Just a note, a thing i wondered about for a while, and the insight came to me in a flash when i was thinking about something else, isn't that always the way? Why are there no respawns in 4,000 BC? When you kill off a rival civ's original Settler in 4,000 BC, it will not respawn a new rival of the same color immediately, you have to wait until the turn rolls over to 3,980 BC for the respawn to appear. Now, think i know why. In a regular turn, the respawn algorithm runs a maximum of 200 times to find a suitable square, and that's why sometimes a respawn does not happen. When the game starts in 4,000 BC, the same civ-placement algo runs, but it MUST run until it finds a suitable spot. If you choose 4 rivals in the prelims, then the AI must place all 5 larval civs as new Settlers, no 200-attempt limit. Have seen the AI, later in the game, place two new respawns right next to each other, so we know that after 4,000 BC the respawn algo doesn't consider units when determining the suitability of a square, only the presence/absence of cities nearby. So the 4,000 BC version of that algorithm must see a larva Settler already placed as a different thing, as if it were ALREADY a city, not just a Settler. Otherwise, we would find some new civs starting right next to each other in 4,000 BC, but we never see that. In 4,000 BC, Settlers exist as a dual-nature entity, both a unit and a city. Kill the unit, but it's city-ness is not destroyed, because the AI needs all Settlers to have that attribute in 4,000 BC, for proper world creation. Thus if a rival is not fully destroyed, the death can not trigger a respawn. Only an academic exercise if you play CivDOS, but in CivWIN you can save the game in 4,000 BC. This quirk in the game proves that there can never be a 0-turn win, the fastest possible victory is 1 turn. I knew this before, but now understand why it is so. Academic theory is not impotent, for now it suggests another practical possibility: a 2-turn win with 7 civs on Emperor, no matter what map you play. Haven't done the math on that, Emperor with 7 civs, conquest in 3,960 BC. Have a feeling it'd overflow the civscore's signed-integer capacity, and you'd end up with a rating lower than Dan Quayle.