Highest Difficulty for Role-Playing/Relaxed Play?

i vote King

If you are a Deity player, then Deity does actually allow you to win from multiple different angles, as long as they are sensible. You don't have to follow the formulaic 3-cities Tradition, Turn 70 NC baseline. All the game really requires you to do is make Education at a reasonable time, slot Specialists, then pick the tech order that's related to what you're doing. You just build the buildings/units that your technologies unlock.

It's just a common freak-out players have when they're sitting on low tech. If you measure out the tech tree though, you are only through about 3% of the way to a Science Victory having completed every single Medieval tech. An Education beelline is something like 2%. It's much more about how you get through that next 98%.

I remember some apologetic that a poker player made for why it wasn't gambling. He basically said that any game that you can intentionally lose is a game of skill. That's basically Civ. Don't deliberately not build buildings that you know you need, deliberately not settle, pick SP's, etc. You win when you know how to win in the end. The AI doesn't know how.

I would say I can role play pretty nicely on 6. Reason is, I don't think CIV should be about winning every time, so some struggle is always welcome.

I suppose 5 is good as well, but any lower than that, the AI become mentally challenged.

Depends on how far you plan on straying from optimal.

I would vote for Emperor.

If you want to make the game extra interesting, shut off all the normal victory conditions and play for Score. Play on a map with oceans separating the civs. Now you're in for a major conflict.

Lately I play with these conditions:
- Emperor difficulty
- Small continents plus map (from Scrambled Maps pack)
- A mod (available on Steam, can't remember the name right now) that among other things reduces the bonuses in Tradition/Rationalism and the National College while buffing Piety/Honor/Liberty. Also removes bonus techs from AIs so you have a chance of founding a religion.
- Raging barbarians

The difference in the game play is really noticeable. Since Honor is actually not that bad, AIs take it and become major threats. And the raging barbarians prevent you from just sitting back and coasting through a science victory. The map type makes the ocean techs and UAs way more meaningful, and because that particular map spreads everyone out there is none of the cheese of Pangea allowing you to meet all the other civs/city states/natural wonders right away for the huge bonus happiness and gold buffer.

Playing for Score means you cannot let up--you must watch all of the other players and constantly undermine them so they cannot become a threat. These means just taking capitals isn't (usually) enough. You need more cities period. Incidentally (or not) this fixes civ's extreme tall bias.

If you want to add extra conflict, increase the number of civs from 8 to 12.

Justice: I agree that Diety offers far more flexibility than just the 3-city tradition opening that evidently is so popular. I have never even used it lol, it just doesn't suit my playstyle and I hate the idea of following a template. I like to have lots of room to maneuver within a build, to adapt to things as they come. Still, as I am far from a dominant Diety player, it is too difficult for me to play relaxed role-playing games in.

Isau: It's funny you mention playing with all the standard VC's turned off. That's precisely what I did as a kid playing obscene amounts of Civ3. It seemed contrived to me at the time for a nation to 'win' (still does in some sense, come to think of it). I was far less concerned with all the compulsive min-maxing and micromanaging and funneling my priorities into a specific win condition, and more focused on immersing myself in the politics, warfare and empire building... I just played and it was glorious. I'll spare you guys any further delving into my fondest Civ memories lol, but anyway thanks Isau. It's a great suggestion