Here is a list of all the known bugs and exploits. Some are allowed for the Game of the Month, some are not.
Green is allowed.
Red is disallowed.
Black is in discussion.

Any bugs or exploits not in this list should be mentioned. Also, feel free to discuss the current list. The list should be final when the GOTM V commences.

Please note that these rules are applicible for version 1.17f!

Right of Passage abuse
Make an agreement of Right of Passage, move your units to their main cities and attack them all at once.
Free palace jump
When disbanding your capitol your palace will appear in the biggest other city. Your former capitol can be rebuilt by the settler it created. This way you've moved you capitol free.
Island block
If you fill the coast of a certain island with units, even non-military, the AI won't be able to land, thus isn't able to conquer that island, until it has marines.
Upgrade army
Stack an army along with other similar units, then upgrade the stacked units. The units get separated from the army and you can then "load" new upgraded units into the army.
Pop-rushing
In despotism and communism it is possible to use cities purely for unit rush building. Workers can be added to such a city and then the city can then use them to rush build units. This is disallowed, so do not create these kind of cities. Pop rushing one or two regular citizens to finish a building or to build a unit is within the rules and the spirit of the game. What is against the rules is joining workers to cities for the purpose of pop rushing.
multi.SAV
When you rename the savegame (or even save the game) including the fragment "multi" in your .SAV file, you'll be able to see the whole map and change stuff, like the production in an AI city.

Originally posted by Aeson
Size 6 to 7 Cities
Giving Away Barbarian Problems
Defensive Unit Trading
Culture Swapping
Palace Jumping
Scout Resource Denial
Disbanding Unhappiness
No Palace, No Corruption
"Giving away barbarian problems" is not even an exploit if you ask me. Unless you strickly disagree, I won't mention it.
I don't understand how "Culture Swapping" can be used in advantage to you.
Finally, "Palace jumping" and "No palace, no corruption" don't match. Which one is incorrect?

You addressed the free palace jump and no corruption no palace, and got them in the right order already :)

The culture swapping in a city occurs when you give a city away. The citizens in that city become the nationality of the receiver. If you have just captured a large city from a Civ with a good culture rating, you can give that city to one of the other AI who's culture rating isn't as good. The citizens will all switch to the low culture nationality, making it less likely to revert if you take it back. Of course you then have to declare war on that Civ to take back the city as well, so it isn't helpful in all circumstances.

Another variation on this is to put all your troops in a city and give it to the AI. Your units will be teleported back to your capitol. Sometimes very helpful in repositioning your forces.

These loopholes, and the barbarian one, aren't really game breaking problems. It's good to know specifically what is allowed and what isn't though.

What do you mean by giving away babarian problems?

ERIKK :D

Giving away barbarian problems: when a city of yours is doomed because of upcoming barbarians, just ditch the city to an opponent. At least you get some money from it.

Aeson, I still don't understand how both "Free/No palace" can exist. If a palace appears when a city reaches a size of 3, then you can never take real advantage of the "No palace" bug since you can only have cities of size 1 & 2.

Furthermore: anything not mentioned is allowed. ;) If we state these pure tactics you described, the list might become really long...

The Free Palace move happens when you disband your Capitol and currently have other cities. The Palace will be instantly built in another of your cities. Everything else is normal, just the Capitol is moved without having to spend time building the Palace. The No Corruption bug happens when you have no other cities, and capture an AI city. The Palace is never built, and so no corruption.

Edit: Ok, I see what you are saying now. If you capture an AI city while you currently have no cities, the Palace will never be built. You can build new cities, and let your cities get as large as you want, and unless you intentionally build the Palace, there will never be any corruption.

When you intentionally disband your capitol on the other hand, and have other active cities, the Palace will always be built. I just mentioned the size 3+ as that is how you can determine which city will get the free Palace build. It may move to a size 1 or 2 city if there are no larger ones.

Is this more accurate, Aeson? ;)

Now, if there are no other known exploits and bugs worth mentioning I'd like to discuss the validation of it. Right of Passage is more like a tactic. It is also devastating for your reputation (isn't it?), so that's free. Pop-rushing, Worker factories and Drafting at size 7 are on a smooth scale and I find them therefore difficult to forbid. That is because you can't deny people to rush-build units when in despotism and you can't deny people to draft in a city of a size of 7.

The thing that can give a big advantage is the scout thing (I made it black). If you're able to do this you might bring your opponent in great disadvantage. But many people might not succeed in it, e.g. because they invent Iron Working later, or because they don't have a scout in the neighbourhood. This, plus the fact that it easily cannot be used, plus that this is to my opinion not an exploit but merely a bug/flaw, let's me think this should be disallowed. Other thoughts? (More than just Aeson. ;))

Matrix,

When you get a final list, you might add a spiel about why it is important that players follow the agreed upon rules. How it is all Honor Code, and cheaters are really only cheating themselves.

From the reloading poll there seem to be some players ignoring even that easy to follow rule. There are even those who ridicule those that are playing by the rules (75% liar weighting and such). For these people, I have an idea. If there is enough demand you might consider a separate category of entry: "Honest Cheaters" and halve their score. Put it on the info sheet for submission. So a player who is so used to reloading that they can not play the game any other way can submit a game, but is honest enough to admit they did reload gets their score cut in half. Just an idea that I am floating, because there does seem to be about 20% that can not play the game without their crutch.

What may also be useful is a thread about how to get a good score so that people that want to do better have a more useful alternative than cheating. Cheaters without any alternatives will cheat. There is no penalty, no authority, no nothing to stop them. No amount of foot stomping by the moderator, or anyone else, is going to stop them. In my opinion, the best approach is to give potential cheaters a better alternative. So my trial balloon is a separate category of entry for reloaders (half score) along with tips on how to play a better honest game. You will still have cheaters, but maybe fewer than you have in the current contest.

I'll state my opinion again, that cheating only cheats the person from becoming a better player. That the best way learn how to play the game is without using a crutch such as reloading. I will also state for the record that I have completed two game of the months (Jan and Feb) and have not reloaded from the autosave folder for any reason. The game has not crashed, and I generally do not make mismoves with important pieces. I wish all the other submitters would play by the same rules, but realize that this is not reality.

The current list looks great to me. I like which ones you have green and which are red. (Red at this time are No Palace no corruption, Bombard anywhere, Reloading, and Read the spoiler thread.)

"Scout resource denial" is the only black at this time. I haven't played it, am not sure which category I'd put it in. I think that Aeson is the best person to make this call, he knows best how powerful it is and how much work it takes. If I understand correctly, there's an oversight in the programming which allows one to park a Scout and not have it viewed as a military unit. So there's no diplomatic consequence, even if the resource ends up inside the AI's sphere of influence? I.e. it will never insist that you move out? This doesn't sound likely to be an opportunity in every game, but it does seem to me like it could be over-powering when possible. I would guess it could also be accomplished with a worker. So if disallowed, perhaps it should be called "non-military resource denial"?

