I moved to Prince, and in my first game to avoid drama, I picked up the nice guys, Gandhi, Mansa Musa, Jao, Darius, Churchill.

I had Gandhi and Jao on my continent. Since I was between them, I wanted to avoid wars. And thats what happened, no wars! I had a space victory in 1950 with Gandhi 10 turns away from a cultural victory.

Few things happened to me for the first time

1) Gandhi culture-swapped a city of mine!
2) Usually I lead in culture. This time I was 3rd!
3) First time I saw an AI going for Cultural victory.
4) First time AI created some corps and spread to my cities

I guess this is cheating since my game would have been different for sure if Monty or Shaka were on my continent!

Churchill isnt peaceful, Elizabeth is ^^.

He has often declared on me before.

Churchill doesn't declare at pleased.

Picking opponents makes the game easier if you know what you're doing, but it isn't cheating. Exactly what rules are being broken in doing so? Hah. None.

Why would that be cheating? There are many many variables in this game that can be altered to sort of guide the path of your game into something you think will be fun. If not having a Shaka or Monty next to you is fun, by all means. But at the same time, dont "cheat" yourself by always playing em this way. Jump around, try new things, heck, pick opponents on Monarch for kicks and see how you do. The "fun" is what we each make of it. I pop into the WB sometimes and make "adjustments". I reload some games. I have been known to play the same start 3 or more times to get it just right. The fun is what you make of it, mate.

Edit: Double post on odd mozilla firefox behavior.

Boudica, Brennus, degaulle, charly don't declare at pleased either, and Mansa, liz, and roosey will. I don't think that necessarily means that the second group is more warlike

It could only be considered cheating if you set things up to try and guarantee AI failure.

Choosing a bunch of peaceful opponents on levels where the AI gets bonuses can sometimes lead to a lovefest that leaves you in the dust, so I wouldn't call it cheating exactly.

Charlemagne declares at Pleased and if even if he doesn't hes a zealot and an opportunistic backstabber
Yeah peacniks love others of their kind while they hate warmongers from the get-go so not really cheating if you put all the peace loving people together

I don't think it is cheating to play the game how you like. After all, the option is there for a reason. It wouldn't be quite as fun if you had no choice in who you were up against. And more peaceful civs are not necessarily easier to beat, anyway.

I don't think it is cheating to play the game how you like. After all, the option is there for a reason. It wouldn't be quite as fun if you had no choice in who you were up against. And more peaceful civs are not necessarily easier to beat, anyway.

100% Agree. It's your game. You spent the money to buy it. Play however you like!

I'd like to especially highlight this last point:
And more peaceful civs are not necessarily easier to beat, anyway.
Man, that is SO true. It all depends on when you meet them, really. If Shaka or Monty start right next to your capital in 3500BC, then I could have a real problem. However, if you run into those guys in 1500AD, they're usually so backwards that I can slaughter their massive hordes of medieval troops with a small(ish) squad of elite Riflemen.

On the other hand ... if I find Gandhi nearby my capital in 3500BC, I know that I'm set for a good axerush. I'll probably even get a Holy City for my trouble! However, if I run into Gandhi on another continent in 1500AD, he's frequently part of some shared-religion AI lovefest that has traded past me in tech.

Early game, warmongers are more of hassle. Late game, peaceniks (especially when they share a religion) are much more annoying.

Charlemagne declares at Pleased and if even if he doesn't hes a zealot and an opportunistic backstabber
Yeah peacniks love others of their kind while they hate warmongers from the get-go so not really cheating if you put all the peace loving people together

I'm pretty sure Charlie doesn't declare at pleased. I just played a game recently with Charlie, Hannibal, and Kublai on my continent, and I remember looking it up to make sure I knew where I was vulnerable (since most of the game everyone was pleased/friendly with each other since only one religion spread).

As for picking opponents, it's "cheating", but it's not cheating. Again, as people have mentioned 1000 times, if you want to play with that, nobody will stop you. I would say it's no more cheating that changing any of the other default options (ie. no barbs, no tech brokering, etc...). For moving up a level, it's fine to not have to worry about Shaka or Monty being on your doorstep (I'd like to see a way to start a game and just explicitly exclude a few people).

I did similar on my first (only) Emperor win. I picked a selection of non-IND leaders (AGG, PRO, CHA, CRE etc..) and claimed a Culture win. I don't regard this as cheating, but I don't rank it as high as a 'pure' victory (if I ever get one on Emp!).

Seriously, there is often a BIG problem when there are no warmongers in the game. AIs love to be friends and swap techs, and a big, happy, no-wars world can be very tricky. A lot of choices I make are designed to keep the AIs in conflict with each other, but trying to get Gandhi to DoW on Hatty when they share a religion is impossible. Toss Mansa into that threesome and they will tech you into the ground.

I would regard Joao and Mansa Musa as challenging opponents: Joao is a backstabber AFAIK and Mansa is a tech monster.

So - one person's "easy" opponent could be another player's nemesis!

Heh if you want to set up AI for a real easy game, make them all warmongers. And dont limit it to the smart ones like Shaka. If im ever in a game with monty, genghis, alex, izzy and ragnar i know its gonna be simple. They will all be left so far back techwise there is no need to worry.

Picking the AI can make it easier. For example if you're playing IND, and pick the AI's so there are no other IND civs can make wonder spam much easier. However I wouldn't call it cheating. It can be nice when moving up a difficulty level to choose opponents that will be better to work with, or at least ones where you know what to expect from them.

