I think time has come to modify the GOTM rules to reflect the new reality that Civ III openly encourages reloading.The Autosave feature provides an easy and convenient way to "cheat".And to think that people do not take advantage of this is naive and ludicrous.
If you gonna tell me with a straight face that the top ten scores submitted last month nobody reloaded?I will call you a liar.
I played enough civ games to know that when you take risky gambits you don't always win.And you have to take risky gambits and see them through in order to achieve such High scores.
So if the top ten didn't reload then they are some of the luckiest people in the world.
Enough of this nudge nudge wink wink stuff about reloading and change the rules to even the playing field and to reflect reality.

marshalljames;)

No big deal, as long as you play fairly and it makes you happy, then it's all good.

Until Multiplayer, what else can you do?

Originally posted by marshalljames
So if the top ten didn't reload then they are some of the luckiest people in the world.
I think that your statement makes a bad assumption. You seem to be assuming from your own level of skill that no one could be good enough to get such scores without either cheating or being extremely lucky. You are wrong about this. I hope that one day you will be skilled enough in the game to see that.

There is a code of honor involved. There are many who abide by it and who would not have any fun if they violated it.

I placed second last month (GOTM#2) and I will tell you that I did not reload. And I don't think I was particularly lucky. I didn't get any special resources early in the game and I lost my share of odds-on fights.

I do not play risky gambits which could cost me the game. I don't start battles unless I have very high odds of winning them. Even then I still don't start fights I can't afford to lose. I don't explore huts with settlers or workers. I don't attack villages with single warriors. I don't do anything which I think is a "risky gambit" in the sense you mean it. I do of course sometimes lose fights where I had very good odds but I just carry on. When things don't go as planned I change plans.

I do not believe that reloading is necessary to get a high score. Good strategy, a coherent plan and a bit of luck are what are needed. It helps if you know how to best rack up points (something that I haven't figured out yet). I got a middling score for the January game (2200+), but I am doing well on the February game WITHOUT RELOADING.

I did see a lot of people in the January GOTM thread talking about very early conquest, but no one says they attacked with two warriors and lost and have to scramble to get back in the game. Seems like a full third of those that favor an early attack would post that, so I am sure there are a few cheesers out there. Though now that I thnk about it, Chinese have archers to start, but still there should be a few that lose that opening gambit and post about it.

Players that rely on the crutch of reloading tend to be mediocre players. Personally, I do not believe that the top ten are dominated by that class of cheese.

If I would have reloaded the December game I would have gotteh s much higher score 12000+ atleast...

Is the results from GOTM3 up yet?

In the December GOTM, ~20k points were possible from a perfectly played game. 15K as the highest doesn't seem an unreasonable score, I actually expected it to be much higher. Now that people understand the scoring system better, I wouldn't be suprised to see several 15k+ scores on the same type of map/settings.

The January GOTM, losing 2 warriors is no big deal in the long run, but gaining an early city is a huge advantage. That is why so many people would try it, and why a win would be much more memorable than a loss. The chance for 2 elite warriors killing 1 defending regular warrior is better than 86%.

I attacked with 2 veteran archers, which should almost always get a city defended by a single regular warrior (~96%). I did 2 kamikazi warriors, one against the Persians, and one against another Japanese city. One got lucky, one didn't, both were elite vs regular battles (~65% in favor of the elite). Taking these kinds of risks early on are in no means game breaking when they fail, especially on lower difficulties.

On the forum of CivLadder it was a continuous battle of people who thought the best guys out there are cheaters. But those are all people who just couldn't believe that you can be that good.

I also chat or email with the top players. I even emailed someone because I thought he was cheating. (I won't mention names. ;)) But after a thorough explanation he explained to me how he won (also with a bit of luck) and that was quite convincing.

If there is someone in the top was has cheated, then there are enough real good players who are able to figure that out. Not me, as I'm on of the worst players. :cry: But there is enough controll through the others.

Grey Fox, I'll try to finish the GOTM III results today. ;)

Originally posted by Aeson
Now that people understand the scoring system better, I wouldn't be suprised to see several 15k+ scores on the same type of map/settings.

not sure i 100% understand the scoring system yet.
i know that you gain points equal to your score plus a bonus and that for conquest the bonus is equal to
(mapsize*level*(2050-date))
or something along those lines but does the bonus differ for diplomatic, cultural, spaceship or domination?

if not then conquest is almost always better as it is usually much earlier.

hmmm.... :confused:

-ChumChum

p.s. what's the point in cheating anyway? its a freindly game, there is no prizes and archers (safe), not warriors (risky) saw off those japanese. :cool:

The formula you have is correct, just take out the map size modifier (the scoring definitely should take the map into account though). The bonus is the same for each victory condition, which does mean that conquest will give the largest bonus. Territory and Population also count towards the base score, so on larger landmass games they can overcome the early bonus scores.

