Culture through Espionage - Exploit?

[nocho]

If you ask me it should become a seperate VC. I'd certainly not call this strategy an exploit and wouldn't ban it, however, I wouldn't like to see the traditional culture approach die out if the espionage approach consistently proves more optimal. It's two entirely different approaches and skill sets that in my opinion should rather evidently not result in the same victory condition and hence not compete.

 

[Jastrow]

Hah.

That is just rude! Are you incapable of civil discours?

So basically, you're saying that sheer preference is a viable way to ban a competitive setting?

Absolutly. House rules are made all the time all over the place for sheer preference. People choosing to participate in a game/contest/leisure activity have every right to set the rules of the game as they prefer. That is self evident.

Give me a break. Why single this particular tactic out then, because it's "new"? It's five years old. Why not "express opinions" about every questionable tactic in XOTM ever?

Because I was not asked about them... There are several others I would also vote no against if it came to a discussion... For example, the trade revenue subsity tactic, intentional teleporting, city gifting as trojan cities, etc.

That would be fun. Flood the subforum with opinion solicitations and see how that goes.

Wether you like it or not, that is how any competition occures... Even international sports organizations constantly adjust their rules to the will of their members...

Obviously we're not going to do that. So then, *WHY* are we singling this out then?

I am not singling anything out... I was asked to express my opinion on this one (presumably because some people it had reached critical mass to have enough people on either side of it to be worth discussing with the players.)

[/QUOTE]*WHY* are you advocating banning something?

Because I happen to think the game is more fun with the ban in place.

Maybe I don't like worker stealing, and clearly worker stealing is overcentralizing; it speeds up a majority of victory conditions (not just one). The only fundamental difference between that and this is that people aren't familiar with this.

A perfectly fine example... If the majority of players think that worker stealing should be baned, then it should be as well.

Hahaha. Well, at least you're honest.

Yes, I am honest, and you are obnoxious. There is absolutly no reason to be mocking my perfectly reasonable position.

That said, this format asserts its a competition.

Yes... So is, say, formula 1 racing... The rules of that competition are changed every couple of years. Many of these changes are made to make the compition more like it is desired by the majority of the teams. That is all perfectly consistent.

Decent competitions not only make rules, but do so for a good reason.

Of course... Participants enjoyment being one of those reasons.

We're looking at least to some extent for competitive balance.

Some participants (myself included) are. Others may not be. That is irrelevant to this discussion however, since no matter what is decided on this issue, there will certainly be competitive balance.

Knee-jerk reactions from players who largely haven't even explored the strategy are indeed a questionable basis to ban something that has, in fact, been allowed for 5+ years.

Any reason that the majority of participants have to make a house rule is a valid reason.

I doubt . I'm interested in valid reasons for banning it, for a number of reasons. You seem confident that you have one, and it would be useful to the discussion if you actually do.

It would only be useful if it was my intent to try and convince others of my position. That is not my intent, and as such it would not be useful.

I think you could have picked a better word choice at least . Saying you don't know why something works with no elaboration carries some pretty obvious implications.

No, it does not. It means exactly that...

At the very least, it's evidence that one doesn't fully understand the mechanics involved (and I can't blame you for that, city vs tile culture and capture mechanics are pretty convoluted), even if you do know that it involves spamming spies.

No, it is not evidence of this. I do understand the mechanism and how it works. I do not (or more accurately did not, since I now suspect that has been answered in subsequent posts) understand why it works, which is to say what the designers where trying to accomplish when they put in code which allows this. I now suspect it at least in part to prevent unrest after capture in some cases, as has been pointed out later in the thread.

Kaitzilla's game in HoF was very creative.

It was. Abolutly, a great effort.

If you tried to just spam out spies and throw espionage on an AI, you'd likely not get a competitive finish and would lose to "traditional" culture, which is what's been happening for years. The key is to properly align all of the multipliers in the target city and also to have enough of your own culture there in the first place that a) you get a good conversion rate and b) there's enough base culture there in the first place for espionage to mean something.

