Emperor level vs. Deity level

[Ali Ardavan]

My favorite level to play is Emperor. I also find it more challenging than Deity for reasons explained below. But it looks to me that most players consider Deity the most challenging. The following comment is one of many examples:

Some Apolyton players studied ... at Diety level, but maybe later at other levels (Apolytoners seem to feel other levels were beneath them! so other levels weren't studied so much).

My reason for preferring Emperor is that I feel Deity skews the game too far in the direction of managing happiness. Surely managing happiness is one of the important aspects of this game but there should be a balance among the various aspects and I feel that balance is better in Emperor vs. Deity. Another reason I dislike Deity is all the micro management I have to do at the early part of the game to make sure my cities stay out of unrest. I can do it, but it is not much fun. The game requires too much micro management as is.

Finally, here is my reason for believing that Emperor is actually more challenging than Deity. First let us see what the trade off is. In Deity you get one fewer content citizen compared to what you get in Emperor. But you get two settlers to start with regardless of your starting position. As far as I know everything else is the same. I do not know, and I suppose nobody else does either, whether the AI is any smarter in Deity vs. Emperor. But I have played enough to instinctively believe that there is no difference. Assuming that I am right and the only difference is one fewer content citizen then I think that Emperor is more challenging because:
1. A None settler is far more valuable than an extra content citizen at the beginning of the game when most of my cities spend most of their time in size 1 anyways.
2. As time goes on, in the great majority of games, we build enough cities to get to black head citizens. These guys are much easier to make happy than the red heads and in Deity you get them sooner.
So except for a short period of time when my cities are larger than size 1 but I still do not have enough cities to see black heads, Deity is tougher to play; before and long after Emperor is.

 

[Jokemaster]

I usually play Deity, so I can't really say anything about Emperor.

But I can say one thing: I'm pretty sure that early wonders are way more difficult to snag in Deity (vs. Emperor) because of the AI production bonuses. No one should have any problems with the HG+Marco build, but if you need to throw in LH to allow trade (or Colossus to set up an STC/SSC) this gets trickier. If you're very expansionist (like me) you'd maybe also have to get the Pyramids, or conquer them pretty quick. 40 shields' difference are a lot in the early game.

This is no counter-opinion: I'm simply undecided because I don't have enough experience under Emperor.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I guess it depends on what you mean by more challenging. If you mean how much skill it takes to set up and maintain a viable civilization, then I would say that Deity is more challenging. If, on the other hand, you are asking if a skilled player (by which I mean someone who has no trouble running a civilization at deity level) should be able to win in fewer turns on Deity than on Emperor, then I don't have an opinion (largely because I'm in no way a Civ II "speed demon").

In addition to Ali's points, I think the following are true:

Fewer expenses on militia for martial law in the early game (not to mention easier early republic) and a less competitive early wonder race make Emperor easier.

Less developed foreign civs make Emperor harder (at least for spaceship) by reducing tech trade availability and foreign trade bonuses.

 

[Peaster]

I was slightly poking fun at the Poly players who seemed to feel that only Deity level matters. They were trying to set all kind of amazing records for early landings, and the first OCC, and conquering without cities, etc. So, it was natural to go for the "ultimate challenge", eg to do these things at Diety.

IMO, most goals [such as a 1AD conquest, a 700AD landing, etc] are harder at Diety than at Emperor. True, Diety gets the extra settler, but you have to build many more warriors to keep the peace, and you have to build HG, maybe Mike's, earlier. It is harder to celebrate. These factors slow the growth rate throughout the game. I once compiled stats on growth rates in my games, and found that my Emperor civs usually surpassed my Diety civs in size by about 1000BC. So, I think Deity is more challenging in the sense that it makes most things harder to do.

But I think I see your point, that Emperor level may allow you to focus on aspects of the game that are more interesting to you than managing happiness. So, the game may be more stimulating, and "feel more challenging" to you, even if it is technically easier.

 

[Magic_gorter]

I do not have a certain favourite level....I guess that certains maps can give a bigger challenge then difficult level only.... So if I'm playing a great map on the lower levels I will have more fun then playing on a simple easy map (lot of grass and normal islands (easy to reach))....

 

[stoferb]

I voted for emperor being hardest because the extra settler in diety makes setting up an empire seem that much faster. But honestly I have not much experience of emperor. Maybe I'm so used with the extra unhappiness that I forget what a mess it can seem like for someone not used to having civil disorder somewhere in your empire almost constantly. It can seem a bit grim in the early game but with entertainers, troops, luxuries, monarchy and temples you are in control. I'll sometimes alternate between starving a city with entertainers and letting it grow while in civil disorder so that it can slowly build things. And after the discovery of trade (the most important tech in the game) I get it even more under control by building the hanging gardens (or the oracle if I for some reason happen to loose the wonder race). But it's rare to loose a wonder race after the discovery of trade.

 

[Millman]

Everyone has their personal preference and this is the limitations of the game. It's not too hard to find the idea of making that extra settler optional.

At the start of the game the settler has to be worth three civilization advances.