Selling "lost cause" cities? Good idea?

[Roxlimn]

The most egregious part of this tactic isn't even the sale-ability of the city - it's the ability to attack enemy cities from supposedly "neutral" territory. I commonly gift (no sale) newly conquered cities to friendly-but-weak civs that are not at war with the civ I'm attacking and will allow open borders with me, but not with them. This allows me to position my siege units right in the faces of his melee units, shred them with cannon fire, and there's nothing the AI can do about it!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're likely saying that from a gameplay point of view you can logically arrive at inescapable conclusions but from a realism point of view you cannot.

Not precisely. I'm not sure you can arrive at very many "inescapable" conclusions in general (excepting features that don't function and the like). From a gameplay sense, balance isn't easy to achieve and there are different approaches to reach it that make a clear cut conclusion convoluted. However, realism arguments confound this further; games are not real life...

The same types of arguments can be made to support realism claims

No, because realism claims push the game away from being a game. For what its worth, players should be utilizing any legal in-game advantage they can (IE anything that isn't cheating outright is valid). However, the design focus should be making a game that has balanced and dynamic options. In a history-based model, realism is only a goal insofar that it doesn't interfere with the strategy; the core focus of the TBS genre. The game has a lot of strategic depth...and a lot of options that lack it. Realism isn't fundamentally bad here, but focusing on it to the point of basing gameplay decisions on it or prioritizing it over the depth of the game is harmful.

Take the trade/pillage/trade tactic. I've not seen a single player endorse this as allowable. From what I can gather it's very close to universally considered a 'no-no'. And yet how would we capture this in a precisely defined rule that encompasses all situations? What if a barbarian pillages the resource, is it re-sellable then? What if I made an attempt to stop the barb but failed? Am I morally obliged to make every effort to avoid having the resource pillaged and if it is am I obliged to not gain more value than I would otherwise have had if my trade deal wasn't broken? Or is reselling in this situation allowable?

This brings back memories of the arguments over the comically bad and ill-managed/supported HoF rules (I stopped posting there once it was clear the staff and many of the players were in no way interested in actual competition or discussion of rules that create a level playing field, going so far as to deliberately MANDATE randomizing/skill equalizing features and not provide valid basis for doing so, ever). Aside from this being patched out rather simply (IE you can't actually self-pillage now (which happened), or just let a negative resource value happen and don't break the deal), the only issue here, as always, is the AI players (humans wouldn't stand for this whatsoever). One could make an argument that this sort of thing is why the AI gets bonuses anyway, but the gameplay returns are obviously imbalanced too (something for close to nothing)...probably why it was patched out. While it was in, why wouldn't you use it if you could? Only if you wanted to self-limit for challenge.

The same goes for trading with an AI for gold and then declaring war. What if I did it 26 turns ago and had no idea this situation would arise and would now feel like war with them is my best option? What if it was 12 turns ago and I had an inkling? What if it was only an open border agreement? What if I only made a little from the deal? The line drawn here too, is completely arbitrary. I think there would be close to universal agreement that trading your gpt for gold on the turn you declare shouldn't be allowed (for gameplay reasons as it makes the game too easy) but that DoWing when you sold open borders to your target 25 turns ago is permissible. It's where the permissible ends and the prohibited starts that will cause arguments.

Hogwash. Both tactics are 100% valid. It's a pure trust issue. Civs shouldn't deal with civs they don't trust unless they don't mind the risk. Basically, you're just saying that the AI is bad. That's true. Playing with artificial restrictions for challenge is a valid restriction (even wonky ones like "I can't leave my culture"), but not a legit gameplay argument against a feature or tactic; if you used AI incompetence with actions as a basis for banning them, you wouldn't be able to play!

Functionally, any line drawn inside game constraints is arbitrary, and banning them in competitive settings ridiculous (of course, most players in competitive settings won't allow this but if they do your incentive to do it is high...). The game itself might need to be patched, and there are obvious gameplay reasons to make the AI avoid these things for challenge (or simple "playing competency"). The AI playing decently is a good thing. However, not doing something because the AI handles it poorly eliminates most tactics in the game .