Yes, that is the key.

BTW, city culture is not destroyed upon capture and AFAIK never was (I didn't play vanilla). Culture-producing buildings are destroyed (exception: ones that normally don't that become UB such as terrace and salon), and wonders captured don't produce culture anymore, but the total city culture remains. This is why it's impossible to get 100% culture in a captured city unless you wipe the target out and eliminate all of their culture.

But it is done in a strange way... Despite culture remaining, the counter gets reset at zero in the sense that you need 10 culture to pop the next borders... Why culture was programed the way it is, is a bit clearer to me now than 24 hours ago, but still seems like a rather peculiar design choice.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, seriously... Not it even matters, but not that I said I dont understand WHY it works. I fully comprehend HOW it works.

The reason that it does not matter, is that we have been asked to express opinions on a house rule. That is what this is, no more and no less.

Perhaps I should clarify that this thread isn't intended as a 'please vote one way or the other' thread. If that had been the intention, I'd have done it as a poll. I am interested in all opinions, and even if all you have to say is 'I do/don't want the espionage-culture technique to be allowed', we appreciate your contribution and will take note of it. After all, we don't want to decide something that goes against 80% of the community's wishes.

However, whatever decision the GOTM staff make is likely to be based on our having *reasons* to believe that decision is the best decision. So I would encourage people, where possible, to provide reasons why you think we should do X, and not merely treat this as a vote.

I prefer the variant of civ that does not allow this strategy. That is my vote. If I am in the majority, then it should be banned. If I am in the minority, it should be allowed.

That is of course a fair reason. But it begs the question: Does your preference for the variant of Civ that does not allow this strategy extend to not allowing it, even if it was made into a separate victory condition, that therefore did not impact the cultural awards?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Guys, can we please keep this discussion civil. We all have different opinions, and I appreciate that this is going to be a topic that some people will feel very strongly about, but that's no reason to start slagging each other off. There are several posts from different people that are starting to cross the line.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because I happen to think the game is more fun with the ban in place.

If that is the case, I believe a better overall undrestanding of the tactic is warrented by the community. I would at minimum expect people voting on its usage fully understand the implications of both how to execute it and why it works .

Yes... So is, say, formula 1 racing... The rules of that competition are changed every couple of years. Many of these changes are made to make the compition more like it is desired by the majority of the teams. That is all perfectly consistent.

Is this competition for leisure or not? F-1 almost certainly has a consistent framework for setting and regulating new rules. How does F-1 set their rules? Driver vote?

Yes, I am honest, and you are obnoxious.

I find actively inhibiting play options to others for no reason other than that that one doesn't like them to be obnoxious. I can certainly expect better than outright insults.

Of course... Participants enjoyment being one of those reasons.

This is somewhat asinine in that you are implying that limiting other people's options is more "fun" than limiting your own. What this argument I'm quoting is saying is that you want to win, but on your terms. People should play your way, as long as it's the majority opinion. Nevermind that allowing this tactic wouldn't force you to use it.

If you were truly arguing for participant enjoyment, you wouldn't be arguing to remove ways they can play. Or is it only enjoyable to win? That's a lot of unhappy players going for each VC every game. I'm not sure where you're going with "you must not do this" equating to player enjoyment TBH. Nobody would force you to use espionage.

No, it is not evidence of this. I do understand the mechanism and how it works. I do not (or more accurately did not, since I now suspect that has been answered in subsequent posts) understand why it works, which is to say what the designers where trying to accomplish when they put in code which allows this. I now suspect it at least in part to prevent unrest after capture in some cases, as has been pointed out later in the thread.

Oh. You were questioning the reason for the mechanic in the first place? All we can do is guess there, unless Firaxis said something official which is doubtful. I misunderstood what I originally quoted if such is the case.