No reloading is needed for a highly skilled player to crush the computer on anything short of deity. Overall reloading doesn't help a poor player who would lose the game end up with the highest score either. The problem is that a poor player makes poor decisions that he doesn't realize are poor decisions and then has to reload to cover the problems he is in. A poor player might do 10x as well with reloading (save from beginning finding a way to get a settler from a hut, etc) while a top player will probably only get a 5 to 10 percent benefit from it.

To give you an idea of how to win GOTM2 every time just do this.

*Pump solid settlers expanding until you encounter an enemy.
*At some point you can decide to build barracks and granaries.
*Enemy is encountered and then pop rush horses if possible and crush the enemy. Attacking is a skill in itself, but you can mass and strike or just try to hit the newer cities with 1 defender.
*Plan ahead. I started the Light House 2 turns too late and it hurt me something awful. Someone else finished it before me and my suicide scouting missions ALL failed. Knowing it was a continents game I should have started the Light House much earlier.
*Be willing to micromanage. I click on just about every city every turn AND try to trade/buy techs from every civ I can every turn.

and what I am not willing to do
*Conquer early and then milk the map. Grow your cities as big as possible and avoid cultural victory by selling off culture improvements. Finish the game on the last turn.

Oh and some don'ts...

Don't use 1 movement units as attackers if possible, they travel too slow and you lose too many of them.

Don't play passive. You advance faster by conquering than you can by building.

Don't attack with small forces. Your attacking force needs to be enough to take the city in one turn, quell resistors while healing up, and continue on without stopping. If I'm attacking across an ocean I'll probably take 5 to 6 cities on my first turn.

Don't stop producing military units. If you have 200 then keep going from 300. Every turn the game should be getting easier because your army should grow every turn. If you use 2 movement units and artillery when needed you should suffer very few losses.

I made a bunch of bad decisions in GOTM2 and finished 8th. I understand more about the game now (proper pop rushing, ways to milk great leaders, etc), realize the importance of starting the Lighthouse early if I need to find other civs, and understand what it takes to get a high score. If I was replaying game2 for the first time now and decided to milk it I couldn't see myself getting less than 15k. GOTM3 was far too easy and I didn't send in my result.

I'm sure a good player could save every few turns on the current GOTM playing small chunks per day and make them available. This would display that it isn't a reload score because reload scores need 10 to 50 turn reloads to truly have a big impact. What do I mean? I would have to reload from a long time back to restart the wonder in time to finish it. I would have to reload quite awhile back to get defenders to outskirt towns that got surprise attacked if railroads aren't around yet.

In summation, the reason you see these high scores is because the game is far too easy. The AI even on deity cannot produce as fast as a player, doesn't understand how to be a techbroker or prevent tech brokering, doesn't execute intelligent military offensives, and the AI cannot figure out how to stop a players attacks. The AI also is not programmed on how to achieve a victory and does not try for it. For instance, it would be quite easy for an AI civ to launch a spaceship except that they research needless techs before they research the laser. You can be 3 techs behind the AI and still launch before they do. They also do not devote enough cities to parts production.

And as far as noreloading goes I even didn't reload on a mismove which cost me a settler. Not that I thought that reloading for a mismove is wrong, but because I was just too lazy to do it.

If you are still struggling through GOTMs and thinking that the top scorers are cheating and nothing seems to change your opinion then maybe someone will write a detailed guide on how to crush the ai. The game really is too easy.

If you want some tips or discussion on games you can email me at foldzan@kingwoodcable.com and I'll be happy to discuss things.

Eliezar

I lost two Settlers in GOTM 4, but that's only because I don't use backup forces with em... IN the beginning, that is.

Difficulty level/cheating

Let's wait until we have a GOTM game on deity or emperor level on a hugh pangea map with 16 civ's. I myself always play these type of games and loose a lot; simply because a) you have to fight multiple enemy's or b)when fighting, you can't focus on research and eventially get way behind on tech's (mainly due to trading between the science-civ's).

Current GOTM game was easy for the pro's because everybody was able to eliminate the first computerplayer (free techs, cities and wonder(s)) and from then on, you could simply have a breath or two and focus on the next computerplayer.

I would like to see how the professionals finish such a game as mentioned before by hearing their story on this forum. I think much of the members of this forum will be able to learn a lot. Maybe everybody eventially will see that you don't have to cheat to win this game!

ERIKK :D

I've played several Huge Pangaea games on Deity and Emperor levels. I usually don't play past about 500AD, as it starts to get really tedious. Usually by that point the game is either won or lost anyways. It's possible to screw up and lose a lead, or to make a late comeback, but you are winning or losing because of your skill level, and thats not going to change much during the course of a game.

Using an Expansionist Civ with a good early UU(Iroquois or Zulu) is definitely the way to go with those settings. Even with all the AI Expansionist Civs taking their share of the huts, it's not unusual to get every ancient era advance for free, plus a settler. The techs you don't get from huts, you can trade your map for, as it should be more complete than most of the AI's. On Emperor it's possible to out-expand the AI with a settler from a hut. On Deity it's basically impossible to not fall behind in territory and culture. At least expansionist can keep you even on tech. Then a quick horse rush can get you into the lead, instead of being needed just to stay even.