These questions, I assume, are the type of questions that can be brought up about any proposed civethical (yes that's now a new word ) standard and will generate a lot of disagreement in the community. Where do we go from here? We just admit that we are applying personal codes of behaviour to the game and that the best we can hope for is loose agreement on these matters.

The rule of two left thumbs is simple: personal codes are fine. However, there's no point in trying to force them on others, and trying to make them accepted as standard is going to meet harsh debate .

Granted, in this case we have different reasons (gameplay vs realism), but we are both against the AI allowing this action w/o seeing it as an act of war.

Humans, of course, would see this as an act of war...and we might see proof of that once civ V MP works.

 

[snarzberry]

Hogwash. Both tactics are 100% valid. It's a pure trust issue. Civs shouldn't deal with civs they don't trust unless they don't mind the risk. Basically, you're just saying that the AI is bad. That's true. Playing with artificial restrictions for challenge is a valid restriction (even wonky ones like "I can't leave my culture"), but not a legit gameplay argument against a feature or tactic; if you used AI incompetence with actions as a basis for banning them, you wouldn't be able to play!

..., not doing something because the AI handles it poorly eliminates most tactics in the game .

I think you're in a small minority with that opinion, that it is ok to trade gpt for a bulk payment and then immediately declare war. Of course you're entitled to your say but I don't think it's a common view. Now, it is taking advantage of the poor AI, and it also highlights that there may be some system in civ 5 lacking which would penalize the players trading reputation for doing something like this.

Your point is that we take advantage of the bad AI all the time even when doing something as ubiquitous as simply warring with one. Isn't war just as much of an 'exploit' seeing as the AI can't do it well and it reaps great benefits for the player? I'd argue that there is a distinction here, that I and I think most players see the trading abuse as a different kind of action to war abuse. Now if I'm forced to specify why that is so, well it might get a little tricky for me . The only answer I can give is that I'm using my personal judgment to declare one impermissible and the other not. That's kind of what we're saying all along, that there are arbitrary boundaries drawn, or not, by anyone playing SP. This one is so popularly rejected that I think it is by far the norm for players to consider it an invalid tactic. I would prefer if the game systems were altered to change this so as not to rely on self-policing.

Here I think it's for both realism and gameplay reasons. If I can switch all of my cities to starvation mode to bump up my gpt then trade to a deity AI, along with resources that I can't do without, for thousands of gold every time I DoW then I think the difficulty is so reduced that it makes a farce of the game. The realism point is obvious, AI's will continually trade with you never taking into account your past trading behaviour even if you break every deal and act dishonestly at every turn. So from both perspectives I think this one is clear.

The rule of two left thumbs is simple: personal codes are fine. However, there's no point in trying to force them on others, and trying to make them accepted as standard is going to meet harsh debate .

Granted, in this case we have different reasons (gameplay vs realism), but we are both against the AI allowing this action w/o seeing it as an act of war.

Humans, of course, would see this as an act of war...and we might see proof of that once civ V MP works.

Agreed, though I think the debate is worthwhile and healthy. We all contribute in this forum discussing strategy and tactics and it helps if there is somewhat of an agreement about what kinds of things are allowed in game and what should be avoided. That's not to say that others can't do as they please but there's some value in the forum members all being largely on the same page when it comes to these considerations, and that's what these threads are all about.

 

[Hustapha Thool]

If I am able to use every advantage I have to "win" a game , I could just change the code to start game.... WIN!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think you're in a small minority with that opinion, that it is ok to trade gpt for a bulk payment and then immediately declare war. Of course you're entitled to your say but I don't think it's a common view.

Perception of minority about what is "okay" is irrelevant to the topic about whether a tactic is valid. Indeed, if one seeks to argue for competitive balance opinions about how something "should be" are not viable whatsoever. It's not a serious argument; I'll address useful argument if I see one. The game has rules, and people are proposing to change them. Changing/making rules carries a burden of proof, otherwise a baseless claim can't be taken seriously. Where is the proof?

