Difficulty Level: Official Poll

[Arrian]

Ok, it's about time we get around to really deciding things (we've done a fair amount of discussing and debating, but little deciding).

[DeepO]

I've gone for emperor. A level which I still find quite daunting from time to time, but by the time it really comes into play I'm sure we can master it.

Emperor is to my knowledge the first where you start with a -2 from civic cost... it will probably end at Monarch or below, where there is no civic cost at the start.

DeepO

[Hot Mustard]

I fully expect (as I think the other teams will as well) that our vote on this option will be the one to raise the average preference. This may make other teams vote Noble when they might have otherwise voted Prince. However, voting any higher than Monarch may create or deepen perceptions of elitism and/or arrogance amongst the other teams, so for that reason I have voted Monarch.

[Theseus]

I'm with dejon... I'd like to target Monarch, even though I'd prefer to play Empereror. Unfortunately, there's no way to vote higher than Monarch without sending an elitist message.

Monarch.

[Arrian]

I've voted Monarch as well.

-Arrian

[alva]

I'm with dejon... I'd like to target Monarch, even though I'd prefer to play Empereror.^

Shouldn't this vote be about what we want instead of what we think we can get?

Voted emperor.

[alva]

BTW: Arrian forgetting about Da very little "S".

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by alva
Shouldn't this vote be about what we want instead of what we think we can get?

With the proviso (imo) that we should not want something that may have negative diplomatic consequences.

[Theseus]

Yes... the setting votes are among the first acts of strategy.

[nbarclay]

I voted for Monarch for three reasons.

1) The elitism factor.

2) I'd rather not push the difficulty level so high that minor differences in starting position make a big difference.

3) I haven't played any games above Monarch yet, and I'm sure a lot of other people haven't as well. It's better for the game if we don't play on such a high level that things that people are used to seeing work on the levels they normally play on suddenly don't work. From that perspective, even Monarch may be pushing it.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus
Yes... the setting votes are among the first acts of strategy.

I don't entirely agree with that. I think it's important to balance strategy from Gathering Storm's perspective against considerations of what will make the game fun for everyone involved regardless of what team they're on.

[Arrian]

Nathan. Totally agree. Monarch is as far as I want to push it, both b/c of the "elitism factor" and because not all of us, the Gathering Storm, have played much on the upper levels (I have yet to play a game above Prince).

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Well, I agree with your sentiments, Nathan; I *do* think this is a strategic decision, but I also agree on balance being most desirable.

[Aro]

Monarch.

And it's high enough for me (I'm having my a$$ kicked every day at Noble...)

[Dominae]

Emperor.

I trust the map makers/checkers to make fair starting locations, so difficulty level should not be an issue in this regard.

Remember that all teams play on the same difficulty level. There is nothing particularly difficult about lower Health/Happiness caps if everyone has them.

Regarding Organized, if we do play Emperor the major impact on gameplay will be that Mysticism civs will be at an even great advantage for securing Religions. I personally feel this is relevant, but certainly not game-breaking.