G-Minor III

[iggymnrr]

Okay, done and dusted with that beautiful start. Turn 122. An improvement of 30 turns over my first try, I'll take it.

I could get 3 armies moving at the end, bleeding cash. Cities fell at turns 96, 99 and 100. A little better routing on the last two might have saved ~3 turns. 2nd and 3rd cites were settled some distance from capitol and armies started in place ~turns 40-50. Very late cities.

 

[Martin Alvito]

In that post he's talking about gpt for gold deals and violating them. DoW outright is a different issue and the "for minimal cost" is a VERY loose definition to work with; for example you'd find it hard to get consensus on whether going to war is ever minimal cost due to RA lost, alternative trade opportunities, etc.

That post is referring to cancelling luxury and GPT deals via declaration of war, or inciting DoWs from the AI in order to cancel and resell. It's not a difficult cognitive leap from there to conclude that unprosecuted DoWs leading to cash at the peace table are also a "gold exploit" according to the operational definition that Denniz is using. It's one thing to give an AI a good thrashing and take money from it, and quite another to declare on an AI well outside the range of your force projection capabilities and have it pay you off despite never suffering harm or the threat of harm.

If you at least had to move units into place to thrash the AI before it would pay you off, that would be a significant cost. Lost trading opportunities and Research Agreements are not a significant opportunity cost, given the settings and the fact that the AI is coughing up its without the player having to trade away anything.

I continue to agree that the rule needs work precisely because we can look at the rule and interpret it differently.

 

[ras9929]

I know the HoF rules don't allow it, but I was thinking last night that this map / level / vic condition demand only one solution...

The Haka War Dance Dance Revolution
Step 1: Spam Maori Warriors
Step 2: Run them through the Inland Sea to quick kill everyone
Step 3:
Step 4: Profits

I may just have to try this out even though I can't submit it.

 

[iggymnrr]

That post is referring to cancelling luxury and GPT deals via declaration of war, or inciting DoWs from the AI in order to cancel and resell. It's not a difficult cognitive leap from there to conclude that unprosecuted DoWs leading to cash at the peace table are also a "gold exploit" according to the operational definition that Denniz is using. It's one thing to give an AI a good thrashing and take money from it, and quite another to declare on an AI well outside the range of your force projection capabilities and have it pay you off despite never suffering harm or the threat of harm.

My reaction is more basic. If this can't be done on other levels, the ban only serves to erase level distinction. HoF products become untrustworthy. We've been lied to.

The Haka War Dance Dance Revolution
Step 1: Spam Maori Warriors
Step 2: Run them through the Inland Sea to quick kill everyone
Step 3:
Step 4: Profits

Cunning!

I've been testing Persia and 3 immortals can't quite take a strength 10 city but add a scout and they can. A GA finish puts them on par with hoplites and faster movement. Might be worth a game.

 

[tommynt]

seems some idiot deleted a previous post:

well in short:
whoever thinks that declaring war to ai in a civgame is an exploit should either:
- think again
- start playing another game
- go to a doctor

obviously declaring wars is part of civ, just cause ai is dumb .. well ai is dumb
if trading/declaring war to ai is an exploit even playing with ais in a game is an exploit

oh yeah and obviously Persia is the civ to go ... isnt it just obvious?
MAYBE Greece isnt much worse

 

[Martin Alvito]

obviously declaring wars is part of civ, just cause ai is dumb .. well ai is dumb
if trading/declaring war to ai is an exploit even playing with ais in a game is an exploit

What I'm arguing is that based on the standard in the post I cited, declaring war and doing nothing in order to get cash at the conference table would be a "gold exploit". The operational definition has two components - intent to extract cash from the AI through the trading system, and minimal cost. The action in question meets both criteria. Declaring war would be fine; declaring war strictly for the purpose of getting would not be. TMIT's argument that the DoW has a cost is specious; if the AI is far enough away, neither of you can inflict harm and there is no risk.

Again, I make no value judgments about whether or not this should be the case. I'd favor a rule where we explicitly ban certain behaviors and then anything goes.

oh yeah and obviously Persia is the civ to go ... isnt it just obvious?
MAYBE Greece isnt much worse

No, it isn't obvious. Persia is one of the stronger options due to the rapid healing of Immortals and added mobility for melee. However, you have to give up a lot to get that mobility. I'm willing to bet that Mallow used neither of the civs you suggested.

 

[iggymnrr]

There's not many civs that can get to ironworking quickly via a double culture hit and meritocracy. Nappy and Monty are two. Russsia's Krepost is not something I'm familiar with but it may help even if it comes a bit late. Sure would be nice having 2 armies of sword early.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What I'm arguing is that based on the standard in the post I cited, declaring war and doing nothing in order to get cash at the conference table would be a "gold exploit".

