Moonsinger's Deity strategy article outlined another 'exploit' (IMHO) which is to pre-chop forests and then when the wonder build starts chop them all in 1 turn each.

Should this be allowed?

This is not an exploit at all IMO since it is just a question of timing. You must still spend the same worker turns by chopping.

Horragoth,

I think we define the word 'exploit' differently.

To me, it 'produces results', but it is against the 'spirit of the game' and 'illogical'.

Do you, in real life, 'partially cut' 10 forests (if that is even possible), and suddenly take all the wood from all these forests to your construction site (if that is viable, either in relation to the wood's longevity or transportation wise)? No. I understand the analogy is stretched a bit too far, but please understand that this is also an intuitive feeling I have.

As such, my viewpoint should not necessarily be shared by others. I understand your viewpoint. However, my objective was to let the moderators know of this. Let us see what action they take.

I'm not boss here by a long shot, but I don't believe this will be disallowed.

For the purposes of the Game of the Month exploits are opportunities created by programming errors or accidents of sequencing or other subtleties of the software that permit a player to gain a benefit substantially disproportionate to cost. There are some value judgements in that statement, but I don't believe it can be stretched to apply to the case you are describing.

In this situation you have not got something for nothing. You have invested worker turns that could have been used for other activities. Where's the disproportionate benefit? Where's the programming error?

We run GOTM to play the game as it is designed and delivered by Firaxis. We are asking you to play the same sort of game you could play on your own, not one of our own design. Only in exceptional circumstances do we second guess the designers' intentions and over-ride the way the game operates out of the box.

AlanH,

Understood. Thanks.

Cheers. :)

Do we have a list of allowed mod and utilities?

Not currently. Basically, any mod that ONLY gives you information you can see or work out from the standard, out-of-the-box user interface is permitted.

As soon as possible, we want to be able to protect the save, setting the password on a routine basis. This will constrain the mods you can add on your own, so we need an 'official mod' like that used in the HoF beta that start files will work with.

I am thinking of doing a simple change to the emphasis food/production/commerence in the xml directly. Not sure if that will work. If it does, can I do it. It just adds convinence so that I am able to make a customized emphasis ratio which works for me. Just to reduce a bit of micromanagement. Is this okay? Note that I do not know if it will even work at all.

If it doesn't give you access to any hidden information then it's OK. However, you will have to email me for the unprotected file for GOTM 2 as the protected one will (or should) complain about modified assets. And you will probably lose the option to use it in future games when we get the password protection system working properly.

BTW I should have said ... Welcome Back :wavey: :salute:

I'm not sure if this goes here, but it is a question about the rules. My game randomly and frequently crashes, so sometimes I can't get through the first turn but other times I can play for hours without a problem. Consequently, I may have to reload the game at the last checkpoint several times in a game. Would this disqualify me?

It depends on how much you have to reload, but we have to be very tolerant at present, given the level of instability some players are experiencing.

I have to say this can't continue indefinitely, however. Players who do have excessive problems will have to find a way to fix their systems to complete games without repeated crashes, both to make our job easier in distinguishing genuine problems from cheating, and to make playing a pleasure and not a grind.

eotinb's autolog-mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=141164) is still allowed? Would I have to request the unprotected game per email to use ist? Same for HOF-Mod?

TIA.

In the last GOTM I found a couple of little things that are quite small, but have zero negative points, so I thought I would mention them here. They both concern captured cities.

If you capture a city, and some of its squares are within your cultural borders (from another city) you can use the resisting population to work cottages etc. They do not give you gold, but it does count as a turn of growth to the cottage.

If you are running caste system, you can allocate 4 (on epic) citizens to be artists while the city is in resistance. On the turn it comes out of resistance it will have the culture applied and will have the borders expanded. I think that even if it would starve with 4 artists is will not lose a pop on this turn. You just have to make sure you go to "examine city" when it asks you "what do you want to build in this city" and remove the artists.

As I said, I belive that both these effects are quite small, but as there is no disadvantage to doing this it could be considered an exploit.

Those are probably worth reporting to Firaxis as bugs, but I don't think they need to be banned. The AIs exploit them as much as a human does.

Those are probably worth reporting to Firaxis as bugs, but I don't think they need to be banned. The AIs exploit them as much as a human does.
I can belive that the AI uses the cottage working one, but I would be very suprised if it does the artist one. I do not think they should be banned anyway, I guess everyone needs to be aware of them to make it fair though.

It does make me wonder though, would setting other specialists work as well? Not very easy to test though.

If a city is culture pressed the governor will assign artists in the city during the unrest period and it will get that culture as you mention once it comes out.

Not currently. Basically, any mod that ONLY gives you information you can see or work out from the standard, out-of-the-box user interface is permitted.

As soon as possible, we want to be able to protect the save, setting the password on a routine basis. This will constrain the mods you can add on your own, so we need an 'official mod' like that used in the HoF beta that start files will work with.

The more I think about this, the more I think you should reconsider. I think you should have a list of allowed mods and not try to use protection, but let the players enforce the rules themselves.

The main reason is that there are so many mods that make the game much better (a big difference from Civ3), and I feel like I'll probably stop playing GOTM if I can't use most of them.

... and I feel like I'll probably stop playing GOTM if I can't use most of them.
Name them. I'd like to try them if they're that good!

Name them. I'd like to try them if they're that good!

Many of the best "no cheating" mods are included in "Alerum's Unaltered Game Play Mod":

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151020

The improved advisors are all really helpful. The PlotList enhancement is very good, too.

I'm also expecting that there will be more improvements, especially in the area of alerting the player when certain events happen.

I think you should have a list of allowed mods and not try to use protection, but let the players enforce the rules themselves.


I believe the better way is to incorporate GOTM proved modes into protected saves and give people an option to use those mods. It seems to me that this is the way how the staff is going to proceed and I fully support it.

The danger is not intentional use of disallowed modes. This is not a problem for veterans, but will be a problem for newcomers. In average, they are compulsive. They play first, then they study rules, articles, etc.

The result will be a mess for stuff and a lot of frustration for newcomers.

I believe the better way is to incorporate GOTM proved modes into protected saves and give people an option to use those mods. It seems to me that this is the way how the staff is going to proceed and I fully support it.

The problem is that there are too many choices and I'm afraid that personal preference will be too idiosyncratic.

If they include all of the major mods that significantly improve gameplay, I'll certainly be happy. But I'm not sure that any two players will agree on exactly which ones those are.

I'm afraid that we'll end up with just something like the HOF mod, which is so minimal.

I'm afraid that we'll end up with just something like the HOF mod, which is so minimal.
The current HOF mod is more a proof of concept than a final version. We were trying to prove that we could create a mod where parts could be enabled/disabled according to user preference without altering the assets (python/xml). There haven't been many users requesting extra stuff added to it, but it's certainly possible.

I think GOTM mode should allow using only a proportion of its components to reflect player's idiosyncrasies. Of course GOTM mode also will evolve, like Dianthus's and Ainwood's tools for civ3.

Just remember some off us cant run some of the mods right now with out the seeing the blue screen every other turn. Should we be punished or given a disadvantage because of this.

Just remember some off us cant run some of the mods right now with out the seeing the blue screen every other turn. Should we be punished or given a disadvantage because of this.

Some people have slower computers, or inferior graphics hardware, and the game runs slower on their machines. That doesn't mean we should artificially slow the game down for everyone else, just to be "fair".

The mods in question all just make the game easier and more enjoyable to play, without changing the results. Just like having a faster computer or a bigger monitor or a better video card.

I understad that...but what I am saying is that if the MOD is required to play then some of us might not be able to ENJOY our GOTM games and thereby stop playing.

I for one cant use the autolog mod for some reason. I am just happy to be able to play. Anything which will limit the GOTM to people who have the wizz-bang computers is wrong. (just to add I doubt the staff will do such a thing.)

If/when we do introduce a GOTM mod it will not be compulsory to use it all. The proof of concept testing being done in HoF right now allows components of the mod to be turned off, and this would be our objective too.

