You probably misunderstood what I meant by fair, I didn't mean it in a competitive context, I meant it the same way you would quote overpriced goods as "unfairly" priced and therefore cheating you of money. In the same sense exploits over reward players for the minimal skill and effort required to perform them and because of that devalue any other alternative that is fundamental to strategical depth and diversity. Also you digress from the main point of contention which is: Do you really think any of those exploits listed are actually intended? I can tell you from a design perspective they're absolutely not because they undermine what the game is altogether. It is fallacy to assume anything that makes the player's life easier is considered cheating which is what you have implied, but I have already made it clear what is my definition of an exploit. The difference between Pangea and an Exploit/Cheat is that one is intended and the other is not. It's not that hard to draw the line, really. Pangea is "easier" for the same reason why the developers created the concept in the first place, so that you can interact with all players on a single landmass. That's an advantage/disadvantage simultaneously depending on how you play and who you play against. That makes it clearly not an exploit. Also restarting is not cheating for the same reason you strive for the best odds within your control in any game that involves dice. Bettering your odds is a calculative and strategical decision and is part of risk assessment that you simply don't throw out of the window. Boosted Production overflow from abusing policy cards need to go. Free Gold needs to go. There's no way to justify those in the game simply because they are the very epitome of what an exploit is. That is why there is a need to draw a line between what is an Exploit and what is simply an imbalanced aspect of the game. Again it goes back to intention. If you were the designer, would you have allowed that? If it was intended and its too powerful then it's a balancing issue. If it's not intended and it is overpowering in the game then it is an Exploit/Cheat. Also just because the Devs haven't fixed it yet doesn't make it any less of an exploit. Developers make mistakes and loopholes in the game, they're not perfect and just because they don't fix something doesn't mean it is intended. It just means they have more pressing issues at hand. The issue of exploits is not as subjective as some would try to claim it to be. I have given all the reasons why certain aspects of the game are considered exploits. If you disagree please prove: a) Why you think that particular exploit is intended b) How it does not limit strategical depth and diversity in the game Developers will never include loopholes in the game on purpose, nor will they undermine their own design of the game by allowing one element in the game to render meaningless another. That's more than enough sense to determine whether something is an exploit or not.