Do you play with self-imposed restrictions?

[Ninot]

Basic question. When you have previously played Civ, and when you start playing Civ 4, do you play with self-restrctions?

I mean either "this unit is too powerful and unbalanced, so I won't use it"

or...

"It would be a-moral to declare war on another civ unless I have just reason to do so"

or... some such reason.

[Ninot]

also, to make this a valid Civ4 thread... what new features in Civ 4 do you think will cause you to impose such restrictions

[Aro]

Never did.

[Solver]

Nope, I don't - except, of course, using exploits such as the 9999 gold bug from Civ3 or similar things. I may roleplay a bit in some games, say, play the peaceful guy and only fight with a very good reason, but it's more for different playstyles than for roleplaying anyway.

[Donegeal]

OCC or 5-CC

I play with these restrictions more than not.

[Addled Platypus]

no, never

its called advantages

my guess on question 2....religon..a different culture flip?

[Alex]

On another thread, I mentioned a possible religion exploit that works like this:

In civ4, you won't lose the benefits of a religion-specific building if you choose a different religion as your state religion.

Therefore, "religion-hopping" could be a viable exploit, allowing you to keep changing religions and building all the structures associated with them in order to reap their benefits.

Someone (I think it was Solver) said that probably this "religion-hopping" mechanism won't work because of penalties for those who choose a different religion. I suppose the penalties would be severe enough in order to discourage this tactic. But we'll only know for sure when the game is released, I guess.

[Ninot]

somehow, i think changing the state religion won't change the religion of everyone in your nation.

so if you spend a few hundred years under Hinduism and then change to Islam, you'll get more revolt than anything else.

[Unspeakable Horror]

I tend to roleplay my games so yes.

play the peaceful guy and only fight with a very good reason

[Zoid]

No, I like to crush my enemies and make glue from their bones

[Shogun Gunner]

Yes, I play for the experience -- not a mathematical exercise to defeat all enemy civs by 1000 BC. So, basically, I play for fun

You see, it's a method to eliminate the inherent micromanagement that will be in any game.

[Kuciwalker]

Sometimes, when I'm RPing, but I have no set of "house rules" that I use.

[Donegeal]

Outside of the OCC or 5-CC (which I HIGHLY recommend), I play games where I don't permit myself to capture/destroy AI cities. Makes for challenging games.

One of the funest (is that a word?) scenerios I have played was one where no one can build settlers, but GLs had the settle ability (and the settle tag marked for the AI). Lots of fun but it turns out that the human will always win because the AI doesn't know how to leader farm....

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Donegeal

One of the funest (is that a word?)

Yes, but it´s spelled "funnest"

[Dis]

not really, but there are things I do which aren't the most efficient. I do them for aesthetic (sp?) reasons.

Like mining grassland. I always mined shielded grassland. But I prefer to irrigate unshielded grassland.