Those are some good ideas, thank you! Thing is, the rules can't be too complex or people won't remember them. 10 turns per conquered city would work, because it's easy for the brain to think in terms of tens. The pace will be quick enough (on Quick speed) that it's plenty enough time to mount a counter-attack. --I like the way this system curtails wars of annihilation (or perhaps humiliation ) in the earlier ages. In wars between roughly equal players (in terms of military power), it may be common that only one city will change hands, because it would be too risky to commit to holding the conquered city for 20 or more turns before having it handed over. Thusly (if people want it), we could slightly relax the amount of conquerable cities for each government. (Although the question then might become, how soon can you declare another war and continue your conquest of that Civ? Perhaps it's better to keep the conservative numbers for now, so there's no need to think about this.) Good catch on the secret alliances things. I didn't even think of that, and it's a crucial point that has to be cleared before we start. I am of the same mind as you, all the more so because (unless we use sequential war turns) in two-front wars the defender will be at a massive disadvantage compared to the attacking parties, because he won't have enough time to maneuver his troops to respond to attacks on both sides of his empire. So, it would be best to ban any secret treaties, and forbid war declarations for 10 turns after declaring an alliance (so the potential target will have time to prepare -- perhaps with his own alliance). Also, imo, an alliance should last for an agreed number of turns, during which time it can't be broken. I think it's a great mechanic to lessen paranoia between players, even if not entirely historical. Ofc for such a useful treaty, a price may have to be negotiated. I also like the idea of not increasing the amount of conquerable cities with 2 attackers -- although it may swing too far in the other direction and make war alliances not worth it. If two players do ally for war and end up taking either one city in total, two cities where one of them is clearly better, etc, there is the matter of dividing the spoils. I think this too should be declared beforehand, so that things won't get too complicated. I know I said we should keep the first game simple, but I also think these rules will prove agreeable to most, and would add a lot of good things to the game, with hardly any detriments. Ymmv; if so, state the nature of your grievances. I will make a Google Doc of the final rules for easy access (and better readability), so that anyone can alt-tab to it during the game if anything's unclear, just to be on the safe side. Adding these rules (and our intent to role-play, in general) does concern me in one regard: the short turn timer is in no way sufficient to negotiate alliances, nor for any more sophisticated comments than 'lol u suck', 'gg no re', etc. After the very early game, you can either govern your empire or talk about it; there is no time for both. I think for a good experience we must play without a timer. If afk players can't be kicked, though, we're in for a world of hurt as someone goes afk (as will almost inevitably happen). I dearly wish for a custom timer option in a patch, but for now we must do without it... A three-player mock-game would be needed to test how the sequential war turns work. No one will join my games if I try to make them (perhaps they can't see me, or just don't like the settings)... Perhaps we could test this tomorrow (or, better yet, the day after, as I'll have some errands to run tomorrow)? Anyone else is welcome to it as well ofc; just report back in this thread with your experience. The afk thing could be tested at the same time. With the shoddy state of the game at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if there's no option to do anything if one player goes afk indefinitely, but it should be tested nonetheless, so we won't worry over nothing.