To clear out the scoring system...
You get points only from:

- Territory (Often the most),

- Happy Citizens. Can come up to the score from Territory at the end.

- Content Citizens (Not as much as from Happy citizens). And Specialist Citizens, I think you get as much from these as you get from content citizens.

- And finally the Bonus points from finishing before 2050 AD.

These points are also divided on the number of turns you have played. This means your score is actually your medium score throughout the game. In the beginning you might get 40 points per turn, and at the end 15000 per turn and your score might be 8000.

Hope this cleared things out, and if I'm wrong anywhere maybe Aeson or someone more familiar to the scoring system then me, can correct me...

Eliezar, Great post buddy. I agree with you that the game is too easy and am having trouble understanding people who think the top scores must be reloaders. You have explained very well how to crush the AI and unfortunately this can be done fairly easily on any level. I say unfortunately because this is not what firaxis was wanting in my opinion. One set formula should not be able to win every game and setting. I remember Firaxis talking about the game and saying that it was designed to allow the pacifist builder type to have as much chance of winning as the militaristic player but sadly this is not the case (and I love playing pure builder).
I would go as far as saying that the way pop rushing works in its current state breaks the game and is ruining the enjoyment of long term playing.

FIRAXIS - If you are listening please tone down pop rushing, maybe introduce diminishing returns or better still only one rush per city.

If pop rushing is fixed I believe we are going to see much closer competition and also greater variety of wins in the GOTM's instead of a set formula dominating.

Firstly,apologies to those who get high scores without reloading.I assume it's possible but to get high scores but you have be ruthless.And a ruthless person would think nothing of bold face lying,code or no code.
This was my first game at emperor and I panicked and tried what I assume is the winning strategy at this level,which is Slice and dice(I find this sought of game tedious and I am much more interested in trading and diplomacy ).My usual stragegy is navel gazing and building and supporting LARGE standing armies.Never attacking and waiting for puter to attack me.I go for democracy ASAP.
Thx to Bill Chin I will grow my cities much closer together small cities that produce are better than large cities that don't.
I would probably lose in Multiplayer game,but the Slice and Dicer who beat me wouldn't win either.To all you guys who think catapults and artillary and Battleships are useless wait till you attack me.

mj

p.s I feel I been somewhat hoodwinked by ad's for this game as it's still a slice and dice game and dip and trade are not important.And being one person the entire game is ridiculous.Genhis Khan with sons and daughters and govenors that have to be recruited was 100x better concept and game than Civ1 .

Before they change anything on the PC side I wish they would work on the AI some. Sure the AI gets all these units and such at the beginning on deity, but how about they make different civs act differently as a set beginning.

Maybe XXX militaristic civ gets to 5 cities and then mass produces military units and focus attack.

Have xxx expansionistic civ expand to 10 cities and then dedicate 5 cities to military and 5 to settlers/wonders/improvements.

Have xxx commercial/industrial civ use 2 cities to pump settlers and have each city build a worker (for commercial to build trade routes, for industrial for infrastructure). Have the worker ai set up to build different things.

Have xxx scientific civ use 2 cities to pump settlers and all cities get a library built as soon as possible. Have this AI also pay almost nothing for techs, but try to sell them to everybody as soon as they get them.

Along with this they should have scripted attack plans for each age if they are wanting to declare war or are attacked. Wouldn't it be great if the enemy AI would move a stack of 6 mech infantry, 10 artillery and 10 tanks along together towards your city it covets? What if some civs for late game go for a space victory and instead of going offensive they build MASS bombers and mech infantry with a few tanks. You land 60 guys on their shore and that very turn you get bombed by 20 bombers and then attacked by lots of tanks. It would be great.

Why not teach the AI to build a group of 12 cavalry and send them all after a single city. Would it be so hard?


And I guess while I'm discussing this off topic stuff I'll restate something I totally appreciate. Screw the built in scoring. A Conquest on a large map in 1800 will outscore an 1100 space race win. Score games on the year they are finished on normal sized maps as either the entire score or the majority of the score. The only problem with this is that it may be impossible to achieve a cultural victory before a conquest or spaceship victory. In which case maybe Cultural Victory should get some adjustment.

Anyway...it just seems with all the insane advantages the AI has on deity and even emporer that if it had mediocre strats it would be a great challenge. I'll never forget the game where the AI had about 6 units next to a city of mine that had 2 defenders and the city held out because about 3 of the ai units decided to raze land while the other 3 all died attacking.

Eliezar

completely off original topic, but...

Ghenghis Khan was a kind of fun game, but insanely easy compared to Civ III.

I think one of the chief problems with Civ III lies along these lines.

Take these as the different paths

All out conquest.
Tech racing.
Gold hoarding.
Mass expanding.
Resource securing.
Culture enrichment.

