Play Style(Variant)

What play style(Variant) do we want for DG5?

  • Passive-Never attack an enemy city, if one of ours is lost, it is lost for good, except via culture

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .

Black_Hole

Deity
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
3,424
What play style(Variant) do we want for DG5?
Noble- Never declare war unless war is declared on us, and no manipulating the AI to attack us
Passive-Never attack an enemy city, if one of ours is lost, it is lost for good, except via culture flips, propoganda. Attacking units in the Open allowed

None-NONE, Zilch, Nada

Both-Never declare war, manipulate ai to attack us and can never attack a city.

This poll will be open for 5 days.
 
darn, my internet explored quicked out, b4 i posted the actual poll
could a moderate post a poll with the above options, 5 days limit, and we can see who votes what

Moderator Action: done
 
Where is the option for both Passive and Noble?
 
im not sure it would be too possible to do that, but i will add it

Moderator Action: Noble and Passive added
 
I think we should just play it the way weve played all the other demogames, just take the action as it comes
 
I voted Noble because it seemed to be the noble thing to do. :)

It would put a variant on the game that I used to use on Civ3 for many of the first hundred games I played.
 
I didn't like how we conquered everyone for no reason last time. On the other hand, Passive sounds like we'd get slautered, and would end up with only a few cities by the end. So I say only noble.
 
the problem with noble is that it could end up being a very boring game for the warmongers out there.
 
I voted for none, we should keep playing like we have been playing. The SG variants should stay and remain in the SG. (SG = Sucsession Game)
 
BCLG100 said:
the problem with noble is that it could end up being a very boring game for the warmongers out there.
i agree, because with passive we can still kill units in the open :p
i am holding my vote, so we can have some type of variant
 
BCLG100 said:
the problem with noble is that it could end up being a very boring game for the warmongers out there.

The warmongers took considerable chunks of land in DGs 1 & 3, and dominated the world in DG2 and took the whole shebang last time out. So pardon me if I do not weep for the warmonger(sorry, Sarevok ;) )

To me, a boring game would be one where our warmongering seals up our victorious fate before we even build rails. Let's have a bit of suspense in this one, with some rivals growing unchecked.
 
Another problem with noble is that if someone does declare war on us there is a fairly good chance we will not be ready for it, now this would be okay as it would give us something to do however in all likelihood we would argue for a few weeks about what to do, the question which im basically asking is, if we do have war declared on us can we then go and precede to annihilate to said civilisation?
 
Hehheheh. I can see Sarevok standing on the border between our country and the next, with his hands motioning our nieghbors closer, saying "Come on, baby! Make it self-defense. Hit me, just once. Please!"

In answer to your question BG, as long as we don't declare or provoke the war (intentionally), we can do what we as a nation feel we must do to protect our future. I don't believe living in the noble world will force us to accept any and all peace offers.
 
I still dont like it, sure we could try it for the first term (when we conveniently wont have an army :mischief:) but after that we should try constant war for a term. you know just to even it out :).
 
Noble. We conquered the world last time. If we don't conquer anything this time, we'll be even.
 
Err this poll isnt closed for another day is it??

that means theres still opportunity for none to come back.
 
Back
Top Bottom