What constitutes cheating when attemping a UHV?

[blizzrd]

When attempting to achieve a UHV in RFC, which of the following do you consider to be 'cheating'?

A. Using Worldbuilder for any purpose.

B. Starting as one civ, doing certain actions and then swapping to another civ and playing that civ to a UHV.

C. Founding or swapping your civ's capital to be located in the historical location of another civ's spawn area, to deny them all or part of their core area.

D. 'Flipping' galleys across the ocean. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=278972)

E. All of the above.

F. None of the above.

 

[Jimman]

i'd say any A is cheating because the other ones are just exploiting some features of the game

 

[Ace of Spades]

I'd say that C and D are just clever use of game mechanics, combined with abuse of a priori knowledge about civilization spawns and world geography, whereas A clearly constitutes cheating.

B would be debateable, since you basically modify the starting conditions for a UHV. I'd say it should be considered cheating. It's a bit like doing a marathon, but shortening the route in advance... whereas using the world builder would be like doing a marathon, but then using a motorbike instead of your legs.

You could have added: "Killing a civilization by ambushing them at their spawn point." which basically would go along the lines of the capital flip move.

Regards,
Ace

 

[civ_king]

what is galley flipping???

 

[Ace of Spades]

Hit the link. The practice of "galley flipping" constitutes of using cultural boundary expansion from civilizations you do not have open borders with to propel your vessel versus distant shorelines, across ocean or land squares respectively, thus allowing you to colonize the new world very early in the game.

Regards,
Ace

 

[Lokolus]

I voted for A and B but after I thought about it it means that I cheat when I use the worldbuilder for checking other civs advancement (without changing anything), I don't think it's cheating.

 

[onedreamer]

It has to be all the above for me and reason is pretty straight forward:

RFC is not Civ, it is set to be a real historical simulation with alternate yet realistic outcomes. IMHO , in order to play this mod properly you have to almost roleplay, exploiting AI weaknesses means breaking realism, starting as one civ and swapping also breaks realism, unless you really roleplayed that civ before swapping (hence on this point I do have some reserves).

 

[Ace of Spades]

Well, then, according to you, even using a priori knowledge of the locations of continents would be cheating?

Even some of the UHVs require the player to have more knowledge than "roleplaying" would permit (like circumnavigating the globe), or settling in areas you have never heard of when your civilization spawns, like Northern America or Australia.

Best Regards,
Ace

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

It has to be all the above for me and reason is pretty straight forward:

RFC is not Civ, it is set to be a real historical simulation with alternate yet realistic outcomes. IMHO , in order to play this mod properly you have to almost roleplay, exploiting AI weaknesses means breaking realism, starting as one civ and swapping also breaks realism, unless you really roleplayed that civ before swapping (hence on this point I do have some reserves).

I always thought the point of RFC was alternate history. Oh well, it doesn't really matter does it. It's a great mod that's useful for both. I think A is the only one thats actually cheating. The rest are just exploits which are fine in my books. They make for more interesting games.

 

[Riker]

All of the above. Another Pacifist will disagre...

 

[Orzio]

Well all of them is cheating some more then the others. But the galley fliping is just so smart that I dident check it as cheating

 

[Tboy]

Worldbuilder is definitely cheating. All the rest are just a matter of personal preference.

 

[Rhye]

what about "disabled plague" and "permanent stability" by code tweaks?

 

[Cato the Elder]

what about "disabled plague" and "permanent stability" by code tweaks?

yeah most definetly

don't tell me this is how you secretly play your games Rhye

 

[kbk]

what about "disabled plague" and "permanent stability" by code tweaks?

Cheating, yes. I throw code modifications in with worldbuilder. I only use worldbuilder to check conditions after I've failed a UHV (e.g., find out why 3k gold isn't the most for the 1st mali condition).

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Yeah, disabling stability (no matter how it's defined by the various patches) should be considered cheating. But squatting is perfectly not, since you already take a hit with stability and your culture has to be 80%+ to take over a "native" civ's tile.

Nor is Leif Erikson's exploits in the New World--exploit here in the noun sense, i.e. "heroic feat", not the verb, i.e. "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>"

 

[blizzrd]

what about "disabled plague" and "permanent stability" by code tweaks?

Now I hadn't even considered those as options, because I don't have the skills to tweak the code.

I agree that these really lie in the Worldbuilder category.

 

[blizzrd]

After 33 voters have completed the poll, all but one voter (st.lucifer) consider that using Worldbuilder for any purpose constitutes cheating.

It would certainly be interesting to hear why st.lucifer is the odd-voter out in this case.

 

[kbk]

What do you guys think about reloading to get a specific outcomes from the RNG?

For instance, sometimes you can get plagues to start in different cities, and often you can get different great people.

 

[Rhye]

Leif Erikson's trick is an exploit I'm not gonna fix. Compliments for the creativity!

don't tell me this is how you secretly play your games Rhye

I don't play, but I am strongly tempted to do that...
I always looks for exploits in every kind of game I play