What's the effect of Emsworth Aggreements on the Civ3 HOF?

[Marsden]

Next I contact my good buds the Sumerians who are way ahead of me in tech and I pay them 1000 gpt for a variety of IA techs, their 2000 gold and an alliance against England. I then kill off England on the same turn, change my taxmen back, and put luxuries back at 20 percent.

I say that's fine by me. You aren't getting any gpt from the AI that they no longer have*, and that's the distinction. As you said, you are not getting money that no one has. This whole hullaballoo if firaxis didn't make it so that a deal is immutalbe due to circumstances. IOW, if the Sumerians are paying you 500gpt and are losing a war and due to losses can no longer afford it then you should only get the 455 or 310 or whatever for the turn and it should go back up if it improves or lower accordingly. This probably would have been too hard to program, I know I certainly couldn't I'm a player of games not a maker of them, but that sounds better and these would never be possible to begin with.



*BTW Does this give you a rep hit? I don't remember, but that's not a rules question, but I was wondering if there actually is any in game downside to this. Seems like there should be, but we know there are problems to work around.



One more thing, I think some people have the word "retroactively" confused with arbitrarily, as if some thing is retroactive would be done with out any consideration to the players but on a whimsical basis. There is nothing of the sort here from any of the staff past and present.

 

[rysingsun]

*BTW Does this give you a rep hit?

It does not. If I had thrown in a luxury with my gpt then it would generate a rep hit. Beware of mixing luxuries with alliances!

 

[I. Larkin]

*BTW Does this give you a rep hit? I don't remember, but that's not a rules question, but I was wondering if there actually is any in game downside to this. Seems like there should be, but we know there are problems to work around.

No it does not hit reputation. but to do rysingsun "trick" you have to have rep clean.
As to gpt trick you even does not have to have clean rep to do. IMO this much more porfull then other exploits I read. However it is "legal" and it is difficult to find out "level" of allowed gpt. The radical solution is simply not to consider low level (below Emperor, say) entry to HoF. Really those levels are for newbys, not for competition. On diety, say Emsworth trick is tough:
first you have to be technologically advanced to trade something. Second, you have to be military strong to kill single cive alone.

 

[I. Larkin]

It does not. If I had thrown in a luxury with my gpt then it would generate a rep hit. Beware of mixing luxuries with alliances!

no, lux will not. If you add "peace treaty" it will.

 

[Denniz]

I'm not sure its so simple. I mean if this were "the rule" we would still be left with questions.

I believe that was my point.

Consider:

I am making 500 gpt assuming i spend 20 percent on luxuries. I turn it down to zero which would cause riots and I take all my high corruption cities off the land and make them all taxmen. That means they are all running huge food deficits for now. OK now I am up to 1000 gpt.

Next I contact my good buds the Sumerians who are way ahead of me in tech and I pay them 1000 gpt for a variety of IA techs, their 2000 gold and an alliance against England. I then kill off England on the same turn, change my taxmen back, and put luxuries back at 20 percent.

What have I done? I've seriously cheated an ai of both money and tech, to the tune of 1000 gpt equivalent value. What I have not done is create any money out of thin air whatsoever. So I have not violated any rule spoken of here on this thread. But the technique is disturbingly close to the banned technique and the value to me is identical.

What it comes to is this. What is allowed and what is banned will have to be clearly defined and the situations for which these rules are designed will have to be clearly understood by those who write up the rules. If not, loopholes will keep popping up to hound us.

You aren't getting any gpt from the AI that they no longer have*, and that's the distinction. As you said, you are not getting money that no one has. This whole hullaballoo if firaxis didn't make it so that a deal is immutalbe due to circumstances. IOW, if the Sumerians are paying you 500gpt and are losing a war and due to losses can no longer afford it then you should only get the 455 or 310 or whatever for the turn and it should go back up if it improves or lower accordingly.

I think Marsden touched on what I am talking about when I say that the AI may go negative income. (i.e. unable to afford the gpt, thereby creating money out of nothing.)

My point about limiting it to your total gpt was to illustrate the extreme example where you could be getting that 1000gpt from 5-6 AI's. Anytime you get an AI to give you large amounts of gpt, you need to consider whether their economy can support that payment throughout the term of the agreement.

