Domination of Barbarians [Diplo Game] [Setup Thread]

[Sommerswerd]

Is there still room in the game or you are launching?

Room for 1 more. Do you know another player who wants in?

[Exploit]

It seems like your concern with this rule is it interferes with conquest, and makes it harder to take land via war. But that is kind of the point of the rule. What I suggest is you say what your goal is... like "I want a system where I have more freedom to engage in conquest." Then tell us how you suggest to modify the rule:
1. Keep it very, very, very, very simple and easy to understand/remember
2. Make sure it keeps things fun and enjoyable for the person who is losing the war. If a rule makes it easy to quickly crush a person, to the point where they want to quit or lose the will to log in and play, then that is not a good Diplogame rule.
3. The rule does not likely lead to a need for reloads, pauses, mandatory turn order, administrative rulings, or anything that stops or slows down the game

Just so I am clear... You are suggesting that we leave the measured War rule as it is, but just get rid of the rule that you have to wait until the other guy logs in to take his cities, right?

The reason we need that rule, is because it prevents you from taking the cities of someone who is away for a day or two, not paying attention, and it also makes it very difficult for you to use a double-move to capture a city., without enacting mandatory turn order with administrative reloads

In response to your comments: I want a system where I am not restricted as to what time I can make my move because I have other real world commitments and I have no desire to continually login to a website to see if I can go or not. As a general rule I will login around the same time each day (or possibly twice a day) and make my moves. That is a convenient routine which is easy to fit in with work and other obligations.

I would also point out that the rules as written mean that the Civ who declares war (attacker) starts to lose the war he is totally vulnerable to having his cities captured and cannot use this metagame defense of not logging in. This would discourage other small civs from coming to the aid of the original victim. Example: All-mighty Rome attacks weak Greece. Greece convinces weak Germany to attack Rome. Greece employs the no login defense. Rome as the defender against Germany conquers German cities instead regardless of turn order.

Finally the objective of the rule is to encourage people to continue playing however it actually rewards players for NOT playing!

My rule proposal: Any Civ that loses 25% or more of the cities that it started with in a war (rounded up) may sue for immediate 10 turn peace with all opponents.

2-4 cities = lose 1 city; 5-8 cities = lose 2 cities; 9-12 cities = lose 3 cities etc.

Once a Civ has been reduced by the above number of cities then no more cities may be captured or razed by any opponent until the player has indicated (either in game or in the forums) whether they wish to invoke the measured war rule.

If a Civ decides to continue the war they may still invoke the rule on subsequent turns assuming the conditions still apply but until they do their cities may be captured or razed normally.

The above rule is intended to replace Measured War rule 3 and eliminate Doublemove rule 3. I believe the above rule meets all your stated objectives.

Exploit

[Exploit]

LOL, you are at the same category as me, so then I should be tier 5 too.

I would not normally consider myself a below average player however there seems to be an exceptionally strong field of experienced diplogame players. I think there are at least 12 more experienced diplogamers than me in this game, including yourself, which would place me in Tier 5.

Based upon previous posts about Tier levels, I break the field down as follows:

Undeclared Tier: Sommerswerd, WarningU2, Dick76, Rome(DoF), Toni

Tier 1 Candidates: Beta, OzzyKP, damnrunner?, Calanthian?
Tier 2 Candidates: Black Knight 427, Elkad, Skirnir, Donovan Zoi
Tier 3 Candidates:
Tier 4 Candidates: nabaxo, MNGoldenEagle
Tier 5 Candidates: Exploit, 2metraninja?
Tier 6 Candidates:

There are more candidates in Tier 1 and 2 then civs. Is the plan to have the Tier 1 players pick civs from the Tier 1 and once those are gone then pick from Tier 2, repeating the process down the Tiers?

Exploit

[Calanthian]

Well Exploit, I can't say which level you are, but having 2metraninja down as a level 5 does not seem correct.
2metra, you are just too experienced

Toni sure knows how to develop an economy, so I would put him at Tier 2..
And I don't know if Egypt (DoF) is around, but if so, then he's definitely a tier 1.
And Bulgaria (DoF) is also an accomplished player.

BTW I am still curious about how cramped the situation in Europe is going to be. Or to formulate it more clearly: how much difference there is going to be in the quality of the positions? As Civing is justs the same as the selling price of your house, it's location, location, location.

