Hall of Fame Rules/FAQ

[AutomatedTeller]

thanks. I made heavy use of it in my 100K deity game and I noticed that the per-turn varied a LOT for the AI - one turn, it would be around 750 cpt, 2 or 3 turns later it would be 200 cpt. the 750 CPT worried me, cause I was making about 1400 at that time, and I worried that I would have to attack India, which was a monster at the time, to keep them from having 1/2 my culture. But they really never came that close.

 

[Marsden]

I know this is more primative, but I write down the culture on the victory screen and then subtract from the next turn total to get the increase per turn.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I do that, too, which is more accurate.

The problem is that it only helps with the next best civ, which might not be the dangerous one. In my latest 100K game, I didn't have twice the culture of the next civ until about 20 turns before I won, and the 3rd civ was adding culture faster than the 2nd civ, too. It was possible that the 3rd civ was adding culture fast enough that I wouldn't have twice IT'S culture. As it turns out, i was worried for nothing - I was making 2300 cpt at the end, and India was making 970 or so, but if it had been worse, i would have had to go to war... and India seriously outclassed me, both in numbers and technology.

 

[Marsden]

This will be added to the offical HoF rules page as soon as possible, but until then:

Players should not create situations that deliberately put “free” money into the world economy, or any deal where the AI is making payments it can no longer afford, for example by setting up deals that are then cancelled by breaking a trade route i.e. the Emsworth Agreement, explained here .


Any situations that a player has doubts about should be referred to the HOF Staff by email or pm

No games using this method are acceptable, and any previously accepted using this will be excluded. We are sorry if this causes any disappointment or bad feeling, but it is an obvious loophole in the program.

There was some discussion in the general quick answers thread recently as to what is an exploit and what isn't. While I'm not going to give any definite definition here I will just say just because the AI doesn't do it doesn't make it an exploit. What makes something an exploit is when someone uses a technique that isn't in the scope of the "reality" of the game. Having money continue to come from a contract after conditions are changed that make it impossible to continue is exploiting the fact that the programers missed cancelling some of the deals that are impossible.

 

[Bartleby]

I dunno if this is speaking out of turn, or closing the door after the horse has bolted, or putting the cart before the horse, or just mixing metaphors.

I think it's a shame to ban the exploit, since you have to put some work into it to get the benefits.

What about other exlpoits like Palace Rank, and Demanding Towns...games that used these are still on the lists.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have played actually quite a lot games using the technique of the "Emsworth Agreement." I was however always under the impression that it was allowed. Even more so when a poster asked about it specifically and linked to a thread that I posted in the Strategy & Tips ((link) and was told that it is OK:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4520705&postcount=392
As such I have been blithely using it whenever I got the chance to.

And not only that, I developed it and took it to a whole new level by having the deals being build up on each other, using large lump sums of gold, and using more than just one agreement. And exactly these 'improvements' are what makes up most of the insane results that you can achieve wrt you bank account.

If I may make a suggestion, what about simply drawing the line elsewhere instead of just dissallowing this technique. What I am thinking about is something like this:

The "Emsworth agreement" is by and large allowed with these exceptions:
• You may not use lump sums to buy gpt, while techs and maps are OK.
• You may not use gpt that comes from an earlier "Emsworth agreement"​

Otherwise, it would be easier for me to simply give you a list of HoF games that are not to be excluded.

 

[Marsden]

But no matter how much work or arrainging you do, adding money that doesn't exist into the world economy is the problem. It's like conterfeiting, just because you do a good job at it doesn't make it legal.

Why would demanding towns be an exploit?

 

[Bartleby]

Why would demanding towns be an exploit?

In earlier versions you could demand towns not as part of a peace treaty.

tbh I dunno if there actually are games left on the list where this was done.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Can I ask about some situations that might arise?

1) I make 30 GPT after corruption with my sliders set to 0.

I trade 30 GPT and spices for Monotheism with a chieftain AI making 10 gpt.
I then trade Feudalism for 28 GPT.

A barbarian cuts the road between our civs.

Is this game now invalid?

2) Same as above, but with a deity AI that is making 80 gpt.

 

[Marsden]

In earlier versions you could demand towns not as part of a peace treaty.

tbh I dunno if there actually are games left on the list where this was done.

Don't forget town swaping was patched out and we don't take any but the latest patches. Also, demanding towns is within the rules, if you're doing poorly enough the AI demand them from you. Unfortunately, I know.

Can I ask about some situations that might arise?

1) I make 30 GPT after corruption with my sliders set to 0.

I trade 30 GPT and spices for Monotheism with a chieftain AI making 10 gpt.
I then trade Feudalism for 28 GPT.