Regarding the red "Reloading" item: In the final writeup I do think it would be good to describe this and its purpose in detail. If you decide that reloading for finger trouble is ok, make that explicit and explain why it is different. (It is of course a separate principle from foreknowledge and trial/error.) And perhaps be explicit that reloading to get past a crash bug is ok - I had thought that went without saying but recent discussions suggest that perhaps it is not obvious to everyone.

Any comment on the idea that reloading one turn to avoid accidental Domination would be ok? Aeson, Duke of Marlbrough, and I recently talked about this in the HOF context and we now understand that it is ok in the HOF context.

The Scout will eventually have to be withdrawn, but how long it can stay seems to be determined by the relative power of the AI to the player. It ranges anywhere from 20 turns on up. In the first game I used this, I had a Scout on an Iroquois Iron resource, right next to one of their cities from about 3000BC until the start of the AD's. Higher barbarian settings can make it more difficult to get scouts into position, but the AI usually does a good job of protecting its territory against barbarian attacks. It isn't a bug, but probably more of an oversight. Like pop rushing it most likely wasn't meant to be so powerful of a tactic. Whether it is allowed or not is fine by me, just so long as we are all on the same page. I would think it should be allowed, as the AI does deal with the Scouts, just not effectively, or taking advantage of it themselves (like most of the other "greens").

I think the rest of the list is just about right. The reds are all things which seem to have been against Firaxis' vision for the game (bugs, things they specifically tried to limit). The greens are just powerful tactics that were allowed to exist, even if they weren't meant to be so effective.

This threat from the general forum introduces another "feature" for the list.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16146

It is basically a god mode that is activated by saving the game with the following name and then reloading it.

1_multipart_xF8FF_2_challenge.SAV

Obviously one for the "red" part of the list :)

Interesting thread.

How about the exploit of maxing out the map just to get a high score long after the game is won! :)

Seriously, I haven't submitted any GOTMs so I have no vested interest in this but it's intriguing to read the exploits available and what's regarded as fair. I've played 2 of the GOTM's just to see what scores are achievable. I didn't use any outrageous cheats but by the letter of the law certainly reloaded if I had done something really dumb (like forgetting an ungarrisoned city for example) as opposed to a basic strategic error.

Looking at the top scores it's clear that people have used the maxing out technique to get the high score. That's fine. The score introduces some sort of competitive element and if a high score is the target then why not? I know that my life is too short to bother with such a technique but I take my hat off to those prepared to have the patience to do this! The GOTM also features fastest wins by each different victory method so there is plenty there to aim for if a player wants to win quickly without regard to maxing the score.

So I find the thing very interesting in terms of seeing the different ways to play and how people went about achieving the different victories. I don't care much whether or not they reloaded. (Reloading is a little less powerful than in CIV and CIV II because the random number seed is saved) I'm not too bothered if they used any of the proposed "banned exploits" but then I would want to see some annotation in the results table (NPNC - no palace no corruption used, SDR - scout denies resource or whatever). I actually enjoy the NPNC method - it's fun, and that's what I play the game for. Obviously, the long range bombard is a bug and should not be used in any circumstances, and the use of saved game editors would also be pointless but apart from that I'm interested in all ways of winning.

Of course, if I was competing, maybe I'd be more worried about others possibly "cheating". :)

Jeez Sorry Bill If you think my rhetoric was a little harsh.But this naive opinion that everyone is honest,or even a majority of people are honest is a fallacy.
Our baggage checking system assumed most people were honest and look what that got us.
I recently loaded one of the sav's from a top players game.
I played his move(what I thoght was his move,everyone out in an attack stack)and lost the battle 50% of the time.So even when you have the odds in your favour you can still lose.Which leads me to believe that even some of the top players re-load if the battle doesn't pan out.(Beginning Warrior Gambit for example)
Just because you say so,doen't make it so.Seems before I came along many of you were living in a happy little dream world(la-di-da-da)where everyone is a happy little honest person (that their is some sought of masonic lodge happenning here).Sorry but if that were true their would be a lot less poverty and despair in this world.
And to those who take it personal,Why do think I'm talking about you?Guilty conscience?
So the scout is out,as a human player would kill it right away.

I think I good measuring stick of how legal the move is could be,could you get away with it in a multi-player game or against a real human player,if the answer is no then the exploit should be illegal.

Originally posted by marshalljames
Jeez Sorry Bill If you think my rhetoric was a little harsh.But this naive opinion that everyone is honest,or even a majority of people are honest is a fallacy.
If you're convinced of the evilness of the people, that's your problem. Everyone who plays the GOTM wants to have fun with it. If we can make it clear to everyone how much reloading can spoil the game, then most likely most will listen.
Originally posted by marshalljames
Seems before I came along many of you were living in a happy little dream world(la-di-da-da)where everyone is a happy little honest person (that their is some sought of masonic lodge happenning here).Sorry but if that were true their would be a lot less poverty and despair in this world.
Hey, we're not playing against Saddam Hussain and Bin Laden! Anyone, including you, can see how much reloading or any form of cheating can spoil the GOTM. If you're so convinced that people cheat (in whatever way), why do you participate anyway? What's the use? As I said before: the ranking is totally not representative anymore. So how can you keep having interest in the GOTM?

Ok, I'll take your advice and will allow the non-military resource denial. ;)
Originally posted by SirPleb
Regarding the red "Reloading" item: In the final writeup I do think it would be good to describe this and its purpose in detail. If you decide that reloading for finger trouble is ok, make that explicit and explain why it is different. (It is of course a separate principle from foreknowledge and trial/error.) And perhaps be explicit that reloading to get past a crash bug is ok - I had thought that went without saying but recent discussions suggest that perhaps it is not obvious to everyone.
I thought of this myself as well, but it'll be hard to reach everyone. By far not all the GOTM participants read the rules page even. :( But I'll try to get everyone's attention. Perhaps TF and I will have to become irritating and show a page with rules before you're able to get the savegame. http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/undecided.gif

As I have said elsewhere:
"It took hours for me to choose to grab an other city or not. It is part of the thrill to get much land and milk the map.

If you are to greedy it is your own fault.
So this is a comparison of skill; and if you are skilled enough you won´t win by accident."

The scout tactics seems ok to me.

If you will get into any war with the civ, one of the first things will be the lost of the scout.

It is on your own risk, so you may use it.

