AU 601: Pick the civs (ignore the other thread)

[Aqualung71]

Perhaps we could loosen the restriction somewhat?

Like, you can take an AI city if it's closer to your capital than theirs? Or, you can attack and raze, but not capture? Or you can attack an AI city only if both human players are at war with it?

Getting too complicated? Well anyway, at least we can apply our AU503 lessons and pillage! Both Rome and Greece would be good for that.

[sabrewolf]

i agree with strollen, i like greece-rome as long as i get the greeks

aqua, i like your first point ("you can take an AI city if it's closer to your capital than theirs"), but the 2nd wouldn't make a big difference except that you need to bring lots settlers with you... 3rd one doesn't sound very likely, as usually just one human will profit from a war against an AI civ and seems generally too complicated to follow (and, you'll need embassies to know who's at war).

[Harovan]

You aren't moving on very quick, are you? I checked in several times over weekend (when I got lucky and Apolyton worked, that is), but this discussion seems to be pretty much stalled. Ah well, more time to level up my ranger.

[alexman]

I think from the poll it's pretty much settled. Greece-Rome it is.

Sir Ralph, we are ready whenever you are.

So what do people think about the restrictions on attacking AI cities? I like them because with them you can't get a cheesy victory by eating up AI land - you have to defeat the other human.

[jshelr]

Alexman

My right-wing libertarian soul suggests that pairs could make the decision about military action for themselves. I like your format a lot, but it may be off putting for some who play a pure warmonger style, resulting in reduced participation.

[alexman]

Sounds good.

I was actually thinking along the same lines, but then I got concerned that it would ruin the comparative nature of AU games.

[MotownDennis]

I agree that it should be "no holds barred" (surprise, surprise).

I'm not a regular contributor to AU, but I have lurked a bit, and, if I understand correctly, one of the cornerstones of AU is to open up strategic options rather than limit them. It seems to me that this would apply here.

Of course, I think that everyone understands that the point of this exercise is to defeat the other human. The AI should be able to be used and abused, IMO, with whatever strategy the human wants to employ to accomplish said goal of defeating the other human player. A militaristic strategy, as we know, has benefits and drawbacks, just like a builder strategy.

I don't think you'll see everyone employing a warmonger strategy against the AI. I know that I personally like to weigh my options as the game unfolds. I'll play it however the consensus decides it should be played, but consider this a vote for giving the players all options possible.

[Harovan]

Ok, as you wish, Greece and Rome is it then. I can't quite follow this decision, but it's your game. Just don't blame it on me.

I don't have as much time during the week as I have at weekends, but I think I will find the time to set up the game within the next two days. So you can start your games before the next weekend. Not that a few days would matter for a PBEM, though.

[Aqualung71]

Hmmm, I'm in 2 minds about the AI attack thing. I like the idea of limiting a good player's ability to exploit the AI too much, but on the other hand I also subscribe to Motown's evil nature, invoking Darwin's theory of evolution....survival of the fittest I for one, could definitely learn more about manipulation through diplomacy.....now where's Aeson when you need him?

One thing I'm sure of though, is that the rules should be the same for everyone....again, AU is about comparisons, and this will go out the window if we all make our own rules.

Maybe there are more interesting civ choices out there, but I guess Greece-Rome is what's been voted so far. Maybe we could ask SR to give Rome a better start, though if full-on AI attacks are allowed then the militaristic trait will have some value after all.

Are we going to select the AI opponents as well?

[alexman]

We've had enough trouble selecting human civs. Let's leave the AI civ selection up to the map designer, keeping in mind that this is scenario should have a Greco-Roman flavor.

[Action]

Portugal vs England (on island map)

[punkbass2000]

Portugal vs. Greece would be a, uh, riot

[snoopy369]

I would agree with a limited ability to attack AI.

How about, "No *declaring* war on AI, but you can fight to whatever limit you desire once the AI declares?"

Only thing to consider: what about an AI that 'violates the peace' but doesn't actually attack -- ie repeatedly violates borders?

I'd vote, on that, 'no war' -- it's just like in SP, you can't declare for free on an AI just because it's in your territory...

[Aqualung71]

I thought under the original proposal it was fine to be at war with an AI, but you can't attack their cities. Stray units wandering through your territory are therefore fair game to be bopped.

A "no declaring war" clause would be highly exploitable. As in......"No, I didn't declare war....he declared on me for no reason after I demanded 3 techs for free on each of the last 5 turns".

[ducki]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
I thought under the original proposal it was fine to be at war with an AI, but you can't attack their cities. Stray units wandering through your territory are therefore fair game to be bopped.

A "no declaring war" clause would be highly exploitable. As in......"No, I didn't declare war....he declared on me for no reason after I demanded 3 techs for free on each of the last 5 turns".

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party. This rule sounds almost exactly like the Communism game we played way back when. I think we were Germany in the middle of China and Persia. That was a good game. No aggressive military actions until Communism, I think. You could defend, you could attack units in your own territory or neutral/allied, but no attacking on enemy soil. Am I making that one up? Did I fail to read the thread thoroughly and this has already been pointed out? I'm sure I'll read further in and find someone has cleared this up.