Now the problem here is that the conquest outdoes each of the other types in their own means.

Conquest allows you to get other people's techs for a peace treaty and not even have to research a single tech to stay even with the tech leaders.

Conquest allows you to not need to research so you can devote all your resources to income instead of dividing them. Which a gold hoarding person can't afford to do.

Conquest allows you to take ai cities. The ai produces cities faster than you do and thus you can take cities faster than you can naturally mass expand on the higher difficulties.

Resource securing is a crapshoot. However, a conquest player will have more total land and thus a better shot at having all the resources and luxeries he needs plus some to sell for more money.

A conquest person will dominate culture simply because their large amount of cities will produce more culture than a smaller civ fully built up. And a conquest player will also get more great leaders which in turn gives even more of an edge on culture.


And in the end score is mostly related on territory and territory is related to conquest.


Maybe a solution would be to make interciv trading more important to the economy so that it is important to keep up good relations with other civs, make civs less eager to trade science advances, make civs less trusting of you if you have a history of war and less likely to trade with you, and make conquest more difficult.

Eliezar

Of course, if you agree with Eliezar that reloading does not help a poor player or a skilled player (much), then having a no-reloading rule is meaningless and I would argue that it be abolished. I, in fact, do agree with Eliezar in this respect, although I have yet to reach the "this game is soooo easy" level. :)

Hmmm I'm living on the civ forums today (actually waiting for wife to get home and bored).

I think I should clarify my reloading thoughts.

If you reload 1 turn at a time it will have a minimal effect on a good player and a noticeable effect on a poor player. The good player is going to take the cities anyway, but the poor player may need to reload to take the city or to wait until he can take the city, etc.

If however you reload 20+ turns or more it has a huge effect on any player. Now to be honest I know that to be in the top 5 every turn is so tedious that I do not believe they reload much unless they are just super driven. If there was a real prize I could see it, but when a single turn can take 20 minutes reloading just sucks.

I stated above that I didn't reload when I lost a settler do to a faulty key stroke. I didn't reload because I simply didn't want to replay the previous 10-15 minutes 8( If you reload in that situation it is fine by me as long as you do everything the same.

BTW, I was a very poor civ 2 player and reloaded often (not in competition, i didn't know of any at that time). When I got AlphaCentauri I started trying to figure out how to win and I realized that if you know what you are doing reloading isn't really needed. That is when I started understanding that I was reloading because I sucked on turns 1 to 50 not because I was being careless on turn 150.

The reason I would say reloading should not be allowed is because you will have players who never learn the game, but win (achieve a victory condition) by scraping through with reloads. *okay if I reload 3 turns back I can get my defensive units there* This IMO cheapens the game for them and also cheapens the GOTM for the people who are learning Civ3 and don't want to reload because they feel it is cheating. BTW, since Alpha Centauri I don't really reload in any games even for fun games because I feel it makes you a worse player.

Oh yeah and my take on Clint and his 15k is that if that is a cheated game, ie reloading, then he still would have gotten around 13.5k without reloading. However someone who scraped by with a 3500 late game win and was reloading probably would have lost without it.

Eliezar

Whether it help's the poor/good player is irrelevent.My point is that some are re-loading some aren't,so let's make it even and allow re-loading.
This game is meant to be fun for all not just the skilled players.
Therefore the no-reloading rule discriminate's against less skilled players.I don't like the term re-loading I prefer learning.It has been my experience that re-loading turns does not help much overall.The best way to reload is to go back 100-1000 yrs and change some fundamental strategy you started then.An experienced player knows the correct strategy an in-experienced one does not.
And finally I did not compare Ghengis Khan to Civ iii,but to Civ 1.
Maybe Civ 3 should change it's name to American Wild West.Show me a civ that has been warring since yr0 and has conquested the world...It doen't exist,ALL empires founded on Violence collapse.(Romans,Brits and your witnessing the collapse of the American Empire(100 yrs more,tops) with it's High Corruption (like the old Soviet Union,Father/Son presidents)and Huge gap between rich and poor and the squandering of their resources.

mj

You are making some big assumptions here, about the collapse of empires etc. I will not comment on that but about this reloading-thing I have to state this: allowing reloading will kill the fun of civ3-gaming. You can try everthing and nothing will have consequences. That's no fun at all!

I agree that a civ that is at war for 4000 years is not realistic, but that's just in this game. Maybe FIRAXIS will make a cultural/peacefull victory/conquest more powerfull in the patch....

ERIKK :D

Great Empires are founded by great leaders, they falter and collapse under weak rulers. In Civ3, the leader is you, and you live to be 6050 years old. If Alexander had been immortal, perhaps the whole world would be Greek, who knows. A case could be made that throughout most of history, warlike civilizations expand and thrive until they grow complacent and weak (read non-warlike). It is just human nature to fight for what we want, and when we get it, become less agressive. When a whole civilization is played out in a handful of hours, and the entire population's goals are set by the player, those types of situations aren't going to occur, the civilization keeps its focus.