Here we've fallen even short of proof for rules basis! Here we are talking about play against the AI! In a competitive setting, it is a JOKE to ban tactics on the basis of poor AI. If it isn't a competitive setting, people should play however they want to play...but precisely how does that effect this tactic?

Now, it is taking advantage of the poor AI, and it also highlights that there may be some system in civ 5 lacking which would penalize the players trading reputation for doing something like this.

The logical conclusion of this statement is that one should not play civilization V. Everything you do takes advantage of the "POOR" AI to some extent.

Competitive balance isn't about a democratic vote; is there a valid argument against this tactic in a competitive setting? I've read dozens of pages of people claiming there is one, and yet mysteriously it never happens. Strange. I do think these players are still playing civ V, so they must be exploiting the AI.

Your point is that we take advantage of the bad AI all the time even when doing something as ubiquitous as simply warring with one. Isn't war just as much of an 'exploit' seeing as the AI can't do it well and it reaps great benefits for the player? I'd argue that there is a distinction here, that I and I think most players see the trading abuse as a different kind of action to war abuse.

This argument was already used multiple times. It might seem stronger if it were supported once. Refute:

1. That war can be gamebreaking
2. That the player can gain a material advantage far beyond standard AI bonuses through empire management.
3. That public perception of statistics and actual statistics once measured can and have been incorrect in the past and that the civ community has 0 data that quantifies the advantage provided by individual in game tactics (a perfect recipe for getting something flagrantly wrong is never checking or backing up the basis for that conclusion).

Except these things can't be refuted at all! Repeating that "there is a distinction" *without ever providing a legit distinction basis * doesn't make the argument that "some people who haven't even been polled probably think the way I do based on no actual data" stronger.

Now if I'm forced to specify why that is so, well it might get a little tricky for me . The only answer I can give is that I'm using my personal judgment to declare one impermissible and the other not. That's kind of what we're saying all along, that there are arbitrary boundaries drawn, or not, by anyone playing SP. This one is so popularly rejected that I think it is by far the norm for players to consider it an invalid tactic. I would prefer if the game systems were altered to change this so as not to rely on self-policing.

Still doesn't make sense. In essence, the argument is "I think the game should be this way therefore it should be this way, especially because I think a lot of people think this way". Circular, and not useful.

Of course, everyone wants the AI to play better. People can play with whatever pretend rules they want to curtail VALID tactics in single player as they want; variant play potential is part of the appeal. SURELY, we're not seeing an argument that these pretend rules should see the light of day in a competitive setting without basis though? Surely.

Here I think it's for both realism and gameplay reasons. If I can switch all of my cities to starvation mode to bump up my gpt then trade to a deity AI, along with resources that I can't do without, for thousands of gold every time I DoW then I think the difficulty is so reduced that it makes a farce of the game. The realism point is obvious, AI's will continually trade with you never taking into account your past trading behaviour even if you break every deal and act dishonestly at every turn. So from both perspectives I think this one is clear.

This reminds me of a bit earlier in the post where we see the thought "a better AI might be nice". Of course it would be. The whole point the AI is given gobs of bonuses is because it plays so terribly. Ideally it could play better and not need them. This has no bearing in the validity of an in-game tactic, however. Civs have logical incentive to do it as much as possible; it is up to other civs to protect themselves...not by banning a tactic outright but by having civs use and react to its potential properly.

That's not to say that others can't do as they please but there's some value in the forum members all being largely on the same page when it comes to these considerations, and that's what these threads are all about.

Thing is, the forum is NOT on the same page with issues like this and it can and has caused troublesome rifts in parts of the forum. It's one thing to state opinion, but when it's repeated and not supported it doesn't add credibility to any arguments. I stand by the assertion that this community does not have access to the necessary data that would be required to properly evaluate the validity of tactics in a COMPETITIVE settings without resorting to entirely arbitrary (and variant) conclusions picked at random. That is exactly what happens in practice when people start making pretend rules.

