29-12-2003 09:19									#1
	Debate: Using your ally to start your GA via UU's Get a bigger avatar today!

This really should have it's own thread since the FA's thread was jacked.

Trip said that the game was designed to give your economy (th e GA) a 150% boost during a time of major war. That is not true. You can have a major war when your UU is either non-existent or severly outdated. You can also have a "peaceful" GA as well. So, don't tell me it was designed to happen only for "real" wars and not "fake" ones.

Does the AI ever gift cities to another Civ in order to keep them around as allies? No, it doesn't. Just because things don't happen in a SP game doesn't meant that they can't or shouldn't happen in a MP game. It's a whole new moster.

	29-12-2003 09:45									#2
	Re: Debate: Using your ally to start your GA via UU's Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by BigFree Does the AI ever gift cities to another Civ in order to keep them around as allies? No, it doesn't. Just because things don't happen in a SP game doesn't meant that they can't or shouldn't happen in a MP game. It's a whole new moster.

That's also a very questionable act.

My belief is that anything that was not intended by the game's designers is an exploit, and should not be used. That includes saving a civ from extinction.

	29-12-2003 09:47									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If I were to start a PBEM today, I would propose that friendly GA triggering not be allowed. That's just because my preference is to keep PBEM as close to SP as possible (with, of course, much smarter opponents).

However, I'm not as violently opposed to this tactic as some people appear to be (Trip seriously compares it to reloading, which I feel is absurd). I've played in a few PBEM games with friendly GA triggering, and it did not ruin the experience for me.

In a game like this one, with the list of exploits a nebulous thing at best, I'm tempted to ask what my opponents think, and base my play on that. In other words, whatever tactic my opponents will not cry foul over, I'm willing to use.

(If, as per Trip's example in the other thread, my opponents thought it's okay to reload, I would find different opponents. But I consider this an extreme case.)

Have a great New Year, for those who are celebrating one in a couple of days.




Dominae

	29-12-2003 09:59									#4
	Put an end to popups!

We're seeing an immeasurable and extreme level of cooperation between GCA & GWT, something that the designers didn't plan for and something the AI would never do: mass teleporting their units and then combining against CGN with their UUs.

It bothers me, but it's legal, as are some of our clever tech schemes and other cooparative game playing ideas.

It's hard to draw a line between what is a reasonable exploitation of the game rules and what is an unreasonable one. I do agree with NYE when he says that it's unfair when one team can do it (because, for example, they're earlier in the play-order) and not another. But when the "exploit" is available to all parties, when is it just too much?

Where does our "honor" draw a line? Does it matter to us that our enemies will cheat to beat us? Will that effect our decision, because I have to be honest when I say that it sure effects mine.

What GCA is doing to us with this WW mess is just extreme -- it's a bitter rage I have never seen in a civ game, and even though I've considered doing such things as a defeated nation, I never have actually gone through with it. It always just felt too "childish" to me.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that if we are to ask the UN for a legal answer, we need to phrase the question right.

I also know that even if we get an answer we still may decide to create our own morality and honor system ... or we may not.

--Togas

	29-12-2003 10:08									#5
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dominae (Trip seriously compares it to reloading, which I feel is absurd)

I never said they were equal fouls. I only placed them on the same side of the line.

	29-12-2003 12:58									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I would consider this a Cat III "Exploit" as described in this thread. Please sound off about what you think is going on there (although do not use our particular situation for security reasons).

I am using this thread in an attempt to establish a system where players know ahead of time what would be allowed in a PBEM game (ie: when starting the game, it is anounced as a Cat III game minus leader farming, or a "No Cat game").

	29-12-2003 13:04									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Oh yeah, I personally believe that it is a completely valid stratagy. Anybody can do it. Turn order does not matter for it to work, and it does not give any units extra movement alla the fort all exploit. Unit warping is a different matter entirely (I would consider it a cat II exploit in this thread) and should not be used.

	29-12-2003 19:22									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I don't like it. However, if it hasn't been discussed and forbidden beforehand, I guess it's an issue for the UN. I still don't like it, but it's no worse than unit teleportation via city gifting, and I've been a part of that (another exploit which should be explicitly ruled out prior to starting a game). If the team wants to do this, then I think we should raise it at the UN.

-Arrian

	30-12-2003 05:16									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

IF CFC is willing AND we can't get our GA through any other means, then I'm all for doing this, as long as we have full control of when it will start.

E_T

	30-12-2003 05:37									#10
	Suffering from ads?

Too much like an exploit if we ask someone to please send warrior into our territory weather we attack or defend.

Now if they send such a unit without our permission into our territory ...

If we want a peaceful GA then we should build a wonder combo. And no temporarly trading of city with a wonder with one or both of our traights for a few turns just to get a GA either.

	30-12-2003 08:15									#11
	Suffering from ads?

If a vote at the UN says its ok, and we vote to do it, then I can accept it. But I will vote against it because I personally feel its a cheap tactic, not unlike some being employed against us....I just feel we are above such things.

	30-12-2003 11:18									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by wervdon If a vote at the UN says its ok, and we vote to do it, then I can accept it. But I will vote against it because I personally feel its a cheap tactic, not unlike some being employed against us....I just feel we are above such things.

wervdon said it for me.

	30-12-2003 11:30									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

wervdon said it for me too

my main reason is that if we allow this, where do we draw the line? It might end up with leader farming being legit also. I do trust the team to be mature enough not to vote in favor of something like this even if the UN eventually allows it (and that we why we should not push for a UN vote because it will likely pass with CFC, GCA and GWT votes)

	30-12-2003 12:43									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

First things first. First would be this team deciding that we would use it if the UN approved. Then take it to the UN, if that is desired.

However, about the UN... I will point out that we would be asking a body stacked in our favour to rubber stamp something for us. 2 teams are our allies, 2 are against us, it seems. That leaves us to decide the issue if votes fall along partisan lines. It would be considereably different if this were brought up before the game started.

	31-12-2003 00:11									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

True NYE, however, as you can tell by the debate going on here, I do not believe that this issue would fall the direction of partisan politics. The underlying issue here is "what is an exploit". And I fully feel that opinions on the subject are far stonger than a situational vote.

	31-12-2003 00:41									#16
	Tired of ads?

THREE teams, not 2 would be against us: CFC, GCA and GWT likely voting in favor and only CGN and Poly against.

	31-12-2003 00:50									#17
	Got spare money?

Depends on what you count as "against" MZ. I for one am now in favor of using the maneuver; expecially if the other teams think it's fair and approriate.