> I think Carthage, the Zulu, or China would be good choices.
> BTW, I wouldn't mind playing... (but, my warfare skills aren't
> particularly good (sort of like Reagan). This might however, be
> a good game to get more experience...)
> JMB
Hehe, there's a man who likes trouble
Cool. Let's see
how much interest. If for some odd reason we get 4-5 builders looking for a game we can start another one too, or we may find our more bloodthirsty comrades might be in busy mode right now.
> Urugharakh Having won a solo deity always war game...
You da man!! I also must say you pulled a Charis! Here I go telling Lee that the Celts were a poor choice for deity 5CC, then go off 'just to test' and find out the map had just the right magic I could pull it off -- you were, iirc, one who felt Deity AW was impossible
In any case, you're a "must in" for the diety AW when we get to that game! (And yes, a 'good start' site is a good idea, to be preferred over deeper changes like map edits)
> I consider Greece, Carthage or Rome being the best choices for
> this kind of szenario. [ scenario ] An early superior defensive
> unit is extremely valuable and may be necessary once the
> foreign units attack our empire early in the game in an endless stream.
I agree completely. I'm leaning toward going high defense with one of those three for the AW, high offense like Ottoman or Viking for POW, and a balanced one or fast one for DEFN (Japan, Rome, China, Zulu)
(BTW, hadn't seen you post in a while, Urugharakh, good to have you back online!)
> Charis: I like the idea of playing a "trigger edge" war scenario
> and I especially like the idea of having a theme or rationale
> that makes it easier for you to put yourself in your civilization's
> shoes and decide what to do in tricky situations.
...
> I have played and won an Emperor game where the rules were:
> I couldn't build a settler, ever. I eventually got 5 cities through
> friendly huts and flips and won through culture in the modern age.
Welcome!! Boy are you in the right place!!
(By all means, check out our Realms Beyond Civ site and the Epics series, some ones are coming up there you definitely won't want to miss!
http://realmsbeyond.net/civ/egamelist.html )
> I hope you don't mind a couple of comments on your list of
> rules, feel free to ignore them if you want to.
I don't mind at all, and know when to do the latter :naughty:
> * There can be no peace until any city of yours that has been
> captured is recovered
> Sometimes the best way to recover your city is thru extortion,
> cultural pressure, or
> propaganda, so I think the goal should be getting our city back,
> whether thru war or peace.
This gives more flexibility and simplifies the rules (something that, cough, my games usually need). Probably a good idea.
> * Foreign workers may never be added to your cities. They can
> do labor while/if at war with another civ, but afterwards must
> be sold back or used for outpost/colony/tower
> Why not keep them as slaves during peace also? They do the
> same jobs whether at war or peace so I don't see much of a
> distinction. I like the idea of no foreign nationals in
> our cities, that justifies both not capturing cities and not adding
> foreign workers to cities.
This is in part colored by my test game where I could never keep the workers, and in part just from the Nationalist being kind of Xenophobic, they just don't want them foreigners around, at all. During war time they're rounded up into prisoner camps and set to labor, but after the war, deport 'em.
> * If a civ expands borders onto your unit and demands you
> leave, you must either refuse (declaring war, considered a
> sneak attack) or comply but declare war is a non-sneak attack
> as soon as you can leave his territory.
> Comply? Rubbish, we should never give into demands, whether
> for tribute, peace, or the locations of our troops.
Well, you have a point, and I surely agree with your reasoning, there's just one problem. If you refuse, unlike any of the other refusals, your reputation will be tarnished and you will be considered a 'sneak attacker'. It will limit your ability to pay gpt for deals. That kinda frosts me in that it's a case where you have a unit in *your* land, fortified, and they make a claim to the territory. It should NOT be a rep stain to not accept their claim of expansion, but... that's the way it is. If others wanted this rule dropped, I would be ok with doing so - it's one of those special case / exceptions that clutter the rules. Probably best to drop it, and to just avoid putting yourself in a situation where it's likely to occur.
> * Nationalism must be first tech researched or bought, on
> entering industrial era
> How about the goal should be to get Nationalism ASAP. For
> example if civilization A has Nationalism and civilization B has
> Nationalism and Steam Power, then its more efficient
> to buy Steam Power and trade for Nationalism than to just buy...
Shoot, I was unclear. I meant to allow what you suggest, as yes it's a good idea. I just meant to say that you can't set research to Nationalism in 40 turns, then go on a buying spree up to Replaceable Parts in the long time it takes to finish research.
--> "Nationalism should be learned ASAP once you enter the industrial era, whether researching it at the maximum feasible rate or buying the tech quickly."
> Anyway, if you have an open slot I'd like to join in.
I hope so, it sounds like you would enjoy and do well in this one!
> By the way, I really enjoyed reading your Christmas story of
> the 5 city Celtic conquest win. That was an awesome performance!
Thanks, it was fun! Being tossed into the 'stories' forum was a blessing in disguise, as I got to push the 'role' and story a lot, which always adds a lot to the game for me.
Charis
)
I don't know whether such a concept would appeal to anyone or not, as the other games being run sound excellent as well.
