Having been through this spoiler thread, I don't intend to start on this event now.
I'm not holding Apolyton up as a shining example either (I have nothing personal invested there), just pointing out that results based on score will tend to be skewed either way: score is based on early finish, and on territory-over-time. So the two ways to get higher score are to get more territory asap, and then either to press to early conquest or to sit around and milk it for as long as possible.
Someone taking the "warrior gambit" or poprushed military, or even a nonexploitative but successful early conquest, will get a lot more territory going early. They will surely thus score more even if they later switch to peaceful building -- and if they get leaders, they are doubly ahead of the game as they get wonders for free. If the odds for 2 warrior victory really are 65%, wouldn't you expect 35% of those trying that tactic to report failures? Are we seeing those kinds of numbers? I spotted somebody in Apoly2 who had reloaded with knowledge of where the key iron was. I was so curious, after watching their result, that I went back to duplicate it and proved they had to know where the resource was to head straight there on a boat through all that black fog. Their game played out quite differently as a result, as that location allowed for Iron Works. I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to wonder if SOME of the folks posting successful "early gambit" results aren't fudging them. Most would be hard to prove, I just happened to come upon one that required a ship, and from an isolated start you can only get to mapmaking but so quickly.
With score being the focus of this tourney, I might still participate even though I wouldn't do the kinds of moves it would take to compete on a level playing field -- I came here today looking to see if I might be interested -- but aside from the competition, the more interesting part would be the discussion. Yet what would there be here for me to discuss? I don't feel I have anything to learn from, or contribute to, an event bent this much around the game's flaws. You might say I was put off by the apparent contradiction of such piety in regard to reloading, when I see very little distinction between that and Standard Operating Procedure for what SEEMS to be the bulk of the participants, re exploits.
You make a good point in asking where to draw the line. But... your conclusion seems to be that drawing it in any gray area is futile, and there I would disagree. More difficult, perhaps, and open to debate, but those are not reason not to try. As for enforcibility, you don't have that now. So any further conditions that might be adopted about what not to do while playing could be just as valid as the "no reload" restriction. Players mindful of following the rules would do so, those not would not.
As I have found fatal flaws in the AI, I have resolved not to exploit them. Some already on my list include not using workers as bait (deliberately -- sometimes it's tough to avoid, they go to ANY lengths), not parking cavs/panzers 3 spaces out just to prevent the AI from drafting/rushing more defense, not making treaties I have NO intention of honoring when they are made (I may still break one now and then, but very rarely, and always because something major has changed -- the one-size-fits-all 20 turns length of deals is problematic). There are others, but I'm sure you are already familiar with them all, on your own terms, so I'll spare you.
I don't do this as some kind of "I'm better than those who don't" move, I do it to extend the life of the game. Don't you find it becoming boring when there's nothing left to figure out or try? When you know what the AI's will do, and what you can inevitably do to dismember them if you play ruthlessly? At that point, it has ceased to be a game, and become an exercise, in some cases even a clickfest. You lose suspension of disbelief, lose sight of the game world and end up as a puppeteer, pulling the AI's strings and watching them dance for you.
My way may ultimately be futile from a fatalistic standpoint, but if it buys me more entertainment time with this piece of software, then it's serving its purpose. So am I getting the wrong impression about this group of players? I wonder if I would fit in here, because even though I could cope with the results of my self-chosen principles in regard to game play, or else choose to set them aside for the event/exercise, do folks here care about the same elements I do? Or are you collectively content to exploit the game into oblivion? The discussions I've peeked in on have led me to believe it may be the latter, which would not interest me.
When it comes to a competition I'm just going to use all the resources available to me so that I can do well.
Within the limits of the rules. Yeah, I know there are always players trying to set extra rules. "This weapon is cheap." Blah blah, seen it all the time in competitive shooters. Competitions don't accept that kind of "honor". The rules are the rules, and what's not against the rules is legal. I'm all in favor of that, from the perspective of someone who understands rule systems. Yet there is also a side of gaming/sport where the spirit of the game is at stake. Just because something is not against the rules does not automatically make it fall within the spirit of the game. Sometimes the rules could stand some improvement.
Yet a well designed game can stand up to the standard of "whatever the game allows is cool". Games still in need of patching, with major flaws that allow for "strategies" that are so effective, they render the effort moot, are another story. Firaxis yanked some of the worst loopholes already, so let's just hope they continue to improve things.