I am hoping to find the time to start the GOTM 03 next week and wanted to check something beforehand.

For the GOTM 02, as I had decided to settle on the starting spot, I was able to run some practice games having a good idea of the layout. But for the GOTM 03 I am strongly considering moving to another tile.

In order to run practice games with a similar layout, I would have to play the few initial turns, then save after founding my first city, then run my practice games. So my first session would be very short. Would that still be fine ?

Narakael

Is it legal, and if there is a difference moral, to play until the first spoiler thread conditions are met, read the first spoiler, and then decide how to finish the game (eg. between fast diplo, fast space race or milk)?

Is it legal, and if there is a difference moral, to play until the first spoiler thread conditions are met, read the first spoiler, and then decide how to finish the game (eg. between fast diplo, fast space race or milk)?

Definitely ok, both "legally" and "morally". If you follow the spoiler rules, then any information you get from the spoiler thread is fair game to use as you wish.

P.S. One exception would be if people post more in the spoiler thread than they are supposed to, you shouldn't use that information. Same as any information about the game posted improperly in non-spoiler threads.

This is not an exploit at all IMO since it is just a question of timing. You must still spend the same worker turns by chopping.

Right and there is a cost in that you waste worker moves by going to the same forest twice.

Interesting idea.

Narakael raises an interesting question. Can you recreate a map that is exactly the same as your map, to test out different starts?

My take on this is that it's OK before you open the save (i.e. using the picture from the pre-release thread), but not after you have played turns and exposed more of the map.

You are definately allowed to take a screenshot, and use an excel sheet to plot out your moves, but I don't think you should be allowed to create a precise copy of the map and play it out diffeernt ways.

If not at this stage (opening the save), then where would you draw the line? Once you have seen most of the map, can you recreate the game and play it out? That seems like cheating to me (and it would take forever).

Narakael raises an interesting question. Can you recreate a map that is exactly the same as your map, to test out different starts?

Yes.

Once you have seen most of the map, can you recreate the game and play it out? That seems like cheating to me (and it would take forever).

It seems perfectly fine to me. It's not as if the game will go exactly the same way---there are lots of random factors too.

Narakael raises an interesting question. Can you recreate a map that is exactly the same as your map, to test out different starts?

My take on this is that it's OK before you open the save (i.e. using the picture from the pre-release thread), but not after you have played turns and exposed more of the map.

You are definately allowed to take a screenshot, and use an excel sheet to plot out your moves, but I don't think you should be allowed to create a precise copy of the map and play it out diffeernt ways.

If not at this stage (opening the save), then where would you draw the line? Once you have seen most of the map, can you recreate the game and play it out? That seems like cheating to me (and it would take forever).

Define recreate? As long as you copy only the part of the map you've exposed, I don't see the problem...

Recreating the map may be useful for inexperienced players, but I doubt it will help the top players. They will already have their strategy in place before the map is fully explored.

Yes.



It seems perfectly fine to me. It's not as if the game will go exactly the same way---there are lots of random factors too.

You mean it would be ok to play the original save till you get a rough view of the world and the replay the game? Or do you mean only practice games with the same settings, but not "official" saved game?
Am I missing something? :confused:

You mean it would be ok to play the original save till you get a rough view of the world and the replay the game?
Absolutely not!

Or do you mean only practice games with the same settings, but not "official" saved game?
Putting words into the mouths of the posters, I think they are saying you can build another map that has the same characteristics as the parts of the competition one that you can see, but contains guesses for all the parts that you cannot see, and then use it for trial and error practice sessions.

I disagree with the posters who are condoning this, as I consider it to be counter the spirit of the competition. Your objective in doing it would be to build a rather complex simulator to use as a practice map. If its behaviour doesn't match that of the game map as you proceed it won't be much use to you. So, are you going to refine it after each move until it does? If and when it's behaviour does match that of the game, to within useful tolerances, then you have, by luck or by hard graft, created a fair copy of the game map. At that point you are effectively reloading the game each time you try a different move sequence using your practice map.

I disagree with the posters who are condoning this, as I consider it to be counter the spirit of the competition. Your objective in doing it would be to build a rather complex simulator to use as a practice map. If its behaviour doesn't match that of the game map as you proceed it won't be much use to you. So, are you going to refine it after each move until it does? If and when it's behaviour does match that of the game, to within useful tolerances, then you have, by luck or by hard graft, created a fair copy of the game map. At that point you are effectively reloading the game each time you try a different move sequence using your practice map.

I don't think this will work nearly as well as you seem to think. I think it's a huge effort to get at most a modest benefit. The hard part of playing well isn't understanding what the opponents will do, anyway. It's figuring out a plan for what you want to do to accomplish your goals.

We seem to have done just fine for 5 years without any rules about this sort of thing for Civ3 GOTM.

I don't really care though. It's not like I'm going to do this myself. I don't even have time to play the GOTM once.

I obviously expressed myself badly - blame the wee small hours of the morning.

My point is that anyone attempting such an emulation of the competition map is working against the spirit of the GOTM rules, since, *if* they achieved their objective, they would be reloading something close to the actual map.

I agree completely that any such effort is most likely to be wasted, but I would prefer not to encourage players even to try. I wasn't proposing that we add any rules.

My point is that anyone attempting such an emulation of the competition map is working against the spirit of the GOTM rules, since, *if* they achieved their objective, they would be reloading something close to the actual map.

Suppose I was able to do the same emulation and prediction of what the computer players will do, entirely with pencil and paper? Would that be ok? How about if I can do it entirely in my head?

I just don't see the difference between using the computer as an aid to try to predict what the opponents will do, and any other method of making such predictions. It's taking the available facts and generating a conclusion.

Reloading the actual game is not ok precisely because it gives you additional information that you don't have. Which, to me, is very different from just making the best use of the information that you do have.

I'm still steeped in Civ3. I will concede your point with respect to Civ4, and I suspect the game is the lesser for it.

In Civ3 you would be using a simulation engine that *does* know more than you do. If you set it up with enough known information, *and* get the initial conditions right then it will tell you what the AI would do in a way that is not possible on paper or in your head or in a spreadsheet. No matter how many investigations were done we never got to the bottom of the way the Civ3 AI behaves.

But my point is invalidated by the release of the Civ4 SDK. With full access to the AI algorithms you could now precisely replicate the AI decision-making outside of the game. Firaxis have opened the black box, and destroyed the mystery.

But my point is invalidated by the release of the Civ4 SDK. With full access to the AI algorithms you could now precisely replicate the AI decision-making outside of the game. Firaxis have opened the black box, and destroyed the mystery.

I do have some of the same concerns as you about the "open AI". Time will tell how this works out.

By the way, I think it would be possible, at least in principle, to build your own modified AI (call it the GOTM AI) using the SDK, and compile it into a library for players to download. Players then would play against the modified AI but wouldn't have access to its algorithms (except, in principle, by reverse-engineering the executable code).

But this sounds like way more trouble than it's worth.

Don't think it hasn't been considered ;)

You can wipe out the coastal cities of your "friend" by sailing a transport loaded with a 3rd party enemy unit into the city.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171604

You can wipe out the coastal cities of your "friend" by sailing a transport loaded with a 3rd party enemy unit into the city.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171604
Yes - obviously this is an exploit that is not allowed. :ack:

You can wipe out the coastal cities of your "friend" by sailing a transport loaded with a 3rd party enemy unit into the city.

Now that we have the AI code via the SDK, perhaps we should "improve" it so that it makes frequent use of this "tactic". :mischief:

I found this in another thread posted by Otomik, but it is worth asking.

If I capture a city I can gift it to another civ and ruin their economy with maintenance cost, if the city is far away from that civ. Also I can build a city in middle of a desert and do the same.

Is this allowed in GOTM?

If I capture a city I can gift it to another civ and ruin their economy with maintenance cost, if the city is far away from that civ. Also I can build a city in middle of a desert and do the same.

