That's pretty naieve. Especially in a MP-game with strangers you never seen before. Rather give us a hard limit to set in the lobby than just making "selfimposed limits" since I can guarentee you they will be broken.Even if it is seen as a problem by some players, then by agreeing a self imposed limit before the game everyone can be satisfied.
Again; It's not my preference. I don't mind having many cities, but I also notice how this can lead to a resource overload.play the game according to your personal preferences
Yup, that's the whole point isn't it. That it can't in MP. This *isn't* about SP. Pretty much everything about SP is going to be invalid in MP. All assumptions people make about their uberunits making easy prey, turn 100 the game is over, many cities is no balance issue, it's all going to be different in Multiplayer. Yet people still vaunt those ideas they got against bad AI in SP as if they would still be so when playing against a Human. Like they wont counter flying temple units and such...that you can easily limit yourself to any particular number of cities in any of your SP games.
Cause this isn't about "wanting challenge", it's about balance. And balance is far out if all human players can create a temple unit PER turn. Even if one city is lost, it still wont stop having many hardcore units roam the map, perked to the max. And those battles can become long and exhausting and without end if more units get throw in the battle over and over. Hence "infinite battles"...So what is the problem, why don't you do that if that will give more of a challenge?
I only believe this if indeed a hardlimit is given for the host, and it's not up to making agreements in chat. Still wont fix the balance of the game. But hey, enjoy your everlasting fights which only end if one player does something extremely stupid or is fed up... or if in someway rushed to death...And now I'm pointing out that by using houserules agreed with your opponents this limitation can be extended to MP games that you play.