But it is done in a strange way... Despite culture remaining, the counter gets reset at zero in the sense that you need 10 culture to pop the next borders... Why culture was programed the way it is, is a bit clearer to me now than 24 hours ago, but still seems like a rather peculiar design choice.

Man oh man. The # of peculiar design choices in this game . I'm frankly still mad at Firaxis over the controls and carrying those issues over to civ V, but that's off topic. Needless to say, we have a lot of "interesting" design choices that have influenced this competition numerous times over the years.

 

[wwassme]

The information that seems to be missing to me is solid data on whether, in the same game, an espionage culture victory is significantly faster than a traditional culture victory. Would it be possible to set up a test game (probably not counting for awards, etc) where culture is the only allowed victory condition and some players play using espionage and some play using traditional methods? The game doesn't have to be specially modified, a standard game would do. That might get at least some data on which method is most efficient at quickly getting three cities to legendary.

Generally, my view is that anything that is within the rules of the game should be allowed. Only things that take advantage of software bugs (like the infinite great persons bug) should be prohibited. Whether a separate espionage victory class should be created depends, in my view, on the answer to the question of whether the best espionage culture victory will almost always beat the best traditional culture victory. Absent that, I would see the difference between the two culture victories as more akin to the question of winning a diplo victory by coming close to domination (and having most of the votes yourself and needing only one AI to vote for you) versus a diplo victory won by convincing several AIs to vote for you. To me, the second type of diplo victory is a more "true" diplo victory.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This discussion would be of more value if posters would give their reasons for or against the proposal rather than engage in quote wars. Please focus on the issue and not the other posters.

 

[Kaitzilla]

The information that seems to be missing to me is solid data on whether, in the same game, an espionage culture victory is significantly faster than a traditional culture victory. Would it be possible to set up a test game (probably not counting for awards, etc) where culture is the only allowed victory condition and some players play using espionage and some play using traditional methods? The game doesn't have to be specially modified, a standard game would do. That might get at least some data on which method is most efficient at quickly getting three cities to legendary.

Generally, my view is that anything that is within the rules of the game should be allowed. Only things that take advantage of software bugs (like the infinite great persons bug) should be prohibited. Whether a separate espionage victory class should be created depends, in my view, on the answer to the question of whether the best espionage culture victory will almost always beat the best traditional culture victory. Absent that, I would see the difference between the two culture victories as more akin to the question of winning a diplo victory by coming close to domination (and having most of the votes yourself and needing only one AI to vote for you) versus a diplo victory won by convincing several AIs to vote for you. To me, the second type of diplo victory is a more "true" diplo victory.

Woo "solid data", you sure like testing

Person after me own heart!


I'm up for it. Post any random map/leader and I'll play it using the espionage method. I'll try to beat whatever HOF date is already occupied. Others can play espionage vs. culture too to see

I also may have made a submission using the spy method for the latest BOTM, but I surely can't talk about it in this thread.



Overall, I'm slightly in favor of creating a new victory condition in the HOF tables and letting it be an acceptable strategy in xOTM play.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Okay. Let me start by saying I don't mean anything personal in attacking arguments against the spread culture mission. I simply feel strongly about this topic and am seeking to influence it best I can. I did over-react to what I felt was a fairly knee-jerk set of responses to this matter earlier.

The information that seems to be missing to me is solid data on whether, in the same game, an espionage culture victory is significantly faster than a traditional culture victory.

It is definitely faster. The one HoF submission Kaitzilla submitted shattered the record, and it's not even 100% optimized. That's part of why this is even being brought up.

However, that is not really a viable reason to ban it. For each victory condition, there will always be a general over-arching strategy that is favored for winning at soon as possible, excepting extreme conditions. Much of the friction over this is the title of the relevant yields and that this is the first time in many years that the change would be so drastic. At the core level however, optimizing an culture victory takes exactly the same kind of planning and attention to detail that a micro-optimized space or "traditional" culture would need. I would argue it's *more* flexible in that you're not married to it as early.