@ MJ
GotM is like playing sports.
I prefer playing sports for fun. I don´t punch anyone even when the referee isn´t watching.
In GotM you can´t earn any profit. You only compete for fun. So there is no need to play unfair.
The CoH is the same thing as "fair play" in normal sports.

Originally posted by Matrix
1_multipart_xF8FF_2_challenge.SAV
Rename the savegame to 1_multipart_xF8FF_2_challenge.SAV and you'll be able to see the whole map and change stuff, like changing the production in an AI city.You should change this to:
multi.SAV
When you rename the savegame (or even save the game) including the fragment "multi" in your .SAV file, you'll be able to see the whole map and change stuff, like the production in an AI city.

Sadly, in my opinion, one of the biggest costs of cheating is a habitual cheater becomes convinced that everyone else is a cheater. No amount of evidence or testimonials can sway a cheater from this belief. A cheater often colors the world with a very dark brush. This may be the most powerful argument against cheating, and its highest punishment. These dark beliefs are not limited to harmless pursuits such as the GOTM, and often extend into every part of life.

As for 50% combat odds, I wait for about 98% odds in my favor before launching the first attack in a war, and those odds increase as the war progresses. I expect some other players do similar. In my strategy article, I suggest waiting for 10+ swordsmen or 20+ horsemen to launch a war. What are the odds for 10 veteran swordsmen or 20 horsemen against one or two regular spearmen?

As for la-di-da-da land, you do have a point. Matrix seems disappointed that so many people admit to some form of against the rules reloads in the survey. How many of these are in the top ten scorers? I do not know. I would guess about the same as the general population of submitters (20%). I think it is naive to believe that a little education and foot stomping are going to eliminate cheating. It may help a little at the margin for those that did not know what they were doing is against the rules. However, there are some who know exactly what they are doing and are looking for the most effective ways to cheat to pump their score.

There is only so much the adminstrators can do. I give them credit for trying. This a competition for fun only, so strict policing is not a good way to go. I believe that about 20% will cheat, some more than others, some more effectively than others, and that about 80% will play the game according to the spirit of the rules.

Originally posted by marshalljames
Jeez Sorry Bill If you think my rhetoric was a little harsh.But this naive opinion that everyone is honest,or even a majority of people are honest is a fallacy.
Our baggage checking system assumed most people were honest and look what that got us.
I recently loaded one of the sav's from a top players game.
I played his move(what I thoght was his move,everyone out in an attack stack)and lost the battle 50% of the time.So even when you have the odds in your favour you can still lose.Which leads me to believe that even some of the top players re-load if the battle doesn't pan out.(Beginning Warrior Gambit for example)
Just because you say so,doen't make it so.Seems before I came along many of you were living in a happy little dream world(la-di-da-da)where everyone is a happy little honest person (that their is some sought of masonic lodge happenning here).Sorry but if that were true their would be a lot less poverty and despair in this world.
And to those who take it personal,Why do think I'm talking about you?Guilty conscience?
So the scout is out,as a human player would kill it right away.

I think I good measuring stick of how legal the move is could be,could you get away with it in a multi-player game or against a real human player,if the answer is no then the exploit should be illegal.

As you hopefully saw in the announcement, the pages have been updated. So what do you think? :)

Reading the *spoiler talk* is not allowed but writing seem to be allowed.
Maybe we should ban the people that write the*spoiler talk*.
For example, if Erikkk write a *spoiler talk* for GOTM5, he won't be able to submit his game.

Well, that sounds a little too extreme to me. If someone posts spoiler talks outside the spoiler thread I'll simply delete it. I know I missed something of ERIKK ;), but normally that should work out well... In any case, posting something spoiling will be just like spam. Deleted/notice etc. :)

Yep, you did. I'm sorry. But I got hammered by Billchin anyway. I believe I edited the message.

LaRo: banning people when they post on a spoiler thread sounds stupid....; the spoiler talks are for fun and it's your own choice to read them or not. Read them when you're far in the game and when you know the whereabouts of the other civ's and resources. Do not read them if you haven't played yet. Eveybody has his own responsibility.

I saw that after two or three days many people had read the spoiler but there where only a couple of replies..., those peolple are spoiling their own game (I think).

That's how I see it.

ERIKK :D

Well Bill last time I played the game,the AI Civ's didn't roll over and die and give me their land.I had to take it.And In order to take it you have to be ruthless and eventually betray the ai civ and wipe them out.If you have discovered some way of getting the ai(you to Spacecadet) to GIVE you their land and roll over and die please let me know,,,THx

Your point? :confused:

I'm not sure what your point is either, but there is a way to accomplish what you describe. It only works on certain maps and certain situations, but basically you wait until two countries start fighting. The player stays out of the war and builds settlers. When the cities burn or cultural borders shrink, plop down the settlers and voila!

There are peaceful ways to play the game, but the game does not reward peaceful players with high scores. However, the GOTM is about fun, as there is no real prize, so some players do play peacefully. On many maps a peaceful space victory, cultural victory or United Nations victory are all good options.

On some maps, war is the better way to go. If another Civ is constantly bullying me, demanding free gold and free techs, the citizens are probably ready for war. A player can win a war without being ruthless or a backstabber, though often times those are more effective tactics.

Originally posted by marshalljames
Well Bill last time I played the game,the AI Civ's didn't roll over and die and give me their land.I had to take it.And In order to take it you have to be ruthless and eventually betray the ai civ and wipe them out.If you have discovered some way of getting the ai(you to Spacecadet) to GIVE you their land and roll over and die please let me know,,,THx

Durrr.. I posted what I thought might be an issue with GOTM4 on the spoiler thread. So have I invalidated my submission already?

I just don't want to bother Matrix with the files if this is the case.

Actually I play GOTM every month and something always goes wrong with my submission! Doh!! I think I only got a score once.

Concerning the spoiler thread: in there you may post anything you like. Outside the spoiler thread you shouldn't post valuable information, because everyone expects they can read anything outside the spoiler thread.

About reading the spoiler thread: do it to your own insight. :) If you're ahead in the game and know the whole map you can read everything. But if you've just started or have not yet begun, you shouldn't read. Ofcourse you can never tell exactly when you may read, but if you accidentally read something you couldn't have known yet, just pretend you don't until you don't when playing the game. :cool:

Ofcourse because of the patch, some exploits or bugs are no longer a problem. So I've eliminated some things, which makes the list rather small. ;) Is the current list correct?

Matrix, your mods to the list look good to me!

Based on the 1.17 readme notes I think it would be ok to say that GOTM#4 could be played with (or of course without! :)) the patch. If anyone hasn't started yet and wants to play with the patch, it will only reduce their score I think, not increase it.

One last thing, I hope I'm not being a pest about this: Did you decide that reloading to avoid accidental domination is not allowed? I just want to check to be sure whether that was your decision or whether that was a question which slipped through the cracks...

