realistic. Most humans
were barbarians in the early years.


The Diety level seems to be very frustrating. Not only does the AI
have a big cheat advantage but if you get behind early in the
game, they will not negoitate in Diplomacy and start demanding.
And Vel is right, you have only one path to victory.

If you think humans were civilized in the first 4 milleniums then
monarch or regent level is a better choice.

Cavin forever,

Dennis

[laurentius]

I'm having one hell of a game @ emperor-level

[geoffbland]

Working through the levels one game at a time.;

Cheiftain - Romans - Domination
Warloard - English - Culture
Price - Egypt - Space Race
King - Babylonians - Diplomacy

Just playing my first emporer game - and it's HARD!

Emporer - Indians - going to have military victory I think, 1545AD & just about to discover Advanced Armour. But this game has been really nip and tuck - I've been kept on my toes all the way through this game. Only me and the Romans left as viable powers each on their own continent - I've got a feeling the Caesar is stockpiling nukes though or will build the United Nations & try and win by diplomacy.

[nato]

I have played all of my games on Monarch. Never really felt a need to leave it. I used to play Civ2 on Deity only, but I have not done this or reached that level on Civ3.

Pretty bell curve!

BTW FireDragon, I like your avatar.

[Provost Harrison]

I'm a monarch player myself. Makes for a nice challenging game, but you aren't sweating buckets just trying to stay alive or compete against an uphill gradient.

[Tom201]

I started on Regent level, than played about 8 games on Monarch. Then on Emperor and stayed there. Tryed Diety a couple of times with diffrent tactics (miltary, culture) but lost everytime.
Right now I droped back to Emperor with some Special rules to make it more challenging bzw. interesting. (if I play everything allowed I give it a 90% chance that I win when the start is not too bad, but I prefer a more like 40% to 60% in favor of the AI).
Changed Rules are:
- play on large (2. biggest) map with 16 civs
- only possible victory is military
- I dont declare any war bevor modern times.
- Selfbuild citys max 5 (most games it is 3 - 4)
- If the AI demands I dont give anything (therefor the AI decided if there is a war or not).
- No citys are captured bevor middle ages (if there is a war in ancient times, all captured getting razed).
- total of citys never over 10 bevor modern times.
- max. 1 ally (and no draging in of others with mpp)

Therefor the usuall AI civ is about 1.5 - 2 as big as me at the middle of the game. The main goal during ancient, middle ages and industrial is for me to keep the world balanced as possible.
The last game was very interesting with 6 Civs still surviving at modern times. 4 about 3 - 4 times as big as me and one about 2.5 times.

Was some great wars going on by than with 2 of the bigger civs atacking me (but had wars with the other 2 at the same time).
Had one of the biggest military buildup at nearly 400 units with 10 citys


Now Im waiting for MP cose the fights vs. the AI getting boring, cose I lost for example in that war described above only about 8 Modern Armors... (Crazy how easy it is with a massive Radar Artillery buildup of 120 units )


Tom

[Worthingtons]

I've been doing a considerable amount of editing recently,and reccommend people who are stuck between the fun-challenge thing to create thier own difficulty levels.

There are several ways you can do this, Give the AI civs more traits, empower thier UU ect, or step the difficulty level high but give yourself a couple of advantages.