PS. I do think that Europe should have quite some marble and stone available: 0,5 each per civ.
So if 8 civs in Europe 4 stone and 4 marble. Without this and with no room there is no option to go economic.

And on assigning civs:
1) I would distribute the map (without the resources which become available by teching)
2) and then do a reverse pick: so from tier 6 upwards.

[Sommerswerd]

There are more candidates in Tier 1 and 2 then civs. Is the plan to have the Tier 1 players pick civs from the Tier 1 and once those are gone then pick from Tier 2, repeating the process down the Tiers?

This sounds very reasonable. We should do it that way That way, those who are confident of their Tiers can pick first, and the ones who are unsure (which probably means they are in the later Tiers) can select from the remaining civs. Just remember not to tell anyone who you picked or will pick, or what Tier you are picking from. We would all have to be very careful not to give away that we already picked though, because then you could know what civ was picked.

Here is how we will do it:
1. I will post all the Passwords for all of the anonymous IDs in the OP
2. You will pick your Civ and Login to the Corresponding Anonymous ID - change the password to a new one
3. PM me from the Anonymous ID letting me know they are taken
4. I will update the OP that the civ is taken so no one else tries to pick it.picks it. I will pick the same way, so no one knows who I picked either.

PS, Exploit, I am reading your Measured rule suggestion. It sounds reasonable, but it has some problems we need to talk about. I will respond to that post seperately once I read it all.

BTW I am still curious about how cramped the situation in Europe is going to be. Or to formulate it more clearly: how much difference there is going to be in the quality of the positions? As Civing is justs the same as the selling price of your house, it's location, location, location.

Very cramped. There will not be hardly any room to settle in Europe. (Maybe you can find a few tight squeezes). The earlier Tiers will have even less space than the later ones. You must found colonies. I will post a cheat sheet for the starts when I post the Map to give you some quick ideas to work with in terms of opening strategy. Despite how cramped the starts are, they will all be very good, as in lots of food, closeby strategic resources, plenty of chops, coastal, many will have Stone or Marble or both. Generally, the more cramped the start is, the better it will be packed with resources.

However, focusing on the start is missing the point. All the starts are very powerful in different ways. But first off, your start is small potatoes. Its just a springboard to propell you to your remote colonies. Don't get caught up in how good your start is, because you will never (at least not in the early game) get to the point where you are even using all the juicyness your start will have. If you actually ever get to the point where you run out of resources to work at your start, then you probably are doing something wrong because you arent expanding enough. The start is designed to overwhelm you with the great options available to you.

Second, you would be a fool to let your neighbor get his hands on Stone or Marble early in the game. If your neighbor builds an early Wonder, you are toast in terms of culture. Of course, all the starts are designed to make Wonder grabbing easy, but if you just peacefully sit back and let your neighbors Wonder grab, you are essentially ceding your position in Europe right from the start. Try to reach agreements with your neighbors to limit culture until you at least get some colonies established. Try to negotiate who will get what Wonders and ultimately, who should leave Europe and who should stay, cause' that town aint big enough for all of you and you will end up fighting over it otherwise.

PS. I do think that Europe should have quite some marble and stone available: 0,5 each per civ. So if 8 civs in Europe 4 stone and 4 marble. Without this and with no room there is no option to go economic.

That's done , in fact, waayyy more than that, especially stone. However, again, you're not going economic early. You've got to REX, and that means barbfighting... And not the cushy, easy, powderpuff barb fighting that China and Russia will be doing. They will have their Capital to fuel their military machine against the barbs. The Frontier civs are basically fighting right outside their castle walls. You on the other hand (Europeans) will be Fighting in remote locations, so you have to arrive in force, which means you need a Navy. You think you're gonna have time for that and Wondergrabbing or cottaging?

And on assigning civs:
1) I would distribute the map (without the resources which become available by teching)
2) and then do a reverse pick: so from tier 6 upwards.

I am playing, so it is only fair for me to give the full Map to everyone. It's not fair for me to know where the resources are when other people don't. In fact, I think knowledge of resource locations will enhance the game anyway.

As far as picking, why do you think going in reverse is better?

[Exploit]

Here is how we will do it:
1. I will post all the Passwords for all of the anonymous IDs in the OP
2. You will pick your Civ and Login to the Corresponding Anonymous ID - change the password to a new one
3. PM me from the Anonymous ID letting me know they are taken
4. I will update the OP that the civ is taken so no one else tries to pick it.picks it. I will pick the same way, so no one knows who I picked either.

