Friendly rules for multiplayer sessions

[ollieread]

Hello there,

A few friends and I regularly play Civ V together so it's often easy to setup rules outside of the game. We do however always limit it to six players because the multiplayer really doesn't work well with more than six.

Anyway, I wanted to share the rules and process with you guys, see what you think and perhaps get some feedback/additions.

Civilization Choice
Before we start each new game we go through a diplomatic process. During this process we take it in turns to put forward a civ, and vote until we have the correct amount (usually six). One of us (typically me) will assign each civ a random number between 1 and the total number, then everyone takes it in turn to pick a number with the person assigning their number taking the left over civ.

Each new game means a new selection of civs and we remove previously played civs from the pool until we run out.

We've found that this is a much nicer approach to random and stops people constantly pulling the same civ, forcing people to change it up, play differently and have a bit of experience running another civ. It's very interesting and we've found some civs that are considered bad, can be very useful when played a certain way.

Early War
Since these are long term games played with a group of friends, we try to avoid having people forcibly knocked out of the game early on, as that does make it a little crappy for that person, and that's typically when people start arguing.

The rule that we have for this, is that there are no wars before the world congress is founded, we've found that this works well and stops arguing, giving people a fair chance to retaliate, either in kind of via the world congress.

Don't be a Dick
The don't be a dick rule expands on the above early war rule, and basically covers forward settling and attacking and taking over city states. Pretty self explanatory.

Religion is like a penis
You know the say? Religion is like a penis, having one is fine, but shoving it in peoples faces, is not. This basically means that you are free to have a religion and spread it, but when requested to stop (if before the early war cut off) you should stop otherwise the don't be a dick rule is broken and the civ will often wage war to kill the unit.

We haven't actually had this turn into an all out war yet, usually once the great prophets and missionaries are killed.



That's it, those are the rules we follow. It may seem like we're limiting a bit and perhaps making it a bit boring, but I assure you that these steps are taken to prevent tensions rising, and as I'm sure you're all aware, Civ is the new maria kart.

Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback and perhaps some rules you guys use to keep things sensible.

 

[LordBalkoth]

I feel like one of the problems with Civ V is that rules like these are, well, generally unnecessary among friends (the whole "Don't be a Dick" rule basically covers it all)...but in public lobbies/random games you're very likely to get at least one person whose goal IS to be a dick.

Civilization Choice
Before we start each new game we go through a diplomatic process.

You might find this site interesting: http://georgeskleres.com/civ5/

What's often done is each player bans two Civs (so 12 Civs for a 6 person game) and then each player is presented with three Civs to choose from (default avoids any possible duplicates among players but that can be changed).

Early War
The rule that we have for this, is that there are no wars before the world congress is founded, we've found that this works well and stops arguing, giving people a fair chance to retaliate, either in kind of via the world congress.

To me that kind of sounds like a golden opportunity to settle recklessly and/or wonder-whore. Don't get me wrong, I generally loathe early war, but by "default" the idea is kind of that you need enough of an army to deter an attack while still settling what you can and/or building what wonders you can snatch. Technically speaking if everyone is on board with the "plan" then everyone can completely skimp on military but...

Difference between "I need half a dozen composite bowmen and a spearman or two to defend against barbarians and deter other Civs from attacking me" and "I'm going to pump out composite bowmen/chariot archers to rush another player" if you get my drift.

The don't be a dick rule expands on the above early war rule, and basically covers forward settling and attacking and taking over city states. Pretty self explanatory.

I am curious about one thing you mention -- taking over city states. Not sure what you mean by that. For example, if you ally a City State that's providing you with horses/luxes and then you declare war on me, am I not allowed to conquer the city state? After all, I can't make peace with it or bribe it or do quests or anything while we're at war so I *can't* get to my side without just conquering it. Which is a terrible game mechanic in the first place, mind you, but that's what it is.