Originally posted by SirPleb
One last thing, I hope I'm not being a pest about this: Did you decide that reloading to avoid accidental domination is not allowed? I just want to check to be sure whether that was your decision or whether that was a question which slipped through the cracks...
My suggestion is: no. It's just part of the risk. But I do think we need to play a no-domination victory game next month. ;)

But I'm always open to suggestions. If you all think it's stupid, then we can always decide to allow it after all.

Fixed bug which allowed civs with no capitals.
So the No palace, no corruption is gone as well. This leaves a short, lame list actually. I don't think it's actually nescessary to have this list anymore. I mean, the rest all makes sense. It's quite logical you may not use the multi.sav cheat, and the rest is all allowed.

I have already posted this on another similar thread but I'm not clear as to whether this is allowed. Matrix and Aeson felt this tactic was okay, but I'm not so sure.

The exploit is to line your shore with any type of unit, including workers, and prevent landings.

I feel this is an unfair exploit as the AI has no recourse. This differs from blocking the AI's units on land as the AI can always declare war and attack. Although this problem is solved with marines, this is more of an issue in ancient times when marines are not available.

My suggestion is that for a GOTM, placing a unit on a shore line for the purpose of blocking a landing should not be allowed. This doesn't solve the invincible one tile island problem, but that is fairly rare.

Anyone else have an opinion?

Matrix, can you add this to your short lame list?

Originally posted by Beard Rinker
Matrix, can you add this to your short lame list?
:lol:

Okay, just done that. ;) However, I do think this may be allowed. I mean, how can you draw a border between what size of island is and what isn't allowed? I mean, for small islands you don't gain much from it, and for bigger islands you need a lot more units, so then there's quite some loss as well...

The island I attached here exists in the GOTM IV. If you think it should be disallowed, that means I need to retreat my pikeman right away. ;)

I vote to allow blocking. It is only an exploit when using workers (that's what marines are for), but even that is so rarely useful that it is not worth bothering with in a rules page. The shorter the rules are, the better. Small stuff like protecting a two or three tile island is going to maybe up a players score by 25 points. I don't think a rule is needed for such small potatoes.

For the rules page, I'd go with no reloading, and no reading the spoiler thread until you have seen the world map (or at least have the 1 A. D. save game file). That covers the worst abuses remaining with the new patch.

As for victory conditions, eliminating domination victory for GOTM just means that players can run up their score without fear of accidental domination before launching the space ship or gettting a histograph win. It will not result in more peaceful games, if that is the intent.

Although I find marshalljames' tone insulting, he may be right in that cheating is more common than you thought. Ive played online games for about 4 years now and cheating is pretty widespread. And Im not talking Diablo where it was free and practically everyone cheated. People will cheat (risking game accounts worth $100s) just so they can beat you and say "u suk l4m3r!!!!1!!1."

I see a clear distinction between the GOTM and multiplayer games and that is that you don't actually fight each other directly. You can't really get a kick through beating someone else. And I think this can be seen in the forums that go along with competitions.

Has anyone seen the forum of the CivLadder (MP for Civ2) once? There were always people fighting each other with words after a game has taken place. One of the best players, EyesOfNight, was a big ***hole. But now look in this forum. No one is calling anyone a cheater here and people are even trying to help each other. It is almost an unwritten rule that the top players explain how they won.

You can remove "non-military resource denial" from the list too. The 1.17f AI gets quite unhappy about scouts and workers inside its borders...

Really? Cool! :yeah:

Pop-rushing is still possible according to SirPleb. Thread in General Discussion. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16468)

SirPleb, you say that you like to use whatever means are available to play a game. But I hope you understand that it's Firaxis' goal that people more play in the spirit of the game, therefore they fought the pop-rusing tactic. To be honest I can't agree with you on this moral. http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/undecided.gif But I do hope you are willing to answer the next question ;).

It looks like pop-rushing is possible, but with a lot of effort. It needs some setting up. While in version 1.08/1.16 pop-rushing could be done almost automatically. Don't you think that therefore it can be called unallowed?

I don't think pop-rushing was meant to be completely removed, just weakened greatly. Firaxis just failed to see the possibility of overcoming unhappiness buildup by keeping all remaining population as specialists. Growth still occurs by adding workers to the population to be rushed. Not allowing this type of set up would make for a more balanced game, and is what Firaxis was probably shooting for with the patch. Normal pop-rushing, where happiness problems are dealt with more luxuries, garrisons, and happiness improvements should still be a valid form of production though.

Well, it seems we must use the v1.17 patch for the March GOTM? (Since the bugs/exploits that it fixes are not on the list.) Am I correct in assuming this?

As for cheating, I don't. Just check my GOTM scores if you don't believe me.:lol:

Now that I know it is okay to reload for pressing the wrong key I may do that. Depends on how big I think the mistake is. I've learned to live with them so far. I DO reload when my old computer hangs up or crashes but just do the same moves anyway. I think my playing has improved because of no reloads. Now if only I could get that whip out...

BTW I think it's safe to assume that Matrix doesn't cheat either since I beat him out in the last TWO GOTMs!;)

Originally posted by Matrix
Pop-rushing ... Don't you think that therefore it can be called unallowed?
This is a tough question for me. I like to use every "legitimate" technique I know of when it can help. Now you've made me ponder what do I mean by "legitimate"? On reflection I've found this a bit hard to define.

The first thing "legitimate" means to me is easy to define, it is a level playing field. This means that anything which is clear from the rules (GOTM or HOF) is easy for me. I don't need to ponder whether it would be otherwise be legitimate or not in my personal definition, I know the rules and I'm happy!

But the above definition would be a cop-out for the current question. You want the GOTM to have good rules, and when you are defining the rules that definition of legitimate is of course useless.

So now I've been thinking about what "legitimate" should mean in some purer sense when the rules aren't defined. I think what it means to me is "what the game's designers intended", colored a bit with "what I feel makes sense within the game's design." (Which becomes a dangerous coloring but is probably unavoidable for many people when thinking about these issues.) Most of the time this would be an easy definition for me. And on reflection this has been implicit to me in the rules all along. There will always be exploits/bugs discovered. It goes without saying to my mind that they are disallowed, that advantages gained which are clearly outside the intended gameplay (reveal maps, infinite cash, no corruption, whatever) should never be used.

Ok, now to try to apply that to the pop rushing issue. It turns out I have a real conflict on this one. It does seem clear, especially so after the 1.17 patch, that the game's designers did not intend it to be so powerful. So that says it should be out. But adding the personal coloring, I kind of like it, feel it is a sensible game element, and would prefer that it be made easier to do (and depowered a bit) instead of taken out. I must however be rational about this. It seems clear that the game's designers did not intend that a military build-up via pop rushing be possible. And it seems that most players don't agree with my coloring that it is a nice game element. So that's it, it really should be out.

