AG11 - Solo wars with AI warfare tactics (deity)

I want to try out a rough warmonger game without a couple of tools that give the human that extra punch. Are we able to conquer the world without these?

VARIANT RULES AND STUFF (editted after remarks anarres, Greebley; June 17th 17.56 PM CET)
-No artillery units (catapults, trebuchets, cannons, artillery, mobile artillery)
-No bombers
-No armies
-We cannot initiate MA's or MPP's, but we can accept them if the AI offers (we are not forced to).
-ALWAYS accept peace if the AI offers it, as the AI will do for you.
-'Use or lose' units: you have to use the units in the turn order. It is not allowed to cycle through them. This is to simulate the AI way of using units.
-We cannot attack a city unless there is a speed 1 unit adjacent to said city
-Upgrading more than 1 unit/turn not allowed. To simulate the fact that the AI can't handle this one as well.
-Pillaging can only be done by defensive units.
-Domination/Conquest are the only victory types allowed.
-Deity level
-(EDIT: June 19th 16.40 CET) Random Civ, random map, random AI, random barbarians, standard size
-C3C 1.22

BANNED TACTICS
These are the exploits that I want to avoid in the game:

"Phony Peace Treaty": Making Peace Treaties without having the intention to stay at peace, just to get cheap techs or money.

"Palace Jump"; Jumping the palace by disbanding the capital. Rushing a palace or building it brick by brick is OK.

"RoP Rape": Using Right of Passage to move whole armies into attack position.

"Throwaway Cities": It is possible to go everywhere by settling, moving a setter one tile further in, abandoning the old city, founding a new one, etc...etc... A city shouldn't be abandoned in the same turn as it is settled.

"Resource Piracy": Sitting on resources or deny a civ access to a tile inside the borders of the rival while at peace.

"Seed Corn": It is not allowed to buy the LAST TWO workers from the AI before 1000 BC.

"Negative cash research": The penalty of negative cash is only one unit/improvement. So there are cases where this can be worthwile. Science spending must be lowered when the cash would go below zero.

OTHERS:
Things that I didn't name but are in the spirit of what I mention above I would like to have discussed.

ROSTER
Aggie
Greebley
grs
anarres
Beam

I probably can use a couple of players with deity warmonger experience.

24hrs to post a "got it" notice, and up to 48hrs after that to finish and post your turns. I will start with 25 turns. Next up can take 15/20 turns, and the next leader 10/15, then 10 each turn after that.

TBH these tactics are not that limiting.

One thing you should consider is ALWAYS accepting peace if the AI offers it, as the AI will do for you.

Maybe also consider not upgrading more than 1 unit/turn to simulate the lame way the AI sits with old units around.

Finally, maybe you should consider only mixed unit stacks. Horse based (i.e. fast) units can leave the stack to attack, but no more than twice the number of horses to slow units. For example, if you have 10 horses you need 5 slow units along, and you can't just leave the rest to beeline to a city - you have to move the stack together. The horse units could be allowed to leave the stack to attack, but then they must return to it - they can't just head for the city.

If you were to use something like this I would consider joining.

I just thought of a better restriction!

You HAVE to "use or lose" a unit in the order in which the game cycles them.

This would mean that when you start your turn you HAVE to move the unit that is selected or press space. No skipping and returning - because the AI can't do that either. I would definitely join if you also included this rule.

Hmm, interesting thoughts! I also had the impression that I should up the difficulty, hence the strong AI and pelago map.

Always accept peace is something I can agree with. It crossed my mind I must say. 'Use or lose' also sounds VERY intriging. I have more difficulty with 'only upgrade one unit/turn and mixed stacks only. I could add those, but then we REALLY have to depend on superior empire management/trade/science skills to survive. That would make it a potentially very rich game.

You know what? I'm going to do it

I will drop the map and AI stuff and would suggest pangaea map/random AI instead.

EDIT: I don't know how to implement the mixed units stack rule though... It's difficult to make it clear imho.

heh. /me in then.

The "use or lose" is gonna make it tough, but otherwise it would be just like a normal deity game where you get no MGL (and win before arty/bombers).

We have to decide on a civilization to use. I must say that I am open for a lot of them, but want to avoid seafaring/expansionist/agricultural...

I changed the game rules in the first post. Are they clear to you anarres?

I expect the stack rule to lead to much more individual units moving around the battle field, as these are not stacked. This is also a very good representation of AI behaviour. FWIW the stack rule should probably not apply to units in cities, since they are not an attacking stack, but merely defensive units.

I think this game will be quite tough now, and will require serious thought before we head in to battle. Not being able to cycle through units could be a real bastard - do you fortify your 3HP Cav when it is up against a fortified vet Musket in a city and hope that you have enough 4HP Cavs to take, or do you take the risk and attack?

Signing in.

The additional rules are interesting, especially the "use or lose" rule. But I think the "mixed units stack rule" is not that good. It's more like a calculators job to see which horse will be allowed to move and which not, especially with civ not showing detailed movement points (roads e.g.). I would like that rule to be dropped. Other additions add flavor - this does imho not.

Well, some kind of rule that stops us using a stack of 20 horses is needed, as I have NEVER seen the AI do that!

I am open to suggestions (as I am sure Aggie is too), but otherwise we will end up with huge stacks of horses that all move one after the other and it won't be that challenging.

Ummm...I've seen the AI move a stack of 40+ horses/war chariots together with no defending units. Does that count?

Not a sign-up, BTW. Too much going on in other places.

Arathorn

Not a sign-up, but with your restrictions, the Zulu might be a good choice. Their 2-move Impi would allow you to avoid having your Horsemen running out too far ahead and getting slaughtered.

Edit: Btw, how are you going to deal with unfortifying a unit as to its order in the turn (I've seen the AI do this plenty of times)? Unfortify only at the end or whenever?

Not a sign-up, but just a question.

Why the rule no MAs and MPPs? The AI definitely do those things.

Very interesting game variant. Will follow this one closely.

Yes, but the AI doesn't use MA's tactically. Humans use it to distract a civ mostly. The AI does not I had to choose between either seeking a form of random MA/MPP or voting against it.

Not a sign up, as I think this one may be beyond me.

For your mixed stack rule, you could drop the ratio and impose some set amount of slow units. EX: stack 1-10 req 2 slow units, 11-25 requires 4, etc.

For that matter, using a single slow unit in each stack would negate the speed, as I think that's the goal here.

Not a sign up...

This is going to be very interesting, I will follow this closely.

There's certainly a lot of interest to lurk But the team is still really really small

@SesnOfWthr: It's certainly an idea. I await the discussion about it before I make a final decision.

I am not sure it is wise, but I will play

Sounds like it will not be an easy game.

Are you sure we can't make random and meaningless MPP's? It would add zest.

aggie said:

But the team is still really really small

Click to expand...

Well I think you need to post a final set of rules. There may be several people such as myself who think this sounds interesting. However, without seeing the final rule version I won't commit to it. It is start to sound too variant for my taste.

Welcome Greebley

@Lee: The final rules won't be THAT much different.

To me the most difficult rule to follow is the one about grouping. Maybe we could drop that one. I don't think the AI follows it anyway, and it is confusing to know when it applies.

How about the following changes:

We cannot initiate MA's or MPP's, but we can accept them if the AI offers (we are not forced to).

We cannot attack a city unless there is a speed 1 unit adjacent to said city.

[Edit: one more in conjuction with the above - pillaging can only be done by defensive units].
----

This would replace the stacking limitation and the MA MPP rule