Negavite gpt during anarchy
- Thread starter DaveMcW
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Huge deficit due to GPT Deals?DaveMcW said:
No. Its not really any different to deficit spending in any other government (although do you lose units / buildings due to deficit spending in anarchy? I've never been in that situation, but given that its a no-support govt, maybe that check is overlooked in the programming....)
I think you do lose units/buildings -- I seem to recall making that mistake in a game once a long time ago.
In any case, ainwood's right; it's still the same prohibited exploit. You'll have to find a way to avoid going negative.
Renata
In any case, ainwood's right; it's still the same prohibited exploit. You'll have to find a way to avoid going negative.
Renata
No buildings lost [edit: Talking C3C here]. Basically the other civ has noone to collect the cash I guess.
I do know some people allow it. I think at the RBCiv site the exploit was worded to say you can't crank up science and run a deficit and so is silent on this issue.
I do know LKendter allows it for example.
One problem is that it is an exploit you sometimes cannot avoid. If you have a demo govt you can go into Anarchy due to WW if you made a deal before the war was declared.
For that last reason, I would allow it.
I do know some people allow it. I think at the RBCiv site the exploit was worded to say you can't crank up science and run a deficit and so is silent on this issue.
I do know LKendter allows it for example.
One problem is that it is an exploit you sometimes cannot avoid. If you have a demo govt you can go into Anarchy due to WW if you made a deal before the war was declared.
For that last reason, I would allow it.
IMO, it makes it even worse if there are no units or buildings lost. Unit/building loss is the penalty designed into the game for running with a negative treasury. If it's an exploit to have a negative treasury in normal times when the building/unit losses *are* taking place, how is it better to do so when they aren't?
And the democracy-revolt situation isn't really comparable, because the penalty of an extra maximum-length anarchy in the middle of a war is incredibly severe (not to mention potentially a second later anarchy to get back into a decent government) -- getting to blow off your gpt payments for the duration of the anarchy is hardly even compensation, much less an unbalanced gain.
Renata
And the democracy-revolt situation isn't really comparable, because the penalty of an extra maximum-length anarchy in the middle of a war is incredibly severe (not to mention potentially a second later anarchy to get back into a decent government) -- getting to blow off your gpt payments for the duration of the anarchy is hardly even compensation, much less an unbalanced gain.
Renata
I had precisely the same option in GOTM 43 and, ultimately, chose against pulling the deal. I acknowledge the in-game penalty is relatively non-existent, but don't think that is a sufficient basis to ban the "exploit."
For the sake of comparison, consider the following: Making large GPT deals and then declaring war (which, BTW, I DID use in GOTM 43) is an oft-used and well accepted "tactic" in the XOTM competition. Even though you blow your rep in the process, most of the time this is only a minor penalty. Frankly, I think major GPT deals followed by DOW and phony peace/DOW are far more exploitative than what Dave is mentioning. In fact, I consider it highly likely that "bankruptcy" during anarchy has occurred at least occasionally (and perhaps quite frequently) in XOTM games.
Finally - is this detectable anyway? That seems to be the previous basis for banning or not banning certain exploits.
My $0.02
For the sake of comparison, consider the following: Making large GPT deals and then declaring war (which, BTW, I DID use in GOTM 43) is an oft-used and well accepted "tactic" in the XOTM competition. Even though you blow your rep in the process, most of the time this is only a minor penalty. Frankly, I think major GPT deals followed by DOW and phony peace/DOW are far more exploitative than what Dave is mentioning. In fact, I consider it highly likely that "bankruptcy" during anarchy has occurred at least occasionally (and perhaps quite frequently) in XOTM games.
Finally - is this detectable anyway? That seems to be the previous basis for banning or not banning certain exploits.
My $0.02
I think the people knowing the game mechanics should ask their own consience how far they can use the the various gpt related holes that generate gold out of thin air.
A lot of this stuff is happening accidentially all the time and it is not really detectable from the final save.
This one, limited to a few anarchy turns, is a minor issue.
So in this case, I would have no qualms to buy it, if it's the only way to get the tech. That's happening to people all the time without them knowing of the advantage.
I would consider it a real exploit to deliberately overpay to generate more gold in the world, or to hold back assets to get the gpt back immediately after anarchy.
A lot of this stuff is happening accidentially all the time and it is not really detectable from the final save.
This one, limited to a few anarchy turns, is a minor issue.
So in this case, I would have no qualms to buy it, if it's the only way to get the tech. That's happening to people all the time without them knowing of the advantage.
I would consider it a real exploit to deliberately overpay to generate more gold in the world, or to hold back assets to get the gpt back immediately after anarchy.
King Of America
Warlord
I am not sure if we are talking about a bug or a feature here.