The AI players have been tweaked in successive patches to reject gifts of cities they don't want. I don't think this is a sensible strategy in 1.61. If you can make it work effectively, then we'll probably have to ban it, but for now I think the supposition is that it won't really help you.

Yeah - we're not going to ban that. I think that AI deals with it well enough. :)

There's an active thread on manipulating the AI into giving you more gpt in trades, by offering it gpt for nothing (or a resource), in order to increase the amount of money it thinks it has available for trading. Then you immediately sell it a resource for that larger amount. This doesn't gain you anything in the short term, but 10 turns later you can cancel the first deal and the AI isn't smart enough to respond by canceling the second deal.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173468

I've known about this for a while but I didn't talk about it because I didn't want to encourage it. :( Unfortunately, I think it does work pretty well, and it may be hard to fix.

Personally, I would favor banning this for GOTM, although the more subtle form of manipulation (where you offer gpt for one resource, take the gpt back for a different resource, then later cancel the first deal) is somewhat hard to define and regulate.

...

Personally, I would favor banning this for GOTM, although the more subtle form of manipulation (where you offer gpt for one resource, take the gpt back for a different resource, then later cancel the first deal) is somewhat hard to define and regulate.

One way to define the exploit would be not allowing gpt to go more than one way (at any given moment) in trades between you and an AI. That should cover all kinds of subsidies while allowing almost all "normal" trades (I think - prove me wrong).

Edit: "(at any given moment)"

There's an active thread on manipulating the AI into giving you more gpt in trades, by offering it gpt for nothing (or a resource), in order to increase the amount of money it thinks it has available for trading. Then you immediately sell it a resource for that larger amount. This doesn't gain you anything in the short term, but 10 turns later you can cancel the first deal and the AI isn't smart enough to respond by canceling the second deal.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173468

I've known about this for a while but I didn't talk about it because I didn't want to encourage it. :( Unfortunately, I think it does work pretty well, and it may be hard to fix.

Personally, I would favor banning this for GOTM, although the more subtle form of manipulation (where you offer gpt for one resource, take the gpt back for a different resource, then later cancel the first deal) is somewhat hard to define and regulate.

People can do what they like (obviously) in their own games. The main reason I spent so much time talking in the pro of this tactic is that I see no reason to ban it in group settings. I would encourage anybody who has not already done so to read that other thread. I have a very lengthy case why this should not be considered an exploit. After I wrote that, despite the replies it generated, I did not read a single thing that genuinely refuted the arguments I made. I did not appreciate being told "you've deluded yourself into thinking cheating is ok" (paraphrasing there), as I beleive my case is well laid out and logical, and I worked hard to cover all the bases.

The counter-arguments that followed looked to me to fall into two camps- the 'it's just obviously an exploit' and 'since the AI won't cancel "bad" deals, it's an exploit'. DaviddesJ is yet again making the latter case here. I already wrote in depth on the 'bad deal' theory, but people keep bringing it up without responding to what I specifically wrote. I won't outline my argument again here since I'd encourage folks to read the other thread.

The 'not intended by designers, therefore has to be an exploit' is also a specious argument. I don't see how the intent of the designers has any relevance. In the other thread I listed other practices that I doubt were intended but which we do all the time. If we know that procedure X increases our chances of winning over procedure Y, it seems obvious that we should do X. The designer's predilictions for Y have no bearing on the matter. By worrying about design intent we are adding an extra layer of rules to the game that are inherently not there. For an interesting read on that topic, I would examine this article (http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/).

Now I'm aware that if procedure X is so clearly beneficial to winning that it makes the game nearly pointless to play, then fine, ban it. However, I don't see how this particular practice fits into that category. Of course, this is highly subjective and I've already discussed that as well. But I'm irked by the idea of a set of players in authority deciding that another set is going to earn "too much" money by some particular method and prohibiting it (yes, yes, then don't play. I'd prefer trying to reason first...) My personal experience has not led this to be a genuinely game breaking ploy. In fact, as I mention elsewhere it takes a feature I'd never even be using at all and having fun with it. The expert players may do well enough that this appears game breaking to them, but I doubt most of us are at that level of play.

@Eggman: There seem to be two versions of your post in succession. Not sure which is the version you wanted to use, so I haven't removed one, but for readability, I suggest you do so.

Thnaks for the heads-up. I've been having troubles with my posts suddenly getting posted while I'm halfway through writing them.

Eggman, the reason these things should be banned is that anyone who wants to compete with you, is forced to copy what you do, or fall behind. That kills the idea of making comparisons. Two identical games need not be compared.

The 'not intended by designers, therefore has to be an exploit' is also a specious argument. I don't see how the intent of the designers has any relevance. It is relevant because the designers intended for a game that is balanced and offers many different strategies. By playing their errors, instead of their intentions, you are playing a different game than the rest of us wishes to play and for which we like to compare our experiences with each other.

Eggman, the reason these things should be banned is that anyone who wants to compete with you, is forced to copy what you do, or fall behind. That kills the idea of making comparisons. Two identical games need not be compared.

I've heard this argument from other players of other games, and it disproves itself. I'm not sure what to call it that doesn't give offense or imply that anybody using it is a weak player, but I'll call it the 'I want to be in a competition where I don't have to compete' school of thought.

Let's say we agree to play on the same map, but for whatever reason it is a fact that I am a better player than you are because of 'X'. Maybe it's micromanagement skills, or stategic planning, or tactics. 'X' means that the odds are I am going to outperform you in average circumstances. We'll assume to keep things simple that every game we play is under such circumstances. You're concerned that my use of certain techniques (I'll elaborate more on what it might be proper to call these later*) is going to force you to apply the same techniques and make our games the same. However, our games will not be the same since I still have 'X' in my corner. If you ban my techniques, the games are not the same because I still have 'X'. Changing the ruleset does not affect the skillsets of the player, the outcomes of the games are still going to be different. You gained no benefits aside from keeping weaker players weak because they are prevented from learning the techniques experts use. There's also no guarantee that a particular technique won't benefit the weaker player more than the expert. An expert might decide that under a set of circumstances, a technique provides marginal benefit and not employ it at all. The rookie might go for that marginal benefit and have a better performance than he would otherwise with not getting the benefit.

I don't know how to interpret 'forced (my emphasis) to copy what you do, or fall behind' as other than implying that people in a competitive setting have no responsibility to compete. Even if I'm just 'comparing' games, this is still a competition or I wouldn't be bothering to make a comparision. If you are seriously competing, then you are not 'forced' as you will do these things naturally because you are actively working to improve your play. If you are honestly trying to play 'for fun' then the results are supposed to be irrelevant (you only wanted to 'have fun', remember?) and you have no businsess telling other players what techniques need to come out of their toolboxes. It's amusing that this argument never goes away and is probably as old as time. It comes up in almost EVERY GAME EVER MADE. They wanted to ban the forward pass 100 years ago (http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1869-1910) when it popped up in football and they didn't like the curveball when it first came up in baseball 130 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball) either. I may not like being 'forced' to give preferential selection to the taller players (assuming fairly equal skill, obviously) when I pick my basketball team, but if that is what I need to do to compete, then that is what I do. Players who are competing use their skills to make the most of all the tools they have available, players who aren't competing, don't, and are likely to lose. That is how games work. It's true that somebody coming to these boards for the first time and jumping into the GoTM might be at a disadvantage. If they only wanted to 'have fun', then it won't matter. If they are serious about improving their game, then they will learn all the things we did by using these boards and other tools that are readily available.

For a minor, related point, go back to our game where I nearly always outperform you due to 'X'. 'X' is most likely an abstract technique, that no matter how well I explain it, it does not follow that you are going to be able to implement it as well as I do (Worker Stealing is a good example). Techniques like trade subsidies are easily explained and can be done by anybody, the inherenet skill level to pull it off successfully is far less. If the goal is to shrink the field between expert and non-expert out of some sense of fair play (which to me means you no longer have a real competition, see below), then I don't see the logic of banning moves that can be equally employed by all players and leaving both sides with techniques that only the expert is likely to use correctly.

