Not quite, should be possible with 7. For instance those 6 Octathalon games could be won on 5 different mapsizes to also complete the Pentathalon using the same 6 games.
Hall of Fame Rules/FAQ
- Thread starter superslug
- Start date
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
you can do it on as few as 7 games.
1 histographic
6 that meet the other requirements:
Say,
1) tiny/deity/100K
2) small/demigod/conquest
3) standard/emperor/spaceship
4) large/monarch/20K
5) huge/regent/diplomatic
6) huge/warlord/domination
ie - games can count for more than 1 category. Except histographic wins - they all just count for histographic victories.
Crosspost with Dianthus....
1 histographic
6 that meet the other requirements:
Say,
1) tiny/deity/100K
2) small/demigod/conquest
3) standard/emperor/spaceship
4) large/monarch/20K
5) huge/regent/diplomatic
6) huge/warlord/domination
ie - games can count for more than 1 category. Except histographic wins - they all just count for histographic victories.
Crosspost with Dianthus....
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
Ah, that is very different from what I first thought. Originally, I thought the Quartermaster was some sort of endurance test, with the aim to have played each mapsize for each victory condition for each difficulty level. That's a lot of games! 
But only 7 games? Even I could try that.
(Uh, it is fair to say that if I misunderstood the number of games required, others have, too.)
But only 7 games? Even I could try that.
(Uh, it is fair to say that if I misunderstood the number of games required, others have, too.)
It's fair. But if you submit only one game that makes it on a table you will show up somewhere in a ranking chart and it would then become clear. I never dreamed about being able to qualify as a Quartermaster when I sent my first game in, but then I saw myself ranked at 141 with 3 of the 18 required fulfilled, then I started to understand more. Give it a try, even if you don't get it right away, you like Civ 3 so it isn't as if you are doing something you don't like.
On another related topic, wether one considers it easy or not to become a Quatermaster, it isn't necessarily easy to stay one. We have had an individual claim it was easy to be a Quartermaster some time past and now that person is not even on the almost there chart anymore so it's a constantly changing environment. The more you submit, the better your chances of attaining a rank and keeping it.
On another related topic, wether one considers it easy or not to become a Quatermaster, it isn't necessarily easy to stay one. We have had an individual claim it was easy to be a Quartermaster some time past and now that person is not even on the almost there chart anymore so it's a constantly changing environment. The more you submit, the better your chances of attaining a rank and keeping it.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
question about negative spending:
On chieftain, there is no penalty for running a deficit. Can you set your sliders to 0, give all your GPT to an AI, then run 100% science? You would be losing a lot of gold each turn, but there is no penalty.
I think you can't, but I wanted to check and make sure.
On chieftain, there is no penalty for running a deficit. Can you set your sliders to 0, give all your GPT to an AI, then run 100% science? You would be losing a lot of gold each turn, but there is no penalty.
I think you can't, but I wanted to check and make sure.
However, my understanding is that you can make a deal, for example, whereby you trade gpt for a Tech, and then declare war the same turn.
Obviously this could be done at the other skill levels, too.
Obviously this could be done at the other skill levels, too.
Chamnix is quoting the rules correctly, but I think he's answering the wrong question. You can run 100% science on cheiftan and not suffer a penalty. What you can't do is during this state of affairs then give the AI a gpt deal, because you're giving them money you don't have. (unlike real life where governments give away money they don't have all the time.)
To sum up:
You can give all gold away in treasury and then start a negative balance and suffer the penalty, although cheiftan doesn't have one.
You can't give all gold away in treasury and then start a negative balance and start a deal with the ai for gpt or lump sum payment. It's a double negative and that's banned. It was fixed for conquests but you could start giving the AI 9999 gpt and not have it. of course, but it would "show up" there at the AI in their treasury and then you could bump them off and whoopie all that money in their treasury is now yours. To get maximum effect you would want to have no money in the treasury to give away so there's your double negative gpt exploit. That's banned.
To sum up:
You can give all gold away in treasury and then start a negative balance and suffer the penalty, although cheiftan doesn't have one.