Overall, I'm slightly in favor of creating a new victory condition in the HOF tables and letting it be an acceptable strategy in xOTM play.

Me too, unless it's too much work for the staff. I'm 100% against banning it right now though, unless we can see some evidence that it's materially different from longtime accepted tactics. The primary argument against it is that it is better than traditional culture, and that such is unexpected. However, I don't see how it runs counter to the competitive design in XOTM, HoF, or any other format. Banning this is akin to banning marathon early-rush strategies that lead to fast space race wins...in fact in a lot of ways that's *directly* comparable.

 

[WastinTime]

There's a lot of mis-information building up in this thread. DS actually did quite a nice job of explaining the 'trick' and anyone trying to wade thru this thread and form an opinion should ignore most of the people trying to compare this 'trick' to other things and go back to the OP. Many posts in this thread come from players that have not tried this yet, and/or misunderstand it.

It is not like any other tactic. When you incorporate other tactics like the ones mentioned (worker stealing, early war, mounted warfare, hut, events, galleon chaining etc,) you still need to achieve 99% of the basic goals that were originally needed to achieve your chosen victory. Because new tactics can even add more complexity (for example to the diplomatic situation), sometimes you create even more work on top of the basic plan so you need to do 110% of the basic plan. But this is often rewarded with a turn or two shaved off your win date.

Understand that the Spy Culture Mission adds this extra 10% complexity BUT it voids 99% of the original basic plan! The several things you need to do replace hundreds (essentially all) of the culture elements in the game. If I spent years designing and evolving the culture victory to see it replaced with espionage, I would want that tactic removed from the game.

If balanced properly, this feature could/should remain in the game. I'm not sure why I was mocked for suggesting that it is overpowered and needs to be tuned. If not tuned, it doesn't belong in the game should be banned because it replaces culture victory, not enhances.

p.s. To answer the question about being a faster strategy. No need for testing. It's far faster. I was working on a Marathon/Deity game and my target date was pre-turn 350 (BC years). I halted that game once I realized that it was actually going to be possible, and this controversy was coming.

 

[Jastrow]

Banning this is akin to banning marathon early-rush strategies that lead to fast space race wins...in fact in a lot of ways that's *directly* comparable.

In many ways (perhaps even in all ways, for the HoF, I dont know enough to make an informed comment about that), but not in one way, which is crucial to me (for XOTM). Early-rush marathon strategies for space are effectively already banned from XOTM, because marathon games simply do not exist in the competition.

 

[Frederiksberg]

I think WastinTime explained very well why this tactic should not be accepted as a cultural victory. It is in my opinion a degenerate strategy that simplifies the game and completely breaks immersion by rendering all the usual culture related game elements obsolete. I understand that some people have the opinion that immersion is not important and reach another conclusion. But, as Jastrow pointed out, there is no "truth" to be found by endless arguing as some people seem to think. This is just a game and what makes it fun boils down to personal, subjective preferences.

Thus I vote NO to accepting this tactic as a cultural victory and I don't care if it's banned or allowed as a separate VC.

 

[Sleepless]

As it seems to obsolete "traditional" cultural victories I would see it as an "unwanted" exploit and either ban its use for cultural victories or have a different victory condition.

At least it only effects BTS.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is not like any other tactic. When you incorporate other tactics like the ones mentioned (worker stealing, early war, mounted warfare, hut, events, galleon chaining etc,) you still need to achieve 99% of the basic goals that were originally needed to achieve your chosen victory

Mounted warfare that achieves domination is a comparable % of the "basic goal of the victory condition". That aside, the basic goal of the culture victory is also literally unchanged; you still need 3 legendary cities. That doesn't change whatsoever and thus "99% of the basic goals" are also intact when using CtE. What changes is the method used to achieve the 3 legendary cities, just like what changed in domination is the units used and not used. You're claiming the tactic is different from other commonly accepted tactics but it's not true.

