[Alneyan]

There is one major difference between poker (or chess) and SEIV: in chess, you cannot possibly think of roleplaying being a Bishop (or you truly have nothing better to do with your free time). On the other hand, SEIV offers another dimension besides its strategical side, and this is roleplaying, diplomacy, politics, and so on.

So, while in chess the goal of the game is straightforward (or in KOTH, if you want to keep it to SEIV), a game such as Proportions at PBW does not offer an obvious goal. Instead, your Empire is left to choose something to do, and seek to accomplish that.

I would say you may be annoyed by something if it goes against how you play the game yourself. I guess players that play SEIV only for strategical reasons are also bothered (or at least don't give it any thought) by the political side of the game. The same argument could probably be raised about economical development, but since I am not fond of that part of the game, I will leave it to someone who loves Empire building (Ruatha?).

Alarikf, I have been contemplating lowering the efficiency of your whole Empire as you grow bigger and bigger (as in Europa Universalis for example); it would lower the focus on expansion, either through colonisation or through war. Would you think it could lessen that endgame feeling, where there is just nothing more to do except fight it out? It would obviously be an option and not a standard setting, as along with the changes you would like, it would change the whole scope of the game.

If you don't feel like deciphering my whole babbling: in short, I would say it depends on what exactly you expect from the game, or the reason why you play SEIV.