Banned Exploits - Question & Answers

[Xger]

i get that stealing a CS worker isnt an exploit but what about stealing AI workers? pholtz mentions an LP where you sell gpt, DoW, then wait on a peace deal. but really it was sell gpt, DoW and steal AI worker, and wait on the peace deal. is that a fake war?

i get that there is a legit strategy to taking AI workers but you have to DoW for it and often you can do this a few times sub-t20. Even with AI spending way more gold than pre-patch you can still milk them for 500g+ by t20.

If you sell gpt first, it is fake, and you must take half the cities or the capitol.

I would imagine DoWing to steal a worker would also be fake.

 

[Neuro]

i get that stealing a CS worker isnt an exploit but what about stealing AI workers? pholtz mentions an LP where you sell gpt, DoW, then wait on a peace deal. but really it was sell gpt, DoW and steal AI worker, and wait on the peace deal. is that a fake war?

i get that there is a legit strategy to taking AI workers but you have to DoW for it and often you can do this a few times sub-t20. Even with AI spending way more gold than pre-patch you can still milk them for 500g+ by t20.

This is precisely why I dislike this "exploit" rule. I agree that the AI is weak when it comes to making deals, but the flaw is in the AI, not in the gameplay. I remember in Civ3, if you sold GPT or a Lux and then DoW, no other AI would trade any per-turn for cash for almost the rest of the game.

Realistically, the entire game is about exploiting the AI, so trying to legislate gameplay gets into debates about how much war is a "real war". Rules against exploits need solid definitions; the Oxford exploit is easy to define, "don't build it twice". But all these "well, you can sell lux, but if you break it you can't resell it, and you can't repair it, blah blah blah".

It's not that I want to exploit the AI, it's that by having vague definitions, you make it that much harder to follow the rules; I find myself almost never declaring war unless it's a full blown war of conquest, when in reality "nuisance wars" were quite common throughout history. Of course, I don't do the HoF that often anymore because I hate the constant rerolling, and I really hate the epic/marathon games, but that's just me.

 

[glory7]

If you sell gpt first, it is fake, and you must take half the cities or the capitol.

I would imagine DoWing to steal a worker would also be fake.

I am relatively new to HoF and still trying to understand these complicated rules. As far as I understood, stealing worker (or any kind of DoW) is fine as long as you did not sell lux or gpt for lump sum deal before. Can someone confirm this?

I have one more question, similar to this issue too. Say I have protection agreement with AI 1. AI 2 DoW AI 1, so I automatically DoW AI 2. I had gpt/lux for lump sum deal with AI 2. In this case, I assume that I could make peace with AI 2 later, without taking his cities. Am I got this rule correctly?

 

[Moriarte]

i get that stealing a CS worker isnt an exploit but what about stealing AI workers? pholtz mentions an LP where you sell gpt, DoW, then wait on a peace deal. but really it was sell gpt, DoW and steal AI worker, and wait on the peace deal. is that a fake war?

i get that there is a legit strategy to taking AI workers but you have to DoW for it and often you can do this a few times sub-t20. Even with AI spending way more gold than pre-patch you can still milk them for 500g+ by t20.

I guess it falls under "you can do it as long as you capture their Cap. (or few cities) later"

 

[Denniz]

There is nothing wrong with worker stealing.

Reminder: This thread is not for debate about the banned exploits. Plesase stick to just questions.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

it was specifically about AI worker stealing, not CS workers. it requires a DoW to get it.

 

[Denniz]

it was specifically about AI worker stealing, not CS workers. it requires a DoW to get it.

That is why it is okay. You take a Diplo penality for doing. I didn't think there was any real difference betweem AI or CS worker stealling.

The GPT exploit is on a whole other plain. The diplo penalty for repeated DOW in exchange for hundreds or thousands of AI gold is totally unbalanced. The exception for a "real" war was intended to permit some breaking of treaties in the normal course of play. Trading the same resource to each AI for GPT in the course of a turn or two is not really normal play. Whether it is broken via DOW or pillaging a road doesn't much matter.

 

[Moriarte]

For example, i steal a worker on turn 20. Turn 30 the Civ i stole from comes back and offers sweet deal. Can i accept it? Or should i insist on 'white peace'? Or i can't take peace at all until i get some cities from them? A bit confused here..