It is also premature to assert that culture is materially more complex than espionage, although I admit it is premature for me to assert the opposite also. Neither one of these things is rocket science, and fast times come down to execution for both.

If I spent years designing and evolving the culture victory to see it replaced with espionage, I would want that tactic removed from the game.

This is not relevant to the discussion. "People spent more time on this previously" is not a sensible criteria for banning CtE or any other tactic. As a game evolves, strategies can and do become obsolete in terms of being competitive. What gives the fundamental right to exist a a VC focus over ? Legacy?

If balanced properly, this feature could/should remain in the game. I'm not sure why I was mocked for suggesting that it is overpowered and needs to be tuned.

Mocking aside, likely because this game is chalk full of things that are overpowered and of things that are not viable. The interesting thing about is that until this topic came up, it was centered squarely in the latter when it came to a competitive finish for any victory condition. If you want to talk about overpowering tactics, is quite far down the list compared to basic mechanics like war and tech trading. Going down the path you suggest would make XOTM stop being civ IV and start being "what random balance can we throw in the game without any substantiated numbers or objective basis". It would have to become that, because I don't see anybody doing heavy statistical analysis of each mechanic while mitigating noise factors.

If not tuned, it doesn't belong in the game should be banned because it replaces culture victory, not enhances.

It's still a culture victory. What it is really replacing is how to generate . You are still generating , and you're even still doing so with and GPP.

Early-rush marathon strategies for space are effectively already banned from XOTM, because marathon games simply do not exist in the competition.

I used marathon as an example because it most favors war, but any speed is applicable to my example (unless quick nerfs war too hard in space games, which I doubt). HoF partitions its rankings by speed anyway so that the games are reasonably comparable.

It is in my opinion a degenerate strategy that simplifies the game and completely breaks immersion by rendering all the usual culture related game elements obsolete.

Using terms such as "degenerate" are not conducive to fair discussion. Immersion is a matter of opinion and of only questionable use in making a competitive ruling. I don't think it's fair to claim simplification whatsoever. If it were simple, it probably would have cropped up as a winning strategy five years ago, not right now.

As it seems to obsolete "traditional" cultural victories I would see it as an "unwanted" exploit and either ban its use for cultural victories or have a different victory condition.

Again, it's not sensible to use a metric such as "this is different from what we're used to" as a metric to blanket ban tactics. If we always stuck with a traditional approach, we wouldn't even have intelligent use of GPP and would still be locked in a "CE vs SE" debate, if we even made it that far.

It's reasonable to demand some reason that this tactic breaks the game from a competitive standpoint, not from a "I like the icon more than the icon" standpoint.

If this tactic can somehow allow impossible, rule-breaking outputs (akin to glitches like infinite oracle techs or infinite war success/diplo point nonsense) or trivialize the importance of planning and micro optimization, you'd have a legit case to ban it as an "exploit". Instead, all I'm seeing ad nauseum are these statements:

1. This tactic is different from my usual expectations and I don't like it.
2. This tactic is stronger than a previous tactic and should be banned based solely upon the fact that it's a superior tactic.

The problem with such arguments is that they are objectively insufficient criteria for which to ban something in a competitive setting. Why? Because they can literally be applied to the vast majority of standard play innovations over the years. When your ban criteria allow the vast majority of tactics in existence to also be banned, the ban criteria is too broad.

Banning this practice is ludicrous. A separate VC has precedent (similar to RLDV vs UN diplo) if the staff is willing to accomodate it. Actually that's the closest comparable example; BTS feature that allows a previous victory condition (in this case diplomatic) to be won so long before the previous standard that it isn't particularly comparable. I wasn't around for the days when Apostolic Palace was being debated, but what we have here is essentially another apostolic palace, albeit a little *less* overpowered than TAP.