It's not clear to me if this would be a top down sequence or just a first-come-first-choose basis. If I believed I was Tier 4 could I just pick a Tier 4 civ right away or would I have to wait until all the Tier 1-3 civs were picked first?

Exploit

[Carthage (DoF)]

That's done , in fact, waayyy more than that, especially stone. However, again, you're not going economic early. You've got to REX, and that means barbfighting... And not the cushy, easy, powderpuff barb fighting that China and Russia will be doing. They will have their Capital to fuel their military machine against the barbs. The Frontier civs are basically fighting right outside their castle walls. You on the other hand (Europeans) will be Fighting in remote locations, so you have to arrive in force, which means you need a Navy. You think you're gonna have time for that and Wondergrabbing or cottaging?

From a gaming perspective you must not push players too much to a single approach.
Leave room for different strategies. If it is not possible in Europe to have 3 decent cities, then it is too cramped in my opinion.
Early economic build up, while keeping neighbours and barbs at bay, and then later colonial expansion should also be feasible with excellent diplo playing.

[Elkad]

In a contested border (culture fight), being forced to give a city back will hurt a lot. As you'll lose all your culture in it and the surrounding 8 tiles, even if some of the culture came from your own cities.


So what happens in a multiple opponent war?
Player A attacks Player B and captures a city.
Player C declares on player A and captures the same city.

Can B take the peace and get the city back, even though he isn't at war with player C?

[DNK]

Curious (not interested in starting still, no), are you going to mod in something that lets you settle cities 2 tiles from another? That was quite a popular idea in DoE1 iirc.

[SkÃrnir]

Based upon previous posts about Tier levels, I break the field down as follows:
...
Tier 2 Candidates: Black Knight 427, Elkad, Skirnir, Donovan Zoi
...

I had applied for tier 3 and only if it becomes too crowded, I'd move rather to 2 than to 4. My diplomacy game experience is practically zero.

[Sommerswerd]

I will respond to everyone, but let me address Exploit rule suggestion first. A reminder to everyone, we need one more player to start.

I want a system where I am not restricted as to what time I can make my move

You are not restricted in when you can move at all. You can log in and move whenever you want. You can also move before your opponents, then move some more while they are logged in, and then log in and move again after them as well. There is no restriction whatsoever on when you can move. It is important we are on the same page on this, so please forgive me if you already get this part. It is not the case that you must either move before, or, after your opponent. You can do both. So when your opponent moves places no restriction on when you can move.

I have other real world commitments and I have no desire to continually login to a website to see if I can go or not.

Yes! Thank you Exploit! I could not have put that better myself. I have a wife and children and I am 100% with you. I can really only play at one time each day, because of RL. That is why I insist on Doublemove Rule #1. No Turnorder. For exactly the reason you said. No one can restrict when you can play your turn. Here is the current rule for reference:

3. A Civ who declares war (attacker) may not capture cities, on any turn, until the defender (the Civ who the city is being taken from) has at least logged into the game that turn

Note that it does not say you can't move. It does not say you cant attack. It does not say you can't capture units, pillage tiles, bombard cities, attack cities, kill every single unit in the city except the very last one (because then you would capture the city). All you are prohibited from doing is actually taking the city.

Does that make any difference to you? Or are you really saying that you don't want any restriction on when you can capture cities? Keep the goals of the rule in mind, especially my point about players who are out of contact for a few days. Do you see that this rule places no restriction whatsoever on when you can move?

I would also point out that the rules as written mean that the Civ who declares war (attacker) starts to lose the war he is totally vulnerable to having his cities captured and cannot use this metagame defense of not logging in.

But this is fair, no? I mean if you are the aggressor, then you had the option of not starting the war in the first place, right? However, I think you have a good point that attackers also need some sort of Measured War defense too besides the Capital capture rule and elimmination rule. Let me think about that. Good catch BTW

This would discourage other small civs from coming to the aid of the original victim.

Yes, I agree with you about this, because as you rightly point out, attackers are screwed if they begin to lose. So again, let me think of an appropriate attacker's Measured War rule.But there is a more important point here that I think you missed.

Example: All-mighty Rome attacks weak Greece. Greece convinces weak Germany to attack Rome. Greece employs the no login defense. Rome as the defender against Germany conquers German cities instead regardless of turn order.