If it is out then I think we'll want a good definition of just what is out. To me, it feels like there are a few kinds of pop rushing, some of which are an intended part of the game and should definitely still be in. The kinds of pop rushing which feel like different game elements to me:
1) Rushing of city improvements. Should be in, there's little reason to ever do it in a "garbage" city, and the game carries a penalty for this in happiness.
2) Rushing in desperation. Should be in. Isn't much different from drafting. If one is willing to pay the happiness cost to squeeze out a badly needed unit, that fits what I think is the intent of the rush feature.
3) Rushing to build up an offensive army. Should be out. This is the use of pop rushing which doesn't fit.
4) Rush-converting captured workers, or rush-reducing a captured town, for ongoing military buildup. This is tricky, I could argue either way on these. They don't matter as much as initial buildup but may still be very powerful at times. Might be best to consider that converting workers is out but reducing towns is in. (Converting captured workers gives a virtually unlimited supply and is much the same as rushing to build up an army. Reducing a town gives a limited supply and requires dealing with the risk of culture flip while doing it.)

If future GOTMs use the 1.17 patch then I think the above can be distilled into one straightforward rule: No pop rushing in single citizen "conversion" towns. That would allow (1) and (2), eliminate (3), and eliminate the most powerful part of (4). It would also eliminate the approaches which "feel" tricky, leaving just the direct approaches.

If the GOTM stays at 1.16 the rule might be harder to state. (I'm glad we have a couple of weeks before that decision is necessary. A bit more time to see if there are clear bugs which would be game-wreckers or not.) Still, even with 1.16, maybe a clear enough rule is not difficult. I'd find a rule like "No pop rushing for offensive military buildup" to be clear in my mind to cover all of the above. I guess that if someone else did not find the rule clear they'd ask and it would get covered in a thread.

Now a question from me: How to apply this rule to GOTM#4? I've just started, am at a very early stage. I've gone back to 1.16 because I'm really nervous of the premature-contact bug. (If it happened during my GOTM I wouldn't be able to submit this month, it gives major pre-knowledge and would invalidate the game.) From the bit of the map I've seen so far, GOTM#4 looks a bit pop-rushable in the military buildup sense. My question is to others who have already played GOTM#4, especially to those who expect to be high-scorers: Did you do military pop-rushing on this map? I think we had it defined as legitimate when GOTM#4 started. If high-scorers have done it on this map then I might want to too. (The old "level playing field" competitive streak in me coming out again! :)) If not then I'll lay off it for this map. I'll wait a day or so for answers, it is high time I devoted a bit more effort to "real work" for a bit anyway! :)

SirPleb, you're one of the best analysts I've ever seen. :goodjob:

For the GOTM IV you may use these rules (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3gotm/civ3gotm_rules2.shtml) and you may choose to either play with 1.16 or 1.17, but I guess you'll play before the patch. ;)

In any case, the future GOTM's must play played with 1.17. The patch has been made for a reason. But I think that 1.17 savegames cannot be loaded without the patch installed, just like when 1.16 came out.

4) Rush-converting captured workers, or rush-reducing a captured town, for ongoing military buildup. This is tricky, I could argue either way on these. They don't matter as much as initial buildup but may still be very powerful at times. Might be best to consider that converting workers is out but reducing towns is in. (Converting captured workers gives a virtually unlimited supply and is much the same as rushing to build up an army. Reducing a town gives a limited supply and requires dealing with the risk of culture flip while doing it.)

If future GOTMs use the 1.17 patch then I think the above can be distilled into one straightforward rule: No pop rushing in single citizen "conversion" towns. That would allow (1) and (2), eliminate (3), and eliminate the most powerful part of (4). It would also eliminate the approaches which "feel" tricky, leaving just the direct approaches.
I can agree with this. Pop rushing in single citizen "conversion" towns :rolleyes: is disallowed.

Originally posted by donsig
BTW I think it's safe to assume that Matrix doesn't cheat either since I beat him out in the last TWO GOTMs!;)
Just wait for this GOTM. :p If you want to start a personal vendetta, fine by me. ;)

Just wait for this GOTM. If you want to start a personal vendetta, fine by me.

Well, not a vendetta. Let's call it a duel. Can we start the March GOTM at high noon?

Oh oh, I forgot this month. My English were battered! I may have lost the duel already.:eek:

:blush: Thank you Matrix!

I just tried loading a couple of my 1.17 tests using 1.16. They crash nicely :crazyeyes So it is as you expected, it seems that a GOTM#5 created with 1.17 will be covered, will require 1.17 to play.

I kind of like the idea of not allowing pop-rushing to build up an offensive army.

That being said, I do like pop-rushing for city improvements, emergencies etc., and if fully allowed in a GOTM, I will probably exploit it fully.

Perhaps the pop-rushing exploit could be avoided with the following GOTM rule:
Workers/settlers can only join a city that is not in disorder and has at least 1 working citizen.

Any city used as a conversion town will quickly build up enough unhappiness so no citizen will be able to work. This rule should answer all the points SirPleb made and it seems like a good way to close up the pop-rushing loophole. Also this kind of fits in the current game structure as I think you can't add workers to cities in disorder anyway.

I submitted my GOTM4 about 3 days after it was posted. I've yet to go with an all out pop rush in any of the GOTM's, but have done at least a few pop rushes in every one so far. It certainly helps in GOTM4 to get a quick 20 horsemen or so, after that I didn't see any added value in it. The pop rushing questions weren't raised until after I had submitted, and to disallow it for this GOTM would be to give us early finishers too much of an advantage.

I think the ruling on pop rushing should be to allow/disallow what is possible through the game mechanics that are set for pop rushing. Making up a set of guidelines as to when it is or is not allowed adds a lot of judgement calls that each player has to make while playing the game. While they may be more in the spirit of the game, rules like "only in emergencies", "only if workers haven't been added", and "no offensive units" would lead to games being played under slightly different conditions based on the players interpretation of those rules. Also they would add a lot of micromanagement on the part of the player, like keeping track of which cities workers had been added to, and which units have been tagged "emercency" or "defensive" through their being pop rushed. The exception would be the "only improvements may be rushed" rule, which would an easy one to keep track of.

Pop-rushing
In despotism, you can build cities which are ment purely for unit rush building. Other cities build workers, add those to the rush building cities and these cities use them to rush build units. This is disallowed, so do not build these kind of cities.
Agreed?

I've seen some people talking about "infinite cash". Could anyone care to explain how that works and if it's still possible after the last patch?

