I think the answer to the title question is probably yes, but I'm curious to hear others' experiences. I've been playing Emperor for quite a while now and win probably 80+% of my games. I nearly always play Standard Continents - Normal speed, down-the-middle settings, random civ and opponents. So no cherry-picking easy neighbors and no inflating the human's military advantage with slower speeds. I like these settings because I feel they're challenging, but that there's always a path to victory somewhere - the challenge is correctly perceiving your strengths. I've won every different way - bloody domination, diplomation, totally peaceful cultural, relatively peaceful diplomacy, space, etc. Does Immortal allow for this style of play? Again, I'm guessing the answer is yes, provided I'm good enough, but I've been playing Immortal starts lately and it's definitely harder. The barbs are insane and really hamper your early game - no more relying on half a dozen warriors until the land grab phase is over. Starting positions seem much more boxed in than Emp starts and financial resources seem rarer. A lot of this, obviously, is that I just need to acclimate to the level and get a feel for how far I can push my limited forces. I'm sure I can win some games eventually and in fact have had at least a few decent starts so far. But will Immortal allow me to eventually play like Emperor, where games are basically always winnable if you're perceptive enough? In at least a few games so far, I've had what appear to be impossible situations. In the most notable one, a stack of 4 barb archers appeared at the border of my capital on turn 30, presumably from a bad AI hut pop - it was the first time I had ever actually seen the "You have been defeated" dialog. What say you, Immortal veterans? Should I continue at this, or is it likely to change the game too much for my liking?