 

[ollieread]

I feel like one of the problems with Civ V is that rules like these are, well, generally unnecessary among friends (the whole "Don't be a Dick" rule basically covers it all)...but in public lobbies/random games you're very likely to get at least one person whose goal IS to be a dick.

Unfortunately, from my experience, we've learnt that just because it's a group of friends, doesn't mean that they'll actually follow rules. These things actually came about after several sessions of mayhem.

For example, we have somebody who will wonder whore, focus on gold to buy city states and have complete control over the congress, if they don't get control we have lots of "Everyone is teaming up against me" comments in the teamspeak, which is annoying.

We also have another guy who will almost religiously, forward settle, and then refuse to respond in teamspeak or in text chat, as if he's pretending that if he doesn't respond, we'll give up and let him get away with it.

I am curious about one thing you mention -- taking over city states. Not sure what you mean by that. For example, if you ally a City State that's providing you with horses/luxes and then you declare war on me, am I not allowed to conquer the city state? After all, I can't make peace with it or bribe it or do quests or anything while we're at war so I *can't* get to my side without just conquering it. Which is a terrible game mechanic in the first place, mind you, but that's what it is.

That would be acceptable, the idea of not taking over city states is specifically for the one guy that will whore them and then take them over so that he has the majority votes when the world congress comes about.

It's unfortunate, but just because we're a group of friends doesn't mean that people will play amicably, in fact, they're quite likely to be more of a dick as they can get away without simply being kicked or ignore entirely.

Thanks for the suggestion though, I will look into it.

 

[CraigMak]

This sounds like you are playing with a pretty immature group of "friends". If they can't play a legit game even in a private game that's a pretty big problem. Some times you just need to cut people from your group because they are not working out or don't have the maturity level to see a whole game through.

Although the no early war thing seems really bad. Without the threat of war the strategies change dramatically. You need to have some threat to keep you honest. Without it you may settle all over the place, too close to people, wonder whore etc...

The threat of early war is generally what keeps people from doing stupid stuff. Forward settle some one and you are in a war and most likely have no chance of winning the game due to being in a war.

In general my group views early war as some times a necessary tool but mostly avoided whenever possible since it's rarely worthwhile. If you go to war with no intention of winning the game then you are trolling the game. If it looks like a calculated decision to take out your neighbor and gain wonders then fine. If it is just an all in rush that will ensure you and your neighbor both can't win the game then that's unacceptable.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

I'm quite surprised you don't actually follow certain "standard" rules that most competitive multiplayer players will usually decide on by default. Namely, no Research Agreements (make games boring snoozefests of everyone being at peace, waiting for their Research Agreements to cash in), no Atomic Bombs (since they are Atomic Era units that can only really be defended against with Bomb Shelters, an Information Era building), no warblocking (ie. when buying ally status with a city-state who already has an ally, you must wait until the next turn before you can declare war on the city-state's previous ally), and no Blitz on units that can Paradrop. A couple of other rules that aren't as standard, but quite a few people seem to like them: no Great Wall (it's a huge penalty for attackers until Information Era, since Dynamite is in such a bad location in the tech tree that you can delay obsoleting your Great Wall for a very long time), and if simultaneous turns are enabled, no paradropping with units once the turn timer is more than halfway done.

But yes, no early war is a huge, HUGE problem. So huge in fact that you're actually playing a different game entirely if you agree on this rule.

For one, your "Don't be a dick" and Religion rules only exist because of your early war rule: if early war is allowed, both of those situations can be met with either the threat of war or actual war. Players are a lot more cautious about forward settling if they know that their opponent could just build an army of Chariot Archers and take over their forward settled city no problem; the aggressor won't even have to spend time on settlers, and the forward settler will have built a few key infrastructure buildings in the new city for the aggressor's pleasure.

