Interesting. We're so alike in so many ways, you and I, but this one just doesn't resonate at all with me -- especially on deity.
Especially on deity?
"It's not whether you win or lose. It's how you play the game." I have "been there and done that" with gaming. I've covered it all and have nothing left to explore -- on the surface. The only place for me to find entertainment through gaming now lies beneath the surface. I have nothing left to prove, to myself or anybody else, and this could best be summed up with this phrase: "Winning is not enough." I demand a sporting victory, a fair contest. Sometimes I want a relaxing game (Civ3 is mostly like that) and don't hold myself to a rigid standard. Sometimes I want a rough challenge and will set myself up in some situation, or apply myself to some goal, that really pushes me, that I have to bend a lot of effort into achieving. Adrenalin? Sometimes. Sometimes just the satisfaction of mental stimulation. I LOVE TO THINK. The corollary to that is that I also love to feel. Both in depth. I seek chances to dive into thought and emotion, and games are a convenient way to do both in a small package. A chance to create, for a while, this tiny microcosm of the universe, usually though not always with defined and/or known rules, and strive for some goal.
THAT is the fun, for me, the striving, not the destination. I can mark any number of destinations. Measuring things has its place and is an essential part of finding meaning in the activity, but each goal is there only to give direction to motion.
I've spent a sizable chunk of my lifetime playing games of all shapes and sizes. Board games, advanced board games (heard of Avalon Hill?), TV tennis, ancient console games (Atari, Intellivision, you know, the pre-Nintendo stuff), ancient home computer games, RPG's of all shapes and sizes, paper games, cards, coin-op arcade games (and how), puzzles, riddles, and now, PC games. Vehicles for thought. I sometimes work VERY hard at having fun.
Sometimes I don't, it just flows.
I have grown to be one of the pickiest SOB's on the planet when it comes to rules. I know a great game when I see one, and I know when the rules of a game are flawed. Rules flaws can render a contest moot, such as to steal away any value from the striving. In other words, to defeat the purpose of the game, rather than to serve it. That gets into the question of "what is the purpose of a game" -- and you're right, it's about having fun. Fun means something different to each player.
However, for me, there is a concept called "Contempt of Game". When I reach a point at which I feel contempt for a game, that there is no worthy goal within the game to present me a genuine challenge and/or a fun exploration, there's no point in playing. I'm not at all compelled to "win". Rather, I am compelled to EXCEL. I can only excel if there is some test to apply myself to, or some area not yet experienced to explore and discover. AND... it is only fun for me in the absence of Contempt of Game.
Specifically in regard to the diplomatic system in Civ III... it's broken. The rules there need work, a lot more work. Will they get them? Incredibly enough, I think they will. This design team has shown an extraordinary commitment to their product (relative to typical game makers) and have made ACTUAL PROGRESS on improving game balance and closing out contemptible rules flaws and loopholes, with each patch. I can't tell you how many other games I've seen either not patch at all, or spin their wheels with results that go nowhere, or even in some cases, get worse.
Still, for now... the diplomatic rules are flawed. There is nothing even remotely resembling logical, realistic, sensible, or even functional penalties attached to breaking your word in Civ III. Without appropriate penalties, this constitutes a loophole in the rules. I have nothing BUT contempt for that aspect of the game. Put another way, the only way for me NOT to feel contempt for the game is to voluntarily eschew the options that, if employed, would violate the spirit of the game and render the gameplay either moot or at least tainted. Where the game rules are insufficient to offer a fun experience, I am minded to "correct" them on my own, if I can. And if that's still ineffective, or else the problem is so severe that some voluntary additions or subtractions can't relieve the Contempt of Game, then it would be time for me to move on to a new game.
Sign a RoP and park your forces right next to all the AI cities, then wipe them out in one turn? What's the point?
Get free goodies by suckering the AI with deals that you fully intend to reneg on? And the game lets you "steal" like this and get away with it?
That kind of game's not worth my time. That kind of move shows Contempt of Game, and I can't go there. I know if I do, the fun will stop and I'll have to give up the game. That doesn't extend to imposing my preferences on anybody else -- far from it. In some of these SG's here, I observe extra limits on some of my turns (things I won't do) and don't even much talk about it, and make no complaints when others play differently, unless there was some mutually agreed condition that was not observed.
