the highest "playable" difficulty

[Shaka II]

I would say that Civ4 is much harder than Civ3. Emperor on Civ4 is probably what Deity was on Civ3. Immortal and Deity are probably beyond the difficulty in previous Civ games.

I started out on Noble, and moved up each level to Emperor. Played two at Prince, two at Monarch, about five at Emperor, the last two being Shaka Zulu and Augustus Caesar. But I think I won't go above Emperor. Also, I play with SS off and Diplomatic off, though I played one at Prince and one at Monarch with SS on. After a few trips to AC, the thrill is gone IMO, but domination never gets tiring. I'm sure this makes the game easier with SS off (it is the AI's greatest strength), but SS is boring after a while and chasing after SS Civs seems like an uneccessary aspect of the game. Diplomatic seems silly too, as by the time I get to the U.N., there often aren't many Civs left in the game, maybe two big ones and one or two with one city each. It loses some of the meaning. OTOH, culture, domination, and points, seem like true measures of a civilization's greatness, not how early one can build SS parts. Also, I think Earth is the real prize, not Alpha Centauri.

My take would be to play Prince if I wanted to be a pure builder, Monarch if I want a builder/warmonger game, and Emperor if I want mainly a warmonger game. Even playing warmonger, I'll try for some WWs, but mainly it's the national wonders that I go for. The WWs might be captured anyway.

[Stageon]

I find Prince to be a good challenge while still usually meaning a win for me. I can try different styles of play and go for certain victory types and still have a pretty good shot at it. Monarch forces me to rush early to have a chance... and then it seems to landslide one way or the other. If I can take a city or two, I might steamroll him early, but if not, or if no iron pops up near me (for instance), then usually I'm screwed. I'm not good enough to come back from a deficit at this level. And Emperor bones me every time unless I have a perfect start on a small map or something.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Calvin Vu
Anyway, the true difficulty would heavily depend upon the starting locations. Therefore, if one restarts with a bad location then his true level should be a notch or two lower.

I reckon the difficulty level is based on the average starting location. If you get a good start your game will be easier, if you get a bad start your game will be harder.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I reckon the difficulty level is based on the average starting location. If you get a good start your game will be easier, if you get a bad start your game will be harder.

That's right.

Also the map type, size, game speed, and Civ type are all important factors. I suspect winning by domination on a huge map is quite a bit harder than on a standard map, like I usually play. Also, epic is easier than normal in trying to achieve domination.

Like wise, playing an island or continent map is easier than pangea in most ways, because the AI isn't as good at naval strategy, making islands and continents easier. Pangea is harder for the builder but better for the war monger, who likes the challenge of close borders, early wars, and careful diplomacy.

Also, winning at the hardest level isn't everything. It's what makes for the most fun game experience. Is it more fun to win a monarch game by domination in 1895 with cavalry and musketmen, or is it more fun to win a game at emperor by domination in 1970 with modern armor? The same score of 22,000 for each case. I might go for the cavalry win, because I like fewer units, cavalry/musketmen, and finishing the game before the modern era. That and getting to build more of the world wonders, to experience the building and cultural parts of the game more. I'll probably just stick with emperor and keep trying to get earlier wins and building a few more world wonders.

[Sir Og]

I find the difference in difficulty between Noble and Prince to be extremely big.
On Noble I diminate completely and have no problems whatsoever and on Prince I only manage a win in a third of the games I start.

[DirtyMartini]

Hey all, decided to stop lurking.

Looking for some help. I'm now comfortable dominating at Prince. Actually, the endgame has grown tedious due to the lead I've established by about 1800AD. I'm trying to make the jump to Monarch, but without success -- I rarely make it past 1200 or so without giving up. Is this just a hard jump or am I missing something?

[Blake]

You have to be a bit more cautious and methodical on Monarch difficulty. First few times I played on Monarch I literally got wiped out by barbs. Now I can take the worst barb settings imaginable in my stride. Giving yourself extra adverse settings can be a good learning exercise and sets you up to excel in more moderate settings (note: adverse settings like Raging Barbs also make it harder on the AI, if you can manage barbs like a champ then Raging Barbs actually makes the game easier).

The important thing is that survival is paramount. As long as you're alive you can continue to make progress. Overextending yourself is a surefire way to die on Monarch+ (and there are a number of different deaths, from being eliminated by barbs, to being on the wrong side of a dogpile, to just stagnating).

The most important rule is to not found cities that you can't defend, trying to block off Monty’s expansion isn’t smart if he can just whack your city (because he WILL). Cities also need to give a payoff, it's no good building a city in a jungle to secure some resources if it's just a net drain on your economy for a long time. If you do found such a city, it must be part of a drive towards ironworking ASAP so you can cut the jungle. (But if you're getting Iron Working you'll have Swordmen to just TAKE the jungle city after the AI has founded it and has done the clearing for you). Playing haphazardly results in losing, consider expenses and payoffs, and whether it's better to do something yourself, or to let an AI do it then take it from them (this can be a good way to get religions).

Also it’s important to have a LARGE military. You must find a way to pay for that military and city upkeep while continuing to research, often clever use of specialists is the solution. Some games I’ll be running at 10%-30% science, but still have a very respectable science rate thanks to an Academy and Great Scientist Specialist in my capital.

Anyway, success at higher levels comes down to both meta-strategy (not pissing off those who can beat you up, knowing when to go to war etc), and partly down to clever stratagems and tricks – like a fast Academy and ideal research paths. There is a lot of distilled experience for the latter, but for the former (meta-strategy) nothing beats practice.

[Urban Ranger]

Don't forget to set computer players against one another whenever you can. This takes the heat off you and weakens them at the same time.