This "standard" you are using is in an unofficial thread and is not part of the HoF rules in any explicit way. That is not an applicable standard to submissions from players who have no reason to have ever read that thread. Using a not-well-defensed argument on an unofficial thread is certainly more biased than reading the actual HoF rules as they currently stand.

The action in question meets both criteria.

It meets the criteria on low difficulties, maybe, although opportunity cost considerations exist even then when your explicit goal isn't killing everyone ASAP anyway.

TMIT's argument that the DoW has a cost is specious; if the AI is far enough away, neither of you can inflict harm and there is no risk.

Please do not cite my arguments while ignoring them, it's annoying. I stated that war has opportunity costs. In doing this, you need to build military or the AI won't want to give you gold, right? Alternative uses for those hammers include workers/settlers (which can attain resources that give you more gold directly). You permanently damage diplo. You give up access to RA with target civ for a long time. These are not fake costs; they're often strong enough to overcome a 250 gold pittance. Knowing about this tactic, would you attempt to build enough units to make use of it on deity in an attempt to play optimally? You opted not to touch that one too. If a tactic is only strong while given specific constraints via gauntlet, that is not a valid basis to ban it. You could ban almost anything on those grounds.

Again, I make no value judgments about whether or not this should be the case. I'd favor a rule where we explicitly ban certain behaviors and then anything goes.

I'd favor a rule like that too, however for those who *do* make value judgments there should be some gameplay-defensible basis for them.

No, it isn't obvious. Persia is one of the stronger options due to the rapid healing of Immortals and added mobility for melee. However, you have to give up a lot to get that mobility. I'm willing to bet that Mallow used neither of the civs you suggested.

The first civs that came to my mind to do well in this gauntlet were germany and mongolia; the former could take advantage of forced barb luck via game spam, the latter has extremely fast mounted with a fast GG that speeds healing similar to immortals. I can also picture greece or persia taking it potentially.

 

[Martin Alvito]

There's not many civs that can get to ironworking quickly via a double culture hit and meritocracy. Nappy and Monty are two.

There you go. Those are the civs you want to play if you're going for Iron. Monty's a bit slower at getting there, but healing on kills is extremely good.

 

[iggymnrr]

This is getting heated but the following statement is pointless.

TMIT's argument that the DoW has a cost is specious; if the AI is far enough away, neither of you can inflict harm and there is no risk.

A person can have 3 barbs dancing around a city, enemy AI on doorstep DoW and there is no risk at this level. Distance means nothing.

 

[Martin Alvito]

This "standard" you are using is in an unofficial thread and is not part of the HoF rules in any explicit way. That is not an applicable standard to submissions from players who have no reason to have ever read that thread.

It's the definition that Denniz gave for how he's interpreting the rules. If you want to take a legal approach, chew on this: judges' prior statements in case law are precedent - and therefore are the law. But we don't need to worry about that. Denniz explained how he sorts through "gold exploit" and "not a gold exploit" in the cited post. I'm simply applying the standard to the case.

Denniz's CYA on your complaint that the explanation is buried would be simple: he's specifically stated in the post you cited that you have to ask the staff in any borderline case. I don't think that's a great solution, but it's a solution.

Please do not cite my arguments while ignoring them, it's annoying. I stated that war has opportunity costs.

The question is whether or not they are meaningful. In this case they are not. I'm not ignoring your argument. You're simply making the same wrong assertions over and over about the opportunity costs of declaring war, and I don't see the need to spell out why you're wrong in painstaking detail. Given the settings, the player doesn't care about giving up Research Agreements or trading opportunities, and diplo is already shot anyway, so there is no meaningful opportunity cost.

If a tactic is only strong while given specific constraints via gauntlet, that is not a valid basis to ban it. You could ban almost anything on those grounds.

That's not true given that we're talking "gold exploit" here, but you could ban a sizable fraction of possible trades with the AI on those grounds. As for your Deity complaint, self-pillage only becomes potent on Deity where the AI has the cash to feed you, and we've banned that. You acquire enough luxuries to drain the AIs out of quickly on lower difficulty levels even without self-pillage.

 

[iggymnrr]

I may have tried Monty in the wrong gauntlet. As to the ongoing debate, I do not mind the ban per se. It is ok for gauntlet purposes. It's that I see the ban as making all games ineligible for the HoF. (If it destroys level distinction.) Gauntlets in the past have done this. A ban, any ban is ok for gauntlet purposes. Be nice to know it ahead of time.

 

[Methos]

Guys, keep the discussion to the gauntlet.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Given the settings, the player doesn't care about giving up Research Agreements or trading opportunities, and diplo is already shot anyway, so there is no meaningful opportunity cost.

