Zitat von
McMonkey
I think I decided to either get rid of Sun Tzu's or give it to Rome. I will need to check the new save and my notes.
McMonkey, I am sure that whatever you decided makes sense. So let's just go with what you did.
We already have enough players that have expressed an interest:
McMonkey, Civi, CupCoffee, Rady, and Myself.
For now, everyone chooses who they start with, then, on the next swap, people choose who they want to play as in the reverse order that was chosen the first time.
Now, as far as managing the swapping of civs goes, we want to set up some guidelines to ensure that you really play as a whole new king and do not take any of your alliances and animosities with you.
If possible, players should stick to the following guidelines:
1) Do not choose a civ that is adjacent to your current civ. (see my previous post)
2) Try to avoid doing a direct swap with another player, especially if you are currently allied with that player, otherwise there is a danger that you will just continue your alliance but swapping cities.
_________________________________________________
For example, let's say I am playing as the Seleucids, I should not choose to play as Ptolemy or Macedon as they are adjacent to me (Guideline 1). So that means I should choose either Carthage or Rome. Let's say I decide to choose Rome, then the current Roman player should try to avoid choosing the Seleucids (Guideline 2), especially if the Roman player is allied with the Seleucids. That would mean that they would have no choice but to play as the Ptolemids, as Macedon and Carthage would be considered "adjacent".
Of course these are just guidelines that we should try to follow, they are not rules per se. For example, in the situation above, the Roman player would have no choice but to choose the Ptolemids, but it may be that someone else had already chosen them. In that case the player would have to choose another.
The only other thing to choose would be the number of years between each swap. I think 30 years would be good.