Is this considered an exploit?

[delsolsi]

The last three games I've won on regent have been diplomatic victories. On all three of these wins one turn before I finish the UN I gift 100 gold points to all the other civs. When I finish the UN the next turn I say yes to the vote and every time its me and one other civ. I end up with all the votes except for the guy how votes for himself. Before I started doing this it was about 50/50 if I would win the vote or there wouldn't be a majority, I haven't lost a vote yet. Is this considered an exploit or cheating?

[Conqueror]

Clearly its no exploit, the other civs are just happy about you gifting them gold.
I dont know about regent but on Monarch+ levels this kind of last minute bribing has almost no effect, more weighs how have you been behaving towards the other civs for few dozen (or more) turns before the vote.

[Sean]

Ihave given 1000 of gold to civs, you then didn't vote for me. Its all about your reputation, obvously yours is good.

[rob.derosa]

Your automatically put up for election if you build it, the other person is the person with the highest approval rating, I think.

[NeoStar]

No cheat - just an easy way to win. You can always turn it off...

[vondrack]

Originally posted by rob.derosa
Your automatically put up for election if you build it, the other person is the person with the highest approval rating, I think.

Incorrect.

It is as follows:

EVERY civ that fits AT LEAST ONE of the following conditions will have its leader as a candidate:

1) has built the UN wonder
2) controls at least 25% of the world's territory
3) controls at least 25% of the world's population

If there is only one civ eligible according to these conditions, than the civ coming second IN POPULATION will have its leader as the second candidate.

There are always at least two candidates, but there can be three, and purely theoretically, even four of them.

[DeepO]

Vondrack, purely theoretically there can be 7 candidates, however this would be very unlikely. But I've seen 4 candidates a few times, and I think that after a nuclear war, there is a chance you have 5.

7 candidates: 3 control more then 25% of the territory, 3 control more then 25% of the people (which in most cases are the same 3 of the territory), and 1 has built the UN.

As to how to get into the favor of the non-candidates: you need an impeccable reputation, have to get some trade going with them, and bribing can be a very good thing, just spread it out a little (20 odd turns on Emperor will do it). Last turn, you don't need money, you can always gift techs or cities

DeepO

[vondrack]

Originally posted by DeepO
Vondrack, purely theoretically there can be 7 candidates, however this would be very unlikely.

Oops...
Of course, you are right.
I wasn't thinking theoretically enough...

[dunk]

nevermind. I made a dumb mistake.

[Catt]

For the most part I think exploits are in the eye of the beholder - we all play with tactics / exploits / cheats with which we are comfortable.

IMHO, I think the gifting technique is an exploit (though not always a successful one as others have pointed out). I also think the "sign MPPs; declare war but don't attack; wait to get attacked; MPP is triggered; enjoy landslide victory" is an even more unconscionable exploit.

Catt

[Jaybe]

If someone else builds the UN, then gifting gold (or attempting to improve relations in ANY way) is a defensive tactic, lest they call for a vote. You are then held hostage for the rest of the game -- interesting, suspense-filled situation!

If YOU build the UN, then calling for a vote is saying that you are ready for the game to end, before you have enjoyed the thrills, suspense (and drudgery ) of the Modern Age.

I rarely disable diplomatic victory, as it is both a blessing and a curse (perfect balance ).

BTW, to REALLY appreciate the Modern Age, I recommend using the Editor to delay some of the spaceship parts. I have made a couple of them require Robotics, and delayed most of the others. (No, I haven't gotten that far yet in a 1.29 game).

[steven8r]

It's not an exploit; it's brown-nosing.

Ahh, the sweet... er whatever, smell of victory!

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Catt
IMHO, I think the gifting technique is an exploit

Maybe... but purely giving things will get you nowhere. And, arguably this is how it happens irl too, world politics is a matter of giving with one hand, not giving with the other, and asking for some favor in between..

I also think the "sign MPPs; declare war but don't attack; wait to get attacked; MPP is triggered; enjoy landslide victory" is an even more unconscionable exploit.

Hrmmm, I wonder who was last to mention this 'exploit'
Again, this a way to play the game, and may be an exploit to some, but to others a way of playing with the current game rules and 'dumbness' of the AI. I can't feel wrong for doing it, even if I'll try to avoid it. But in war and marriage anything is allowed, like someone once said, and it may be a dirty trick to fight a war, it is a valid tactic nonetheless.