And here is the point. The situation you describe rarely, if ever happens. No way is weak Germany going to attack "All-mighty Rome", especially not to bail out weak Greece. I have never seen that happen in any game I have ever played, where one weakling tries to rescue another weakling from a Superpower. It just doesn't happen. So we don't need to worry ourselves too much about creating a rule to encourage something that is never going to happen anyway, right?

Finally the objective of the rule is to encourage people to continue playing however it actually rewards players for NOT playing!

OK true, good point, but you have to be careful here to notice that there are 2 distinct parts of "playing" in a game like this. The First, and most important in a diplogame, the only one that really matters, in terms of score and winning the game, is you "play" by storyposting and engaging in diplo via PM, and story thread posts. The person who does that the 'best' wins the game by vote (more on that later).

The second part of "playing" is logging in and moving units etc, but the only point of that, from a diplogame perspective, is (to have fun of course, and) to give yourself something to talk about in your diplomacy. A player who is not logging in to protect his cities is still playing because he is still doing what matters in terms of winning, ie posting on the story thread, telling all kinds of propaganda about how much of an evil warmonger you are for "attacking his defenseless villages, killing civilians etc"

My rule proposal: Any Civ that loses 25% or more of the cities that it started with in a war (rounded up) may sue for immediate 10 turn peace with all opponents... Once a Civ has been reduced by the above number of cities then no more cities may be captured or razed by any opponent until the player has indicated (either in game or in the forums) whether they wish to invoke the measured war rule.

This is an excellently formulated rule IMO, and I would like to make it the Standard Measured War rule. However, I would like to leave the old Standard rule in place, shorten it to 10 turns, and title it "Defender's Measured War rule." So we will have one rule for Everybody, attackers and defenders (Your rule), one rule for defenders only, and one rule for the big Civs (defender's only). We leave Doublemove rule 3 in place.

Here is my concern. Without Doublemove rule 3, a person who is away from the game could return to find 25% of his cities were razed while he was away. That person will quit. Well maybe they wouldn't (I wouldn't) but they will be very sad. We need an automatic mechanism to protect absent players who like you and I, are busy and dont have time "to check some website everyday" agreed?

[OzzyKP]

I would not normally consider myself a below average player however there seems to be an exceptionally strong field of experienced diplogame players. I think there are at least 12 more experienced diplogamers than me in this game, including yourself, which would place me in Tier 5.

Based upon previous posts about Tier levels, I break the field down as follows:

Undeclared Tier: Sommerswerd, WarningU2, Dick76, Rome(DoF), Toni

Tier 1 Candidates: Beta, OzzyKP, damnrunner?, Calanthian?
Tier 2 Candidates: Black Knight 427, Elkad, Skirnir, Donovan Zoi
Tier 3 Candidates:
Tier 4 Candidates: nabaxo, MNGoldenEagle
Tier 5 Candidates: Exploit, 2metraninja?
Tier 6 Candidates:

There are more candidates in Tier 1 and 2 then civs. Is the plan to have the Tier 1 players pick civs from the Tier 1 and once those are gone then pick from Tier 2, repeating the process down the Tiers?

Exploit

Tier 1 Candidates: Calanthian, 2metraninja, Toni
Tier 2 Candidates: Sommerswerd, OzzyKP, Beta
Tier 3 Candidates: Black Knight 427
Tier 4 Candidates: Rome(DoF)
Tier 5 Candidates: WarningU2, Dick76
Tier 6 Candidates:

I don't really know the rest. Only that Exploit insisted he be put in tier 1 for DoE and then quit like 20 turns into the game.

[Sommerswerd]

I just realized something. With the scores turned off, there is no easy way to verify whether a city was taken before or after a login. I don't want to have to rely on screenshots. Those things are a royal pain. So Doublemove rule 3 is not going to work as written and needs to be amended (as Exploit said). Here is my proposed amended rule:

3. On the turn when War is declared, the attacker is free to capture cities. On the next turn, the attacker must wait for the defender to log in at least once, prior to capturing any additional cities. Once the defender has logged in at least once, the attacker may resume capturing cities, in all following turns.

No-Login Defense - The turn after the defender announces (in game threads, by PM to opponents and in-game message to opponents) that they are using the no-login defense, no one may capture any cities from the defender. If the defender logs in on any turn after the turn they invoke the no-login defense, then they lose the right to the defense for the rest of the continuous War. Defenders can not invoke the no login defense if they captured any cities during the war.