The settings are irrelevant! You don't ban tactics simply because they're good in the gauntlet; or if you do so then the best approach is simply to tell players what they can't do in the OP of this thread. Certainly, that has precedent. Does the OP say "no declaring war without killing units or cities"? I would say that this tactic is objectively allowable in this particular gauntlet.

It is ok for gauntlet purposes.

Yes, as long as it's banned up-front for a level playing field. It is NOT ok if someone has already submitted a game that does this and has it rejected.

Guys, keep the discussion to the gauntlet.

How are we to do this? Right now a potential optimal strategy that can affect the outcome of the gauntlet is under discussion of whether it violates rules...this could have a direct impact on how one would even try to play the game. The gauntlet itself can be the focus, but given how g minor III might be approached it's hard to separate the gauntlet from a discussion of the rules entirely, at least without a clear picture of what can/can't be done.

The alternative is to pretend the issue does not exist at all and only discuss the gauntlet insofar as it does not involve it; I can't see this realistically leading to more consistently applied results or a better competition, but is that what you're asking of us? If so I'll honor it and leave the thread alone.

 

[vexing]

The settings are irrelevant! You don't ban tactics simply because they're good in the gauntlet

if the rule is "don't take gold from the AI with negligible negative consequences" the settings are relevant; there are negligible consquences to war declarations in this combination of settings (low difficulty, domination win).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

if the rule is "don't take gold from the AI with negligible negative consequences" the settings are relevant; there are negligible consquences to war declarations in this combination of settings (low difficulty, domination win).

I'd love to debate this but as per methos request this isn't the place. All I will say that unless the gauntlet states otherwise, general HoF rules are all that applies and that selecting the proper tactic for difficulty/situation is paramount to good play.

 

[Martin Alvito]

@ vexing: Thank you, and well said.

@ Methos: The problem is that the discussion is relevant to the gauntlet. Attempting to table the underlying problem of interpreting the rules doesn't solve it; we're better off thrashing this problem out ASAP. If you want to move the discussion someplace else, I'm fine with that. I don't think we're hijacking, but it's borderline and I can see how you might see it that way.

@ TMIT: The settings are very relevant, given the way the rule is defined. You're attempting to add a rule (a "gold exploit" must be optimal for all possible settings) that isn't included in the post I cited and that I don't think was intended in that post. This has nothing to do with whether or not the action in question is effective, and everything to do with whether or not it is a "gold exploit" by definition. Numerous possible strategies would be effective/optimal without being a gold exploit.

 

[iggymnrr]

if the rule is "don't take gold from the AI with negligible negative consequences" the settings are relevant; there are negligible consquences to war declarations in this combination of settings (low difficulty, domination win).

Which is exactly why the rule should not exist. It makes the HoF look totally inept in understanding the game, an undesirable source for the promotion of the game, questions the integrity of the HoF itself while promoting an atmosphere of discontent among the players. The rule effectly forces players to play up, not at the level labelled.

At any rate Persia is better than expected. Missed an 89 due in part to an 11 strength city, attacking 2 civs simultaneously, the second civ somehow had a unit near the 11 strength city. What are the odds? Nothing fancy about the game at all.

 

[Methos]

@ Methos: The problem is that the discussion is relevant to the gauntlet. Attempting to table the underlying problem of interpreting the rules doesn't solve it; we're better off thrashing this problem out ASAP. If you want to move the discussion someplace else, I'm fine with that. I don't think we're hijacking, but it's borderline and I can see how you might see it that way.

Interesting point and I can see your reasoning. Try and keep the discussion relevant to the gauntlet. My worry is that this moves entirely away from the gauntlet to the point that posts/discussions about the gauntlet are lost. I hope that makes sense.

 

[vexing]

It makes the HoF look totally inept in understanding the game, an undesirable source for the promotion of the game, questions the integrity of the HoF itself while promoting an atmosphere of discontent among the players.

did you just string random sentences together there?

the goal of HoF is to provide a competitive environment where everyone is on equal footing. thankfully they've added some limitations to cover ineptitude in the game's design: eg an AI will give you all their gold for a luxury and your gpt and if that luxury is pillaged you suffer no negative repercussions. maybe you disagree but personally i'm glad i don't have to sit and wait for barbs to pillage my resources to have the best possible game, and i'd hope most players agree.

is the AIs willingness to give you all their gold in a peace treaty when you offer no proximate threat an equivalent inept design that should be banned?

personally i feel ambivalently about it. i think enforcement would be hazy, and it's not much different than the unreasonable peace deals the AI gives in other situations, so i'm leaning toward letting it slide.

either way, i think we just need a hard ruling.