Whether you agree or disagree is mainly going to depend on how you spin the whole idea of competitive play rather than my actual words. If you're one of those that feels a 'real ' competition means that both players have close to a 50% chance of winning, you're bound to find fault since no matter what I say, you're going to insist that we handicap experts (instead of the other option, help improve the play of the non-experts) by making it so they can't use all of their knowledge of the game. I'm in the camp that a real competition has the players making maximum use of all their abilities at all times. If this gives lopsided odds because I know 'X' and you don't, then fine. There's no reason to fault me for it. I find games will be more exciting if an underdog wins, and you'll have more opportunity to improve your play by seeing what I did that you didn't, than you will in a game cooked to be nearly identical. When I watched The Incredibles in the theatre, some people booed in the scene at the end where Daschle uses his super speed to come in 2nd place in the track race. I wholeheartily agree with this booing. If I take tools out of the expert's box to play with him, any victory I earn is diminished since I did not beat the expert at their best. If I have no real chance to beat the expert, then we should not be wasting our time in competition. GoTM already addresses this issue by having the different categories of the saved game for people to play and encouraging people to talk about their games even if they lose.


It is relevant because the designers intended for a game that is balanced and offers many different strategies.

You may be thinking that if you're 'forced' to follow what the expert does, there is less strategy. I don't have a hard and fast answer to this. But this is not a game like Street Fighter where the technique might be 'Always use player and use move [blank]', where you get predictable outcomes. In the case of Civ IV, the ultimate outcome of the game is not a foregone conclusion from using this particular technique. So I have to 'agree to disagree' on the idea that I have less strategy. I can say from personal experience that in this particular case only, I personally (individual results may vary) end up with [b]more strategy since I'm now using a feature of the game I had no reason to use before (AI trades). As for balance, I see no personal imbalance whatsoever. I've written at length in the other thread why it's fruitless to argue over how the AI should or should not be managing its trades, and how I don't see how the programmers could have reasonably been expected to come up with anything better (meaning this system is not an 'error'). In the response to my thread I've seen exactly 1 post by Malekithe hinting that an AI might have been genuniely 'harmed'. As of this writing I'm aware of no credible research into the long or short term consequences of burdening an AI with suddenly unsubsidized trades. Frankly, since this isn't something you can just fire up the WorldBuilder and check in a few minutes, I'm not sure how such research could be done. But as I point out in the other thread, I don't see why we care what happens to the AI in the first place. The main point of the game is to crush it. The counter-argument seems to go that since the AI doesn't 'counter' this strategy that it is unfair. To me this puts it in the same league as Worker Stealing- as evidenced in Nares' own article (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=174333), the AI does not know how to protect itself from this technique, but I don't hear anybody sticking up for the AI in this case. In fact, I'd even go out on a limb and say that Worker Stealing is more harmful than subsidies. Subsidies provide the most results later in the game when the AI players have more money and are well established; at this point, fiddling with their budgets will have less (but not no, obviously) impact on the game since it's most likely already half over or later. Stealing a Worker is an early game move designed to interfere with the AI's development and boost your own, it is by its nature a long-term benefit and therefore has more impact. The game is weighted towards giving the AI advantages, I don't see why we are shackled to treat it with some sense of fair play.


...you are playing a different game than the rest of us wishes to play and for which we like to compare our experiences with each other.

I understand this sentiment completely. It is the quintessential philosophy of the scrub as explained in Sirlin's article (http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/) (not written by me, if anybody wondered) that I reference in my previous post. But I don't think that 'we' includes everybody who might want to play GoTM. A simple solution is to keep adding brackets or making 'expert' and 'non-expert' versions, but I don't like solutions that divide people into camps. I see it as better not to ban techniques like this and allow everyone to play together. If you read my game write-up and decide that I do something you don't approve of under whatever imaginary ruleset you like to play under, all you have to do is disregard what I write and tell yourself I didn't really outperform you (if I did) since I didn't follow your rules. No muss no fuss. Meanwhile the serious, know every nut-and-bolt of the game experts still get a fair trial (or 'comparison', however you want to color it) amongst themselves since they didn't have to play handicapped.

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

* There's a lot of wasted space in the other thread because of the use of the word 'exploit'. I find use of the term unfortunate because it means different things to different people. I might live in a region rich in natural resources, in which case I might exploit them. Or I could exploit my natural singing talent and make millions. Neither of these neccessarily has any negative connotation. However, if I'm a sweatshop owner then I could exploit my workers and this is bad. However you bother to literally define 'exploit' (and more than one person did), as you apply it in the context of a computer game, more often than not the negative connotation of wrongdoing sticks to it. We usually think of the guy who uses 'exploits' as a 'cheater', i.e., somebody doing things they 'shouldn't'. I spent time there arguing that I don't see this technique as an 'exploit' because I don't see it as something I should inherently not be doing. I prefer the term 'technique' for what amounts to an essay here since I find it has less imagery that immediately comes to mind than the word 'exploit'. I can discuss a set of techniques without baggage regarding their origin or if they are 'cheats'. A bad technique can be declared so later on its own merits. I see no relevance in how a technique comes to be, the only worthy topic for discussion is the practical effect of the technique. If the technique is shown to remove most of the point of playing the game, then ban it based on that fact and not simply on its origins. The other thread has a lot of noise with people going over the nature and meaning of exploits and nobody talking about demonstrable effects in the game. It is really these effects we need to be discretely analyzing before we get around to talking about a ban.

I find games will be more exciting if an underdog wins, and you'll have more opportunity to improve your play by seeing what I did that you didn't, than you will in a game cooked to be nearly identical.

The point here isn't to be competitive. If it was, then there would be no argument. Everyone would use the city-killing 3rd party unit bug, and the "competition" would be to see who could bust all other cities fastest.

But that would lead to nearly identical games.

What I mean to say is that the whole intention is to promote diversity. In some instances, certain actions would promote a more uniform game between all players. Chop-rush, for example, was so strong as to almost necessitate a chop-rushed start. To an extent, post-nerf, it still does, but certainly there are cases when a decision must be made (health benefits/production vs "free" hammers).

In the case of the curveball or the forward pass, neither effectively eliminated diversity within that aspect of the sport (pitching or offense). One can make a case that, in football, offense was forever changed by the allowance of the forward pass. However, it did not eliminate the strength of a strong running game, or the usefulness of a short rush. In the case of the pitch, the curveball became one of many. In the case of forward pass, it became a portion of the offense (though even the forward pass has its own types of diversity).

As Ribbanah points out, there are some actions that lead to uniformity. This defeats the very purpose of what you suggest as being what makes competition interesting.

But I don't think that 'we' includes everybody who might want to play GoTM.

Definitely not. In fact, past discussions indicate that hardly any GOTM players agree with Ribannah's point of view. But, although his (her?) position is easily refuted, there are still some exploits that should be banned. Even Sirlin, in the article you approvingly refer to, says the same.

To me this puts it in the same league as Worker Stealing- as evidenced in Nares' own article, the AI does not know how to protect itself from this technique, but I don't hear anybody sticking up for the AI in this case. In fact, I'd even go out on a limb and say that Worker Stealing is more harmful than subsidies.

Worker stealing is certainly an exploit. I don't use it in my own personal games, for that reason. However, it's an exploit of a class that's difficult to ban in organized play. It's hard to see a feasible rule that says you can't attack the AI and take its workers. Where do you draw the line? So it's something that I think most people agree we have to live with, even though the game would be better if it weren't possible.

However you bother to literally define 'exploit' (and more than one person did), as you apply it in the context of a computer game, more often than not the negative connotation of wrongdoing sticks to it.

I think that's right---the word "exploit" refers to an undesirable technique, and has an inherently negative connotation. Some exploits should be banned, and some should not (for practical reasons), but all are things that would preferably not be in the game. But every sufficiently complicated game is going to have some exploits: loopholes or strategies that are effective but whose effects on gameplay are undesirable.