My second 'gun to the head' answer could be: No trading gold for gold, neither gpt or gold, on more that one side of a trade. That would probably keep the the risk of driving an AI into negative income.

Maybe we need to ask for a CRpSuite log of things like Gold and GPT throughout the game with your submissions?

 

[rysingsun]

Maybe we need to ask for a CRpSuite log of things like Gold and GPT throughout the game with your submissions?

A CRpSuite log???? (I'm getting a lot of use out of that head-bash smilie lately )

If I actually manage to finish my game without accidentally triggering domination early and I submit it, it will be one game that I started without ever even thinking about HOF. It just happened to start really well, you know? ... so I decided to milk it. Of course any game that we don't decide to submit till we are 100 turns into it will not have a "CRpSuite log" of the first 100 turns. I vote against.

 

[Bartleby]

What's a CRpSuite Log?

 

[Denniz]

What's a CRpSuite Log?

If you keep all your autosaves, there is a way to have CRpSuite to read them all and display turn by turn information for you to analyze. I haven't played Civ3 in a couple years, so I forget the details of what everything is called.

 

[Bartleby]

I thought it would be something like that. I don't archive my autosaves.

 

[Marsden]

Discussion in HoF from 25 October-7 November ends up with nothing. (No clear defenition yet).

How's this: You can't force the AI into double negative. That should be clear. If you're getting more than they have, then it's banned in the HoF.

I don't pretend to speak for the Gotm/Sgotm staff, but call my name an I'll appear, eventually.



Now, how might you know what they can afford? There's this 999 Trick If you can see what they have beforehand, then ask for more, we'll there's no ambiguity there.

If you can hurt the AI within the rules, please do, I hate the AIs, I'm not trying to defend them, but if someone does this, everyone better because it's too powerful not to. People compain about the game being too formulaic now, if everyone has to do this, then what?

 

[EMan]

@Marsden, in simple English, what does this mean?....it's not clear to my simple brain!

...People compain about the game being too formulaic now, if everyone has to do this, then what?

 

[Marsden]

I've often seen posters, not here, and certainly not you, but posters that say at times that the game is too much a repetition of certain things that make it less of a game and more of a checklist of things to do. Things like settler factories, micromanaging citizens, other stuff are things some people don't care for. If they had to add multi layer embezzelment schemes to the mix I think that would really put them off. Comprende?

 

[I. Larkin]

You can't force the AI into double negative. That should be clear.

It have to be extended: what mean "force AI"? It is many ways to do that... I belive that some are allowed. But it is not good statement:
Can you say in plain English what alowed and what not?

If they had to add multi layer embezzelment schemes to the mix I think that would really put them off. Comprende?

Absolutly not... You force me to take dictionary... But it dose not help ...

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Basically, it means that you can't do anything that will result in the AI giving you more GPT than they can possibly make.

Say you buy a lux from the AI for 100 gpt, then sell a tech to the AI for 100 gpt. That's fine.

The rule means that you cannot then deliberately break the trade route if you KNOW that the AI cannot possibly cover the 100 gpt payment. If it's a chieftain or warlord AI, that's very likely. if it's a deity AI late in the game, you are probably ok. If you check using 9999, then you'll know.

It would be ok to set those deals up and benefit if a barbarian breaks the trade route, however.

 

[I. Larkin]

Basically, it means that you can't do anything that will result in the AI giving you more GPT than they can possibly make.

It depends. They may trade with each other...

I understand an idea, but Marsten "wording" is not.

deliberately

hmmm... but if you deliberately declare war to another Ai and another AI break trade route?? (but may not)?

 

[EMan]

I've often seen posters, not here, and certainly not you, but posters that say at times that the game is too much a repetition of certain things that make it less of a game and more of a checklist of things to do. Things like settler factories, micromanaging citizens, other stuff are things some people don't care for. If they had to add multi layer embezzelment schemes to the mix I think that would really put them off. Comprende?

Comprendo, Gracias.

I think you make some good points. To be number 1 in an HOF List, you are probably going to need to know what you can and can't do, in order to maximize your Score or get an early Finish Date.

However, to make a List, I don't think it's necessary to study all the advanced strategies.........especially if the List doesn't have 10 entries!