No early war

No early war also ruins Liberty. I'm sorry, it does. Liberty relies on settling aggressively and ending the game early, and no early war and "don't be a dick" takes away opportunities to do both. Tradition is already such a dominant strategy in Civ5 compared to Liberty that any rule that ruins Liberty's chances even more is just terrible in my eyes. Liberty players who don't take out one of their neighbors or aren't in the process of taking out one of their neighbors by Renaissance usually don't stay relevant to the outcome of the game. Modern Era is roughly when the tables turn on Liberty players, and forcing them to not be able to use their hammer advantage for 3 out of 5 eras when it's needed is just fun-ruining.

Finally, no early war ruins a lot of civs, buildings, techs, and units that rely on either early wars or the threat of early wars. Without early wars, the following civs' values are downgraded: Arabia (Camels, affinity for Liberty), Assyria (Siege Tower), Byzantium (Dromons and Cataphracts), Celts (Pictish Warrior, affinity for Liberty), China (Chu-ko-nu, Great General generation, affinity for Liberty), Denmark (Berserker), Egypt (War Chariot), Greece (Hoplites, Companion Cavalry), Huns (Battering Ram, Horse Archers, Animal Husbandry tech lead), India (War Elephants), Indonesia (Kris Swordsmen), Iroquois (Mohawks, affinity for Liberty), Japan (Samurai, no chance to use UA for first 1/3 of the game), Mongolia (Keshiks), Persia (Immortals, no chance to use first Golden Age for war, affinity for Liberty), Rome (Legions, Ballistae, affinity for Liberty), Shoshone (no chance to Pathfinder rush, affinity for Liberty), Siam (Elephants), Songhai (Mandekalu, affinity for Liberty), and Zulu (Impis). Basically, out of the 42 civs viable for multiplayer, almost half of them are affected negatively by this rule (Venice is also affected due to Great Galleas, but they aren't viable for multiplayer anyway). Buildings whose roles are diminished due to no early war: Walls, Barracks.
Oh yes, and it skews the tech tree as well: players who need early wars will rush to get Printing Press just so they can found congress and get wars going, which means certain key techs such as Education and Chivalry are devalued. It also means civs who favor early war and have Crossbowman UU's have a significant advantage over other early war favorers, since Machinery is required for that quick Printing Press, while techs like Chivalry, Civil Service, and Steel are not.

The funny thing is that Civ5 actually includes an option for people who are afraid of early wars, and it doesn't break the game as much as your rule does: the option is called "Great Wall". Seriously, Great Wall is super-powerful and basically guarantees that people won't attack you until Modern Era unless they have an immense hammer lead, which usually means you're going to lose anyway. Between Defender of Faith, Himeji Castle, Red Fort, and Great Wall, there are plenty of tools to help people who are scared of early war defend their simcities.

It might be annoying for players to get knocked out early, but unfortunately Civ5 was designed with this in mind. As an alternative, you could play with a mod that enables vassalages, so players who are facing an early defeat could become vassals to their overlords instead (with no chance of backstabbing, otherwise the early aggressor would never be willing to risk vassalizing another player when they wouldn't have to risk backstabs by killing them outright). The early aggressor would get their much-needed benefit from warring early, while the defeated player would be able to continue playing the game, albeit as part of their overlord's team instead of on their own.

 

[ollieread]

Thanks for your input guys. I've taken some of this and we're trying a game with a different set of rules this evening.

We'll be using the civ choice generator provided in the first post, with the only other rule being no city state blocking.

You are all right though, most of the rules are due to the lack of maturity amongst the players.

 

[tommynt]

seems you want your friends to play like prince ai civs not doin anyrhing.

You guys wont improve that way at all.
you learn from mistakes - u learn from dying. Getting used to be able to come away with 0 military for 100 turn helps nothing in real games.

 

[ToborajniN]

I get the ruleset since you're all friends, but I have to agree with tommynt here.

I remember playing with peace time as an option when me and some friends were playing games like Age of Empires 2 and European Wars: Cossaks back in the days. (We were like 14-15 at the time), and even though it made for some really long games we never got any better. Our tactics never evolved and the same person would usually win due to the same things playing out over and over again.