I'm still waiting, as I was months ago, for a halfway decent demonstration of why this tactic isn't valid compared to others in a strict competitive sense. It does on occasion astound me that it doesn't happen. Weird.

If I am able to use every advantage I have to "win" a game , I could just change the code to start game.... WIN!

This statement misses the distinction between playing a game within the rules, and not playing a game within the rules. That distinction is occasionally important when making an argument about whether in-game tactics are valid.

 

[Hustapha Thool]

I understand that what you really seem to want here is a change in AI behavior or a rules change. It is a good point to bring up.

Your approach to the situation appears to me to be "the end justifies the means". IMO all games have to be approached with some sort of etiquette whether you are playing against an intelligent or non-intelligent opponent. Is etiquette arbitrary? Of course it is, but it can be agreed upon. As an example, take competitive chess. There are some basic rules but after that in speciic match play and tournaments the rules may vary greatly as to speed, environment and many other variables. Here is a quote from the FIDE Laws of Chess rules,;

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

 

[basta]

Very interesting discussion so far.

I'd just like to add that since the latest patch, I've noticed that duplicitous/backstabbing tactics that would rank by many as "exploits" have been coded into the AI by the devs.

Twice now I've accepted RA offers from civs that have DoWed me 4-5 turns later.

How is this any different than a human player selling resources with the intention of DoWing a few turns later?

To my eye, this indicates that the devs have embraced these so-called "exploits" as a legitimate part of the game--so I now trade my only incense before I DoW with a clear conscience.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your approach to the situation appears to me to be "the end justifies the means". IMO all games have to be approached with some sort of etiquette whether you are playing against an intelligent or non-intelligent opponent. Is etiquette arbitrary? Of course it is, but it can be agreed upon. As an example, take competitive chess. There are some basic rules but after that in speciic match play and tournaments the rules may vary greatly as to speed, environment and many other variables. Here is a quote from the FIDE Laws of Chess rules,;

This argument is a layer above the layer of the city sale; in the chess example we have people agreeing to a rule set before the start of the game that is variant. While it changes the game slightly (or heavily depending), those rules comprise the ultimate game that is played. However, in civ V that is not what's going on; it's the same game every time (at least until the next patch!) Manners in terms of IN-GAME (not interpersonal where manners should be minded) conduct are a silly concept; play the game by the rules!

However the recent discussion has trended into what the rules should be. Actually, there is nothing wrong with them, only the players (specifically, the AI). Sensible humans can handle most aspects of city sale/etc easily. There *is* a legit rules change hidden inside this discussion however:

- The ability to move enemy units against their will while at war -----> city purchase is an act of war.

The reasoning for this rule change is simple; it is a unique way to move forces of an overt enemy against their will. Such an ability directly breaks the otherwise steadfast rules of civ V warfare...but more importantly we have a situation where to some extent a 3rd party gets to be a king-maker with no tradeoff; other ways of interfering with wars are more expensive and carry greater diplo penalties. In a balance sense, you want options weighted such that they're each reasonably viable in some situations based on strategy. If firaxis feels they can't attain this, they should drop the ability to do it at all.

To my eye, this indicates that the devs have embraced these so-called "exploits" as a legitimate part of the game--so I now trade my only incense before I DoW with a clear conscience.

AI could use some polish for trust evaluations, but you make an excellent point. We're seeing situations where players are restricted from actions that the AI itself can execute...and does so

 

[snarzberry]

It seems that your position is, it's a performable action in-game it is therefore valid. This fails to take into account that games are released with unpredicted possibilities that players discover that come to be labeled as 'exploits'. The word 'exploit' in this sense doesn't mean the dictionary definition of making use of something for gain, but is a term specific to, and emergent from, the gaming sphere and means something like 'a tactic, seen as outside the spirit of the game, that reduces the amount of skill required to win and that the use of which players would prefer was banned'.