Take worker dogpiling in Civ3. It seems pretty clear that you wouldn't want to ban this. Yet it's a fairly dominant and degenerate late-game strategy, if allowed it has big consequences for the whole game. It seems quite clear to me that the rule against it was a plus for organized Civ3 play.

Worker stealing is certainly an exploit. I don't use it in my own personal games, for that reason. However, it's an exploit of a class that's difficult to ban in organized play. It's hard to see a feasible rule that says you can't attack the AI and take its workers. Where do you draw the line? So it's something that I think most people agree we have to live with, even though the game would be better if it weren't possible.

I'm abit confused about how this in particular is an exploit, per se. Rather than make assumptions, I'll just ask. Heck, I'll even provide some questions to make this easier. Is it an exploit because the AI will not steal Workers from you? Is it an exploit because the AI will not retaliate and kill you because it has superior forces (in terms of quality and quantity)? Is it an exploit because, if initiated early enough, the AI will accept peace if it loses one of its units? Or is it merely an exploit because you choose not to use it, and therefore it must not be "pure?"

I understand how it would be hard to construct a feasible rule against it, but I'm still confused as to how it is an exploit.

By the way, did you design or test the game? (seriously; not sarcastically) You seem to have a very pure view of how it should be played, which I assume comes from some very close association with its development. I'm just trying to understand where you gained this view.

Is it an exploit because the AI will not steal Workers from you? Is it an exploit because the AI will not retaliate and kill you because it has superior forces (in terms of quality and quantity)? Is it an exploit because, if initiated early enough, the AI will accept peace if it loses one of its units?

All of the above. It's an exploit (by my definition) because it provides a disproportionate advantage. It provides a disproportionate advantage because the AI doesn't defend sensibly against it, and responds stupidly. If the early DOW and worker steal triggered the AI to launch all-out military buildup and retaliation, it obviously wouldn't be very effective. But the AI is programmed so that it just accepts peace and then lets you steal a worker again.

It's detrimental to the game because it just means you have to give even higher handicaps to the AI to make the game challenging, if you use the strategy. From my point of view, the game is more fun if the human has relatively smaller handicaps with respect to the AI, but there are fewer loopholes. I think this is a common but not universal view.

By the way, did you design or test the game?

No. But you might see some moderate similarities between my views and, say, Sirian's (who did). [Note: I'm not claiming Sirian would endorse my views on this particular point, or any other.]

Eqqman, why are you so hard defending this isn't an exploit? What is your definition of an exploit? I ask because I want to know what "techniques" you think should be banned, if any. The 'technique' mentioned by DaveMcW above which was determined as an exploit and banned by ainwood, do you agree with that?

I do think this should be banned and is an exploit. At first, I couldn't finger exactly why and some things you always have a general feel for but can't explain. The fact that the AI is completely helpless to this is an important factor, IMO.

If the AI is helpless against the worker stealing technique as in the subsidizing trade, then that too is an exploit. But it seems that sometimes, Civs protect their workers from the start. Maybe it's a risk they take. I don't know if it's the leader trait or what factors come into play for the AI to decide that. Also, the success of the technique depends upon many other factors (being able to find workers, protect the worker on the return, being able to end war, etc) but even then, it is still somewhat of an exploit.

But with the trade subsidies, basically a loophole in the AI programming was found and is being exploited. And there is no possible way for the AI to adapt (with the worker-stealing, the AI later will protect all their workers, or at least most do).

A loophole was found, using subsidies, that overrides the AI's programming on how much money they should spend on trades given their current GDP/etc. It handicaps the AI's gold/research in a way they are completely helpless.

You may have no problems using a bug, glitch or an exploit in a game, but recognize the common way in how the term 'exploit' is being used here. When playing NFL2k5, there was a 'glitch' in which you could call a defensive play and choose a defensive end and reposition him and then attack and get a sack almost every time. It was because the offensive linemen were helpless because of how the AI was programmed in who they should guard and how. It's not a bug per se, but using that is definitely an exploit.

One thing in many football games that some consider an exploit (some disagree) is when they make a quarterback ridiculously fast that defending against them is nearly impossible. Vick, as incredibly fast as he is in real life, cannot do the things they made him do in video games (and Randall Cunningham and others before Vick). But when playing a game (in person or online), many groups of people would have rules stating you can't play as that team or you can't use that player in certain ways. The reason is because of the imbalance and faulty way the game was created. One game, you couldn't play with the Ravens' defense. The game the designers created had flaws and as a community, we agreed on rules on some of them (and some had more controversy).

Here, the trade-subsidy is a clever technique indeed. It definitely uses some of the strategy open to the player (trading resources) but goes beyond just that. It finds a hole in the programming of the AI and exploits it. It's not just exploiting a strategy any Civ can try (CS slingshot), or finding strengths and weaknesses about leadership attributes, finding a clever way to go through the tech tree, etc. It's finding a loophole in the AI programming. You may be fine with using it, but I don't see how you can't see that it's an exploit.

Mostly good stuff...

...Here, the trade-subsidy is a clever technique indeed. It definitely uses some of the strategy open to the player (trading resources) but goes beyond just that. It finds a hole in the programming of the AI and exploits it. It's not just exploiting a strategy any Civ can try (CS slingshot), or finding strengths and weaknesses about leadership attributes, finding a clever way to go through the tech tree, etc. It's finding a loophole in the AI programming. You may be fine with using it, but I don't see how you can't see that it's an exploit.

I would argue that any game in which your opponent is an AI reduces to an attempt to find loopholes and ways of exploiting that AI. How do you beat a person at chess? You find a weakness in his play. How do you beat an artificial opponent in chess? You find a weakness in his programming. Why do we use stacks of death in Civ 4? Why do we reach friendly relations with an AI and then basically ignore any defenses against them until we backstab them? It's because we're able to infer and find weaknesses in their game, their programming.

However, precisely because this is a game, and involves friendly competition (one of the defining characteristics of a game), we're able to decide which exploits we will allow and which we will not while operating within the confines of friendly competition. This is when abuse of an exploit can turn into cheating. If man has created rules that outlaw a particular behavior, breaching those rules (in the context of a competition) is considered cheating. The important fact is, absent the man-made rules, the simple act of exploitation cannot be considered cheating.

So really, what this thread attempts to define is those acts of exploitation that will be deamed cheating for the purposes of this competition. There can and will exist exploits that will not achieve this status, for a variety of reasons. The reasons for not banning an exploit can take many forms. It could be deemed so difficult or take enough time to enact as to be considered "strategy" by those organizing the competition. It could be ineffectual to the point of giving no decided advantage to those who choose to engage in the exploit. Or, it could simply be difficult to define or enforce. Stacks of death, would fall into this last category, as would many of the other things that numerous people feel the AI should be able to handle better. Worker stealing belongs in this category as well, along with, in my opinion, the trading exploit.

Or, it could simply be difficult to define or enforce. Stacks of death, would fall into this last category, as would many of the other things that numerous people feel the AI should be able to handle better. Worker stealing belongs in this category as well, along with, in my opinion, the trading exploit.

How is, "Give extra gpt to the AI, so that you can trade for more gpt in return, and then cancel the first deal asap," hard to define?

How is, "Give extra gpt to the AI, so that you can trade for more gpt in return, and then cancel the first deal asap," hard to define?

In your definition, you're including intent. Is it still an exploit minus the inent to benefit? If, through some serendipitous means, I manage to get more from an AI than I otherwise would, is that still considered an exploit? Say I had signed a peace treaty recently, gifting him some amount of GPT for 10 turns. Then, I trade a resource to him for more GPT than he would have had without the GPT deal. My intent may have just been to renew pre-war trade deals. The effect was I got more GPT from him than I would have. To boot, the peace treaty deal is guaranteed to expire through no involvement of the player.

