bryanw1995
Emperor
so i've played and won at every level except chieftan. I think that I might have had one or two early games that I got stomped on, but since I went to king I haven't lost any games. No cheating/reloading, though I did take advantage of some AI questionable tactics at higher levels. For example, on deity I did sell a few poor cities to powerful civs from other continent instead of razing them to increase gold tremendously and keep happiness out of -10 territory. I never DOW'd them, however, and I think I ended up with 14 of my (well-placed) cities to 7 total AI cities and 8 CS's on my continent once all was said and done. One thing I've noticed in my immortal/deity games is that the AI won't buy my iron/horses later on anymore, don't know if this is a game fix or just one of the improvements they get at higher levels.
Anyway, what's the comparable level in ciV vs civ IV? I think it's about 2 levels lower, so say deity in ciV is comparable to Emperor in civ IV, immortal to monarch, etc. I sometimes won on emperor in civ IV but it was by no means a sure thing, monarch I mostly won, lower levels I stopped playing b/c they weren't challenging at all. I never even played higher than emperor b/c that level was highly challenging and generally a blast to play. I would definitley say that emperor now is about the same difficulty as king, it doesn't even really get to be fun until immortal.
I wonder if this is why so many of the diehards are upset by the game? Since I never played over emperor and typically played on king in civ IV I think that the higher difficulties are great now. Did civ IV add a higher difficulty level after release, or was it just that it was different than civ3 so I'm not remembering correctly?
What do you guys think? Do the higher difficulties present enough of a challenge when you don't take advantage of programming errors? As in, no playing with 2-3 cities then sneak attacking the dominant country's capital after he's wiped eveyrone else out, you actually have to play to win from the outset.
Anyway, what's the comparable level in ciV vs civ IV? I think it's about 2 levels lower, so say deity in ciV is comparable to Emperor in civ IV, immortal to monarch, etc. I sometimes won on emperor in civ IV but it was by no means a sure thing, monarch I mostly won, lower levels I stopped playing b/c they weren't challenging at all. I never even played higher than emperor b/c that level was highly challenging and generally a blast to play. I would definitley say that emperor now is about the same difficulty as king, it doesn't even really get to be fun until immortal.
I wonder if this is why so many of the diehards are upset by the game? Since I never played over emperor and typically played on king in civ IV I think that the higher difficulties are great now. Did civ IV add a higher difficulty level after release, or was it just that it was different than civ3 so I'm not remembering correctly?
What do you guys think? Do the higher difficulties present enough of a challenge when you don't take advantage of programming errors? As in, no playing with 2-3 cities then sneak attacking the dominant country's capital after he's wiped eveyrone else out, you actually have to play to win from the outset.