One of the fun things with Civ imo is the need to adapt to various situation that you have little- to no control over. Forward settling an opponent to prevent him/her from getting a piece of really nice land for example. It may be considered a bit of a dick move at first, but as you all evolve you will most likely even find entertainment from this.

When I play with my friends EVERYONE are dicks. It may sound harsh, but we all have to be really careful with workers etc inside our lands so nobody takes them, watch out for backstabs and try to take the lands we want as quickly as we can. In the end, it all makes for a lot more interesting gameplay.

When it all comes down to it though, just remember to do what you guys consider to be the most fun. If that happens to be playing the way you do, then I suppose you should stick to it. But I seriously doubt that skipping the rules and getting better at the game will make things more boring.

Best of luck in your future games!

 

[CraigMak]

I get the ruleset since you're all friends, but I have to agree with tommynt here.

I remember playing with peace time as an option when me and some friends were playing games like Age of Empires 2 and European Wars: Cossaks back in the days. (We were like 14-15 at the time), and even though it made for some really long games we never got any better. Our tactics never evolved and the same person would usually win due to the same things playing out over and over again.

One of the fun things with Civ imo is the need to adapt to various situation that you have little- to no control over. Forward settling an opponent to prevent him/her from getting a piece of really nice land for example. It may be considered a bit of a dick move at first, but as you all evolve you will most likely even find entertainment from this.

When I play with my friends EVERYONE are dicks. It may sound harsh, but we all have to be really careful with workers etc inside our lands so nobody takes them, watch out for backstabs and try to take the lands we want as quickly as we can. In the end, it all makes for a lot more interesting gameplay.

When it all comes down to it though, just remember to do what you guys consider to be the most fun. If that happens to be playing the way you do, then I suppose you should stick to it. But I seriously doubt that skipping the rules and getting better at the game will make things more boring.

Best of luck in your future games!

This is how games should be played. Grab the land you want as quickly as possible. Know that forward settling = war. Keep your workers and settlers safe or pay the price. Friends or not, this stuff is civ 101.

 

[LordBalkoth]

seems you want your friends to play like prince ai civs not doin anyrhing.

You guys wont improve that way at all.
you learn from mistakes - u learn from dying. Getting used to be able to come away with 0 military for 100 turn helps nothing in real games.

This is assuming that their goal is to improve their play for "real" games.

As it turns out, many people basically want to have a beer while playing Civ with their friends.

When I play with my friends EVERYONE are dicks. It may sound harsh, but we all have to be really careful with workers etc inside our lands so nobody takes them, watch out for backstabs and try to take the lands we want as quickly as we can.

And (as you admitted, to be fair) many people have no desire to play Civ in that manner, at least with a group of friends. Which doesn't mean war can't occur or whatever, just that people don't have to be dicks about it.

 

[ajar1189]

This is assuming that their goal is to improve their play for "real" games.

As it turns out, many people basically want to have a beer while playing Civ with their friends.

And (as you admitted, to be fair) many people have no desire to play Civ in that manner, at least with a group of friends. Which doesn't mean war can't occur or whatever, just that people don't have to be dicks about it.

I think you're confusing being a dick and having a competitive and challenging game. If you're not being challenged, then it just becomes stale and not fun. In fact, I have been able to play competitively and still have a beer (or few).

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback and perhaps some rules you guys use to keep things sensible.

Well, since you asked;

Here's a link to some material I reference: [wiki]the Magic Circle (social)[/wiki]

Civilization Choice
Before we start each new game we go through a diplomatic process. During this process we take it in turns to put forward a civ, and vote until we have the correct amount (usually six). One of us (typically me) will assign each civ a random number between 1 and the total number, then everyone takes it in turn to pick a number with the person assigning their number taking the left over civ.

Each new game means a new selection of civs and we remove previously played civs from the pool until we run out.

We've found that this is a much nicer approach to random and stops people constantly pulling the same civ, forcing people to change it up, play differently and have a bit of experience running another civ. It's very interesting and we've found some civs that are considered bad, can be very useful when played a certain way.

