1on1 PvP??

Here's a notion.

If I opened a challenge for ANY member of the top 200 overall rankings to engage in a fun, 1 on 1 PvP match with me would anyone accept? (friends+confeds+allies included - though personally I would find this more interesting if it was against someone who does not normally inhabit the same spheres as myself)

[or to anyone else I deemed capable of putting up a tough fight due to past performances in tournaments etc. - we all know a lot of what the rankings represent is complete s**t]

Would that even be possible? Is there any way in which this could feasibly work?

My thinking is that there would HAVE to be certain rules or I think very few people would accept. From my own perspective I reckon it would be most fun if there were as few rules as possible.

A couple of obvious ones from the top of my head:

 - no 3rd party attacks against opponent's cities or occupations
 - no 3rd diplo/magic attacks against opponent's cities (more difficult to monitor in a way... though sustained actions of this kind would be very obvious over time)
 - no 'building demolisher' units in siege camps/attacks.
 - a limited time-frame?? (or alternatively just continue until one side flies the white flag - then both parties must cease all operations)

The 'no catapult' rule basically means that the risk is limited to armies+resources, without risking your account. Of course I would say sieges in general would/should be encourage since I see them as a fun and important part of PvP play. The end result of a successful seige would basically be the loss of your city walls. Personally I would mind losing all my city walls. Infact I can imagine counting levels of City Wall lost, or numbers of cities which have had successful sieges placed against them as a way of 'scoring' / deciding a victor at the end of a certain time-frame or once one side flies the white flag - since clearly the number of walls lost would be a clear indicator of the actual amount each person would have lost in a real full-on PvP fight.

Obviously things like resource shipments from allies/alts would be impossible to monitor or prevent but I guess that would just have to be part of it.

And I guess distance would play an important part in such a mini-contest. If I opened a challenge like this I would obviously preference someone based within ~500 squares of me over someone ~1000 squares away.

What would be the point in/goals of a challenge like this?
I see a few:
 - Firstly, the simple glory of winning, assuming some kind of point system was agreed on (see comment about walls above)
 - Secondly, a learning experience - seriously how often does any of us get to play with siege mechanics?
 - Troop upkeep is too high? I don't know about anyone else but personally I would get A LOT more satisfaction losing my armies to something like this than doing the usual pointless+mundane NPC farming drag, disbanding troops, a long march to Audrey or simply capping/stopping all unit production.

What do you guys think?

[N.B. I'm not actually making a challenge right now - just opening discussion... if thoughts on it are positive I will possibly open a challenge in 2-3 weeks once my exams are finished]

P.S. I welcome comments from any level player, though if you are opposed to the idea - remember I did not force you to read this post and unconstructive criticism/opposition will be stoically ignored.

I have thought about something like this for a while now. I really like the idea of destroying walls. It'd be great to still allow some kind of siege without really destroying a whole lot of hard work. I mostly keep putting it off because I think to myself "maybe I should build up some more troops first" but that's becoming an endless excuse lol. 

Nice to see someone of great standing publicly pushing ahead with this idea. 

I like it, as soon as I recover from the current beating I am taking in the mini-tournament I would be up to something like this. I know there are others in my alliance that would be interested also. Might be nice to have a section of the forums where players of all sizes can advertise for a sparring partner. 

Now this is an interesting topic. I like esspecially the no-builing demolishers rule. That way no one can complain they lose to much. Max loss is limited except for units, resources and gold. Those can all be replaced quite fast. Maybe the two parties can agree on some sort of payment the losing side has to make. Say 10m gold. I wouldn't like a max number of units or a set date for the battle to end. Just go on until one surrenders. That will happen fast enough once he/she's clearly on the losing side. At least I would surrender before all my resources/troops were gone (or if I get bored with it).