I don't think games should try to be too real, a bit of fantasy is a good thing. Otherwise you would try to tell your workers to go build a road, and they would just sit there half the time doing nothing. Or more likely, we would all be the workers, and someone would be telling us to go build a road. That wouldn't be a very fun game.

As far as reloading is concerned, no one is keeping you from replaying the game with different strategies. Those games just aren't allowed in the competition. Learning from mistakes is a good thing, then use what you learned to do better in the next game. Imagine your favorite sport with "reloading", would it be any fun to watch, would the games mean anything? Even Shaq would hit 100% of his free throws if he got a do-over every time he missed.

Originally posted by marshalljames
This game is meant to be fun for all not just the skilled players.
Therefore the no-reloading rule discriminate's against less skilled players.[/B]

Discrimination - To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit.

This is a game based on accomplishment (merit) on an equal playing field (no reloading) with no reguards to class (you don't get a score based on how good of a player you are, but how you perform on each test).

To drive the point home, without reloading it is a test of SKILL.

With reloading it is a 100 percent test of TIME.

You can say reloading is learning, but in a competition it is cheating. Any time you reload you have advance knowledge which you should not have. The learning process is actually figuring out why things go wrong when they go wrong and learning to identify the situations so that in another game you can recognize what to do. The learning process isn't covering up your mistakes by rampant reloading. If anything that is counterproductive because you find cheating ways to compensate for your bad planning - only cities that get attacked have actual defenders, your offensives always work, you get the huts and prime land first, etc.

Eliezar

My opinion is that if you want to learn, replay the game from the start for fun, but not for submission. Learn to play the game without the crutch of reloading.

I am a relative newbie at Civ III (got it for Christmas). The way I learned to play is by starting a lot of games and abandoning most of them after the first age. I made a lot of mistakes, tried a lot of different ways to do things. I estimate about 50 game starts thru the first or second age, and maybe three finished games! My early game is now smooth and polished, but I have a lot to learn about the middle game and end game.

If you want to reload during a regular game that is fine. For the GOTM submission please play by the rules. I'm sure there are cheaters out there, as it is all honor system. However, I think they are only cheating themselves out of becoming better players.

Good points. I was distinquishing (in my head anyway) reloading, i.e. one turn back to correct a typo, from restarting, i.e. using advanced knowledge to change an outcome. I still think that re-loading probably does not change a score much, but restarting can make a huge difference since you know so much about the scenario.

Originally posted by Eliezar
To drive the point home, without reloading it is a test of SKILL.

With reloading it is a 100 percent test of TIME.This is basically what it's all about. That's why reloading should never be allowed. Thanks for pointing that out Eliezar. ;)

Well, it's also because you then play the game without knowing the map which is also very important.

Well, I do think generalizations are difficult to defend. I know, for example, that when I play golf, no matter how many times I replay a shot, or even a whole round, I don't get a par game. :)

Steve

Steve,

This is way off topic, but your golf comment brought this story to mind. You need to play golf the way President Richard Nixon did. Nixon wanted a good golf score. Many casual players count putts as good if they are a few inches from the cup, rather than bothering to knock them in. Nixon stretched this to several feet. For anything less than six feet or so, his playing partners would say, "yes that's good Mr. President," and President Nixon would pick up his ball and mark his scorecard as if he made the short putt. In reality, a lot of short putts are missed, so Nixon lowered his score with this cheat by several shots per round. Betcha he is the type that would reload the GOTM or read all the spoilers then start the game.

Originally posted by graeme
Well, I do think generalizations are difficult to defend. I know, for example, that when I play golf, no matter how many times I replay a shot, or even a whole round, I don't get a par game. :)

Steve :)

Endless poprush with no consequence is a loophole in the game design. So is endless drafting at size 7 with 7+ units of contentment improvement. Neither is realistic, and both offer a high reward wherein the penalty (unhappiness in the city) is defeated and rendered nonexistant by the priority order of the happiness and unhappiness factors. That is, no amount of unhappiness overcomes the contentment factors, so you can endlessly exploit the benefits with no actual penalty.

That's a major flaw in the game, since its exploitation allows the game balance to be thrown out the window, and certain "strategies" rise to the top as too good to pass up.

I think the size 7 factor with workers is also a loophole.

Now I use all three of these myself, the workers the most. I tend not to abuse the poprush, rather to "play normally" with some rushing but then move on in governments and play the game the way it always played in Civ1 and Civ2. Yet I find myself more and more exploiting the draft-rush, and I don't think that's a good thing. It's no better than exploiting the despotic poprush, since both are taking advantage of the faulty happiness priorities. I will probaby cut back on that, or perhaps even eliminate it.