Presumably you agree with the decision to patch out self-pillaging for the exact reason of the continual trade sequence exploit. In your own words

the gameplay returns are obviously imbalanced (something for close to nothing)

. This perfectly captures the nature of trading for a bulk payment before DoWing. Can you argue against the claim that this tactic is hugely beneficial to the player? surely not. On deity in particular this can yield thousands of gold even fairly early in the game. Enough to instantly purchase a viable invasion force. Can you argue against this tactic as coming at literally no cost to the player? surely not. It seems clearly to be a source of wild imbalance, I'd expect to have a significantly higher win rate using this tactic than when not, and would the increase in winning percentage have come about as a result of a single piece of strategic nous or skill on my part?

Yes we have trended towards what 'should be', actually I have been talking about that all along. My opinion is that a player should be able to do this once if they choose to but that it would come at the cost ,proportional to the value ripped off, of negatively influencing their trading reputation with all civs for the rest of the game.

 

[basta]

I'd also add the begging mechanic coded into DoFs--you take a diplo hit if you don't give in to extortion from your AI "friends."

The mechanic works so that the AI begs on the same turn as the worker finishes the improvement. Unless you are checking your workers on an insane level of detail each turn, you're not going to know that the resource has come online before the civ is already asking for it.

So it's purposely coded by the devs as an exploit. You check their gold or happiness next turn and its always more than your own.

Given this warm embrace of cheesy exploits by the game devs themselves, I have little problem with using those available to me on Immortal or Diety.

 

[Rittmeyer]

I can`t even believe some people think selling GPT for instant cash is not acceptable. Especially in the current status of this game. The stupid imbecile dumb AI will sign RA`s with you just to DoW with no reason one turn before completion, screwing with both yours and their games. How the hell can someone complain that the human player is using equally unfair tactics?

 

[snarzberry]

well I'm learning that there seems to be more who use this tactic than I previously thought. Fair enough, at least this may shed some light on why players that can beat deity games appear so numerous.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It seems that your position is, it's a performable action in-game it is therefore valid. This fails to take into account that games are released with unpredicted possibilities that players discover that come to be labeled as 'exploits'.

No, it doesn't fail to take that into account. My position flagrantly ignores the "exploit" nonsense term entirely. And make no mistake; it IS complete nonsense.

Which players prefer the tactic banned is irrelevant in single player, and in multiplayer the vast majority of "exploits" are actually misplays by the losing side. We're not looking at "exploits" vs "legit tactics" then, but rather at which artificial rule set makes the game tolerable to players at an individual level. There are lots of things players can do to limit themselves such that the game has the appropriate level of challenge. Individual perception is not sufficient to make something an exploit. Indeed, the terms usage and spread in the gaming sphere is somewhat of a travesty/insult to competitive play from the start.

Presumably you agree with the decision to patch out self-pillaging for the exact reason of the continual trade sequence exploit.

No, I agree with that decision because firaxis has proven time and again that it can not make remotely competent AI and/or a trust model. They did this change for balance purposes, because an individual tactic was too strong against their inferior AI, and so that the trust model is slightly easier in the multiplayer release version, whenever that comes out.

This perfectly captures the nature of trading for a bulk payment before DoWing.

Wrong.

Can you argue against the claim that this tactic is hugely beneficial to the player? surely not.

That is not sufficient basis. War itself is hugely beneficial to the player.

Your side of the argument also has to answer to the fact that the AI can, and HAS, done this even to experienced players...

Can you argue against this tactic as coming at literally no cost to the player? surely not.

Literally no cost? I'm not going to grace that assertion with a response. This tactic has costs. I urge players who cry "exploit" at everything ASAP to take a look at them and see what they are, instead of me spelling them out again. It is not "literally" no cost; that is flagrantly wrong. One might feel the costs are too minimal, but then again that is up for debate...but I'm not even going to bother with debate about this tactic until both sides are aware of how it works.