I think you HOF-Admin guys are doing a Great Job and are just trying to be fair and have an even set of Rules for ALL players. Thanks for y'all's time.

P.s. Speaking of (not) Plain English, "y'all" is a Texas "word" short for "you all" (applies only to 2+ people).

EDIT - Correction: Should have said that "y'all" is a word used in southern U.S. states, not just Texas.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I don't remember exactly what the rules on trading through a country you are at war with.

I think if you are at war with persia and are trading with germany through persia, it still works if Germany isnt' at war with persia. If that is the case, then yes, that would be legal. Germany might declare, might not, and then the AI would be putting itself into double-negative.

You would NOT be able to create an MA with persia vs. germany and you wouldn't be able to make an MPP with persia in that case, either.

The things that have been talked about are:

1) Trading GPT for a lux, then selling a tech for GPT, then breaking the trade route.
2) Trading gpt for an MA, then selling a tech for GPT, then destroying the target of the MA

If the AI cannot possibly cover their payments, then doing either of those things is illegal.

 

[zerksees]

Sorry I'm late to this party.
An excellent piece of work finding this Lord Emsworth.

If you can finesse the AI to give you stuff for GPT and then you get out of the payments, or you can give the AI GPT for stuff then whack them, thats fine. BUT, any GPT for GPT trade should be banned period. Seems to me that would fix most all the issue here.

Either that or root out those that violate the rule then ban vanilla Civ 3 games. Anyone know if this works in PTW?

 

[Ozymandius]

I don't post very often but I waste a lot of time trying to achieve the awesome scores, with very limited success, that are achieved by the masters of this game.
I feel that this game code, like tax law, has flaws. There are experts who try to find loopholes and if they are successful, they win big.
I have to thank all the moderators and administrators for maintaining this HOF website for such a small number of players. I have Civ IV but I like C3C better.
I just checked some of the stats on this HOF. Out of the millions of games sold, only 191 people have submitted. There are fewer than 75 members who have submitted more than 5 games. The average weekly submissions are from 5 -7 games. There seem to be only a dozen people who submit regularly.
I'm not very computer savvy, I can't figure out mapstat and how to find the perfect starting map, one with 6 cows to start my 20k cultural task.
I do have some patience however and I have even wasted a whole year on one milk run only to have it rejected. I read about high scores being achieved through gifted scientists (GL) but I have never had more than 5 in a game and average only two. Getting beat by 4 or 5 centuries let alone Millennia is beyond comprehension.
I don't know how much is sheer luck or brilliance but my hats off to all achievers of high scores.
When I read about the intricacies of Lord Elmsworth or the selling of techs to get more techs in the middle ages, I'm simply amazed. How Machiavellian!!
In my interpretation Firaxis wrote the rules. If you are smart enough to find a loophole you should be able to use it. However if the loophole has been fixed in subsequent editions then it should be disallowed. The code of the final edition of Civ 3 should be the law and it should provide the standard by which we play.
The administrators should have nothing to decide other then that the code has not been altered to give an unfair advantage. Anyone of us should be able to take the same map (seed number) and try to beat that score if we want to spend that time. And I even think you should be able to try and try again on the same map. Just as in chess I would like to try the same map but with different variations and with different pieces..
There should not be so many rules for such a small number of active players. Everything should be legal except what Firaxis has written. Let them change the law. Let every Machiavellian be rewarded by their manipulations.

 

[EMan]

@Ozymandius: You're in the minority here............BUT, I agree with you almost 100%. (Is it because we're chess players?)

I said 5 years ago that this Civ 3 HOF administering should be made as easy as possible for the Administrators..........and feel the same way today.

However, we have come a long way down a One-Way Street and HOF "Civ 3 Protection Policy Mentality" is starting to bulge at the seams and give the Administrators a lot to think about.

Example: The Civil Engineer bug was first given the green light, then the red light and now the yellow light. Even though it is yellow, I'm treating it as red, even though I believe it should be green!

And, no matter how many rules we have, it's easy to cheat if you reeeeeeally want to.....and not get caught.

Having said all that, I support the HOF Staff 100% and appreciate their time & commitment. Whatever rules they come up with are fine by me and I'll live with them happily.............even when they change!

The HOF Staff is doing the best they can to be fair to all the thousands of players (okay 191), and I think they're doing a fantastic job!