In my opinion, it runs into similar problems to the worker steal, you have to gauge the inent of the "exploiter". Any attempt to completely ban the behavior, would necessarily restrict otherwise "legal" scenarios. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned, just that I've struggled to come up with a suitably narrow definition for the physical manifestation of the behavior in question. Many behaviors can be defined through intent, but intent is a very difficult thing to police. It doesn't work very well when creating a rule-set (and it often results in laughable enforcement, ie. Basketball's intentional foul rules).

In your definition, you're including intent. Is it still an exploit minus the inent to benefit?

The "exploit" is giving the AI gpt for no benefit, in order to get it to pay you more. Intent is irrelevant: what matters is that you're giving the AI gpt. The definition is clear, imho. If you happen to be giving gpt to the AI for some actual reason, and you get a benefit where it gives you more gpt in return, that's not a problem.

What I mean to say is that the whole intention is to promote diversity. In some instances, certain actions would promote a more uniform game between all players. Chop-rush, for example, was so strong as to almost necessitate a chop-rushed start. To an extent, post-nerf, it still does, but certainly there are cases when a decision must be made (health benefits/production vs "free" hammers).

As I just said (maybe not directly enough), I don't think this particular technique removes diverse strategies, but creates them. The primary benefit is to put more cash in my pocket, which I can then use to employ in the strategy of my choice. There are few strats I can attempt mid- to late- game that won't benefit from me having more money in my pocket. Sure, 'everybody' will be 'forced' to use this method to get themselves extra money. Then they will use this money to do whatever they like, giving more diversity than you would have if everybody was broke.

Eqqman, why are you so hard defending this isn't an exploit? What is your definition of an exploit?

I already said why in my lengthy footnote, and I no longer have a definiton for that word nor do I care what anybody else chooses to use for a definition. Getting into the nature of exploitation was a mistake I made in the other thread that I regret now. All that matters to me is that the game has certain techniques you can use to facilitate play, which may or may not warrant banning by players, that should be discussed on a case by case basis.

If you want to know why I'm working hard to defend this particular technique,

1) it makes the game more enjoyable for me to play, and
2) does not make the game so easy for me to play that I am no longer challenged.

As an example, I'm still unable to win the game at Monarch level. It seems to me something truly ban-worthy would be egregious enough that any crappy player can be a decent or great player, not one that helps medicore players be only slightly less mediocre. I'm highly concerned about a group of well-intentioned players complaining to Firaxis that they need to 'fix' this, which has ramifications well beyond the game of the month. You can't very well tell people to 'do whatever you want in your own games' when you've taken that option away from them in a patch.

I ask because I want to know what "techniques" you think should be banned, if any

I'll say there are some things that do seem inappropriate to use in a community setting and leave it at that. I'm not going to say more because I don't want to get boxed into a 'you're against 'X', therefore you should also be against 'Y' ' argument. I want to discuss this based on its own merits- I'm not really a black-and-white outlook guy, things should be kept to a case-by-case basis.

It handicaps the AI's gold/research in a way they are completely helpless.

Again, some people are making these statements with NO hard data whatsoever. Please do not read ANY hostility into this text that cannot accurately convey my tone of voice or body language. How many games have you played where you actually used this technique and tried to squeeze every coin out of it? What was the demonstrable impact on the AI? What was the demonstrable impact on you? Did you win faster than you normaly do? Was it significantly faster? Was this a Noble win or a higher level? I've given explanations in the other thread as to why the 'completely helpless' theory is not true. And I am still waiting for somebody to participate in this aspect of the conversation. This is the conversation that will benefit people reading the boards, not further esoteric discussions on the meaning of the e-word that go nowhere. I suspect most people claiming 'completely helpless' are just talking out of their *** and have no idea what the answers to the above questions are. Besides which, it is a sweeping generalization that is going to be nearly impossible to prove. I'm already convinced it's false; when I have AI players that get their GPT back in the plus column the next turn after I pull the subsidies, you just can't come to me saying how much I harmed them. If you want to pull up a saved game where you got the AI so far in debt that all its military units went on strike and you rolled over their now empty cities, then at last we've got some hard evidence to discuss. My follow up question will be: how easy is this to reproduce? In my opinion ban-worthy techniques are usually ones that can be done by players of any skill level at nearly any difficulty setting with nearly any map settings. If it takes expert-level play to really put the screw on, then less reason to ban it.

...that overrides the AI's programming on how much money they should spend on trades given their current GDP/etc.

I don't want to repeat myself ("too late!", the audience cries) but I'll very briefly summarize points I made in the other thread:

1) How much an AI player 'should' pay for a resource is completely subjective. Calculating this price involves numerous variables, one of which is the most tricky of all: opinion. There is really no correct answer to what is the right price, so I don't approve of banning a technique because people disagree on what the 'right' answer is.

2) Assuming 1) was not true and there was a correct price, it is infeasible to program the AI to keep this cash on hand every turn in the hopes that it can spend it on a trade. Even harder if the AI wants multiple resources. It is more of a screw to force the AI to keep cash on hand to pay whatever you think is the proper price than to have the AI spend time in a deficit. The programmers wrote code to allow the AI to pay a 'good' price for resources, which because of the inherently flawed trade system I cannot access. I'm dammed if I do or dammed if I don't. Choosing to use subsidies, I violate the 'intent' of the AI's budget. No subsidies, I can't participate in the intent to have the AI pay good prices. I'm curious as to how often the AI retains the cash to pay the max price on its own. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say nearly never- maybe 1% or less than the time. I've certainly yet to see it. Maybe you can catch it early game when the max price is low anyway because you haven't built up enough friendship.

So the summary is, in my opinion this is a technique I can use to fix a part of the game that is broken. I see a difference between this and the football example you give, but others probably don't. In situations like this, one side has little chance to convince the other. But just because you can't convince me doesn't mean I'm not open minded. People like to accuse others of not being open minded just because they are unconvinced. Should anybody start producing actual data to support terms like 'game-breaking' or 'completely helpless AI' I can't wait to take a look at it. But enough already with going around and around on the meaning of the e-word.

The "exploit" is giving the AI gpt for no benefit, in order to get it to pay you more. Intent is irrelevant: what matters is that you're giving the AI gpt. The definition is clear, imho. If you happen to be giving gpt to the AI for some actual reason, and you get a benefit where it gives you more gpt in return, that's not a problem.

The other problem with that rule: Benefit is too subjective and open to interpretation. Rules need objective measures in order to have meaning. I could argue that you are, by the nature of the exploit, benefitting greatly though your gift to the AI. The benefit is: The AI has more money on hand. You run into the problem of having to define what it means to "benefit" from a trade.

Now, you could say that the exploit occurs when the only effect of an individual trade is an increase in the GPT available to the AI. However, there is always the (incidental, in the case of the explot) additional effect of increased diplomatic points. Now, we could possibly outlaw the use of GPT gifts to the AI. I, personally, have never come across an occasion where it would be useful, and wouldn't complain were that rule to be enacted. You could also outlaw gifting GPT to the AI the same turn you create a deal involving the receipt of GPT. That nearly shuts the window on the possiblilty for exploit, making an attempt very risky. In this case, the time relationship is serving as the substitute for intent. The assumption is: If they occur close enough in time, the intent must be exploitation. It could still outlaw some otherwise legal behavior, but those situations are so few and far between as to be virtually non-existent.

I'm also not entirely sold on the efficacy of the exploit. I've used it to some effect in a couple of games. The only time it had a noticable benefit was when the game's outcome was already a foregone conclusion. But then again, maybe I should move up to Deity and give it a shot there. Maybe then it could actually have some impact on the outcome of the game. I have certainly been unable to cripple an AI anytime prior to controlling well over 30% of the available land (and resources). It did, in the case of the most recent game of the month, speed my victory by *maybe* half a dozen turns. If that is grounds for banning the exploit, then so be it, but there are many other exploits (chopping bug) that have a much greater impact.