But indeed, the things that are considered exploits change when asking different players, someone (sorry, can't remember the name) feels that using artillery is an exploit, as the AI can't use it effectively. Well, maybe so, but I will use artillery whenever I feel it makes civ-life easier. There are other ways in which the AI is given the advantage, so I can't see any problem with outsmarting it. As long as a certain thing you do is not overly unbalancing (shifting defensive positions to keep the AI dancing, for instance), and as long as you feel good doing it, don't stop because someone else thinks it's an exploit. (no offence Catt, you know I respect your opinion)

One of the criteria I use in deciding what I consider an exploit is whether it would be possible to do it in MP too, and 'fool' other players with it. Giving things is therefore allowed, as I will certainly give things to players to gain their trust and friendship. Waiting until the other player attacks is also allowed, as he can wait as well. Using artillery is allowed, and dancing with troops you can try, but won't do you any good (and thus is an exploit to me). All of this is very personal, of course.

DeepO

[Catt]

Originally posted by DeepO

[ . . . . ] as long as you feel good doing it, don't stop because someone else thinks it's an exploit. (no offence Catt, you know I respect your opinion)

Couldn't agree more and certainly no offense taken - the most important function of these boards (to my own mind at least) is to share opinions (and only secondarily to share unknown facts / quirks of the game), and until someone is attacked personally in some way (as sometimes happens from some of the more immature or emotionally challenged posters), no one should take any offense. Delsolsi, come to your own decision regarding the UN and tactics surrounding it - no one will think any more or less of you!

One of the criteria I use in deciding what I consider an exploit is whether it would be possible to do it in MP too, and 'fool' other players with it. Giving things is therefore allowed, as I will certainly give things to players to gain their trust and friendship. Waiting until the other player attacks is also allowed, as he can wait as well.

I largely agree with the "would it work in MP" test. But, assuming that test as the baseline for judging "exploit or no," I don't see how taking action around the UN qualifies as legitimate play tactics. Unless the human players in MP are playing as a team (in which case the point is moot), or unless one human player wants to quit the game but feels compelled to play to a victory condition, even a losing one, rather than just abandon the game, I would think that most human players would choose to abstain rather than vote for a fellow competitor at the UN.

I think diplomatic victory is uniquely (among the victory conditions) an SP victory option; all the others "have legs" in MP. (gifting during gameplay is fine; gifting to secure a UN vote makes me a little uncomfortable, and crosses my tactic / exploit line).

Hrmmm, I wonder who was last to mention this 'exploit'

???

Catt

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Catt
I largely agree with the "would it work in MP" test. But, assuming that test as the baseline for judging "exploit or no," I don't see how taking action around the UN qualifies as legitimate play tactics. Unless the human players in MP are playing as a team (in which case the point is moot), or unless one human player wants to quit the game but feels compelled to play to a victory condition, even a losing one, rather than just abandon the game, I would think that most human players would choose to abstain rather than vote for a fellow competitor at the UN.

Well, I don't know. In MP, if I see that I will lose anyhow, I would vote for my friend, he who helped me during the game. True, you don't have to bribe me the last 2 turns, that wouldn't do any good, but if, during the whole game, someone has been giving things, helping out with aliances and MPPs and trading a lot with me, I won't forget that. Of course, if I would be on a good road to a space victory, no-one will get my vote, but this is also how it happens with the AIs: If they feel like they can win, they won't vote for you.

Hrmmm, I wonder who was last to mention this 'exploit'

???

Oh, I mentioned this just an hour before you posted the 'exploit' here in another thread you were also participating in. I don't want to come across as someone who wins purely by exploiting the weaknesses of the AI, on the contrary, I see myself as a 'give the AI a fair chance' guy. But declaring war and waiting for the attack so that the MPPs go in your favor is one of the things I use reasonably often, to intitiate world wars. I know that the AI does not have the same level of understanding what geopolitics is concerned, and dangling a worker in front of them to provoke them might not be a fair tactic, but it will also mean that they are given the opportunity to draw first blood. If they do it right, I will be seriously hampered by their initial attack wave. So it is a choice you make: do you want support from the other AIs and better war weariness, or do you want to take the initiative, risk opposing everyone, and take 'double' war weariness just so you can have a better planned attack?

DeepO