Thoughts on the next AU scenario

[Rhothaerill]

This UN Peacekeeper idea is sounding more and more interesting to me. I definitely agree with Beta it should be on a pangaea map so that you will at least have a chance at being the UN Peacekeeper. If half the teams are on another continent some will get offed before you have a chance to meet them (this happened in my first go-around at AU209...Germany destroyed England and France and was a KAI by the time I met them. They aren't that way in my retry).

I'll post a poll in a bit for final count to see if we go with the peacekeeper idea or one of the others. We should definitely keep all the ideas in mind for future AU scenarios though.

[vmxa1]

Could you prevent a civ from being eliminated by just giving them one of your cities? It would have to be on the outskirts to reduce flipping.

[Dominae]

Sigh.

I guess it has to be: no conquering or gifting of cities.


Dominae

[PeaSoup]

Originally posted by Dominae
Sigh.

I guess it has to be: no conquering or gifting of cities.


Dominae

I suppose razing and planting your own cities is out as well??

[Nor Me]

Razing and capturing both count as conquering. It seems a bit resrrictive when all we need is to ensure the AI aren't effectively eliminated.

How about being allowed to conquer cities if the AI in question has more than you do?

[Harovan]

The strict no conquering cities rule is just one more kill-the-fun idea. While I agree, that it would be too easy to conquer all but one city of each civ (provided that doesn't trigger domination), there has to be another regulation. Perhaps we allow conquests only in the ancient age? Or we allow the conquest of one city per war, and this war shall have been declared by the AI, not the player. I think this is a good compromise.

[Tall Stranger]

I tend to agree with Sir Ralph here. If you get a truly hostile civ nearby, it may be impossible to end a war with them without seizing a city. I would also point out that, in some cases, the only way to prevent one AI from destroying another may be to wage a pretty robust campaign against the larger AI.

The only caveat I would add to Sir Ralph's idea is that you can go to war to honor an MPP. Quite frankly, the only way I see this game being playable is to develop MPP's with as many civs as possible.

Can I also assume that expanding our own empire via culture flipping is permissible?

I agree with Beta, it must be on a pangaea. I would recommend strongly that we start in roughly the center spot, or else we'll have no chance to stop some wars.

No doubt about it, this would be a tough game.

[Dominae]

I prefer the "conquest only in the Ancient age" idea.


Domina

[TheArsenal]

While destroying all but one city of each civ is one way to go about it, it wouldn’t really be considered in the spirit of the of a “peace keeper” game. That said, if some one wants to go about it that way, why not? Taking each civ down to one city would be an extremely risky strategy in any case. If you underestimate your AI opponent, it invites another AI to finish the job. Game lost. War begets war in this game. Such an aggressive strategy tends to explode the entire planet into battle, making it impossible to control the map and keep every one alive. Game lost.

I feel the restrictions should be fairly loose as I think the most interesting part of this AU will be how each person applies different strategies to achieve the same goal. Further, I’ve (mostly) tried this goal before. It is difficult enough under normal conditions. I feel it will be wholly impossible without being able to at least prune some of the more aggressive civs to a less effective status.

Lastly, another point to keep in mind is this kind of attempted manipulation leaves several civs in a constantly annoyed state with you. At my skill level at least, it requires having a large enough empire – beyond the limits of REXing - to sustain the attacks on my soil and to manipulate other parts of the map militarily. I am hard pressed to see a way to do it otherwise.