I guess that does what it's supposed to. There are some alternatives based on the Veil of Ignorance. You could have a discussion about the civs you like, have one player propose the 6 civs that will be in the game, and then another player assigns those civs to the players in the game. Or everyone could bring 7-9 civs , ordered by which one -they'd- prefer to play, and players pick each other's civs. And when you pick something below the top it removes all the higher civs from your own list where they are positioned higher than on the list you drew from. Plus some other rules to make this idea complete, it really isn't.

Early War
Since these are long term games played with a group of friends, we try to avoid having people forcibly knocked out of the game early on, as that does make it a little crappy for that person, and that's typically when people start arguing.

The rule that we have for this, is that there are no wars before the world congress is founded, we've found that this works well and stops arguing, giving people a fair chance to retaliate, either in kind of via the world congress.

Don't be a Dick
The don't be a dick rule expands on the above early war rule, and basically covers forward settling and attacking and taking over city states. Pretty self explanatory.

Religion is like a penis
You know the say? Religion is like a penis, having one is fine, but shoving it in peoples faces, is not. This basically means that you are free to have a religion and spread it, but when requested to stop (if before the early war cut off) you should stop otherwise the don't be a dick rule is broken and the civ will often wage war to kill the unit.

We haven't actually had this turn into an all out war yet, usually once the great prophets and missionaries are killed.

These rules are what I would avoid if I wanted not to ruin games. You have homed in on exactly what to propose in restraint in order to make the game the worst it could possibly be. I would advise returning to the drawing board.

Especially on the last one, since I can't tell what the rule is. A disagreement about what a rule means is bad biscuits.

Some fellows here are criticizing you for trying to play a different game by saying that's not the game they play. This is... flawed. I, though, will crticize you for playing the game you're playing because it is an active form of damaging your relationships, distancing yourself from the arts and culture, of dampening your empathy, of corrupting your knowledge politic, and more or less cruising to philistinism in your self-absorption for what you, in ignorance of the previous four accusations, despite your belief of negotiation with your peers, call "good behaviour". I shall explain this argument below.

That's it, those are the rules we follow. It may seem like we're limiting a bit and perhaps making it a bit boring, but I assure you that these steps are taken to prevent tensions rising, and as I'm sure you're all aware, Civ is the new maria kart.

This is a very interesting opinion on the matter. Because it's a lot like a political theory in which much moral theorization exists, but also contains a rejection of a person's right to resist his own destruction by force, with force. And a rejection of the idea that the natural world exists in common for everyone's good. And an affirmation that no one makes sacrifices to coexist with his fellow man. And a denial of the fear that comes from these unchangeables. And ... well, the game will play out with a certain shape and I can't imagine that playing pretend in such a world will not "raise tensions" in anxiety from the strangeness, from the abrasion of a world so haunting in imitating our own yet with a consensual sphere of 'buddies' who deny some of the basic tenets of political theory that have underpinned great documents like the U.S. constitution.

You will be subject to great and permanent weakness, watching, in your game, a world in which you live in weakness, and someone else in strength, which will not permit any change to this; your equality outright undone , and then reinforced in the contrary if your playgroup plays with sharing and federation, as the stronger will still remain the stronger and benefactor on whose terms the weaker is. And the whole game will train this sheep morality, and in this world where the inalienable Equality of Man does not exist, you shall pass time, as I accused above, in a bleary waste of fine togetherness not at all with your consciousnesses directed to the arts and culture, or the exercise of empathy for how one's fellow man really is... and the social norms you make in taking your rules seriously will then bring your absurd fiction into -reality- where the sheep morality will leak and make anxious your friends. And when you play this game iteratively with many of you taking the roles on all sides of this you will be desensitized to this transformation all the more, and more than likely in the worst turn of events, miss the chance to describe this occurrence and shake yourselves from your delusion.