 

[Denniz]

For example, i steal a worker on turn 20. Turn 30 the Civ i stole from comes back and offers sweet deal. Can i accept it? Or should i insist on 'white peace'? Or i can't take peace at all until i get some cities from them? A bit confused here..

Yes. Take the deal if you like. There are no restrictions with regards to worker stealing. Do as you choose.

The phony war restriction only relates to Gold Per Turn deals being being broken.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

hmm. okay. i can steal the worker and accept a peace deal so long as i didnt bleed them before hand. or i can steal the worker and bleed them but i then have to take the cities/cap before peace. it is clearer for me now.

thanks, denniz (and moriarte for sparking the question). its hard to keep the caveats straight when you get into fast clicking mode in the early turns. i need to slow it down some thru t40.

 

[Moriarte]

Thanks Denniz. I think it's quite exploitative then.. Like, i DoW everyone as soon as i meet them, steal their workers too and on turn 40 i have 1k gold + 30 gpt cause they all came back to me with sweet deals. Never done it in my previous HoF submissions, but if you say it's legal.. i can finish much faster.

 

[tommynt]

Thanks Denniz. I think it's quite exploitative then.. Like, i DoW everyone as soon as i meet them, steal their workers too and on turn 40 i have 1k gold + 30 gpt cause they all came back to me with sweet deals. Never done it in my previous HoF submissions, but if you say it's legal.. i can finish much faster.

so abusing dumb and weak ai is an exploite to u

but absuing dumb and weak ai is no exploit to u if Denniz says so?

You got no own opinion?

 

[Moriarte]

so abusing dumb and weak ai is an exploite to u

Yes, that's the word.

but absuing dumb and weak ai is no exploit to u if Denniz says so?

If Denniz says yes, i'll call it 'allowed exploit' and keep playing. You should know: i like exploits.

You got no own opinion?

Who cares about opinions, i'm here to play against a bunch of people who agreed on certain rules. I can play by any. You don't mind, do you?

 

[BobiB420]

I am seriously confused now, not just because of the unclear information here, but because my latest submission was excluded for supposed:

"Exploit involving trading for Lump Sums of Gold
Systematically making and breaking agreements for lump sums of gold with the AIs is not allowed. It is considered an exploit when there is a clear pattern of activity beyond normal play.

Examples of tactics used:

Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
Repeatedly selling Gold per Turn (GPT) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal."

I'd like to point out that if you really did look at my saves, you would see that I had never once declared a "phony" war. The AI seems to really hate me, because no matter what I do, they always push me to war. Kamehameha visits me in the first few turns of my last game, we make friends, 10 turns later (after making trades, including one for lump gold) he shows up next to my capital with a settler. Would any sane player let that happen? Hell no, I declared war and stopped that ish before it started. Is that considered an exploit?

I make deals with other civs left and right because without trading, I end up with either a microscopic empire or running red all the time and broke as a joke. There was even a time when I made a trade with a civ, and then 30 turns later he systematically converted all my cities with his religion, so right before I warred him, I gave him back the difference of the gold I would be presumed to "owe" him, because I was afraid of that one single incident excluding my game. Looks like I was right.

I totally get trying to keep submissions out where there is blatant false wars. DoW without a single unit hurt or even killed. When I declare war I at least take 1 city, if not blow them to smithereens. Why is it that a "natural" war ends up being some sort of technical exploit because of the ai's insistence on trading lump gold?

The only "clear" pattern in my games is that I try my best to make friends with the AI, only to get screwed on trades and pushed over the edge to war. Just doesn't seem right.

I read this entire thread. Every last comment. What I understand about all of this is that lump gold is simply illegal. There is no "right" way to trade for lump gold, because one way or another wars break out and *BOOM* it's suddenly an exploit.

Gold problems aside, is early DoW purely for purposes of leveling up your soldiers an exploit? If so, then I must be guilty for having Lv11+ soldiers prior to turn 100 @ marathon.

 

[Peets]

BobiB420, we do not discus excluded games on the forum.
You have received an email about it, please reply to that and we will look at your game again.

