Emperor level needs a rethink.

[CrispyCritter]

Lots of good points in this thread!

Jeem (and others),
Take a step back and look at what the difficulty levels require. As you go from Chieftain through Monarch and Emperor and Deity, at each stage you have to start paying attention to more details that you were able to get by with ignoring at the previous levels. You have to learn to more optimally take advantage of whatever you're given. There's minor differences because of AI changes, but accomodating those is just gaming, which you've rightfully dismissed as not being the point of playing. The true changes have to come from your play, as you more efficently use your resources. At Emperor, and even more at Deity, you can no longer afford to waste resources by letting cities manage themselves; you have to do it yourself. You don't have to do it at the optimal extreme as in Aeson's excellent message, but you do have to do it if you want to win at Deity. Some people may not be interested in micro-managing; that's perfectly fine, whatever's enjoyable. But you can't expect to win at the top levels unless you take full advantage of all resources; it would be a boring game for those that do attempt to take full advantage otherwise!

So try OCC, or try to conquer the world militarily using only 4 or 6 or 8 cities (raze all conquered cities). Do something that forces you to pay attention to the details. Then when you go back to your normal overall approach (cultural in your case), you'll find that things are tremendously easier at Emperor or Deity level. At least, that's what happened to me back in the days when OCC was brand new.

And Jeem, speaking as someone who doesn't recognize any of the people here now (my major time here, mostly lurking, was just after Civ II came out), I think you owe Catt an apology. You may not like his answers, but he spent probably 15-25 hours plus working on your problems and questions, at your request. That effort should be acknowledged.

[Cerbykins]

Brings us nicely onto something I just posted in another thread. Is governor mood setting one of the crucial factors? Is something 'gettable' by taking over? Or is it just paranoia?
Anyway, to avoid spam, that answer can go in the other thread I put it in

As for stepping out of the comfort zone...that's why I've stopped lurking and started posting. Plus added my view-point that's BOUND to get flak (not of the nice AA kind either )

Seems we have a lot of lurkers
We'd have a much bigger community if only a few more would...step up
Still - individual choice - not ours

[Jeem]

But you can't expect to win at the top levels unless you take full advantage of all resources; it would be a boring game for those that do attempt to take full advantage otherwise!

I didn't claim anyone should. What I asked for was for a rethink of Emperor level now that Sid has been added. Emperor isn't all that high a level now - there are 3 levels above it. Of course, the differences aren't all that big really as there is little fundamental change you can make to Emperor in order to make it more difficult. A few more starting units, a bit faster production for the AI - it's already got the majority of major bonuses at emperor level anyway (which IMO are corruption and happiness).

Monarch is such a breeze as to be hardly worth playing. Even with governers and without using exploits, I won't get any sort of challenge from the AI. The difference between Monarch and Emperor is too big however. I say that Monarch be made more difficult, or Emperor be made a bit more fair. If I find it too easy, I can up to demi-god. Emperor level is so predictable - the same things happen game after game after game. Mostly this involves a long hard struggle to the end of the medieval era, then it gets just as easy as Monarch. I feel that I'm missing out on the early game but I'm probably going to win eventually at Emperor anyway so I'd be better off playing Monarch. There should be some sort of in-between level.

Emperor level isn't actually all that difficult once you've played it a few times. It's just boring and predictable. Playing the French, I can almost guarantee the same wonders every game on Emperor. Usually the Mausoleum, GL, Sun Tzu's, Leonardo's, Bach's, Smith's, Shakespeare's, Magellans, ToE, Hoover and everything after it (in that order). However, stuff like the Pyramids, Oracle, Colossus, Temple of Artemis, Great Wall, and Hanging Gardens are always a good bet for the AI. The main reason is the AI is too powerful early in the game on Emperor. This forces the player into using known tactics (like philosophy/code of laws beeline) in order to keep parity in tech. The same things work time and again. If I played Monarch level I could at least try different tech avenues and keep myself in the game, but on Emperor it's too much of a boon to go for the same techs and wonders game after game.

