I admire your ethics. I read your AAR on your Beyond Human victory. Good stuff! Not many would be so honest as to explain their reload.
End of quote
I've submitted losses to the Metaverse, four times. Under certain circumstances, RB rules require that. Fortunately, I have turned them all around on the second chance, and been able to salvage wins out of each loss on replay, and resubmit; but the day may come when I lose the replay, too. *shrug* We're not obliged to report variant games, no-win situations, and playing out of our depth, so I've had some other losses I didn't have to report.
Talking about the one reload I did has led to new insights. A couple of players now have reported that they don't seem to provoke the AI with parked ships if they have cultural control over the sector. If so, that would be an interesting wrinkle. It might mean it's a good idea to add cultural modules to bases in deep space, so you can park defenders there without upsetting the locals.
For the RB Civ3 tournament, we have a rule for allowing reloads over misclicks. Accidentally started a war because you clicked the wrong thing? Accidentally bought an improvement when you meant to cancel? Moved a key unit to the wrong tile? Reload and fix it, if you wish. On the honor system. We believe the results ought to depend on your strategy, not your mouse-handling skills and ability always to press the key you meant to press. The spirit of the rules is the most important thing. People play games to have a good time, and rules should enhance that, not hinder it.
The up side of frequent patches is that the game keeps on improving. The down side is that player may not know the rules. I, personally, don't believe it makes sense to play a game without understanding the rules. Nobody is asked to play chess, in any competition, without knowing the rules. Tournaments don't shuffle the rules, but supposing they did, they certainly would not do it secretly, forcing players to "figure them out during the game". That's how it felt to have the AI declare war on me out of the blue. That was a change to the rules, and if I had understood it, I would not have been in that position. So that reload has a different context than, say, drawing a poor attack ratio on a close invasion and reloading to get better odds on the dice throw, or reloading to try to improve a morality event outcome when settling a key world. Etc. Not a significant ethical dilemma, on the rule issue, I think. Admitting to scouting out the map and obtaining spoiler information about the terrain, then reloading... that's a bigger deal. And I've done that, too, in up to half of my games, but I'm doing it less (needing it less) as I learn more about the game.
There's a more important reason to set limits for oneself and observe them, than ethical purity. Exposure to risks accelerates challenge and learning. Do-overs promote laziness, laziness curbs growth. If you don't have to live with a mistake, there is less incentive to analyze what led to the mistake, less drive to change, less likelihood of improvement.
We are capable of transcending our boundaries, of achieving excellence beyond imagining, but we have to reach far to have hope of getting there. Exercise is what builds strength. Resistance is what determines the value of strength training. Too much, and no gain will be made. Too little, and no significant gain will be made. Whether exercising the body, the mind, the heart or the soul, human beings thrive on hard work and challenge. There are no shortcuts, no magic pills.
GalCiv's scoring mechanisms offer challenge. But it is possible to "figure that out", at which point the challange factor slacks off. The only way to continue past that point with "significant resistance" is to forge your own challenges, to create your own ways to add resistance. Or, you can rest on your laurels, but you will gradually lose steam and soften up while those who press onward will pass you by. Think about it.
- Sirian