How about this variant?

[NickyH]

Sorry, I haven't read up on different variants, so it's not unlikely someone has come up with this idea before. I'm just too stupid and lazy to find out for myself.

Your goal is to win by domination. You may never build any improvement or other building in any of your cities. You are only allowed to build units. The only build that is allowed except for units, is wealth.

[rysingsun]

i think a majority of players would play better with that ruleset - much better once they got used to the required close city spacing.

[darski]

it is rather wasteful to build reg units. I could see a Rax only variant but I don't like reg units myself. I get upset if some regs get by me in my games when I am not paying attention.

However, if you have lots of barbs for building your regs... it could work. I might give it a try in one of my alphabet games. From G to Z, which Civ would you suggest as the best choice for this?

[NickyH]

Originally Posted by darski

From G to Z, which Civ would you suggest as the best choice for this?

Don't really know, but any civ with the military trait would suffer from this. No barracks, no veterans. How about Zulu?

[Spoonwood]

i think a majority of players would play better with that ruleset - much better once they got used to the required close city spacing.

I don't think skilled builders would. I've beaten Deity without starting a war by launching the spaceship and diplomatically, and have beaten Demi-God with just 5 cities only attacking once to trigger my GA. For a one to few city game this way for a space game I wouldn't have a single tourist attraction. I'd have to war quite a bit to stay up in tech at Deity and maybe also Demi-God since I don't have the Great Library. I tend to have too few units or too many in my stacks when I do pick a fight it seems.

Militaristic won't have vets., but they'll still have quicker promotions to vets, so for this variant I'd think The Mongols or The Zulu actually the most suited. Persia makes an interesting choice, because of their immortals. The Iroquois might make a decent choice also. I'd think you'd want to get someone to build the Temple of Artemis for you and make sure to hold that city... but with literally no culture other than your palace that sounds like a bear. I know you can find no culutre allowed in some succession games.

[darski]

So basically, the only question would then be...

would an early loss qualify as having played a Civ for the purposes of my alphabet? '

[Spoonwood]

I think I'd say "no" in response to your question Darski. For playing each civ in the alphabet, I think you have to learn something about the game from each civ that its traits/UU give you a somewhat unique position to tell you about. Does that fit with playing a one-built city space-race game with the Vikings as I did (I got my second on a flip)? I'd say so, because it taught me that even a civ with relatively poor traits for such a game could win a space-race without many cities on that level. The Spanish game taught me something about The Spanish and their conquistadors. The Russian game taught me something about expansionist trait. Sumeria showed me how freaking easy a 5CC/6CC Emperor game could work out for me and that raging barbies pose little problem at Emperor for Sumeria even with 5 cities if you use your enkidus well enough. Persia taught me I could do a 5CC Demi-God game. The Ottoman game taught me that I could build two wonders right away with Osman's tribe and that the Sipahi certainly can lose plenty of battles if not used right. It also hinted that I could do an OCC 20k game on Demi-god (with the right map conditions and the right tribe, of course). Not that you have to learn all that much really, but each game in the alphabet preferably will teach you something about the game... and preferably will teach you something that that tribe lies in best position to teach you well enough. An early loss might do that in some situations, but I'd doubt it....

At least that's my take on playing everyone in the alphabet. Feel free to disagree.

[rysingsun]

no i don't think the really good players would play better. and yeah, i forgot about the barracks thing. that would be a problem. i did think about the no aquaduct problem. and yes, some players would still build too many spears or not enough workers. even so, a very good exercise.

maybe i'll try this version soon!

[TheOverseer714]

Do workers and settlers count as military builds? If you can't build settlers, it could only be a 0BC game, and if you can't build workers, your development lags until you capture sufficient slaves.

[Spoonwood]

I think one could phrase this variant as "training and wealth only... no building."

[NickyH]

Originally Posted by TheOverseer714

Do workers and settlers count as military builds? If you can't build settlers, it could only be a 0BC game, and if you can't build workers, your development lags until you capture sufficient slaves.

I was thinking all units are OK, only buildings are avoided.

I might try this one myself sometime, but to me it feels more like hard work and not so much fun. But who knows?

[TheOverseer714]

Try it at regent first, to gauge the difficulty of it.

[Rodent]

Sounds Interesting, It will have to be a quick win however, longer the game lasts, the bleaker the situation gets for the humans.

check out Eldar08, we are avoiding all culture buildings which means pretty much all the buildings except Granaries, Aqueducts and stuff

[AutomatedTeller]

it would be easier on monarch or emperor. You can't build a granary so you want to take the pyramids.

[eldar]

I just won a conquest victory as China and all I built except units were:
- 2 granaries
- Forbidden Palace
- raxes and harbors

This wasn't intentional or to prove any points... it just happened like that.

I almost certainly would've been able to win without raxes and harbors and granaries and the FP, just would've taken longer.

Mil/Ind would be ideal, you'd really need quicker workers and Ind means you get more promotions from Reg to Vet.

[darski]

I am planning to try this as a Rax only variant but I can't go without them.

[Bartleby]

Originally Posted by NickyH

Don't really know, but any civ with the military trait would suffer from this. No barracks, no veterans. How about Zulu?

I'd have thought Militaristic would be ideal for this; faster promotions would partly mitigate the lack of barracks.

[NickyH]

Originally Posted by Bartleby

I'd have thought Militaristic would be ideal for this; faster promotions would partly mitigate the lack of barracks.

Thats right, I wasn't thinking.

[darski]

So folks, I could use some input from y'all. I plan to do this as Rax only with the Greeks at Warlord level.

What suggestions would you make for the best row to hoe? I am thinking that it will be a busy war game but not necessarily heading for conquest or dom. However, you are not likely to get a space victory, even on warlord without the learning aids.

I just can't seem to see how this would play out so any discussion would be helpful for me. The concept of not building is so foreign to me that I can't even imagine it.

[Bartleby]

If you make specialist farms, then the Spaceship might not be out of the question (If building spaceship parts falls within the variant ) The UN and culture victories will definitely be out.