Then when you go back to your normal overall approach (cultural in your case), you'll find that things are tremendously easier at Emperor or Deity level. At least, that's what happened to me back in the days when OCC was brand new.

Cultural isn't my normal approach. I build, and build and build. Then I either run riot with Cavalry or Tanks or keep building depending on how the game is going. It will work the same on Deity level, it's just that I'd need to use a few more exploits in order to keep myself in the game early on. I don't see the point in doing that though as it's already a task on Emperor.

Firaxis should be breaking their necks in order to stop the usual exploits and improve the AI, instead of adding more 'difficulty' levels based around cheats. This is the most disappointing thing about Civ3 IMO. A lot of effort has gone into Conquests but more should have been spent on making the game balanced rather than on some nice new traits etc.

[ducki]

I mean this in the most respectful way, so don't take it personally, Jeem.
Your last post was very confusing to me - half the time you seem to be saying Emperor is easy, the other half, too hard.

To me, the higher the difficulty level, the more the player has to squeeze. At Monarch, I can get by if I just work extra hard for the first half of the Ancient Age. The early game is where you win or lose. The Advantage that the AI gets merely serves to stretch the length of time devoted to Winning Early. And from what I'm reading, even on Emperor, you know if you have won or lost before the end of the 2nd age.
That's a bit silly in my book, but I've come to terms with knowing whether I'm on the road to success so early.

My point was, your post is confusing to me. To me. Your points seem to conflict too often.

Lastly:

Firaxis should be breaking their necks

No, they shouldn't. I challenge you to find another 2-year-old game with as much developer-community interaction and exchange, not to mention the effort obviously being poured into constantly making the game better.

in order to stop the usual exploits

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. With as many players as C3 has, there are going to be a full range of styles from those blissfully ignorant of game mechanics playing at Chieftan with Governors on everything and Automated workers and nabbing every wonder(which can be fun); to those that are willing to spend hours upon hours in the editor running tests to find the precise, optimal {insert metagame tactic} to give them an edge at the highest level they can play(micromanaging, IFE, disband, luxury slider, curragh suiciding, pruning, etc.).
Not everything that is an exploit to you is an exploit to someone else - it may be the only way that particular player can make the jump to a new level.
Plus, any game with an editor can't really be high-and-mighty about "exploits". When you give the ability for the player to poke and prod the innards of the game, there's no such thing as cheating. The only place discussion of "exploits", or what is and isn't "fair play" really matters is in multiplayer games and comparison games - and situational "house rules" are sufficient in those cases. If you can't trust your buddy not to cheat on you, find a new buddy.

and improve the AI, instead of adding more 'difficulty' levels based around cheats.

This is a pie-in-the-sky goal.
And every game developer and CS researcher would giggle themselves silly if they were able to actually develop intelligent Artificial Intelligence. We can't have a computer accurately translate a document from one language to another(much less back to the original) and we surely can't create an AI capable of playing on a level playing field with the human in a game this complex. IBM is having enough trouble defeating one dude at chess(where the rules are simple even though the behaviors are complex), so you can't really expect a computer to be able to compete on a more complex(rules-wise) game with (arguably) more complex situations and gameplay.

Unless you let the computer cheat(which IBM's AI does, by the way, after a fashion), which is where things like no fog-of-war, production bonuses, free units, better odds on huts, faster research, etc. come in. You can't make multiple difficulty levels of an AI without either giving the AI cheats or the player penalties. Not yet anyway.

Firaxis is doing a really good job supporting such an old game. There's no need for them to go breaking their necks because some of us think the AI is predictable or we think the AI should be smarter or we're unhappy with how things play out at certain levels with certain settings.

And I surely don't think a difficulty level should be rebalanced for everyone that plays just because 1 of the various settings makes it too hard or too easy for some players.(This is actually my main objection to the whole point of your original post.)