The mechanic works so that the AI begs on the same turn as the worker finishes the improvement. Unless you are checking your workers on an insane level of detail each turn, you're not going to know that the resource has come online before the civ is already asking for it.

Given this warm embrace of cheesy exploits by the game devs themselves, I have little problem with using those available to me on Immortal or Diety.

Indeed. Have the anti-tactic users stopped to think for a moment why the AI had all that gold? Why it has more cities? Some tactics are always going to be superior to others.

By the way, a war declaration causes a permanent hit with every civ that witnesses it...

well I'm learning that there seems to be more who use this tactic than I previously thought. Fair enough, at least this may shed some light on why players that can beat deity games appear so numerous.

IMO the #1 reason deity seems "easier" in civ V than previous installations is 1UPT. Even the best game AIs have been limited at the tactical level over the years; and civ V's AI isn't the best. If you can even remotely keep up with the AI you can eventually best its ridiculous #'s because it can't bring them all to bear at once. This contrasts strongly from the civ IV AI which, while equally idiotic, could very realistically put 100 units at your doorstep.

 

[snarzberry]

Please enlighten me to where the cost lies.

Scenario 1. The player declares war and invades.
Scenario 2. The player trades 100 gpt and all resources for 3000 gold, declares war and invades.

What is the cost to the trader? What strategic trade-off has he made?

Too much value gained, too big of an impact on game winning chances for such a simple action.

 

[Vynd]

When it comes to the original topic of selling "lost cause" cities, I agree it is an effective move, yet one which seems very gamey and cheesy. I think it would be nice if the mechanics of the game were adjusted such that when you are at war, you can only "trade" cities with the Civs that you are at war with. In other words, you can't sell them to third parties, but you can include them in peace offerings.

 

[snarzberry]

When it comes to the original topic of selling "lost cause" cities, I agree it is an effective move, yet one which seems very gamey and cheesy. I think it would be nice if the mechanics of the game were adjusted such that when you are at war, you can only "trade" cities with the Civs that you are at war with. In other words, you can't sell them to third parties, but you can include them in peace offerings.

I agree that an adjustment to the game mechanics could help with this problem, but the tricky part is coding it so that legitimate sales of cities are not blocked. Imagine if you're at war on one side of your empire and for whatever reason wish to sell cities half a world away. There's no reason at all why this should be prevented but a blanket 'no city selling when at war except to your enemies' will have the side-effect of preventing this. You could be fighting two wars and want to sell some newly gained puppets to bring down unhappiness and bring in cash, but you couldn't. I think it's this kind of additional consequence that makes formulating precise game rules often difficult.

Perhaps you couldn't sell cities that have enemy units within a certain radius?

 

[basta]

I personally think that as coded, CivV has no "ethics" at all, and the devs throw in every exploit they can think of to block high-level players. If they haven't patched out certain exploits, it's either because they haven't gotten around to it yet or they don't have a problem with it.

Third example, AI DoFs/DoWs:

I once played the ultimate DoW game, DoWed by Spain on turn 30ish, Japan 40ish, Persia 50ish, Greece and Siam, 60ish.

Fought them off and had taken out Spain, Japan and Siam by about turn 130, when Egypt DoWs as I've finally got Greece on the ropes, followed immediately by a suicidal DoW from the remnants of Spain, even though Madrid was my puppet.

The entire game was one big war-slog, back and forth from one end of the map to the other, defending against the latest DoW.

My only friend was Rome, biggest rival on my border, with whom I'd had a DoF renewed 3 times and steady trade, even gave them all their gift requests, etc.

But they too DoWed during a DoF, showing that it was all for nought, because in the devs' calculations, creating the impediment of another DoW to stymie your progress (as with the ridiculous DoW by an enfeebled Spain) overrode the DoF mechanic.

I took away from that incredibly "gamey" game that all DoFs are meaningless and are really just a dev trick that you'd be better off without, and that the game is coded so that anything goes.

So, anything goes.

