What part of 'competitive challenge' do you not understand? Using this exploit, depending on the amount and opportunities of use, shaves off at least 20 turns from a space victory, and potentially much more. In private games people can do what they want, I've no issue with that. Now I don't claim to be a top level player - I can only beat Immortal with no special aids - but it would be nice to have a level playing field and not being forced to use the exploit in order to not gimp myself on purpose for the sake of role play.
I read your immersion point to be separate from your other statement "I can't play competitive challenges because other people use the exploit in these, gaining a big advantage." I read the latter is an objection based on fairness or comparability of results or such, not immersion, so I didn't respond to that point. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
On the issue of comparability of results: The "exploit" offends you (and others) to an extent that you refuse to use it, which means you are "disadvantaged" when comparing your game results to others who do use it (or who you suspect use it), and that spoils the sense of competition. Understood.
Of course, none of that has anything to do with immersion, which only coincidentally may yield a competition-winning strategy (for example, some immersion-focused players might want to make sure that, as Egypt they build the Pyramids, or as the Mayans they build Chichen Itza in the city of Chichen Itza -- fun stuff, but not recipe for fastest finish time).
Ok - not *solely* like a guy crunching numbers. Of course you must consider the mechanics and weigh your decisions in order to master the game. But ideally that does not interfere with role playing, or does so to a minor extent. The exploit otoh is a massive slap in the face with a super-cooled kryptonite glove, the message being: "You're playing a GAME, bubba!". I play games to escape reality, so I don't want them rubbing it in my face at every turn.
Over-react much? If you are playing single-player, and don't use this "exploit," how is that face rubbing?
In any event, all of the backstab mechanics in this game have ample historical precedent, from sneak attacks by supposed friends, to surprise denunciations, to borrowing money from international creditors and then defaulting.
Want to talk immersion? Having a nation that has never defaulted on its debt breaks immersion from my perspective. History is littered with nations that defaulted on their debt obligations, either strategically or as a result of war. To cite just a couple, Germany repudiated its debts in 1939 (hmmm, what happened that year?), the first French Republic repudiated the debts of Bourbon France in 1812 (um, who did Napoleon invade that year? Oh, yeah, Russia! That turned out well), and the Soviet government defaulted on debts of the Russian Empire in 1918.
I think the problem players perceive with the default mechanic is not the default itself, but a perception that there are no consequences from defaulting to the AI (or that the consequences that do ensue - war and a diplo hit - aren't as severe as historical precedent). The argument goes that, in the real world, a default will at least damage the reputation of the country among creditors, impairing its ability of the state to borrow money in the future.
Sounds nice, but history (again) demonstrates the fallacy of that argument. Countries are routinely able to access global capital markets soon after defaulting. Spain defaulted or restructured its debts 8 times in the 19th century alone, which means its creditors KEPT LENDING IT MONEY after every default/restructuring. Given the span of years covered by even 10 turns in the early and mid-game, I have no problem with the idea that memories fade and the next generation of lenders can and will ignore the lessons of their past dealings with other civs.
So, no, I have no problem with the default mechanic or the short-memories of the AI. (Frankly, given how long some diplo modifiers last, I think many of us wish the AI would forget the past a bit more quickly, as to other diplo aspects of the game, like ancient era warmongering.)
And how is it fair or balanced to take 1000-5000 gold from a Deity AI before each DOW that you would have done anyways (or that they'd have done to you), as an automatic action? There's literally no strategy to the decision; you do it each and every DOW with no repercussions. Additionally, you may make DOWs just to use the exploit. Granted that there's a strategic element to these decisions due to war monger rep hit and a potentially dangerous extra war - but if you're strong enough or the AI is far enough away (on another continent), then it's fairly safe to do and the rewards can be massive.
Well, I think you exaggerate again. At least since the Fall patch, the only time I see Deity AI with gold stacks that high are with runaways in the late game, when they have multiples of every luxury and gpt north of 500. Much more common these days are AI civs with 72 or 138 or 165 gold (and anywhere from 0 gpt to 200+ gpt). Frankly not worth the DOW, unless you are also stealing a worker or settler.
Also, even if you found an early-game Deity AI with a nice healthy gold stack (think Spain, right after she finds El Dorado), you still have to give them something of value to get their lump sum gold. On turn 40, I've probably sold my only developed luxury to another AI (gotta love that 146 gold + 3 gpt), so I have maybe an embassy, 5+ gpt and 2 horses to offer -- adds up to 373 gold -- just a bit more than I need to buy a granary, and I then have to deal with the diplo and military consequences of my DOW. Not exactly game breaking.
Consider this: if the exploit were removed or there were penalties for it, then you'd simply adapt and try to master the new rules. While those who were bothered by the exploit could rest easy. It's win-win, or at least neutral-win; there's no downsides to fixing the exploit. Also, if it were removed by way of removing AI lump sum trades, you'd arguably have *more* strategy in the game, due to having to watch your gold reserves more carefully, not being able to use the AIs for 'instant bank automats' each time you have a sudden need for gold.
No disagreement there. But, that's not the current game, and I don't think (and evidently the Firaxis devs don't think) that a change is required to "fix" the game (particularly in light of the rich history of government debt defaults and repudiations, for those who like to role-play or be immersed in history).
If that is true then there is a clear downside to it. Are you sure about this? How much would they give, approximately, if you did trick them in your example? Would it be like 10k instead of 22k? If the reduction is enough, then I guess it is fair and balanced... What a fuss over nothing if that is the case. 