Following the path of least resistance, when it follows a trail down the road of exploitation of game loopholes, is for me a generally self-defeating course of action, which is why I try to avoid it. A game's entertainment value is going to plummet when every game follows the same formula, and the temptations of the exploits become so strong, you find yourself unable to resist them. In that regard, it is wholly like cheating: using some mechanism to defeat the spirit of the game, rather than work to succeed within it.

Yes, there is a certain "hardline competitive edge" (aka Power Gaming) to finding and exploiting every possible flaw in a game design. Yet for all this talk of "reloading = cheat", I haven't seen in this thread yet the mention of "poprush exploit = cheat". That starts to get into a grayer area, no doubt about it, and I'm sure an argument in its defense could be mounted, BUT... I can also mount an argument in favor of the idea, just as the "give away cities" loophole, which has mostly (not entirely) been closed, amounted to a cheat.

I've been participating in the Apolyton "game of the month" equivalent, and avoiding the competition here, because this one seems a little TOO bent toward the scoring system, which offers nothing BUT rewards to the despotic poprush player. It might be interesting to compete with the folks here, to see how quickly I can execute the exploitation strategy and achieve conquest, but I kind of get the same feeling from that sort of gameplay that some of you describe about reloading.

I sincerely hope that Firaxis can work toward plugging some of the game's loopholes without also destroying the good things about the game. That's honestly a very difficult task. Someone here mentioned limiting to one rush per city, and I think that would be most unfortunate. The rush option is a grand addition to the game, and should not (IMO) be removed or rendered useless -- they just need to do something about the player's ability to use it and abuse it at such insignificant cost.


The AI's defense routines also need a lot of work. The AI does not recognize a stack of 20 panzers parked 3 squares from one of its cities as a threat. It is too quick to "spend" its "extra units", and never defends with more than about 4 units in a city. It has no concept of how to use artillery, and only one mode of play for all the civs: expansionist. All it does is try to grab more and more land. It would help with predictability if it had multiple options on hand, multiple priority lists, tactics, unit management. As much AI as there is here, it becomes quite transparent to experienced players, and that's not even counting other game loopholes, such as Right of Passage exploitation, and a diplomatic system with a one-size-fits-all treaty option of 20 turns, which renders most deals useless to the human player. You get rewarded for slimy play (razing cities, starvation of occupied peoples, poprush exploit) and penalized for honorable play (capturing cities, treating occupied people decently, making diplomatic deals, and in the scoring, ALL methods other than ancient warmongering).

This is a really fun game, and it's quite close to being very good, but it still needs a few more tweaks. I sure hope it gets some of them in more patches. So far, my confidence in Firaxis is HIGH, judging from results of their first patch -- and that's no mean feat, impressing me, as I've become highly jaded by the less-than-dedicated results I've seen from other companies.

In the mean time, I've personally been playing lots of "variants", self-restricted scenerios. Someone in this thread mentioned how useful it is to select civs with overpowering ancient UU's. Well what about playing on Emperor/Deity with UNfavorable setups, like civs without such advantages, maps that don't lend as well to ancient victories, self-chosen limitations like limiting poprush or eschewing it altogether, staying in Monarchy governments, limits on brokering, or anything else to vary the flavor of the game, test your skills WITHOUT the easy-out exploits and proven "strategies", introduce new challenges, or just be interesting to try.

One of the reasons I've been drawn to the Apolyton competition is that score is only one of the measuring sticks used there. They give attention to highest score and earliest victory date for EACH victory condition on a map, and that leaves a lot of options open besides just horsie-rush-your-way-to-dominance.

Just a few thoughts from an outside observer.


- Sirian

Great Post Sirian,
I had a bad feeling that SOME not all of the high scores were exploiting loopholes in the game.I consider every trick you mentioned to be cheating.Their is obviously rampant cheating going on in this competition making the results meaningless.To bad.Thanks for pointing all those cheats.

mj

...avoiding the competition here, because this one seems a little TOO bent toward the scoring system, which offers nothing BUT rewards to the despotic poprush player.

I am sure people use despotic poprush over at Apolyton too. Players just love to exploit loopholes in games because "cheats" like poprushing are usually considered as "tricks" by players. :p ;)


One of the reasons I've been drawn to the Apolyton competition is that score is only one of the measuring sticks used there. They give attention to highest score and earliest victory date for EACH victory condition on a map, and that leaves a lot of options open besides just horsie-rush-your-way-to-dominance.


If you think extra stats & more awards for various type of wins are needed, all you need to do is ask. I am sure we can do that for future GOTMs. This entire GOTM feature was suggested by players and we always welcome suggestions to improve the GOTM. :) If you participated in the Civ2 GOTM, you know the GOTM system is constantly changing to make the ranking more meaningful.

At present time we don't have special scoring formula for the Civ3 GOTM, we most likely will have one in the future since the default Civ3 scoring system does favor early conquest a lot. Feel free to suggest new scoring formulas so we can all discuss them...