Your game, which is a vehicle for play, which is a chance to experience reality in a heightened manner, will take [wiki]the Magic Circle[/wiki] and scatter the metaphorical consecrated, boundary-defining salt all over, and your play become punishing episodes of looking-away-from-reality, either an indoctrination or just mutual pain. And it is you, sir, who has not properly positioned the play with respect to the real, thinking as you do to mix up principles like politeness between the inside of the Magic Circle and out-.

I will actually suggest to you, sir, that if you're playing this game "over a beer" , to desist immediately if a rejection of individual differences and subjective appreciation of experience seems like a horrible way to navigate a friendly relationship, or a fine time in sympathy with your fellow man.

 

[ToborajniN]

And (as you admitted, to be fair) many people have no desire to play Civ in that manner, at least with a group of friends. Which doesn't mean war can't occur or whatever, just that people don't have to be dicks about it.

This is correct ofc, it's just my opinion that evolving as a player would lead to increased enjoyment, and increasing the challenge level leads to a faster evolution and thus higher enjoyment. (That sounded a lot better in my head tbh..) And as you said, and I said, as long as they're happy playing the way they are playing, then I guess they should keep doing so.

 

[LordBalkoth]

I think you're confusing being a dick and having a competitive and challenging game. If you're not being challenged, then it just becomes stale and not fun. In fact, I have been able to play competitively and still have a beer (or few).

I'm actually not and part of the problem is that a truly "challenging and competitive game" in Civ V...involves being a dick, at least in some regards. Things like buying a city state's allegiance and then immediately DoWing to "warblock" it without the other person being able to respond. As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, most "competitive" games involve people agreeing on a set of rules banning a bunch of stuff that's broken about Civ.

In general I'm a very competitive person who seeks out challenge -- play all games on hard, run a guild in WoW that's rated to be in the 99th percentile despite only playing like 1/3-1/2 as much our as competition, played Starcraft ladder for a bit, etc. But I can still have fun in Civ while not feeling truly challenged because I enjoy the whole empire building stuff -- figuring out what cities to found, what social policies I want to follow, etc.

Have you never played a game that you enjoyed despite it not being a challenge for you? I certainly have.

And as you said, and I said, as long as they're happy playing the way they are playing, then I guess they should keep doing so.

Pretty much. I mean, if this was a SC2 forum and a guy was saying how he plays in a similar manner in games with his friends and he couldn't understand why he couldn't get out of bronze/silver in ladder...then I could easily point out the problems with his play in a "competitive" sense. But ultimately a game where you have a group of friends trying to all have fun at the same time conflicts with the most intense and competitive idea -- it's not fun getting eliminated early on and then sitting the rest of the game out as your friends keep playing.

If this was SC2 (or something similar) then the match would be over within 15-30 minutes anyway, worst case. If it wasn't a group of friends, then you could go just start another game. But very long matches coupled with a group of people trying to play together...not a good situation in which to be super cutthroat.

 

[ajar1189]

I'm actually not and part of the problem is that a truly "challenging and competitive game" in Civ V...involves being a dick, at least in some regards. Things like buying a city state's allegiance and then immediately DoWing to "warblock" it without the other person being able to respond. As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, most "competitive" games involve people agreeing on a set of rules banning a bunch of stuff that's broken about Civ.

But I can still have fun in Civ while not feeling truly challenged because I enjoy the whole empire building stuff -- figuring out what cities to found, what social policies I want to follow, etc.

Have you never played a game that you enjoyed despite it not being a challenge for you? I certainly have.

Well, i don't necessarily agree with being a dick essentially equating to making the game challenging because I think it is all a part of strategy. In the example you gave, someone would buy out a CS and immediately declare war to peaceblock someone. It may seem dickish to you, but I think it is a valid strategy. Everyone has the opportunity to do this if they wish - no one has an unfair advantage. Maybe in my initial games I would have considered these moves to be dickish, similar to worker stealing, killing settlers, etc. However, after extensive play, you get used to these things and adapt to the situations. In Starcraft, do you think someone is a dick for cheesing or all-in you? Personally, I dont - these are valid strategies with drawbacks that involve tactical decision-making and proper timing.

