Re: List of Permitted and Prohibited Exploits

[ThERat]

By all means, save as often as you like, or use CivAssist to create an automatic archive of all your autosaves, and then go back and do post mortems later ... after you've finished and submitted.

the archive of autosaves must be huge in size, every autosave is 1.5MB I think, with let's say 300 turns...wow

Anyway, I fully understand your reservations and if I take part in another COTM, I will try and keep the reload as low as possible. I just did not think of it when doing all my usual behaviour patterns as described above. I also do not want an entry which smells of foul play.
By the way, if one loads the initial 4000BC save, has a look, then stops to read the pre-game discussions, the reload count starts ticking I guess.
Have to really adjust my style

 

[ainwood]

the archive of autosaves must be huge in size, every autosave is 1.5MB I think, with let's say 300 turns...wow

No. Thanks to Dianthus, autosaves are now compressed before being archived (so they're about 200-300 kB). And Dianthus' CRPMapstat will also archive them as compressed saves (as an alternative).

BTW - opening a save and checking info only, then closing it is fine. Reloading is only a problem when the outcome is changed.

 

[ThERat]

BTW - opening a save and checking info only, then closing it is fine. Reloading is only a problem when the outcome is changed

so, the above written actions would be ok, except that they might raise the reload count to levels that raise suspicions that you might have cheated to get a better result.

 

[AlanH]

BTW - opening a save and checking info only, then closing it is fine. Reloading is only a problem when the outcome is changed

This is true except that, in order to open an earlier save you have to save your current state in the game and then reload after having looked at the earlier save. That increases your live game reload count.

so, the above written actions would be ok, except that they might raise the reload count to levels that raise suspicions that you might have cheated to get a better result.

Correct. Note that this applies to SGOTMs as well, and I believe the HoF team also does similar checking, so competitive Civ is generally not a good place to practice these habits.

 

[PaperBeetle]

I see! Very clever, and also very allowable. From the C/GOTM perspective, its fine. The settlers will be from the other civ, and therefore any city founded will be (slightly) more likely to revolt, but I presume you just avoid settling until they are wiped-out?

If we build enough theory here, do we increase the risk of this thread flipping to the Strategies & Tips forum?

My tuppence worth is that foreign population can exist in two states in your empire. (1) as citizens, where they act the same as the native population, but are liable to resist, sulk or defect. (2) as slaves, where they do what you tell them, when you tell them, and they do it for free. Don't rush settlers from captured towns, rush slaves. Besides, they cost less shields per pop point.

 

[solenoozerec]

In fact you do not even need to wait until they will be wiped out, when you settle with a foreign settler you get a town with one pop. If you have enough luxes and you do not have huge WW, the guy in this city will be just fine, while those with >10 pop are pain.

 

[Zelda's Man]

I do have one question about reloading as well. During one turn the game crashed right after I took an AI city. So when I reloaded, I guess I did things in a different order and I was unable to take the city. Since I felt like this was a big discrepancy, I reloaded again and switched the order and this time I was able to take the city again, so I kept playing. This will not disqualify my game will it?

Also, I used the gift a city method (which sent my troops home), but it was not for the sole purpose of getting a free ride home. I did it because there was no way the city wouldn't flip back to them if I tried to keep control of it. Thus I gifted the city to a civ with a greater culture than my enemy's. This also really hurt my enemy's production capabilities. I thought this was a good strategy, but my troops did get a ride home, although it was not the reason for the gift. Does it matter what the intent is?

 

[AlanH]

Since I felt like this was a big discrepancy, I reloaded again and switched the order and this time I was able to take the city again, so I kept playing.

Well, they do say confession is good for the soul

Reloading to change an outcome is *always* dangerous. Presumably the second attempt to take the city was no more or less valid than the first, it just rubbed the RNGenie a different way, and you might equally have played it that way first time around. You feel a reload is valid in this situation, simply because you *know* that there's a way to get the RNG to perform for you if you play it right? Why is that more reasonable than just replaying the turn anyway, hoping for a better outcome.

Suppose you had *failed* to take that city before your computer crashed, and the next time you succeeded. I'm going to hazard a guess that you would not have reloaded to get the same, worse, outcome as your crashed attempt?

This will not disqualify my game will it?

Reloading to change an outcome? What do you think?

I thought this was a good strategy, but my troops did get a ride home, although it was not the reason for the gift.

Nice little extra bonus, though. You could have avoided the issue by moving them out before gifting the city.

Does it matter what the intent is?

Not really. The community can only judge your games by their visible outcomes. Your professed intentions are inside your head and can't be assessed objectively.

 

[Zelda's Man]

Reloading to change an outcome is *always* dangerous. Presumably the second attempt to take the city was no more or less valid than the first, it just rubbed the RNGenie a different way, and you might equally have played it that way first time around. You feel a reload is valid in this situation, simply because you *know* that there's a way to get the RNG to perform for you if you play it right? Why is that more reasonable than just replaying the turn anyway, hoping for a better outcome.

Suppose you had *failed* to take that city before your computer crashed, and the next time you succeeded. I'm going to hazard a guess that you would not have reloaded to get the same, worse, outcome as your crashed attempt?

Honestly, I probably wouldn't have reloaded if the outcome were different for the better. However, I was comfortable with my decision that the game that more resembled the original because of the second reload. The RNG was kind the first time (and I was lucky). I was unlucky that the computer crashed and then the RNG decided to be unkind. I felt like I should have some sort of insurance policy that protected me against losses caused by crashing. Oh well...

Reloading to change an outcome? What do you think?

Well if it doesn't count, I can just view it as a learning experience. I still haven't finished so I might not even win. I do appreciate the explanations. No hard feelings.

Nice little extra bonus, though. You could have avoided the issue by moving them out before gifting the city.

Very true. At the time I was unaware it was a banned exploit. I truly prefer to play/win by the rules and that is why I brought it up in the first place. Next time I will just move the units.

Not really. The community can only judge your games by their visible outcomes. Your professed intentions are inside your head and can't be assessed objectively.

No argument here.

 

[ThERat]

Correct. Note that this applies to SGOTMs as well, and I believe the HoF team also does similar checking, so competitive Civ is generally not a good place to practice these habits.

very true, I agree that my habits aren't good if I want to take part in those competitions. Next time, will try and play without any reload except once I finish a session.

 

[Jove]

Just want to thank Renata for the rules confirmation