hi 
I often play with a friend and a bunch of computer AI in a multiplayer game.. we both consider it too strong to go aggressive on the AI's and take their cities without much repercussion, so games mostly come down to who has the better early game civ, which then snowballs into ANY victory condition you want, because we can get so many more cities by conquerering them than building them... Do you agree with this? Are there any "homemade rules" you have come up with that makes us able to play the game differently, so more strategies become viable (like building a strong empire yourself)? It is tediuous that whoever wins is the most aggresive player and that we "cant" win by being good at expanding/teching/building infrastructure...
I really want to able convince him that we can have warmongering as an option, but that its not the go-to if you want to win... so can you present arguments against the effectiveness of waring? Can you do just as well by building effectively and expanding? Maybe we are just newbies at building an empire effectively thus resulting in outperforming a warmongering conqueror? Thing is... we actually do enjoy using the military units as well, but it would be nice to "have a choice", and since we both want to win...we are kinda pigeon-holed into playing war. He doesnt believe I would be able to win by playing non-war, if he just goes amok and conquers 4 nearby civs ... maybe he is right? If you'd make a special rule that you could never conquere another city, then we would still be able to build units and defend ourselves against the AI...but then what if we are caged in between 4 city states and 2-3 AI's and there is basically nowhere to expand...that would suck as well! Hard to figure out something that satisfies all needs
Thanks in advance!
I often play with a friend and a bunch of computer AI in a multiplayer game.. we both consider it too strong to go aggressive on the AI's and take their cities without much repercussion, so games mostly come down to who has the better early game civ, which then snowballs into ANY victory condition you want, because we can get so many more cities by conquerering them than building them... Do you agree with this? Are there any "homemade rules" you have come up with that makes us able to play the game differently, so more strategies become viable (like building a strong empire yourself)? It is tediuous that whoever wins is the most aggresive player and that we "cant" win by being good at expanding/teching/building infrastructure...I really want to able convince him that we can have warmongering as an option, but that its not the go-to if you want to win... so can you present arguments against the effectiveness of waring? Can you do just as well by building effectively and expanding? Maybe we are just newbies at building an empire effectively thus resulting in outperforming a warmongering conqueror? Thing is... we actually do enjoy using the military units as well, but it would be nice to "have a choice", and since we both want to win...we are kinda pigeon-holed into playing war. He doesnt believe I would be able to win by playing non-war, if he just goes amok and conquers 4 nearby civs ... maybe he is right? If you'd make a special rule that you could never conquere another city, then we would still be able to build units and defend ourselves against the AI...but then what if we are caged in between 4 city states and 2-3 AI's and there is basically nowhere to expand...that would suck as well! Hard to figure out something that satisfies all needs
Thanks in advance!