You asked how much poprush is too much? That may be difficult to pin down precisely, but it's easy to point to in theory: if the unhappiness were given priority, then enough to force you to turn every population into a specialist and starve a city down to size 1 or disband it, is too much. That's the point at which you pass "feature" and move undisputably into "exploit". Keeping track of that would be hard to do if someone were trying to min/max within that restraint, but I think most experienced players have a feel for where this line lies, and know when they cross it.
Diplomatic betrayals are likewise easy to understand. How much betrayal is too much is a gray area -- it would be unfortunate to take betrayal completely off the table, as historically it has happened and is part of history and the rise and fall of civilization -- but where the game fails to implement sufficient reasonable penalty for betrayal, it falls to the players to add their own, or accept diminished quality. There could be any number of ways to limit it, all of which would be better than zero limits, better than "anything goes".
Some of the AI's flaws you just can't compensate for. Like, should you tie your hands behind your back and not attack, when the AI mindlessly moves defenders OUT of a city you are sieging, to go attack some irrelevant but exposed unit (worker, archer, etc)? I wouldn't go that far, as that kind of restriction "to give the AI a level playing field" is futile. But you can refrain from deliberately baiting with workers, knowing that the AI would jump onto any sword to capture them.
Is a competition that requires you to exploit these flaws to "do well" worth your time? That's up to each participant. Yet since the moment I got into online gaming, I have been compelled to find ways to improve the quality of competition, to invent ways if necessary, where the games themselves come up short. I've been dong that for seven years now, everything from Descent to WarcraftII to Deadlock, from Diablo to Jagged Alliance to Civ, from founding my own leagues to helping others who've done so to being a quiet but supportive participant -- been at all levels, and all sizes of community. I hunger for better gaming, for better games. Sometimes a game has plenty going for it yet comes up short in a few ways. I usually have something to offer, but I tend to be restless, critical, picky, if the game starts turning up too many shortcomings. And the more I get to know this AI, the more I long for it to be improved. If I didn't find something here to have some potential, I'd just quietly move on. Maybe I will yet.
So maybe you can explain to me, Aeson, how you come to draw your line at "going to use all the resources available to me", and justify these exploits, which you admit are exploits, and not be tempted to cross the line into reloading? I accept you at your word that you don't reload, but isn't the line there awfully thin? Can something be "just a little bit" wrong? If you're willing to compromise with the exploits, how do you know you won't just slide right down a slippery slope? I find myself slipping. I started using the draft rush, and next thing I know I have some games with 300 infantry units, 2/3rds of them drafted, and I realize this has crossed a line somewhere. It looked innocent enough, but now it's wrecked the balance of those games, has crossed into "being wrong", and the fun just melts away. I feel like I cheated myself out of a chance to play those games "fairly", within the spirit of the game, and see what I could do. That's what I'm getting at. You admit that reloading wrecks the fun, and I know for myself that no amount of justification allows me to keep having fun through deliberate exploitation. It's all the same, in the end. The exploits, to me, feel the same as cheating, so I come to think of them that way. For me. But not for you? Are you sure? You know you're not cheating the competition and the other players -- everyone is playing by the same set of rules -- but are those rules worthy of your devotion? Are you not cheating the game? Or does that not matter? Is the competition worth enough to go to that length to participate?
Heh. Sometimes I think too much.
Sorry.
- Sirian
(note: animated icons would even be better!) So I don't go through the more tedious aspects of the game (for me) so that I can submit. None of the tactics that you have pointed out as "expoitish" have been ruled out of Apolyton games either. The only real difference in the competitions is the highlighting of "by date" for all of the victory conditions in the Apolyton tourney, and the format of the posted results. If you want to play the GOTM for the best date, go ahead, it's something that is listed in the results, just not highlighted.
); so I immediately went with 4 veteran Archers to take Orleans. Then refounded my just abandoned capital and another city to the northeast on the hills. Thoses two would be my majory military production center for quite some time. the french came for me fast and hard, I had to abandon Orleans and retreat beyond the isthmus. I bought peace several times and was way last in everything. But then I managed to get a city buiolt on the isthmus and the French lost wave after wave of attackers. 
and rushed walls and barracks (still despotic!) they never stood a chance. Another leader appeared, used it for a 2 knight 1 leite horseman army. The Zulu quickly fell. After landing a Pikeman on their iron they sued for peace and got it at a horrenduos priece. Then i just killed them off. the small island in the south went back and forth for a while since I had concentraded on mainland defence and attacks on their mainland but since they never had iron or a harbor there.....
I really do think it'll be quite interesting for others to read.