Until we have a new scoring system, all I can say is play the game, enjoy the GOTM discussions, and don't take the rankings TOO seriously. The current ranking gives you a general idea of how well you did, but it's nothing absolute. The main objective of GOTM is to have fun, and I think many people do enjoy the GOTM. :king:

This is just cut and pasted from an Apolyton post I made a while back. Not all of it would be possible without changes to the program itself (turns of peace). Just a simple change by adding a "well done" modifier to the date bonus would even things out a lot though.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with scoring isn't so much that early conquest and "bloating" can score so high, its that other ways can't compete. This is because the Bonus awarded for early victory is figured the same regardless of victory type. Of course a space launch/diplomatic/cultural victory isn't going to have a chance to occur in the BC's or early AD's, so the conquest (which usually can be had by then) bonus is usually the biggest. Because the Bonus for winning after about 1000AD becomes negligible, that means that the most points if conquest hasnt been achieved by then will be 2050 scores that have longer to pull up the average (which started at 0 in 4000BC).

The current Bonus formula is (2050 - Date) * Difficulty = Bonus. Difficulty is 1-6, corresponding to Cheiftain-Deity. There needs to be a modifier for each victory condition something like (2050 - Date + VictoryCondition) * Difficulty = Bonus. The number for each victory condition would be the date at which that victory would be considered "well done". If 1500 is used for the space launch VictoryCondition, then a 1500AD Space launch on Regent would get a bonus of 6150, instead of the 1650 bonus it would get with the current scoring system, which is a much more deserving bonus IMO. Map types and Number of Civs would affect the dates that "well done" victories would be achieved, but just general values for VictoryConditions would still improve the scoring system greatly.

Possible values for VictoryCondition:

Space Launch 1500
Domination 500
Conquest 0
Diplomatic 1400
Cultural 1600 (1800 for the 20,000 one city option)

If Modifiers for Map type and Number of Civs needed to be added, they could be added to the formula. Larger maps take longer to complete conquest or domination, and allow for more expansion, thus earlier dates for the other victory types. Smaller maps are just the opposite. Usually water levels and land mass types seem to even themselves out. Archipelago for instance, slows conquest, but also has less room for the other victory types to build on, and keeps Civs from gaining contact with each other as soon, so wouldnt need to be included. The number of Civs usually makes conquest take longer, and makes tech advancement faster (decreasing the time needed for space and diplomatic victories) but makes little difference in Cultural victories. The modifications would just need to be applied to each VictoryCondition, and the formula could remain the same.

VictoryConditions:

Space Launch = 1500 - NumOfCivs*10 - Landmass
- more civs mean faster overall research
- more landmass means more possible population/territory and faster research

Domination = 500 + Landmass
- the bigger the landmass, the more land needed to trigger domination

Conquest = 0 + NumOfCivs*10 + Landmass
- more landmass, more civs, more to conquer

Diplomatic = 1400 - NumOfCivs*10 - Landmass
- more civs, more land, faster fission can be researched

Cultural(100,000 total) = 1600 - NumOfCivs*2 - Landmass
- more land to build culture cities on
- more civs, faster research for new cultural buildings though less chance at cultural wonders

Cultural(20,000 city) = 1800 + NumOfCivs*10
- more civs, less chance at cultural from wonders

Landmass:

Huge = 300
Large = 100
Standard = 0
Small = -100
Tiny = -300

Of course, most of this is just off the top of my head, especially the landmass values. Certainly all the values could use a lot of fine tuning... just a scoring system that takes all of this into account (not just score by date and territory/population) would be nice. A side bonus for each wonder built (I usually dont build any, because it lowers scoring efficiency, best to just conquer them as it is now), turns of peace, and future techs could also be added. I know future techs are already in the scoring system, but with there being 540 turns in a game, and usually future techs are only going to count for 100 of them at most, they get "averaged" into insignificance. A seperate, non-averaged bonus would give them some meaning, and reward those who go the scientific route, rather than just doing enough to get the advances needed for a specific victory.

From the GOTM4 Spoiler thread.

So maybe you can explain to me, Aeson, how you come to draw your line at "going to use all the resources available to me", and justify these exploits, which you admit are exploits, and not be tempted to cross the line into reloading? I accept you at your word that you don't reload, but isn't the line there awfully thin? Can something be "just a little bit" wrong?

The only real difference is what is allowed in the competition rules. An exploit becomes a cheat when it is against the rules. For purposes of competition, the only real prerequisite is that there is a level playing feild. I don't use any exploit that hasn't been addressed and determined to be allowed. This way everyone knows where the line is, and can adjust their gameplay accordingly. I don't worry about my Civ3 "soul", it's IRL morality and honor that matter, in the game what is legal is legal.

I understand where you are coming from Sirian, as it is the approach I always take to multiplayer type games. In head to head games, where there is interaction between players, then an IRL code of conduct needs to be adopted. In a single player environment though, enjoyment is the only morality. The GOTM falls somewhere inbetween, as there isn't any direct interaction between the players, but still a comparison between them. For one person to use a tactic or exploit that isn't available to another, it ruins the comparison.