But THIS game... means a little more. We're undertaking to play at the highest difficulty, with rather steep advantages to the AI's to offset their limitations, such as to seriously place the outcome into doubt -- and it was the first such attempt in this segment of the Civ3 community. When I asked for "no poprush exploitation" at the outset, that was with the idea to make this a truly worthy contest, to set aside the loopholes and exploits and play it straight up, come what may. I do not view flagrant, intentional diplomatic betrayals as anything other than Contempt of Game. I consider the possibility of such to be a failure of DRAMATIC proportions in the game design itself -- one that, if fully exploited, would thrust me wholly into contempt and destroy the fun. In fact, if that's how we "win" this game, by use of such tactics, I would view the results in the same light as I would if we had poprushed our way across the ancient era with chariots, using captured workers to fuel the whipping camps. That wouldn't be cheating, since the rules allow for it, but to me it might as well be, since I have contempt for those rules. Might as well use cheat codes, or reroll and replay battles to guarantee a win. Same degree of Contempt of Game involved, from my perspective.
A fair and worthy contest is a game. Lacking those, you might still have a vehicle of exploration and discovery -- of PRACTICE -- and that too can be fun. (I "practice" Civ III solo sometimes, reloading a few things here or there, or sometimes a lot of things in regard to some specific aspect, as I look to figure out just exactly what are the rules of the game, or how a certain move might go over and what results it obtains, compared to other moves or situations). Nothing wrong with that. But practice and "game day" are not the same, and by this point, I've done all the exploring I need or want to do in regard to diplomatic betrayals.
There is one "betrayal" scenerio I find sporting: cheating the cheater! If I see an AI sneak attack coming, and I know they are after me, I have no qualms with making a gpt deal with them, knowing that when they attack me, the betrayal rebounds on them and imposes a real penalty on them for being such rubes as to backstab me like that. I pulled such a move on X-man in Apoly 4, got three almost-free techs and no stain on my reputation.
However, the kind of deal that you made, wherein you got hard goods (tech) for gpt, knowing that the AI would activate our MPP and force us back into war... well, that was an intentional betrayal, and the stain does and should fall upon us. IF the game had in place some sensible penalties for that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it doesn't. This game isn't designed well enough to cope with flagrant contempt. Rather, it seems to have been designed on the premise that diplomatic deals mean something. If they weren't intended to mean anything at all, there would not be any penalties whatsoever. So... it seems indisputable to me that the spirit of this aspect of the game was never intended to cover hard-nosed, repeated, intentional betrayal, because the game is just not capable of dealing with it. Sure, the first time you do it, it takes SOME gpt deals off the table. That's it, after that, the next one and the one after that are penalty-free. Even if it closes out a few of the ways in which you can get something for nothing by betraying your word, others remain open, like promising 20 turns of peace for concessions, then keeping the concessions and attacking again anyway. The game never catches on, just keeps coming back over and over to be suckered again and again, and what's the point? In what way is a victory of that kind at all worthy of the time invested to obtain it? If you don't honor the AI as a peer, as an opponent worthy at least of some level of respect, but rather show contempt for them as a mere collection of limited algorithms, are you even still playing a game at all? Seriously. If you are measuring your intellect vs the AI, not a person on this planet would lose that contest. The AI has no intellect. It doesn't think, it just reacts. Once you step outside the bounds of its parameters and do things that aren't just clever or effective, but on the equivalent of cheating because the rules themselves are flawed, of what use is the result? What, exactly, have you actually accomplished?