Its not only IND leaders who spam Suryavarman/Gandhi/Pacal/WK/Ashoka wonderspam a lot too

Its not only IND leaders who spam Suryavarman/Gandhi/Pacal/WK/Ashoka wonderspam a lot too

The point is that they can't build as fast as an industrious leader. If you're industrious you have the advantage

You don't have to place only "no warmongers" in the game when choosing leaders.

A player who knows how to set leaders to make a victory condition more favorable is definitely making the game easier.

However, making something easier and cheating are different things. There is no way choosing opponents can possibly be construed as cheating...that mere notion is ridiculous. You'd need a competition that requires random leaders, and then to violated it. To my knowledge, such a competition hasn't even existed in civ IV.

the definition of cheating is in the eye of the beholder

the definition of cheating is in the eye of the beholder

Short of editing stuff in WB.

the definition of cheating is in the eye of the beholder

There's a limit to such philosophical nonsense, and claiming that choosing opposition is debatable crosses that line. In short, what I've quoted is either 1) irrelevant to the OP or 2) WRONG.

The definition of cheating:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheating?qsrc=2888

Choosing leaders to play against in a single player game does not violate a single one of those definitions. In fact, the game is set up with the rules that the opponents you chose ARE your opponents. Their existence and knowledge of competition ARE the rules, set before one even begins. Does it make it a different game than random leaders? Possibly. Does it make it easier? If you know what you're doing. Is it cheating? Hell no.

In order to cheat in a game or competition you must first break a rule or some agreed-upon settings etc. Obviously in the context of say, modifying leaders in a XOTM and trying to submit that, using known leaders is cheating...it breaks the rules. I don't think the OP was referring to esoteric crap workarounds to highly specific aspects of civ competition though. Usually prince players aren't trying to cut the margins in HoF or medal in XOTM.

Speaking of HoF, choosing leaders is EXPLICITLY ALLOWED.

So, if cheating is really in the eyes of the beholder, who's rules are being violated? You could make a case that it isn't comparable to a regular game, but it's ridiculous to claim choosing your leaders beforehand is cheating.

Sometimes, I like to 'cheat' in favor of the AI if they're doing (or will do) poorly. Like giving Roosevelt on the Earth 18 map a wee little 'nudge' in the right direction.. a dozen Dog Soldiers.. wee bit more food or production.. that sorta thing.

Still rarely helps him though.. He just doesn't know the basics of the Montezuma Survival Guide.

Sometimes, I like to 'cheat' in favor of the AI if they're doing (or will do) poorly. Like giving Roosevelt on the Earth 18 map a wee little 'nudge' in the right direction.. a dozen Dog Soldiers.. wee bit more food or production.. that sorta thing.

Still rarely helps him though.. He just doesn't know the basics of the Montezuma Survival Guide.

Monty could always mysteriously become pacal II.

It could only be considered cheating if you set things up to try and guarantee AI failure.

Choosing a bunch of peaceful opponents on levels where the AI gets bonuses can sometimes lead to a lovefest that leaves you in the dust, so I wouldn't call it cheating exactly.

Ah yeh that gives me an idea :)
Huge map with: Willem, Wang Kon, Mansa, Hatsephut, Gandhi, Elizabeth, Pericles(always tech well), Darius, Zara, Hyuana, Pacal and Hannibal.

Missing any good techers? I can see a few civs that could stir things up a bit sometimes, but a little fight is ok. Oh heck who am I gonna play to compete against these techwhores? oh dear :(

Ofcourse victory conditions are limited to Space. And warmongering will be limited to... well to the point that I need a number of cities to keep up;)

There's a limit to such philosophical nonsense, and claiming that choosing opposition is debatable crosses that line.
When did I claim any such thing? By saying "the definition of cheating is in the eye of the beholder" my point is that the game is meant to be fun, not a johnson-waving contest that only deity level players are allowed to partake in. Is it cheating to reload until you have stone and build the great wall with raging barbs on? What about reloading in general? What about playing with new random seed on reload? If you're playing single player, who exactly can you cheat? The computer? Please.:rolleyes: If I want to start a game with an army of modern armors at 4000 bc and crush everyone in my path, I don't see what the big deal is, so long as I have fun doing it. Will it make me a better player? probably not, but it might be kinda cool anyways. My point is, that all semantics and dictionary definitions aside, cheating really is in the eye of the beholder, because it's SINGLE PLAYER and the only person you're competing against is yourself.

I make adjustments in this game all the time, with only one goal in mind, to have fun.

I edit maps, move AIs, I have even been known to World Builder in whole islands to use to connect to a cool area. I reload as I please, I change settings over and over, checking each map generated in the WB. I change AIs to see how they will act, heck I have founded my city then hit "enter" 100 times, and then checked in the WB to see how the AIs acted (got Stonehenge once doing this, LOL).

I dare someone to call me a cheater. I bought this game, its on my computer, and I can play it however I see fit. Period.

Edit: This isnt directed at any particular post or anything, its just something I feel strongly about.

Thanks for the replies,

Basically what I meant by cheating is, can I consider myself a Prince level player now. I won my very first game on Prince, but since I picked my opponents, I thought it wont count

Well my 2nd game helped :)

Pangaea, 6 random AI, I had Monty, but he was far so wasnt much of an issue. Saladdin was halfway through his spaceship and Kublai was 25 turns away from Cultural victory (Mongolia going for culture?! what).

I just had one war, with Ashoka over some land, so peaceful game mostly.

I know I would be in trouble in the middle of Pangaea with Shaka sharing borders, but the 2nd win was good for my confidence :)