You might clarify the last bit:

This is disallowed, so do not build these kind of cities,
or use captured enemy cities in this way.

The way I might do things, is on the first page where players get the file, mention reloading, reading the spoiler thread, pop rushing, and using an editor, because these are the most effective ways to boost a score. On the second page go into more detail.

Example:
The following are disallowed for the Game of the Month:
- Reloading or restarting the game
- Reading the spoiler thread before you see the world map
- Exploiting Pop rushing to build military units
- Using an editor to modify the game
If you do any of the above, your game is not valid for submission. Please follow the rules so that the competition is a fair one and remains a fun one. If you need further clarification on these rules follow this link: xxxxyyyy

The shorter you can make the rules, the more likely they are to be read and followed. For the few that are unsure about a rule, they can follow the link or maybe post on the forum.

At the link, go into more detail. Discuss the valid reloads for a game crash or a mismove mouse slip. Go into how you can post to the spoiler thread, but not read it before obtaining the world map because prior knowledge of the map is an unfair advantage. Go into more detail about the pop rushing and how pop rushing one or two citizens to complete a building is within the rules, but joining workers for the purpose of pop rushing to build units is definitely out.

Example:
Reloading or restarting the game is against the rules. The exception is in cases of a game crash or an accidental mismove. Reloading for a poor combat result is disallowed. Restarting the game due to a poor start is disallowed. Please play the game with these rules in mind. If a player wants to replay a game for fun that is fine, but the replay is not valid for submission.

Reading the spoiler thread to obtain prior knowledge of the map is against the rules. Players may post to the spoiler thread at any time. After you obtain the world map, reading is allowed. Please keep any spoilers in the appropiate thread.

Using the editor or playing with a mod or a different version of the game is against the rules, because a player can get an unfair advantage. The current GOTM is for version 1.17f.

In despotism, you can build cities which are meant purely for unit rush building. Other cities build workers, add those to the rush building cities and these cities use them to rush build units. This is disallowed, so do not build these kind of cities, or use captured enemy cities in this way. Pop rushing one or two regular citizens to finish a building or to build a unit is within the rules and the spirit of the game. What is against the rules is joining workers to cities for the purpose of pop rushing.

(Beard Rinker)
Workers/settlers can only join a city that is not in disorder and has at least 1 working citizen.I think that almost works but might still leave loopholes. E.g. capture an enemy city, add in a bunch of recently captured workers as soon as it is in good order, then reduce it into military units via pop rushing. And it might preclude some legitimate/useful moves. E.g. capture an enemy city which one wants to keep because of a wonder. Discover that it is in disarray due to the AI's rushing/drafting. Might want to add some workers to try to turn the city around.
(Aeson)
The exception would be the "only improvements may be rushed" rule, which would an easy one to keep track of.I'm not sure I'd like that - there are times that rushing a single unit in a "good" town would be worth the penalties. I think it is desirable to have a rule which would follow the spirit of the game better if only we can find a description which seems clear enough.
(BillChin)
In despotism, you can build cities which are meant purely for unit rush building. Other cities build workers, add those to the rush building cities and these cities use them to rush build units. This is disallowed, so do not build these kind of cities, or use captured enemy cities in this way. Pop rushing one or two regular citizens to finish a building or to build a unit is within the rules and the spirit of the game. What is against the rules is joining workers to cities for the purpose of pop rushing.I like those suggested extensions to Matrix's paragraph. I'd suggest a few other changes to generalize a bit more:

"In despotism and communism it is possible to use cities purely for unit rush building. Workers can be added to such a city and then the city can then use them to rush build units. This is disallowed, so do not create these kind of cities. Pop rushing one or two regular citizens to finish a building or to build a unit is within the rules and the spirit of the game. What is against the rules is joining workers to cities for the purpose of pop rushing."

(Again) I find your words best, SirPleb, so I used those. I don't think we need to mention the spoiler thread in the rules page. It'll only make the page cluttered. We might decide that the first poster should mention those rules, or I'll add such a text to the first post of the spoiler thread every month, just like with the Word Association thread in Off-Topic.

I have seen a new exploit with the 1.17 patch. Specifically, you can upgrade army units!

The way to do this is to use the new "j" command to move a stack which contains the army units to be upgraded, as well as some like units not in an army. This effectively, and in a graphically weird way, separates the units from the army. You can then "load" new upgraded units into the army. :eek:

I don't think this should be allowed in the rules...:o

I never use army :D ... leader are for wonders.

Thanks, greame. :goodjob:

Just my two cents:

Allow, what the AI does! They often block small islands - maybe not intentionally, but when the only free squares are hills they often do block them - so that should be allowed.

also, the AI somtimes tries to herd my settlers away from good spots to get his settler there - but only for the last 1 or 2 tiles - so just keep it to that.

It`s all an honor sytem here anyway!

Speaking of armies, what about free armies from goody huts? That seems common in 1.17f and an early army makes for a very easy game. Can one of the adminstrators look into turning off goody huts like they do on Apolyton (www.apolyton.net), at least until they fix this huge bug?

Or is the feeling that the same seed will make for about the same number of free armies for each player so it is not a problem? Just asking.

Originally posted by BillChin
Speaking of armies, what about free armies from goody huts? That seems common in 1.17f and an early army makes for a very easy game. Can one of the adminstrators look into turning off goody huts like they do on Apolyton (www.apolyton.net), at least until they fix this huge bug?

Or is the feeling that the same seed will make for about the same number of free armies for each player so it is not a problem? Just asking.

Somwhere in another thread I found the following explanation:

there`s two versions of the patch. The first gives armies and that is considered a bug. Firaxis quietly put up the fixed patch without changing the number (like to 1.17f.2 or so), so some people have it some don`t. I guess we`ll just have to ask everyone to install the new version!

Originally posted by BillChin
Speaking of armies, what about free armies from goody huts?

really??

i've not played with the 1.17 rules yet but that sounds cool. personally i don't think armies are that great. the fact they can only attack once a turn really limits their use and the retreating is already possesed by the mounted units (which you will be mostly using anyway).

do you really think having an army unit early (as opposed to say, a free tech or a free settler) would unbalance the game?

ever curious,
-ChumChum
:cooool:

Originally posted by ChumChum
do you really think having an army unit early (as opposed to say, a free tech or a free settler) would unbalance the game?The big benefit in having an early army is being able to build Heroic Epic. That is definitely a big deal because it improves the chances for subsequent Great Leaders, making them 4/3 as frequent. Depending on the map and situation this could be even better than getting a settler. If you planned to use a Great Leader to build an army for this purpose (getting Heroic Epic) then getting an army from a hut is equivalent to getting a Great Leader! It is certainly hugely better than getting a tech I'd say. So I guess it adds a second very lucky possible result from huts. (I only think of settlers as being very lucky. Maybe techs sometimes if they're badly needed or expensive ones.)