And yes, the game actually represents both UN and TAP as "diplomatic" victories. We only distinguish them here on the forum. CtE vs traditional culture is absolutely identical in scope. Banning CtE would be no less absurd at this point than banning all RLDV...so much so that banning CtE without also blocking any RLDV submissions would be logically inconsistent and suggest dishonest intent (IE wanting previous submissions to stand and thus voting down things that beat them).

 

[LowtherCastle]

*snip*

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Unless the mapmaker builds specific preventions into the scenario, "Espionage Victory" will invariably win, forcing everyone to play to that strategy. Religious Victory is already such a problem for SGOTM mapmakers.

What has consistently been overlooked is the request for how this differs from the vast majority of other standard-accepted approaches. How many winning submissions miss oracle? How many avoid early war? Where do you draw a line on the "everyone does this to be competitive" horizon, and why do you draw it where you do?

Besides, you don't know that this is necessarily optimized for "generic all victory condition games". If 3 legendary cities isn't the bottleneck, diverting *all* of an empire's resources towards it might not be an ideal approach.

Attempting to "re-balance" the game should not be limited in scope to a single tactic or action. Therefore, it is probably more appropriate to discuss ways we can alter the game away from civ IV and into "civ: XOTM" in a more robust fashion including all possible imbalanced tactics another thread, especially since nobody has explained how this tactic is materially different from other leading effective tactics.

 

[LowtherCastle]

*snip*

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@TMIT:

1. Please don't overcomplicate an already complicated issue. My post above is primarily directed toward SGOTM mapmakers.
2. Mapmakers frequently have to "balance" their scenario to create a good scenario. To wit:

I'm pretty sure the purpose of this thread is to discuss the competitive value/viability of CtE. To that end, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you were discussing that topic. Changing the game rules (and altering the mission certainly does so) is not the same thing as altering the map. The purpose of this thread is not to make rules changes, but rather to determine if a rules change is appropriate.

Perhaps it would indeed be best to avoid overcomplicating the issue, by saving rule proposals for a thread intended to discuss them.

, you're basing that on your own criteria, not those of others.

We don't have any stated objective criteria.

In fact the material difference has been clearly addressed by both Kaitzilla and WastinTime and modified by me above

No, they explicitly failed to do so. No matter what your goal is in civ IV, there will generally be one approach to it that will dominate the rate at which you can reach it. Simply stating the existence of one dominant approach does not, in fact, differentiate it from other dominant approaches in other aspects of the game.

I believe you are misinterpreting my point. I am asserting that while CtE is obviously *much* stronger than traditional culture, it does not break planning, micromanagement, or any other facet of gameplay skill. This makes it comparable to other choices that also dominate their respective victory conditions.

People have to master micromanagement, diplomacy, GPP, tech choices, and many other facets of the game. The path for these things frequently is identical between every competitive team. None of these things are being considered for a ban. Show me how CtE is materially different from them. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy; is not the burden of proof squarely on the side arguing to change the rules/policies of the format?

I don't need to know that Espionage Victory is more optimized for most SGOTMs. All I need to know is that WastinTime, being one of the top players here, says so and that he's on one of the best SG teams. That's also all that the SGOTM mapmakers need to know.

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. It would be horrid for the staff to accept a logical fallacy as "all they need to know" to make rulings.

I speak from intimate SG experience when I say that given certain conditions, every team that wants to be competitive will do X.

And I speak from experience that there are a LOT of things that fall under "X", not that "experience" is necessarily a valid logical construct on its own either. Part of the reason I'm asking for proof on CtE specifically is because the primary complaint you, WT, and Kait are saying about it is that it falls under X. But if 10-20+ things also fall under "X", then it does not make sense to differentiate CtE from another random "X", unless there is something else that differentiates it from all other "X".

What I am asking for is that "something else". What has not been provided, even once, is that something else.

This is rarely a game of equifinality. Thus, my basic warning to mapmakers: Beware of the Espionage Victory. Now that the cat's out of the bag, expect it to make mischief.