There's another concept I call False Difficulty. Human beings have a competitive streak, and they long to excel. They also have a tendency to base their worth on goals reached, notches slotted into their belt. These are things they can hold up and be praised or recognized for. However... the VALUE of a goal reached, by way of measurement, has a lot to do with the effort expended to get there. What obstacles had to be overcome? What real level of difficulty was faced in getting there? "Real" level, being the key. Many game players are enamored with False Difficulty, with the idea of a goal that is widely held to be "worthy", but which can be reached easily through some shortcut or other. They want the praise or self-congratulation of the achievement in name only. It is rather a quest to get something for nothing. Some do it by way of cheating, but many games (especially highly complex PC games like CivIII) have so many rules that some loopholes and flaws can be found to provide easy paths to victory, or shortcuts that result in some degree of False Difficulty. Thus, you can have your False Difficulty without having to "actually" cheat. Yet the result is the same: the challenge is compromised, the results diminished in terms of what is being measured.
I play both to explore and to strive. Civ III is a blend of both, as the actual challenge of the game has limits (like AI breakdown at the Industrial age) and foibles (nonsense like the sheer randomnity of resource shuffling, or the tediousness of pollution cleanup and lack of interface support with things like cities about to go into revolt). It's never going to approach the environment of chess, but then, chess is a pure contest, nothing in the way of mystery of exploration. Civ III can provide random maps and randomized conditions, such that even when the game itself stops offering exploration, each instance of the game still holds something new to explore. The fun can go on and on, as long as you stay away from contempt.
I've had the enormous benefit of achieving the pinnacle in some games. World records on a few coin-ops back in the 80's, top rank (worldwide) on ladders with multiplayer games over the net in the 90's, "best-ever" or "first-to-achieve" results with single player PC games. I'm also grandly mediocre at many other games, and outright suck at some. That's just the spread of things, everybody has their talents and potentials. But only a relatively small percentage rise to the very top of even one heap, at any point -- sports champions, gold medalists, nation leaders, bestseller lists, etc. Thousands upon thousands of such people, yes, but relatively few of the total. Having been there, I know that there is zero inherent value in the milestones. They can mean something, but only as they apply to measuring and offering insight into... the ability and willingness to act. If you use them as a reason to halt and rest on your laurels, rather than as a platform to launch your next effort, you betray yourself, and you will start to decay. I'm sure you can think of examples from life, of those who reached the top, then crumbled.
Striving to win lends meaning to play, but only by offering a form and structure to shape the effort. If you compromise how you play the game, in pursuit of a "win", you lose automatically, for there is value only in the playing, not in the winning.
Striving is insatiable. Even IF you achieved the highest goal and became THE BEST, what then? I've had to face that question a few times, more than enough to realize that any and all meanings attached to milestones are arbitrary. Records are meant to be broken, and even the best result could be improved upon. Yet there IS inherent value in the effort, the excellence of successful action. Milestones, records, goals are nothing more than than guideposts along an endless journey. It is the journey itself that matters.
Life itself is a game. You may find differently, but I have found for myself, it is not entirely possible to separate out my gaming identity from my personal identity. Gaming is a rich field of metaphor for me, a place of generally little consequence to play out microcosms of things more urgent in life. Some of the lessons I have learned from gaming apply directly to life -- or rather, ANY thing you do in life can potentially offer you insight into yourself.
Games aren't the only thing for which one can form contempt. Contempt ITSELF is a bad BAD place to be. Those who form contempt for their jobs lead generally miserable lives. Those who form contempt for their friends and family are in deep trouble. Those who form contempt for themselves are in the worst shape of all. Contempt for life is the ticket to a living hell. So yes, civ is "only a game". But that could be said of anything.
(cont)...
I don't think Ghandi votes for anybody who's wiped out a civ. I think Joanie only votes for culture leader or abstains. Military might is also a consideration. If the AI hates both candidates, it'll just abstain, rather than vote for the "less hated" option. (I might be wrong here, since I usually just build the UN and never hold a vote, but that's the trend I've seen).
) [A cartoon blue dog appears and Bobthorn is inspired.
Why not crank out a few more artillery first? 
I'm not meaning to be harsh, but was running through the cash factors as I typed this and saw we can still do it -- the point is to say we're not out, and once the Joanie deal is up, Wall Street in hand, Hoover in hand, and a lot of infantry cranked out as you've been doing, we're ready for ANYTHING! 
from Germany if we're unsure about making it. Checked the game and at the end of Arathorn's turn we can "safely" steal a tech for 1048gp.