Originally posted by SirPleb
The big benefit in having an early army is being able to build Heroic Epic. That is definitely a big deal because it improves the chances for subsequent Great Leaders, making them 4/3 as frequent.


Then it seems the key to high scores is to get heroic epic early and Military Academy get great leaders and rush every single wonder.
Therefore in future game of the month it may be wise to set barbarians to sedentary as having then attack is a cheap way for good players to get elite units and therefore great leaders.

There is always a great deal of luck involved in Civ3. Think of a battle between your first warrior attacking the only city of an enemy (with only one warrior).

The only way of dealing with the army-from-goody-hut bug is saying you must reload once you get that. We can hardly ask people to do that. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by marshalljames
Then it seems the key to high scores is to get heroic epic early and Military Academy get great leaders and rush every single wonder.I don't think there is a single "the key", aside from military aggression. (Every high score will, I think, involve successful military campaigns because of the way the scoring works.) This particular approach (lots of Great Leaders) depends on the map and the Civ. For a non-militaristic Civ it only begins to make sense on a map large enough to expect fighting to result in 76 (16 + 5 * 12) or more wins with elite units - that's the minimum for building Heroic Epic first to net a long term gain. (Vs. 5 * 16 = 80 to get the same number of leaders without Heroic Epic.) Not much gain until you go higher again. I think the gain is a fair bit more dramatic for militaristic Civs but I don't know the numbers. My guess would be 57 (12 + 5 * 9) before expecting to be ahead by building Heroic Epic.
Originally posted by marshalljames
Therefore in future game of the month it may be wise to set barbarians to sedentary as having then attack is a cheap way for good players to get elite units and therefore great leaders. As far as I know, winning a fight with barbarians will never result in a Great Leader, you can only get leaders in fights with rival Civs.

I have played GOTM4 fully 1.17f patched. :p
Concerning the pop-rushing issue I did use some pop-rushing but not the exploit by adding workers. And the result is that only my rush city was highly unhappy after rushing 4 units and a temple.
So I agree to NO adding of workers or settlers for pop-rushing.
All other ways of pop-rushing are adressed in the patch and generate a high degree of unhappiness.
And the AI uses pop-rushing in such an extreme way when waging war that it would be a disadvantage to disallow unit rushing for us.
In my game the French and the Zulu have pop-rushed many of their cities including their capitals from size 6 or more down to size 1. The resulting unhappiness lasts extremely long and is another reason to raze most cities. :eek:

Originally posted by Matrix
There is always a great deal of luck involved in Civ3. Think of a battle between your first warrior attacking the only city of an enemy (with only one warrior).

The only way of dealing with the army-from-goody-hut bug is saying you must reload once you get that. We can hardly ask people to do that. :rolleyes:

Why don`t you simply ask people to use the corrected version of 1.17f where there`s no more armies from goodiehuts? It`s all a matter of honesty already so this is just one more thing to be honest about.....

As a this-month-specific issue:

Can I play the first-half of the GOTM with v. 1.16, and the second under 1.17 (is this even possible?)

Why? Civ III exe crash has stuffed my invasion of the aztecs. :cry:

I don't really want to replay the whole thing, as this would be cheating!

And the other option is to reload an autosave from about 5 turns back, and hope for the best. But of course, my invasion is only two-turns old (in which I took 4 cities).

Yes, you may. And yes, it's possible. And I don't think you'll be the only one who played one half with 1.16 and the other with 1.17...

Hijaking the topic starting to form on spoiler thread.


If you remove domination from GOTM then you just go to the old CIV2 method of taking your opponent down to one city and then milking the whole planet. If you remove conquest and domination then you can just terminate all the opponents and milk the scenario. We should not change the rules so quickly cause it took ten years to get where we are with the rules. Currently we are changing the rules with every patch, things have a way of sorting themselves out. If it's in the game then it's in the game, let the designers take it out if they see it as an exploit.

Cartouche Bee

Good point. :) I've thought the same thing about domination: perhaps they intended it this way.

On the other hand, clarification always seems to be a good thing. So if they could simply enlighten this kind of stuff...

Perhaps reloading on accidently domination should be allowed.

It seems there are a large number of players trying to milk the game and accidentaly triggering domination. There are also allot of players who don't or can't put in the extra time to win by another means.

If reloading under these circumstances were allowed it would keep both camps happy.

This would also be consistent with HOF rules.

NO.

If some people are to greedy warmongers it is their own fault.

I never triggered domination victory by accident because I prefer to play cautious.

I triggered a cultural vic by accident in the last game of the month too. No one would allow me to reload.

If you are winning a way you don´t expect it is still a winning .

That is what we all play for.

If you just win you can´t just say: I want to win by a different way to get more points.

You only win domination victories using brute force against rival civs.
If this results in a lower score it is okay, because it rewards peacefull players.
:king:

Originally posted by Taé Shala
NO.

If some people are to greedy warmongers it is their own fault.

I never triggered domination victory by accident because I prefer to play cautious.

I triggered a cultural vic by accident in the last game of the month too. No one would allow me to reload.

If you are winning a way you don´t expect it is still a winning .

That is what we all play for.

If you just win you can´t just say: I want to win by a different way to get more points.

You only win domination victories using brute force against rival civs.
If this results in a lower score it is okay, because it rewards peacefull players.
:king:

on principle you`re certainly right. The problem is that domination rules are mysterious and it is difficult to predict when it`s going to happen. So I guess a detailed explanation by Firaxis would be best.....


I often end up taking whole continents just to get rid of the culture flip risk when originally I just wanted to take 1 or 2 towns because of a res or lux.

Same is with cultural victory.

1. You must have 20.000 culture points in a single city. - Easy to understand. That is OK. :goodjob:

2. If your civilization is worth 100,000 and at least twice as much as any rival, you win. - Twice as much? What does it mean? We don´t have any exact numbers.:confused:
Once I accidently won when another civ razed one city of a rival of me. I don´t know if this was the trigger but I think so.
So what I want to say is that as long as there are no exact numbers going for a cultural vic is also like playing with fire.

And therefore there are two solutions:
1. You may reload after you accidently got a domination or cultural victory. - This is against the currently accepted rules. It is even against the spirit of the GotM from my point of view.

2. You may not reload. This is the currently accepted rule. I don´t see any reason to change it.

Originally posted by Taé Shala
Same is with cultural victory.