 

[snarzberry]

I personally think that as coded, CivV has no "ethics" at all, and the devs throw in every exploit they can think of to block high-level players. If they haven't patched out certain exploits, it's either because they haven't gotten around to it yet or they don't have a problem with it.

Third example, AI DoFs/DoWs:

I once played the ultimate DoW game, DoWed by Spain on turn 30ish, Japan 40ish, Persia 50ish, Greece and Siam, 60ish.

Fought them off and had taken out Spain, Japan and Siam by about turn 130, when Egypt DoWs as I've finally got Greece on the ropes, followed immediately by a suicidal DoW from the remnants of Spain, even though Madrid was my puppet.

The entire game was one big war-slog, back and forth from one end of the map to the other, defending against the latest DoW.

My only friend was Rome, biggest rival on my border, with whom I'd had a DoF renewed 3 times and steady trade, even gave them all their gift requests, etc.

But they too DoWed during a DoF, showing that it was all for nought, because in the devs' calculations, creating the impediment of another DoW to stymie your progress (as with the ridiculous DoW by an enfeebled Spain) overrode the DoF mechanic.

I took away from that incredibly "gamey" game that all DoFs are meaningless and are really just a dev trick that you'd be better off without, and that the game is coded so that anything goes.

So, anything goes.

That a civ DoWed you during a DoF doesn't equal DoF's are meaningless. It gives a positive modifier to your status with that civ, other modifiers can overcome it like your warmonger penalty, coveting your lands etc. Also, AIs will sometimes declare on the turn the DoF expires as the bonus to their concealed attitude towards you is removed and can cause them to go hostile and declare in one turn. Not saying that this is what necessarily happened on this occasion but it can often be uncertain if a civ actually Dowed during a friendship pact or right after it expired, unless you notice and attempt to renew immediately.

 

[FlowKey]

Nice thread! Good discussion on 'civethics' - I doubt the OP intended to unleash all this intellectual energy ...

Good word btw, 'civethics'. Since the game not only makes possible the most gruesome warcrimes (razing cities, enslaving foreigners, mass genocide) but also makes these a viable strategy in a specific situation, it's very hard to discuss real life ethics in this respect ...

All suggested fixes for this possible exploit (no selling of besieged cities, diplo penalty etc) are probably not too hard to include in a next patch, it would be just that ... a patch, a band aid, a few strips of duct tape to close the cracks. At the core of the problem is the weak tactical and strategical capabilities of the AI. Why does the AI accept a besieged city as a gift from me or is it even willing to pay for it? Why does a 'guarded' AI still pay some 200g lump sum per lux when I can and will DoW him any moment I wish? And while I'm on the subject: why will the AI always buy the luxes I offer if it has the money? This also touches upon the 'realism' part of the discussion: of course the situation in the OP isn't historically realistic, but again the unreal parts starts not with me offering, but with the buyer accepting the offer!

Whether or not any possibility within the game as is, is an exploit, is obviously up to the player. We can discuss (and have discussed) this in length but we will never reach consensus. That's why HoF and GOTM need a little autocracy in the form a jury judging what is and isn't allowed.

My main question is: why does Firaxis release a game that's obviously a little faulty to say the least? Makes me wonder if they don't employ a few civ vets who have played the different versions since 1991. I mean, how much time would it take a handful of deity players from civfanatics to build the Oxford University a few times?

 

[FlowKey]

I took away from that incredibly "gamey" game that all DoFs are meaningless and are really just a dev trick that you'd be better off without, and that the game is coded so that anything goes.

That's a load of horse puckey! This has nothing to do with 'dev tricks', but everything with a completely new concept in the latest version of Civ: the AI actually wants to win the game. Rome obviously made a positive calculation on whether to DoW its 'friend'. Sounds like something you and I would do, if it could bring victory closer.

OK, so the AI sucks badly at actually achieving a victory, but this was a big step from the earlier versions where the AI's single raison d'etre seemed to be to annoy and obstruct the human player.