If an attacker takes cities, after the defender announces they are using the defense, then the defender is entitled to immediate 10 turn peace, from the violator, and any wrongfully captured cities must be immediately returned, regardless of who currently owns the city. If the city was razed, the defender is entitled to either (a)choose between one of the attackers non-Capital cities to recieve as compensation, or (b) recieve 100% of attackers GNP for 10 turns. The defender is entitled to know what the GNP is before choosing. Defenders may not fraudulently induce city capture and then invoke this rule.

This rule means attackers don't need to wait for a defender to login to capture cities once the defender has logged into the game at least once. This also means that defenders can't use the 'wait until the last minute to play' trick, because if they log in at all, capturing their cities is legal again. Third, this rule means an attacker can capture (or raze) any city he wants, regardless of the no-login defense, as long as he is willing to pay the stiff penalty. Finally, this rule means you can't stemroll an absent player. What do you think? A little longer, but better right?

My rule proposal: Any Civ that loses 25% or more of the cities that it started with in a war (rounded up) may sue for immediate 10 turn peace with all opponents... Once a Civ has been reduced by the above number of cities then no more cities may be captured or razed by any opponent until the player has indicated (either in game or in the forums) whether they wish to invoke the measured war rule.

I also just noticed another small problem with this rule. If Rome declares war on Greece on turn 1 of the game, when Rome has 1 city and Greece has 1 city, then clearly this is the beginning of the War. Let's say Rome and Greece keep fighting, or just refuse to make peace with each other as the game progresses, then finally, on turn 150 France declares war on Rome and takes Rome's city. By now, Rome and Greece each have 8 cities each, so obviously 2 cities= 25% of 8. But when the War BEGAN, Rome only had 1 city, so losing 1 city is over 25% of what Rome STARTED WITH in the War, so Rome can sue for immediate peace, right? Is that the result you intended?

Now add another variable. Let's say that Rome, knowing that they can sue for immediate Peace from all opponents, just happens to have its Navy in position to capture 5 coastal cities from Portugal in one fell swoop. So Rome captures 5 cities from Portugal, and then promptly sues all opponents for immediate peace citing the rule that they lost over 25% of the cities they had at the beginning of the war with France. Is that how you intend the rule to work?

There is also a problem with verifying how many cities a Civ had at the beginning of a War. I mean you can use the event log to see when war was declared and use the city windows to check when each city was built, but gosh, do we really want to have to do all that?

How about changing the Standard Measured War (SMW) rule to this:

SMW - Any Civ (attacker or defender) that loses 5 or more different cities in a continuous period of war is entitled to invoke an immediate 10 turn peace with any Civ who captured/razed or currently owns one of the 5 cities that were captured/razed. An attacker who invokes this rule must return all cities he captured in the war to the Civs he captured the cities from, unless they refuse to take them.

[Sommerswerd]

OK so here are the changes I am proposing to the rules. Everyone should realize, that most of you will probably never have to invoke any of these rules of even look at them, but if we don't iron this stuff out beforehand it could really mess the game:

(Added to Doublemove rules)

1. On the turn when War is declared, the attacker is free to capture cities. On the next turn, the attacker must wait for the defender to log in at least once, prior to capturing any additional cities. Once the defender has logged in at least once, the attacker may resume capturing cities, in all following turns
2. No-Login Defense - The turn after the defender announces (in game threads, by PM to opponents and in-game message to opponents) that they are using the no-login defense, no one may capture any cities from the defender. If the defender logs in on any turn after the turn they invoke the no-login defense, then they lose the right to the defense for the rest of the continuous War. Defenders can not invoke the no-login defense if they captured any cities during the war.
3. If an attacker takes cities, after the defender announces they are using the defense, then the defender is entitled to immediate 10 turn peace, from the violator, and any wrongfully captured cities must be immediately returned, regardless of who currently owns the city. If the city was razed, the defender is entitled to either (a)choose between one of the attackers non-Capital cities to recieve as compensation, or (b) recieve 100% of attackers GNP for 10 turns. The defender is entitled to know what the GNP is before choosing. Defenders may log-in to collect the penalty without losing their right to the defense. Defenders may not fraudulently induce city capture and then invoke this rule.
   
4. If you are protecting your cities by intentionally refusing to log in, your attacker is not allowed to induce you to log in with a fraudulent offer of peace.
5. This rule does not apply to situations where allies or friends are cooperatively declaring War and capturing each other's cities for convenience purposes (like to destroy a city in a poor location).