A barbarian cuts the road between our civs.

Is this game now invalid?

2) Same as above, but with a deity AI that is making 80 gpt.

That wouldn't invalidate the game for 1 or 2. You have to deliberately try to put free money into the economy, the only way that would be deliberate is if you control the barbarian. It would cause some free money in 1 but not in a controled way. If you cut the route yourself, that would be deliberate and intentional and is not allowed. Hoping for a barbarian "road cutter" is hardly a great strategy but could be advantagous in this case.

As always ask, whether here, email, or PM.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

This makes sense. 2 more cases:
case #3: same as #1, but I cut the road. that is banned, cause it's free money.

case #4: same as #2, but I cut the road. I think that's ok, cause the AI has enough money to cover expenses - I've just been able to swindle the AI. They may declare war to get out of the payments, of course.

 

[Marsden]

This makes sense. 2 more cases:
case #3: same as #1, but I cut the road. that is banned, cause it's free money.

case #4: same as #2, but I cut the road. I think that's ok, cause the AI has enough money to cover expenses - I've just been able to swindle the AI. They may declare war to get out of the payments, of course.

Plus you suffer a trading rep hit.

 

[EMan]

So, as long as you KNOW the AI can foot the gpt bill at the POINT IN TIME you cut the road, it's acceptable?

If in the future the AI has no money (to pay the "mortgage"), the game is still valid, even though you are being paid with "Free Money"?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

It's a hell of a technique to bankrupt a runaway tech AI.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have played actually quite a lot games using the technique of the "Emsworth Agreement." I was however always under the impression that it was allowed. Even more so when a poster asked about it specifically and linked to a thread that I posted in the Strategy & Tips ((link) and was told that it is OK:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4520705&postcount=392
As such I have been blithely using it whenever I got the chance to.

And not only that, I developed it and took it to a whole new level by having the deals being build up on each other, using large lump sums of gold, and using more than just one agreement. And exactly these 'improvements' are what makes up most of the insane results that you can achieve wrt you bank account.

If I may make a suggestion, what about simply drawing the line elsewhere instead of just dissallowing this technique. What I am thinking about is something like this:

The "Emsworth agreement" is by and large allowed with these exceptions:
• You may not use lump sums to buy gpt, while techs and maps are OK.
• You may not use gpt that comes from an earlier "Emsworth agreement"​

Otherwise, it would be easier for me to simply give you a list of HoF games that are not to be excluded.

CouldI get some feedback on this? Especially on Superslug's green-lighting my technique?

 

[Marsden]

That's not acceptable for the HoF. Sorry for any past confusion.

Giving the AI more gpt that you can afford or accepting more gpt than the AI can afford.

Since the AI never shows up on it's own accord offering thousands of gpt, we can safely assume any gpt deals are engineered by the player and therefore subject to the rules. If there is any doubt about what the AI can afford you can ask for 99999 gpt and it will default to their total income available, you can't ask for more than that, minus any gold you are giving them. Forcing the AI into a double negative gpt situation is just as illegal as doing it yourself for the same reason, free money from nowhere into the international economy, speeding everyones research and getting faster finish dates than possible without 'voodoo economics'.

Games will not be accepted using "free" money.

 

[EMan]

I've asked 'slug this before and he ruled it valid:
Using the Civil Engineer bug to potentially Cash-Rush city buildings cheaper by:
1. Cash-rushing a cheaper building
2. Switching to the desired building
3. Cash-rushing the building

It will be cheaper than an immediate Cash-rush of the desired bulding providing a Civil Engineer has been in use for at least 1 turn.

Is this strategy considered valid? (As long as it's available for everyone, I don't see why not.)

 

[Marsden]

I've asked 'slug this before and he ruled it valid:
Using the Civil Engineer bug to potentially Cash-Rush city buildings cheaper by:
1. Cash-rushing a cheaper building
2. Switching to the desired building
3. Cash-rushing the building

It will be cheaper than an immediate Cash-rush of the desired bulding providing a Civil Engineer has been in use for at least 1 turn.

Is this strategy considered valid? (As long as it's available for everyone, I don't see why not.)

Having a civil engineer 1 turn would only save about 8 coins, and because every town no matter how corrupt will produce 1 shield/turn then it basically doesn't matter if there's a civil engineer or not. Where's the bug there?

 

[Chamnix]

The exploit I think EMan is referring to is described in detail here.

 

[Marsden]

Thanks, Chamnix. So you're asking if free sheilds from nowhere would be ok? No. Civil Engineers are supposed to make 2 shields each, one time per turn. Breaking into short builds and grabbing ghost shields is not allowed. They didn't allow it in the refrenced thread, and I agree with that.