During anarchy, the only money that is collected in your civ relates to trades with the AIs. This is different than running up a huge deficit in Republic due to having a huge army or trying to catch up in research by running a deficit.
Since you don't lose any buildings or units for being in deficit during arachy, as oppsoed to the non-ararchy situation where you lose something, but less than you "should", I have to wonder if this is not a gift of the programmers to let you switch governments without breaking trade agreements -- you're vulnerable enough to attacks during anarchy as is.
Unrealistic? The whole idea of a penalty for entering a more "democratic" government seems wrong to me to say nothing of the playfull non-realism of Joan d'Arc waking up 4000+ years before she was born and planning how she will plan a spaceship, which in C3C requires no knowledge of radio
During anarchy, the only money that is collected in your civ relates to trades with the AIs. This is different than running up a huge deficit in Republic due to having a huge army or trying to catch up in research by running a deficit.
Since you don't lose any buildings or units for being in deficit during arachy, as oppsoed to the non-ararchy situation where you lose something, but less than you "should", I have to wonder if this is not a gift of the programmers to let you switch governments without breaking trade agreements -- you're vulnerable enough to attacks during anarchy as is.
Unrealistic? The whole idea of a penalty for entering a more "democratic" government seems wrong to me to say nothing of the playfull non-realism of Joan d'Arc waking up 4000+ years before she was born and planning how she will plan a spaceship, which in C3C requires no knowledge of radio
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
it's not about realism or not.
It's fine to have that feature around when you revolt with 100gp, and paying -10gpt to that AI, and loose the 100gp to a demand. Or the Democracy case.
It's as much an exploit as it could be in my eyes to obtain the Government tech for gpt, and immediately revolt.
It's fine to have that feature around when you revolt with 100gp, and paying -10gpt to that AI, and loose the 100gp to a demand. Or the Democracy case.
It's as much an exploit as it could be in my eyes to obtain the Government tech for gpt, and immediately revolt.
King Of America
Warlord
All I am saying is why assume that it does not function as designed?
You are right -- the question is not about realism. It is about trying to understand whether or not this phenomena is a "break" given to players (and possibly the AI) or it is an oversignt on the part of the programmers.
Of course, the flip side about removing realism as the basis for an argument is that it is harder to make logical elements one way or the other -- not impossible, but harder
This leaves us with two questions: 1. Is the game functioning as designed? and 2. Do the staff members want to rule out something even if the game is functioning as designed?
I do not see any reason to think it is an oversight -- this phenomena has occured as far as I know since the first release of Civ3 and there certainly have been many changes since then. In other words, if they thought it was broken they would have fixed it by now.
Having said that, if the staff wants to rule this out of bounds, then of course I accept that. I only ask that we consider if anarchy is meant to be different. To me, the fact that neither units or improvements are removed during anarchy is an indication that it is meant to be different.
You are right -- the question is not about realism. It is about trying to understand whether or not this phenomena is a "break" given to players (and possibly the AI) or it is an oversignt on the part of the programmers.
Of course, the flip side about removing realism as the basis for an argument is that it is harder to make logical elements one way or the other -- not impossible, but harder
This leaves us with two questions: 1. Is the game functioning as designed? and 2. Do the staff members want to rule out something even if the game is functioning as designed?
I do not see any reason to think it is an oversight -- this phenomena has occured as far as I know since the first release of Civ3 and there certainly have been many changes since then. In other words, if they thought it was broken they would have fixed it by now.
Having said that, if the staff wants to rule this out of bounds, then of course I accept that. I only ask that we consider if anarchy is meant to be different. To me, the fact that neither units or improvements are removed during anarchy is an indication that it is meant to be different.
akots
Poet
Well, might be better to have at least some decency. Buy for gpt, revolt and declare war imho. Or buy for gpt, declare war and revolt. Or buy for gpt, don't revolt and pay back then revolt. Otherwise it sounds like exploit. Cash coming out of air every turn.
Actually, it might come very handy in a PBEM/multiplayer game when you have some trustworthy allies. Sell them 1 g for 100,000 gpt and revolt. Then, they can do the same to you. Deal can be stopped by declaring war and making peace immediately. If there is some weak civ in this case which can always stay in Anarchy, playing OCC or vassal state, it is possible to generate infinite cash supply for the allies.
If this would be allowed, it would not be possible to play multiplayer games at all. This smells very bad and is a very exploitative even against AI.
Actually, it might come very handy in a PBEM/multiplayer game when you have some trustworthy allies. Sell them 1 g for 100,000 gpt and revolt. Then, they can do the same to you. Deal can be stopped by declaring war and making peace immediately. If there is some weak civ in this case which can always stay in Anarchy, playing OCC or vassal state, it is possible to generate infinite cash supply for the allies.
If this would be allowed, it would not be possible to play multiplayer games at all. This smells very bad and is a very exploitative even against AI.