Measured War
(additions/changes)

1. Once a Civ has 10 cities total, they are considered a Major Nation, and can ask for Major Measured-War (MMW). Any Civ can ask for Standard Measured War (SMW), regardless of size, and any Defender can ask for Defender's Measured War (DMW) regardless of size.
   1. Major Measured War (for Major Nations only)- Any turn after a Major Nation is attacked, they can ask for the attacker’s terms for immediate peace. This should be done in-character. The attacker can’t attack any of the defender’s cities until he responds in-character. He has to ask for something that the defender can actually give and it has to be possible to give it either before a peace treaty is accepted or during the 10 turn peace treaty. If the defender accepts and does what the attacker asked for, peace must be accepted. If the defender refuses, war may go on 5 more turns, then, 10 turns peace must be accepted.
   2. Standard Measured War (for all Nations) -Any Civ that loses 5 or more different cities in a continuous period of war is entitled to invoke an immediate 10 turn peace with any Civ who he is a war with. An attacker who invokes this rule must return all cities he captured in the war to the Civs he captured the cities from, unless they refuse to take them.
   3. Defenders Measured War (for all defender Nations) - Any turn after a Nation is attacked, they can call for Defender's Measured War- War may continue for 10 turns. After 10 turns, a 10 Turn peace treaty must be accepted, and the attacker must give 3 (if available) of defender’s captured cities back to the defender. The attacker chooses which cities to give. However, if the attacker took the Defender’s Capital in that war, he must return it. If the cities are available, but no longer in the attackers possesion, the Civ who currently has them must return them. If the attacker lacks 3 cities to return because of razing them, the attacker must give 500 gold per razed city over the course of the 10 turns peace. If he is unable to do this, he must give 3 of his own non-Capital cities of the defenders choosing. If the Defender has captured any cities in the War, he can not invoke Defender's Measured War, until the cities are returned to the parties the cities were captured from, or refused by those Civs.
   4. Only 1 Measured War rule may be applied at a time.

Note that I made some small changes. Also note that I took out the clauses that you get peace with everyone. Now you just get peace with the nations you were warring with.

There was another point I keep forgetting to mention, which is why we need such Measured War rules in this kind of game. My thinking is, if a player is willing to temporarily not log into the game to stop you from taking his cities, then he is probably willing to permanently not log into the game (quit) if you take his cities. The object of this game is for everyone to stay involved until the end, and enjoy the game until the end. If you are desperate enough about keeping your cities to quit, I would rather give you a tool to keep your cities without quitting.

[Sommerswerd]

It's not clear to me if this would be a top down sequence or just a first-come-first-choose basis. If I believed I was Tier 4 could I just pick a Tier 4 civ right away or would I have to wait until all the Tier 1-3 civs were picked first?

Exploit

I see what you mean. In fact maybe that's a better idea since that way would conceal who picked what alot better.

From a gaming perspective you must not push players too much to a single approach.
Leave room for different strategies. If it is not possible in Europe to have 3 decent cities, then it is too cramped in my opinion.
Early economic build up, while keeping neighbours and barbs at bay, and then later colonial expansion should also be feasible with excellent diplo playing.

1. No one is pushed into a single approach, feel free to ignore my suggestions and play how you think is best I am no expert afterall
2. I thought about what you said and looked at Europe again. I can say now that there is enough room for all the Europeans to squeeze 3 cities together with all their small crosses or BFCs touching the capital. But it will be a really tight squeeze, especially for the Tier 1 Civs (which is why they are Tier 1). If that makes you uncomfortable, I suggest picking a latter Tier team that has more space. The earlier Tiers have higher resource/ lower space starts. That is the point of having unequal starts, so different skill levels can be competitive.
3. What you are describing that you want to do "Early economic build up... then later colonial expansion" sounds very much like a Tier 6. If that is the strategy that you have already committed to emotionally, then go with one of those. If you also want to add the "while keeping neighbours and barbs at bay" parts, then great that is Tier 4 and 5, pick one of those. There is plenty of room for different strategies and paths to victories in this game. Also remember, just because you have a grassland pig doesn't mean you have to pasture it, especially if Pig is plentiful and you dont need it for trade. Maybe a cottage would be more useful... go for it. The European starts will generally have way more resources than you can use. You have to make choices about them.