In response to your last question: Initially I may have fun learning the game and doing well against others. However, after some time it gets very stale unless I am being challenged. I don't enjoy playing games that aren't challenging (Civ or otherwise) because things are just boring if they are easy.

 

[LordBalkoth]

It may seem dickish to you, but I think it is a valid strategy. Everyone has the opportunity to do this if they wish - no one has an unfair advantage.

That doesn't change whether it's a dick thing to do. Purposefully and knowingly taking advantage of a broken game mechanic is being a dick.

In Starcraft, do you think someone is a dick for cheesing or all-in you? Personally, I dont - these are valid strategies with drawbacks that involve tactical decision-making and proper timing.

Cheesing, yes -- there's a reason there's a video series called "When Cheese Fails." It's a complete gamble that you're hoping will work.

All-ins, no, because those actually ARE things that require tactical decision making and proper timing. Not just hoping your opponent doesn't scout enough.

Either way, both cheese AND all-ins can be reasonably countered. Warblocking cannot be reasonably countered. Which is due, in large part, to Civ V not being designed around multiplayer at all -- let alone people trying to be dicks to each other in a cutthroat environment.

I don't enjoy playing games that aren't challenging (Civ or otherwise) because things are just boring if they are easy.

*shrug* I'm not bored if I'm teaching a friend to play or if I'm testing a weird tactic or something, easy or not. That said "easy" is not well defined here. There's a difference between playing on Emperor (easy) and Settler (easy).

 

[ollieread]

I'm always up for the default approach, no extra rules really. We tried a game with that, but unfortunately the people I played with didn't like it, we have a select a few who just simply won't play any game unless there's like a 60% chance that they will win.

I think the only rule we had in place, was that civs would be generated, you don't pick.

It's unfortunate because I do love the civ games, and I love the challenges posed by a no holes barred game. I have found that the majority of people you encounter won't just knock you out of the game before turn 50 because there's a degree of sportsmanship.

It turns out now that I'm without anyone to play civ with aha!! Oh well. Thank you all for your input, hopefully I can get the guys to stop being little cry babies and play the god damn game.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

I'm always up for the default approach, no extra rules really. We tried a game with that, but unfortunately the people I played with didn't like it, we have a select a few who just simply won't play any game unless there's like a 60% chance that they will win.

No rules isn't always the best, there are still certain things in Civ5 that can be game-breaking. For example, if you build Alhambra and can get 3 promotions on newly produced units (so Barracks + Armory + Military Academy + Either Brandenburg, Total War Autocracy tenet, or Zulu), you build paratroopers and XCOMs that start with Blitz, letting them paradrop next to any city on the map and take it in the same turn.

If people are only willing to play if they have a high chance of winning, have them play team games or games with only a small number of players. Or get them acclimated to losing, and once they realize that losing isn't such a big deal and that they can have fun regardless, they will be more willing to take the plunge into playing Civ5 how it's meant to be played.

I think the only rule we had in place, was that civs would be generated, you don't pick.

Civ5 multiplayer communities often do draft games. Each player bans 2 civs that nobody can be, then each player gets assigned 3 civs by random using Fruity's Draft and must choose one out of those three civs. Venice is usually banned by default because the fact that they cannot found cities and the fact that non-puppet cities' logic is quite poor makes them uncompetitive in multiplayer.

It's unfortunate because I do love the civ games, and I love the challenges posed by a no holes barred game. I have found that the majority of people you encounter won't just knock you out of the game before turn 50 because there's a degree of sportsmanship.

No, they only don't knock you out of the game before turn 50 because it's usually a bad idea: warring early on is a huge hammer investment that often does not pay off because you need so much production to overcome cities and their ranged attacks with just warriors, archers, and spearmen. Once people get to Chariot Archers though, all bets are off. Certain civs also make rushes incredibly easy, like Huns with Battering Rams or Shoshone with Pathfinder upgrades into Composite Bowmen, so people playing those could also knock you out really early if you aren't prepared.