You can't give all gold away in treasury and then start a negative balance and start a deal with the ai for gpt or lump sum payment. It's a double negative and that's banned. It was fixed for conquests but you could start giving the AI 9999 gpt and not have it. of course, but it would "show up" there at the AI in their treasury and then you could bump them off and whoopie all that money in their treasury is now yours. To get maximum effect you would want to have no money in the treasury to give away so there's your double negative gpt exploit. That's banned.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
That's what I thought - I just wanted to make sure.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
I still don't know if I am fully certain about what exactly is outlawed and what not.
Consider the following situation(Vanilla):
I am playing Chieftain and have an income of 100 gpt (maximized) - a nice round number. I also have some cash on hand, say, 100 gold.
Now I call up an AI and want a military alliance. Although I only have an income of 100 gpt they are willing to accept a little bit more. Say they are willing to accept 120 gpt. Would I be allowed to make the deal: MA & 120gpt <--> MA? Would the answer change if the deal would not see the next turn?
Consider the following situation(Vanilla):
I am playing Chieftain and have an income of 100 gpt (maximized) - a nice round number. I also have some cash on hand, say, 100 gold.
Now I call up an AI and want a military alliance. Although I only have an income of 100 gpt they are willing to accept a little bit more. Say they are willing to accept 120 gpt. Would I be allowed to make the deal: MA & 120gpt <--> MA? Would the answer change if the deal would not see the next turn?
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
that is different from what I was talking about, and I believed is banned under a different, but related rule about not putting extra money into circulation.
I also think that it's fixed for PTW and Conquests (you can't offer more than you make)
I also think that it's fixed for PTW and Conquests (you can't offer more than you make)
AutomatedTeller is right, that can't happen anymore on conquests (not sure about PTW), but on vanilla it's banned. The way you described is less of an exploit but it still is an exploit.
Why?
Because you only have 100 gold in your account per turn but you write a check for 20 turns for 120 gold and 120 gold shows up in your ally's account. Therefore you just "created" 400 gold that would not have existed (assuming a full 20 turn deal) Now that is minor compared to giving them 10000 extra gold per turn but it's still making gold from nowhere. This is especially exploitive if your ally is puny and your intention is merely to kill them next there by getting back that huge amount of gold free and clear.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
Ok, thanks to the two of you then.
(And I must say that I am even somewhat relieved that it is banned, relieved that I haven't missed any chances to make even more cash. )
(And I must say that I am even somewhat relieved that it is banned, relieved that I haven't missed any chances to make even more cash.
)
.
Not as far as I'm aware. I've re-read the HOF rules section and I can't find any mention of it. If we did want the barbs fixed, I guess that we should say so in there. I'll raise this in the HOF staff section.
I must admit that I leave it as 0 as I can never be bothered to switch it back to 1!
I must admit that I leave it as 0 as I can never be bothered to switch it back to 1!
There is no HoF ruling on the barbarians "fix" as they can be turned completely off if so desired. Therefore, entries will not require it.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
In my latest game, I ran into a situation where, late in the game, I wasnt' sure if I was going to lose by 100K culture - it looked like someone had more than 1/2 of America's culture, but I wasn't sure and CivAssisst didn't tell me.
I downloaded MapStat today (after the game was won) and it turns out that MapStat shows the exact culture and cpt for each civ!!!
Would looking at that be considered an exploit? I think it would, based on this:
But I wanted to check.
I downloaded MapStat today (after the game was won) and it turns out that MapStat shows the exact culture and cpt for each civ!!!
Would looking at that be considered an exploit? I think it would, based on this:
But I wanted to check.
Bartleby
Remembers laughter
Did you check that the MapStat culture values are accurate? IIRC they're estimated by counting the pixels on the culture histograph, and during my mikrun games I see them vary quite a bit from turn-to-turn.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
really? I assumed it was reading the .sav file. well, then it looks like an approximation, so that might be ok...
I've checked with Dianthus and he agrees with my view that as long as the spoiler tab stuff is not used the rest is fair game. He talks about it using the pixels on the culture histograph so it all seems fair to me.