 

[Xger]

I read this entire thread. Every last comment. What I understand about all of this is that lump gold is simply illegal. There is no "right" way to trade for lump gold, because one way or another wars break out and *BOOM* it's suddenly an exploit.

The way I have avoided this issue is pretty simply, if I declare war while having any per turn trades active, I do not accept peace unless I take the AI's capitol or half their cities. This has resulted in war for over 100 turns in a few instances.

Gold problems aside, is early DoW purely for purposes of leveling up your soldiers an exploit? If so, then I must be guilty for having Lv11+ soldiers prior to turn 100 @ marathon.

If it is against a full blown civ, you must eventually take some of their cities. If it is a city-state, I do not believe that is against the rules.

 

[BobiB420]

The way I have avoided this issue is pretty simply, if I declare war while having any per turn trades active, I do not accept peace unless I take the AI's capitol or half their cities. This has resulted in war for over 100 turns in a few instances.

Does that include accepting some of their cities from a peace offering after beating 'em up pretty bad and turning down all previous offers? 'cause that's the way I like to treat civ's who act a little pompous or childish. What's that Ethiopia? My religion is ignorant? burn your land till you give me your cities, then burn those while I watch you watch me

 

[BobiB420]

Ahh, humor aside though, the exploit-rules just seem too strict and vague. It's easy to give an example of blatant exploitation, but the more subtle offenses should be re-examined thoroughly. Even if your trying to play the game like an "honest john" character, minding all the details of trades as you play, circumstances can easily arise that, for serious lack of a better definition, would automatically qualify as a phony war.

Pretend for a moment, that you've recently made some trades with your more religious neighbor, and just barely founded your own religion. a few dozen turns later (depending on speed) your "friend" is bombarding you with missionaries and prophets. Since civilian units dont require open borders, literally your only defense against the religious onslaught is DoW, unless you're willing to sacrifice pretty much all future prophets to stem the conversion, thus stifling your own in the process.

Or, maybe your "friend" is a warmongering Washington, and before you even make a dent in his city's defenses, he suddenly upgrades all his longswords to Minutemen, and the only option for survival is accepting peace, which then would qualify it as a "phony war" and thus an exploit.

You see where I'm going with this? It's real easy to pick out a good example of straight up exploitation, but it's really hard to differentiate between survival and exploitation. Just because you dont have the tech to upgrade your swords to muskets means you have to lose your game now because peace without taking Cap or half his towns is exploit? Just doesn't feel right.

 

[Salomo]

Ahh, humor aside though, the exploit-rules just seem too strict and vague. It's easy to give an example of blatant exploitation, but the more subtle offenses should be re-examined thoroughly. Even if your trying to play the game like an "honest john" character, minding all the details of trades as you play, circumstances can easily arise that, for serious lack of a better definition, would automatically qualify as a phony war.

Pretend for a moment, that you've recently made some trades with your more religious neighbor, and just barely founded your own religion. a few dozen turns later (depending on speed) your "friend" is bombarding you with missionaries and prophets. Since civilian units dont require open borders, literally your only defense against the religious onslaught is DoW, unless you're willing to sacrifice pretty much all future prophets to stem the conversion, thus stifling your own in the process.

Or, maybe your "friend" is a warmongering Washington, and before you even make a dent in his city's defenses, he suddenly upgrades all his longswords to Minutemen, and the only option for survival is accepting peace, which then would qualify it as a "phony war" and thus an exploit.

You see where I'm going with this? It's real easy to pick out a good example of straight up exploitation, but it's really hard to differentiate between survival and exploitation. Just because you dont have the tech to upgrade your swords to muskets means you have to lose your game now because peace without taking Cap or half his towns is exploit? Just doesn't feel right.

Life isn't without risk. If the risk of getting into that kind of situation is too high for you, you can do gold per turn trades instead of lump sum trades.

 

[BobiB420]

Risk huh? Have you ever played an Emperor or higher game and successfully maintained peace the entire time? Prince or higher? Have you ever played a game where the AI never declares war on you or bombs you with missionaries/prophets? Other than Settler, of course!

Polynesia on Terra excluded, as CV/SV on that map is contact-free.