I'm also not entirely sold on the efficacy of the exploit. I've used it to some effect in a couple of games. The only time it had a noticable benefit was when the game's outcome was already a foregone conclusion. But then again, maybe I should move up to Deity and give it a shot there. Maybe then it could actually have some impact on the outcome of the game. I have certainly been unable to cripple an AI anytime prior to controlling well over 30% of the available land (and resources). It did, in the case of the most recent game of the month, speed my victory by *maybe* half a dozen turns. If that is grounds for banning the exploit, then so be it, but there are many other exploits (chopping bug) that have a much greater impact.

Thank you for mentioning this. This is the bottom-line issue we need to be discussing.

The other problem with that rule: Benefit is too subjective and open to interpretation.

I didn't think it was ambiguous. You get a benefit from a trade when you get something in return. Giving gpt to the AI (either for nothing, or as part of a deal where you offer more gpt than the minimum that it would accept) is not a benefit. I guess you could claim that you're giving gpt to the AI for the diplomatic benefits, but I've never seen or heard of anyone doing that; I don't think it's a serious argument.

As I just said (maybe not directly enough), I don't think this particular technique removes diverse strategies, but creates them. The primary benefit is to put more cash in my pocket, which I can then use to employ in the strategy of my choice.

If there were a special key sequence you could hit to gain 100 gold, that would also put cash in your pocket that you could use to exercise more strategic options. It wouldn't be good, though.

As an example, I'm still unable to win the game at Monarch level.

So play at Prince level. Why is it more fun to you to take advantage of this loophole, and then give the AI a higher handicap (Monarch instead of Prince) to compensate? Fewer loopholes and less handicap is clearly better, imho, if it results in the same level of challenge.

How many games have you played where you actually used this technique and tried to squeeze every coin out of it? What was the demonstrable impact on the AI? What was the demonstrable impact on you? Did you win faster than you normaly do? Was it significantly faster?

I don't see why it matters. If it's very little help, then your arguments are that much weaker, because you say you don't want it banned so that it can help you win. If it doesn't help you much, then what's the strength of that argument?

In my opinion ban-worthy techniques are usually ones that can be done by players of any skill level at nearly any difficulty setting with nearly any map settings. If it takes expert-level play to really put the screw on, then less reason to ban it.

I think this is exactly wrong. If the technique is primarily useful to very expert players (and some of the Civ3 exploits fell into precisely this category), that's all the more reason to ban it. The ban doesn't affect the large majority of players, and the expert players would all (well, almost all) rather compete with each other on an equal basis without using major loopholes.

Banning techniques that are accessible and valuable to average or novice players is more problematic, because there's a larger number of people who are affected, and they are generally less knowledgeable about the game and find it more difficult to keep track of what they are and aren't allowed to do. One of the main arguments against adding banned exploits for the GOTM is precisely that it makes it harder to draw in new (inexperienced) players.

I don't see why it matters. If it's very little help, then your arguments are that much weaker, because you say you don't want it banned so that it can help you win. If it doesn't help you much, then what's the strength of that argument?


That is the argument. With a low impact there's no point in banning it. Some critics are claiming that the impact is big; in particular, that the AI is somehow being crippled, but nothing is coming out to back up these claims.

I don't see how the fact that you need it to win at Monarch makes forcing everyone to do as you do a good idea.

Start playing the game instead of the exploits, and you will be able to win at Monarch soon enough. And if some level of difficulty stays too hard for you: that's why we have them in the first place, to give everyone the opportunity to enjoy the game at their level of preference.

I don't see how the fact that you need it to win at Monarch makes forcing everyone to do as you do a good idea.

Start playing the game instead of the exploits, and you will be able to win at Monarch soon enough. And if some level of difficulty stays too hard for you: that's why we have them in the first place, to give everyone the opportunity to enjoy the game at their level of preference.

This comment seems inappropriate. Since I've stated that I haven't won, the fact that I 'need it to win' is obviously not true. I also don't follow how NOT banning the technique forces anybody to play the way I do. I don't see how what you've said here has any bearing on whether or not this technique should be prohibited in GoTM.

With a low impact there's no point in banning it.

I disagree. As I said, if the benefit is low (most of the time) then that works in favor of banning it (if the other factors support that). Some previously banned exploits fall into precisely this category: they are only occasionally useful at all, and that makes them easy to ban because most of the time no one is affected at all (and if you are in the case that would be affected, then you definitely know it).

@malekithe: I'm not so concerned about enforcing the rules. Following the rules should be about integrity. I can have two computers, have cIV running on one and anytime I am curious about something, make a save. Then run the save in the other computer so it never shows up that I've replayed the turns. There are many ways to "cheat" that are completely undetectable. Even real laws have loopholes. We have to entrust the players to follow the spirit of the rules the community has placed. Of course there will always be some that break the rules, but that's not reason enough to not have them.

@Eqqman: When I say helpless, I don't mean you automatically cripple them. I hate to use another football analogy, but that's what I know. Anyway, some teams/coaches script their first 15 plays of the game. Now, if the quarterback didn't have any option of audibling the play and the defense somehow found the list, you would say the offense is helpless. Of course, if the offense is an NFL team and the defense is a high school team, it wouldn't make a difference. But it's still a type of exploit (to steal signals, plays, etc).

The outmanuever is not on the field of play. It's coming up with some trick outside the common bounds of competition for that edge.

@malekithe, Eqqman: Programmers make AI all the time that they can't beat. Whether it's a simple game like Chess or more complicated. But using a constraint on the AI (not being able to break deals even after your gold drops or not recognizing that disparity of income and trade) is definitely finding a loophole that has little to do with finding a weakness in strategy or otherwise.

It's not critical to me whether it's banned or not. Just stating my position. All subject to change with new information of course.

I've heard this argument from other players of other games, and it disproves itself. I'm not sure what to call it that doesn't give offense or imply that anybody using it is a weak player, but I'll call it the 'I want to be in a competition where I don't have to compete' school of thought.

Let's say we agree to play on the same map, but for whatever reason it is a fact that I am a better player than you are because of 'X'. Maybe it's micromanagement skills, or stategic planning, or tactics. 'X' means that the odds are I am going to outperform you in average circumstances. We'll assume to keep things simple that every game we play is under such circumstances. You're concerned that my use of certain techniques (I'll elaborate more on what it might be proper to call these later*) is going to force you to apply the same techniques and make our games the same. However, our games will not be the same since I still have 'X' in my corner. No, that is not my concern at all. My concern is that I cannot compare my strategy and skill to alternative strategies and skills if the alternatives are tainted. My more important concerns are that because of that, the interesting players will stop competing, and a whole generation of new players will not be able to enjoy the game to the fullest.
Furthermore, I am NOT concerned that you might in any way be a better player than I am (if that mattered at all to me, which it doesn't). Because you rely on exploits, you will simply never have an 'X'. (By the way, the difference between a good and a poor player is never an 'X'. It is always the attitude.)

... It's amusing that this argument never goes away and is probably as old as time. It comes up in almost EVERY GAME EVER MADE. That is correct. There are always exploit seekers, and therefore we will always need rules to prevent them spoiling the game for the rest of us.

It is relevant because the designers intended for a game that is balanced and offers many different strategies. You may be thinking that if you're 'forced' to follow what the expert does, there is less strategy. I don't have a hard and fast answer to this. Not the expert, but the exploiter.
Not just less strategy, but also fewer tactics, poorer immersement, less replay value, etc.
There is no rebuttal to this, period. This is what it all comes down to.

I've written at length in the other thread why it's fruitless to argue over how the AI should or should not be managing its trades, and how I don't see how the programmers could have reasonably been expected to come up with anything better I know that you don't see that, and you probably never will see things like that if you keep your present approach to gaming. So, you may just need to trust the game programmers / designers and the experienced players on this.

Since I've stated that I haven't won, the fact that I 'need it to win' is obviously not true. It is, it just isn't enough yet. You'll need more exploits. Now instead of that, if you didn't spend so much effort on exploits but instead played the game as intended, you could probably have mastered Monarch level already. It's not THAT hard.

