Babylon

Religious Commerce

Persia

Science Industry

Rome

Militaristic Industry

Japan

Militaristic Religious

France

Industry, Commerce

England

Seafaring, Commerce

Germany

Militaristic Industrious

We should defenately keep a sharp eye on the militaristic civs.

I believe Rome is commercial, no? And I agree, if elected I will keep a watchful eye on the militaristic civs. It would also be good to make very good allies with one as well.

Rome is militaristic and commercial, Germany is militaristic and scientific, and Babylon is scientific and religious.

Make allies with stronger (militaristic most likley0 civs at first, or at least have good relations, while we work with the smaller civs, to bully them and destroy them.

Since this is a 5cc with that variation, we DON'T want exteneded periods of peace with a civ we just went top war with, or else they will rebuild since we cannot 'take' the land we took.

we shouldn't be waring at all, we have 5 cities, there is no use to fighting a war! we can only gain 1 city, and we only have 5 cities to make troops...

we're gonna win by Culture Space race or Diploamcy? Dang It!

I always thought that slaughtering the other civs with 5 cities would hilarious!

But i really do think we can pull of a conquest or other military victory with all of the talent that we have assembled here... we should give it a try maybe...

Talent can only go so far. At some point even a mechanized infantry will get worn down by the little arrows of a hundred archers. I was sort of expecting a 20k victory. I don't see how we'll have enough trading power to get the top of the line techs needed for space race. But then again, I've never played these variants.

3 militaristic, 3 industrial, and 3 commercial. At least there's only one scientific.

We are playing against three scientific civs. The first list is inaccurate.

Babylon - Religious and Scientific

Persia - Scientific and Industrious

Rome - Militaristic and Commercial

Japan - Militaristic and Religious

France - Industrious and Commercial

England - Commercial and Seafaring

Germany - Militaristic and Scientific

we shouldn't be waring at all, we have 5 cities, there is no use to fighting a war! we can only gain 1 city, and we only have 5 cities to make troops...

If the only reason to fight a war is to gain territory then your comment would make sense. We need to be strong enough to be the best in some category without letting some other civ win first. For 20K culture this means going out and razing cities with lots of culture so our best city can have more than twice the nearest competitor. For 100K culture (or whatever the limit is for this size map) we have to eliminate every civ which will reach more than 50K. For space race we need to knock down all the tech leaders so we're at least at parity.

No, a completely peaceful (never war) 5BC is completely unwinnable. Should we be selective on who we fight and when? Absolutely, if we don't want our severed heads handed back to us. But if my test game is any guide, we'll be at war with someone almost constantly.

Restate: I've never played this sort of variant.

That said, a 'small war' seems like it will make sense. Our civ will almost certainly be the most efficient and productive in the game. But when I think through the parameters, it seems we will have to be waging a war of attrition, ankle-biting, encroachment, and harrassment almost the entire time. The consequences of those actions would probably eliminate the possibility of a Diplomatic victory.

Those points about early engagement and entrapment, to prevent future growth (of the foreign civ), sound very sensible.

Culturally strong civilizations won't be a problem. Just raze all the cities they have, keep only the important ones and settle the abandoned land. We only need a good stack of settlers and an SOD of fast offensive units.

We can't settl their wasted land, we're playing a 5BCC with one captured city from each enemy civ.

Uh, sorry, I am newbie.

no problem, that's what i would've said to, but luckily i came along just in time to hear the beginning of the game. And get to hear the type and weather and all those discussions. but Last DG i just jumped in right in the middle and didn't reallly know what the heck i was doing.

no problem, that's what i would've said to, but luckily i came along just in time to hear the beginning of the game. And get to hear the type and weather and all those discussions. but Last DG i just jumped in right in the middle and didn't reallly know what the heck i was doing.

It's our fault, the ones who do know how it works, that you don't know what's going on. Not yours, so don't even think about considering that it is yours. ;)

CivLord, or even Ranger99. If either of you have any questions concerning the game, please feel free to PM me. I'll try to give the best answer possible to them.

That also goes for anyone else who happens to see this post, and is still slightly confused about some of the concepts of the Democracy Game.

As you see, I am too lazy to read the entire Constitution, Code of Laws or understand any of the concepts of this demogame. But thanks, Strider.

As you see, I am too lazy to read the entire Constitution, Code of Laws or understand any of the concepts of this demogame. But thanks, Strider.

Well, you shouldn't have to read the entire Constitution or Code of Laws to understand or to even play in the game. Although yes, sadly enough you have to have read a majority of both of them to partcipate inside of the game.

Once (or if) the community pulls there head out of whatever random hole they've stuck it in (family-friendly version!), I can hopefully change that.

Civlord, Ranger99 -- here is a link to the FAQ (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=124082). We're aiming for it to be a one-stop reference for demogame newcomer questions.