Pop-rushing, razing cities, breaking treaties and starting wars are all horrendous acts in real life, but on the screen it's just a game. I agree that there aren't any real costs involved in these types of actions in the game, and thus they are too powerful.

There's one real problem about calling an exploit a cheat and thus disallowing it for the GOTM: you're on a smooth scale. Some exploits can easily be called a cheat, while others are very controversial. Then it's very hard to draw a line.

Also, I don't want to put all players in a bodice while playing the GOTM.

Then fine if you allow exploitsThen it should specifically state in the rules that exploits are allowed,what these exploits are and "how to".
Furthermore because new exploits will be discovered,if you use a new exploit(un-known to the rules)you must report it,otherwise your cheating.

Good point. ;)

I'm trying to make a list of all the exploits there are for Civ3, so that it can be clear for everyone what is and what isn't allowed. I suggest what's green is allowed and what's red is disallowed. I like to have this list be ready before the GOTM V starts.

1: Right of Passage abuse.
To make an agreement of Right of Passage, move your units to their main cities and attack them all at once.
2: Woker factories.
I have no idea.
3: Drafting at size 7 cities.
Drafting doesn't cost population when it's done in a size 7 city.
4: City-trading trick.
Capture an enemy city (far outside your region) and sell it with high profits to a third party. Useful when you're gonna loose the city anyway.
5: Pop-rushing.
In despotism, give your cities a high food production and rush build units. The production of units will go much faster than through normal production.
6: Bombard anywhere.
Hold down "b" if you want to bombard and you can bombard anywhere you like.
7: Reloading.
Reload to get a better prestation. Or start all over.
8: Read the spoiler thread.
Read the spoiler thread to get foreknowledge.

Please correct me where the explanation is incorrect as I have used almost none of those expoits (like the worker factories ;)). And did I mis anything?

Worker factories???
Are these those cities you use only for building workers (or settlers - settler factories)? I don't see this as an exploit.

Also, pop-russhing and ROP abuse are actions (rules) the game allow you to do in exchange of some disadvantages (unhappines, bad reputation, etc). I don't see them as exploits either.

BTW, was this drafting at size 7 reported to firaxis? This, as the bombard everywhere, are terrible bugs.

I don't make distinction between bugs and exploits. Because frankly, that doesn't matter.

Worker factories use the same principle as the size 7 drafting exploit. At size 7, the food box doubles from size 6. When you build a worker or draft, enough food to fill the granery at size 7 is kept at size 6. Since the granery holds enough food at size 7 to completely fill the food box at size 6, the population will always "hover" at a full food box while workers are produced or units drafted. The only difference is that a Worker factory needs to have a production of 10 at size 6 to keep a constant stream of workers. These two could be combined as "size 6 to 7 food box exploit".

Being able to sell cities has been negated with the patch. There are still ways to demand cities for peace treaties, or to give them away for free, but no direct trading is possible. Any city "trading" exploits left would involve giving away a dummy city to the AI that was going to be overrun by barbs, thus saving the players treasury. Also the ploy I detailed in the defensive unit factory thread could be exploited in the right circumstances (hard to get right though). Giving away a captured city to an AI with a low cultural rating is kind of a dirty tactic as well. The nationality of the city will switch to the new AI's, allowing it to be retaken with less chance of reversion.

Another exploit that should be considered is the free palace "jump". By disbanding your capitol, the palace will be built for free in one of your higher population cities. This can be used in the very early game to center your capitol with almost no cost, and is the equivalent of getting a leader in terms of usefulness. The target city will always get the palace if it is the only city size 3+ at the time. Then just rebuild your previous capitol with the settler that has been produced. In the early game this is easy to set up. Your capitol will be producing settlers anyways in the early stages. After several cities get size 3+ though, it becomes less predictable which city will get the palace.

Also with disbanding of cities purposely, it allows for temporary pop-rushing cities with no future happiness trade offs. This could be considered an exploit as well. This increases the power of pop rushing tremendously over the course of a game. Disbanding cities allows for an ICS (spacing your cities very close together), pop-rush approach to the early game, and then a switch to a bloating builder style later on.

Using Scouts for resource denial is very effective if done right. Just park a Scout on any resource you want to keep out of the AI's hands, and they wont be able to link it up with roads for 20+ turns. Usually the resource can be held until your armies are ready to take out the resource deprived Civ. It can singlehandedly make a Deity game into a laughing matter.

The "no palace no corruption" bug has already been addressed, and should be in the "red" category.

So... exploits for adding to the list

Size 6 to 7 Cities
Giving Away Barbarian Problems
Defensive Unit Trading
Culture Swapping
Palace Jumping
Scout Resource Denial
Disbanding Unhappiness
No Palace, No Corruption

It's time to make a sticky thread about this. ;) This is most important.

But I do want to start a new thread so that I can edit the first post to make the list there. I suggest we continue the discussion there.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16114