In other words, beware of tactic "X"? I believe that the mapmakers do their best to discourage too many X, despite the difficulty in doing so. However one other important point to note is that before CtE, simple was "X" for culture victories anyway. Every team that wanted to be competitive in getting 3 legendary cities would use the slider. Thus multipliers and enough artists were "X". Nobody argued to ban "X" then, even though every team (supposedly!) had to do it to be competitive. What's the difference now? An icon? A faster finish? How are those scary consequences?

But still, my post above is not really addressed to the players per se and your response is more or less irrelevant to it. My post makes no attempt to balance CIV, as you evidently interpret it. My post is a technical pointer to mapmakers so they can be more informed in their magnanimous attempts to create fantastic games.

By altering how gameplay mechanics function? You are proposing a method to change the rules (increasing cost per mission). I ignored most of that proposal since it isn't on topic, however the RLDV comparison was relevant and so I addressed it.

I'm fairly confident that they would be rather disappointed to find out all their hard work was for nought because one team managed to win the game in the BCs while everyone else struggled to win the scenario they had envisioned in the 1800 ADs.

I'm fairly confident that one team alone would not accomplish such a feat, with the CtE mechanics known by all. I have more faith in the team's ability to concoct games that are not handled so easily, and their track record suggests that such faith is warranted.

In short, my post has nothing to do with your vehement insistence that we not ban this strategy. My post's strictly an attempt to help SG mapmakers with the pragmatics of their endeavor.

What endeaver was that again? The endeaver in this thread is to determine whether this tactic should be banned as an exploit or treated as a separate victory condition, not to assume it's an exploit and suggest rule changes. At most, the OP suggests that a conclusion that such a mod be considered, but not necessarily to assume it's the solution and start proposing alterations.

Before proposing alterations, the first step is to demonstrate a need for them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is not relevant to the discussion. "People spent more time on this previously" is not a sensible criteria for banning CtE or any other tactic.

I would question that.

you say later in your post that strategies can and do become obsolete, and I accept that may be the case (though offhand I can't think of any examples). But what we normally talk about when we say strategies is something like 'Oracling Civil Service or 'axe-rushing the nearest AI'. In other words something that is often done for part of the game. If someone found technique that meant that Oracling civil service would no longer ever be a competitive way to play, then that would be sad, but no one would lose more than a part of their early game strategy.

By contrast, what we're talking about here is potentially losing virtually the entire way that people play culture games. That's not just a strategy, it's almost the equivalent of losing a whole victory condition. If espionage-culture victories take over the culture rankings, then what remains will be notionally a culture victory, but - as far as I understand it from the explanations that have been given - it will for all practical purposes be a completely different game. (An analogy might be: Suppose someone found a trick to win domination without ever going to war, which was virtually guaranteed to give faster victories than actually going to war. Imagine how all the people who play civ because the enjoy the strategies behind warring and attacking cities would feel...) Whatever the merits of being able to play the new espionage tactic might be, that would undoubtedly be a huge loss for many players. I don't think we can lightly take a decision that would have that consequence.

In the end, there is a difference between something that has been around and a part of people's lives for some years and something that is completely new. When something has been a part of people's lives, people get an emotional attachment to it. It starts to mean a lot to them. And it seems to me that is something we have to respect. Taking away something, and then replacing it with something completely different, even if the new replacement thing is objectively just as good, is likely to cause a lot of hurt.

So far in this thread, you and Sun Tzu Wu have presented a number of reasons for thinking that the new espionage tactic has the properties required to make it an interesting competition strategy. What I haven't yet seen is an argument for why that makes it worth taking away from those players who like traditional culture games their entire way of playing Civ (at least competitively). Do you have an answer to that problem?

 

[Frederiksberg]

Using terms such as "degenerate" are not conducive to fair discussion.

Degeneracy is a mathematical term:Wiki . I think you are a bit to sensitive. Please calm down and let us agree to disagree.