I've played two games with the limitation of "wonders by conquest only." In both games, my lack of bloodlust, war4ever claim to fame, has resulted in a 19oo's victory and a current stalemate (might win game 2 if I ever get to robotics by 2000.) The cash rich and wonder rich AI are very tough.

In game one I used typical expansion (a sprinkling of many cities with overlapping resources and strategic bottlenecks) to gain a decisive advantage.

But in game two, I'm at war with all the AI and science is very slow. There are three tough AI's: Russians, Spanish and the Americans.

The Russians have huge cash reserves and Sun's wonder and leonardo...and they are fundy so I can't surround their cities and starve their defense of shield support....arg.

The rich Spanish are crankin' out vet cavalry and seem to have their cities in wide open plains...very tough enemy. Vet cavalry rule in open territories.

The Americans are a remote and formidable democracy. They have alot of money. They have size 20 cities and science might be a problem. The good news is they don't have many cities.

I'm not looking forward to any of these enemies with Hoover's Dam--especially the remote Americans.

In my next attempt, I'm going to try and be more blood thirsty early on as War4ever suggests--but I'm a pacifist in civ.

Yeah Trajanus dispersed wonders seems like a difficulty, but it would be much harder if one AI got all the wonders. I think dispersed wonders is easier as one can conquest against lesser foes.

I've read alot of apolyton threads about handicapping the human to make the game fairer or more challenging. I'd say that it also makes one think differently...

I normally play a 10 to 15 city defensive democracy with big cities and many wonders. But with out wonders, my cities are too small and thus science/money is too slow--As far as conquest is concerned, enemy rifleman behind city walls are tough!

Later--I seem to be getting the civbug again.