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
I'm confused here. If you make a gpt deal to the AI, then revolt and can't afford to pay it, does the game keep paying them somehow anyway?
That's kind of what I got from Akots' post.
That's kind of what I got from Akots' post.
A related exploit to this would be to gift an AI 9999gpt and a resource/lux , then sell them a tech for as much gpt as possible, and then pillage the lux resource to break the gift..
This way you force the AI into deficient spending with a lot of gpt going to you, and creates money out of thin air... this is banned in HoF, but it isnt listed in GOTM rules as far as I can see.
(you can always gift gpt and resources/lux to AIs even after your rep is ruined, so this always works.. in vanilla/ptw there is no limit to how high gpt you can gift away, while in c3c it is limited to your total income before corruption..)
This way you force the AI into deficient spending with a lot of gpt going to you, and creates money out of thin air... this is banned in HoF, but it isnt listed in GOTM rules as far as I can see.
(you can always gift gpt and resources/lux to AIs even after your rep is ruined, so this always works.. in vanilla/ptw there is no limit to how high gpt you can gift away, while in c3c it is limited to your total income before corruption..)
Don't forget the all-important "if in doubt, ask, because we can and will delete your submission if we know you used a cheesy exploit we haven't gotten around to banning yet" rule. 
Which is not to say the ruleset is not in dire need of updating. One of these years, maybe, when we all magically find an extra few hours in the day.
Renata
Which is not to say the ruleset is not in dire need of updating. One of these years, maybe, when we all magically find an extra few hours in the day.
Renata
King Of America
Warlord
Looks like we have a strong consensus fior "bug, not feature"...
Agreed - my bad.ainwood said:
I assume that's a rhetorical question, but nonetheless I feel compelled to answer your question with a resounding NO .ainwood said:
That is my understanding, but was never certain until this discussion occurred.MeteorPunch said:
Regardless of whether or not this is a bug or feature, I would only add that the AI civs (given the same situation) will revolt to Republic without fail, even if it means they run their economy at negative GPT.King Of America said:
After seeing all the other discussion here (good grief - I'm flabbergasted by all of the creative ways people cited to manipulate the game mechanics in this discussion
), I concede that the current wording in the Code of Conduct is quite reasonable.That said, the BS I pulled in GOTM43 (spoiler just went up) - all of which I believe to be perfectly acceptable under the current Code of Conduct - makes the exploit alluded to in Dave's original question seem insignificant in comparison.
At any rate, I'm glad to play by whatever rules the staff and community agree to, and don't mean to sound at all critical of their decisions. Keep up the good work!
al_thor
Prince
I've been in this situation before, and I was PLEASANTLY surprised to see that I lost no buildings or units. I never did try cranking the Science, as I always found the 2 sliders (Science & Happiness) to be ineffective while in Anarchy. Maybe I was wrong?
Anyway, Anarchy is:
1. A state of society without government or law
2. Lawlessness or political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
(actually sounds rather appealing)
Where does the per-turn support-cost money for your units and buildings go? To your GOVERNMENT. But, while in Anarchy, there is no government to 'collect' these 'taxes', so it makes sense that you wouldn't lose any of them. I like it just the way it is, and hope that they don't change it or the powers that be on this site don't try to limit it somehow. It just doesn't seem worth the effort anyway.
Anyway, Anarchy is:
1. A state of society without government or law
2. Lawlessness or political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
(actually sounds rather appealing)
Where does the per-turn support-cost money for your units and buildings go? To your GOVERNMENT. But, while in Anarchy, there is no government to 'collect' these 'taxes', so it makes sense that you wouldn't lose any of them. I like it just the way it is, and hope that they don't change it or the powers that be on this site don't try to limit it somehow. It just doesn't seem worth the effort anyway.
FacuK
Chieftain
I'm new, and my english is not very good, so maybe I lost the point...
Is it allowed or not going through anarchy intenciolly with negative gpt and no gold to pay?
If yes, after few turns (less than 20, 4 or 5 maybe in average) you change to Republic and start to pay. Or am I wrong?
If not, what about Akots' idea of buy for gpt, declare war and then revolt?
Finnally, I understand that is allowed to trade for gpt and then declare war.
Is it allowed or not going through anarchy intenciolly with negative gpt and no gold to pay?
If yes, after few turns (less than 20, 4 or 5 maybe in average) you change to Republic and start to pay. Or am I wrong?
If not, what about Akots' idea of buy for gpt, declare war and then revolt?
Finnally, I understand that is allowed to trade for gpt and then declare war.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Hi - welcome to CFC - your english seems fine!FacuK said:
You can not intentionally go into anarchy whilst paying GPT deals if you are likely to run out of gold during the anarchy period.
Akots suggested alternative is fine.