1. You must have 20.000 culture points in a single city. - Easy to understand. That is OK. :goodjob:

2. If your civilization is worth 100,000 and at least twice as much as any rival, you win. - Twice as much? What does it mean? We don´t have any exact numbers.:confused:
Once I accidently won when another civ razed one city of a rival of me. I don´t know if this was the trigger but I think so.
So what I want to say is that as long as there are no exact numbers going for a cultural vic is also like playing with fire.

And therefore there are two solutions:
1. You may reload after you accidently got a domination or cultural victory. - This is against the currently accepted rules. It is even against the spirit of the GotM from my point of view.

2. You may not reload. This is the currently accepted rule. I don´t see any reason to change it.

you do have a good point there!

Of course I'm with you too Taé. ;) The fact that you don't know exactly when domination victory commences is not enough reason to make reloading in such a case valid.

Originally posted by Beard Rinker
Perhaps reloading on accidently domination should be allowed.

It seems there are a large number of players trying to milk the game and accidentaly triggering domination. There are also allot of players who don't or can't put in the extra time to win by another means.

If reloading under these circumstances were allowed it would keep both camps happy.

This would also be consistent with HOF rules.

But the HOF and GOTM are two different styles of play. The HOF is meant to amass a huge number of points, while the GOTM is meant to be a comparative game with other players.

I didn't read all the suggestions here, but I don't think the HOF and GOTM should try and be like each other. I allow reloading for checking domination limits because it promotes people to explore the limits of the game, which can help other people play better once those limits are discussed. The GOTM is meant to be a friendly way to play the game with other people without actually having to 'play the game with other people' (Multiplayer).

For the record, I prefer having the domination victory condition in the GOTM. I only have time to play one game a month and just barely at that. Domination victory provides a good way to shorten a game that is clearly won.

Having said that, it is obvious many players enjoy maximizing their score and all players who do this have difficulty determining how much land they can grab without accidentaly triggering a domination victory. All other victory conditions are quite clear. With the cultural victory, your current culture is shown in the cultural advisor screen and your culture relative to other civilizations in the histogram screen. 100,000 is 100,000, there is no ambiguity there.

I have read allot of posts puzzling over what the exact formula is for determining a domination victory. Many of them by the top GOTM players. The fact is right now it is a guess as to what triggers a domination victory.

An obvious solution is for Firaxis to publish how a domination victory is determined. Anyone willing to spend the time to maximize their score should be willing to count tiles to avoid an accidental domination victory. Even better would be a future patch that displays how close you are to a domination victory.

For the time being, I would not have a problem with a player reloading if they accidentaly achieved domination victory. Perhaps a restriced clear rule like this:

- You may reload a game back one year if you accidentaly achieve a domination victory. You can only do this once per game.

Currently you are allowed to reload when you press a wrong button or put another way when you accidentaly do something unintended.

I can't be the only one who shed a tear when SirPleb accidentaly won in 1345.

Originally posted by Beard Rinker
Currently you are allowed to reload when you press a wrong button or put another way when you accidentaly do something unintended.
That's not put in another way, but something entirely different!

When you want a bread you go to the supermarket, but when you go to the supermarket you don't have to get a bread. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Beard Rinker
I can't be the only one who shed a tear when SirPleb accidentaly won in 1345.
It's painful, indeed. But that's part of the game. Just like Killer who got killed very early by barbarians and other bad luck.

It seems opinions are pretty unanimous against this suggestion. Ironically, I probably would not use this if it were allowed.

If it is not obvious from my previous posts why I suggested this, I will make clear now:
- Many players like the domination victory condition as they can shorten a game that is clearly won. (me included)
- Many players dislike the domination victory condition and would like it disabled because they cannot determine the domination victory threshold. (many of the GOTM top players)

I will say no more on the subject (unless prompted of course), but I do have a few questions. What does buying bread have to do with a domination victory? Is this some new type of Microsoft bread?

Originally posted by Beard Rinker
I will say no more on the subject (unless prompted of course), but I do have a few questions. What does buying bread have to do with a domination victory? Is this some new type of Microsoft bread?
When you accidentally press the wrong button you do something unintended, but when you do something unintended you don't have to have pressed the wrong button.

- Then why didn't you say so?

Because metaphors are fun! And I thought it would be clear. ;)

There's one critical thing that an accidental domination victory has in common with a "finger flub":

It's known to be against the player's intention in advance.

It is NOT the sort of "strategic error" or "bad roll of the dice" that one must not reload to preserve the integrity of competition.

Now, it's great to get into the habit of not making finger slips, just like it's great to get in the habit of being aware of the threshold for domination victory (2/3 of landmass, right? And initial map settings let you compute how many squares that is within one, in principle?). But what's your reasoning in allowing finger flubs to be reloaded?

Well, I really fail to see how it doesn't apply to reloading accidental domination.

What exactly does banning that accomplish? Let's say 10 people try to milk their game at the threshold of domination victory, but two of them screw up and accidentally trigger domination. Well, with a ban, life for those two people sucks, but otherwise there's no substantial change in the environment, everyone else's scores still have to compete with the other 8 near-dominators.

Seems like nobody actually benefits, instead it just forces more anal play.

Does anyone have an opinion on whether using Chiefpaco's mapstat utility should be allowed or not? (For info about it see this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18243)

Mapstat can be used to count the number of tiles by type (grassland, sea, etc.) on a map. It will show the number of tiles of each type owned by each Civ in the game. It does not show any other information and does not allow any kind of editing of a save game.

My feeling is that using mapstat (in order to work out the Domination threshold) should be allowed in the GOTM. But only after one has played far enough to see most or all of the map of course. At that point mapstat does not show any information which the player can't get by doing a tedious manual count so it seems valid to me, it removes the tedium and eyestrain of counting manually.

Sure! I don't think it can't do any harm letting a computer count the number of squares everyone possesses (What a word!) instead of doing it yourself. So sure, use it. :)

On another thread, Spork brought up a minor exploit that has not been discussed. The exploit involves hopping units from ship to ship in the same tile to cross oceans faster. With enough ships, a stack of units can cross a twenty tile ocean in one turn. This is an exploit, but requires a lot of units to really take advantage of it.

There are a number of alternatives for this one:
1) Do nothing and let players use the exploit
2) Allow one ship hop per land unit, per turn
3) No ship hopping allowed

I vote for #2.

Me too.

And I'd say #1. This was possible with Civ1 and Civ2 as well and has never been mentioned there since it's already known. I don't see how this is an exploit more than simply a tactic. :) I actually use it now and then already.

I completely agree with you, Matrix. It is a simple tactic and not an exploit. It even bears a certain degree of reality.
There have been changes of cargo among ships out on open sea for as long as there are any ships out there at all.
And as Matrix said it also has been part of all previous civ games and noone called it a cheat then.
So it´s a simple and valid tactic.
:D