I also don't follow how NOT banning the technique forces anybody to play the way I do. Yes, I noticed that.

Furthermore, I am NOT concerned that you might in any way be a better player than I am. Because you rely on exploits, you will simply never have an 'X'.

If I gave offense for implying I genuinely thought I was better than you or anybody else I apologize. I was merely creating an example, in the future I'll cast myself in the role of the weaker player.

It's presumptuous of you to assume anything on how I play. Just because I enjoy fooling around with subsidies doesn't prevent me from trying to improve my play across the board. Being unsuccessful at my current goals doesn't mean I won't be in the future whether I continue to use this or not. Saying I 'rely' on anything is an untrue assumption on your part. The truth is I don't rely on much since I seldom successfully get strategies explained by experts to work for me on a consistent basis- my games almost never start out the same way twice since I'm always trying different things to find something that works for me.

There is no rebuttal to this, period.

The rebuttal is that making this statement doesn't make it true. This is just like other issues such as the existence of God or the validity of the Iraq war. People on either side will go to their graves convinced they are right. If you want to go on telling me I'm absolutely wrong and you're absolutely right I won't tell you to do otherwise, a courtesy some folks on this forum don't seem to think I deserve. And naturally, I don't deserve it since I'm absolutely wrong and they are absolutely right!

It's presumptuous of you to assume anything on how I play. You have been telling us how you play all along. I don't have to assume anything.

The rebuttal is that making this statement doesn't make it true. It doesn't have to, it was already true before I told you. I have also told you how these things work, and how you can improve your own experience and enjoyment. More that that I cannot do for you, and in the end it is up to the people running this competition to protect it.

As I understand the trading strategy its about getting the AI to pay their maximum for every resource you trade to them; you can argue its an exploit or you can argue that its simply a way of maximising your benefits from trade.
If the designers are that bothered about it then at some point they could add diplo penalties for 'you're ripping us off' in the same way you currently get diplo bonusses for the ai ripping you off. If the Gotm team think its borderline they'll ban it from Gotm.
Until such time its down to individual players to decide wether they want to use this strategy in their games in the same way that worker stealing is not compulsory (and neither are stacks of doom).

This is about letting the AI pay MORE than their maximum.

If the Gotm team think its borderline they'll ban it from Gotm.

That's exactly what this thread is about---discussing whether particular exploits should be banned from GOTM.

If the Gotm team think its borderline they'll ban it from Gotm.
Not necessarily. If a technique is borderline it means it probably isn't a game breaker. As a rule we would rather NOT ban things. We don't want a rule book as long as War and Peace that no one bothers to read, and we don't want to second guess the game design unless there's a clear-cut case fo doing so.

This is about letting the AI pay MORE than their maximum.

That statement misrepresents the argument. There are, in actuality, two maximums at work. One is determined by available funds. The second is determined by size of economy and diplomatic relationship. There is no way I know to get around the latter maximum. Furthermore, in gifting money to the AI, you actually increase the former maximum. So, it can be safely said that no exploit allows an AI to pay more than they can or will, their maximum so to speak. That being said, the ability of the player to increase the former maximum is what could potentially be considered an exploit. The fact that the latter maximum stays in place prevents this from being completely game-breaking.

Taking the ego out of the argument...

it seems like the solution from the AI's standpoint is to have the AI ignore income from "questionable" sources (like other civs). This forces the AI to stay within its budget (wish we could do the same).

...jumping into the argument of egos...

There's nothing that prohibits players from being similarly crippled by making the same types of choices. Have you ever expanded too quickly and had to endure an entire AGE of having your units forcibly disbanded? :) If you're a large trading partner for an AI civ and you change to Mercantilism, doesn't this choke the life out of a civ that depends upon the income? I'm not sure I see a distinction between these techniques. The intent argument probably came closest without judging the debating poster.

On the topic of worker stealing: You could argue that the AI is inappropriately naive in the early game and does not protect itself (or its workers) adequately against a player fixated on their inevitable subjugation. A player, by contrast, knows many of the limits to which they can push an AI and are aware of circumstances under which its a reasonable risk to have unprotected workers (or cities) whereas an AI can NEVER have this knowledge (unless the player is eliminated and then who cares?).

Worker stealing (peon killing?) can be totally crippling but it sure seems like a legitimate war strategy. Eliminate the infrastructure and defeat is inevitable. And this is encouraged in-game with pillaging. Again, the solution would seem to be to have the AI protect their workers and cities better.

---

While I'm on my soapbox, I want to vent about barbarians on islands that guard goodie huts. The game is designed in such a way that the unit you want to discover the goodie hut and pretty much the only unit you can transport there in the middle game by caravel, the explorer, is completely unable to pop the hut. You can't draw the AI off it, because it treats the hut as a resource which it wil only abandon when a threat against a city trumps it. Naturally, the explorer is unable to effect this threat, so you've got a catch-22.

Pretty good evidence that the designers are not omniscient.

---

Good topics guys. Keep it clean.

I think maelkithe sums up my thoughts on this issue i.e. minor exploit, not major exploit. If AlanH reckons its borderline and that Gotm only want to ban major exploits ( a position I certainly endorse) then for me its a closed issue.

You said we would ban it if it's a borderline case.

I was careful not to declare a position on *this* case, and was simply pointing out that we would tend *not* to ban borderline cases in general.

Alah H: it was not my intention to put words in your mouth or pre-suppose your (or anyone else's) position on this or any other matter. If that's how it came across then I apologise.

No problem, I was only clarifying my earlier post :D

Should "Perpetual Anarchy" be removed from the "List of allowed & disallowed exploits & strategies", since it no longer seems to be effective?

Should "Perpetual Anarchy" be removed from the "List of allowed & disallowed exploits & strategies", since it no longer seems to be effective?
Probably. I didn't update it for the latest patch, actually....

Suppose I was able to do the same emulation and prediction of what the computer players will do, entirely with pencil and paper? Would that be ok? How about if I can do it entirely in my head?

I just don't see the difference between using the computer as an aid to try to predict what the opponents will do, and any other method of making such predictions. It's taking the available facts and generating a conclusion.

Reloading the actual game is not ok precisely because it gives you additional information that you don't have. Which, to me, is very different from just making the best use of the information that you do have.

You could, for example, take the game as you have it at 1AD, generate your fake game, then run through a bunch of different ways of seeing what you can do to guarantee that you get Liberalism first. This isn't really practical, but it's theoretically possible.

You could, for example, take the game as you have it at 1AD, generate your fake game, then run through a bunch of different ways of seeing what you can do to guarantee that you get Liberalism first. This isn't really practical, but it's theoretically possible.

I don't think that's even theoretically possible. Since I don't know what's in the AI cities, I can't predict---even in theory---how fast they will get Liberalism.

I do think this should be banned and is an exploit. At first, I couldn't finger exactly why and some things you always have a general feel for but can't explain. The fact that the AI is completely helpless to this is an important factor, IMO.

So... building lots of Modern Armor is an exploit? Attacking the AI across an ocean is an exploit? The AI is completely helpless to a lot of things. Is switching religions to make it so an AI is less unhappy with you and will trade with you an exploit too?

I can't help noticing that since the practice started of people posting sample games that are edited to give an identical start to the actual game (within the view of the preview screenshot), discussions in the pre-game thread seem to have been steadily getting more and more detailed - to the point now where there's a post (by Strobe) in the GOTM8 pre-game discussion that gives detailed step-by-step instructions all the way for completing the CS slingshot on such a map.

I can't help wondering whether this is starting to go seriously against the spirit of the GOTMs: I totally understand people's desire to pass on advice, but it seems we're hitting the point where people can--in effect--pre-play something that's near-identical to the GOTM for the earliest part of the game. And now with level of detail the discussion is hitting, it's like people don't even have to play their own game for the actual GOTM, they can just--during much of the ancient era--play the game that's been posted up.

There's a particular problem here in that, barring something really extreme just out of view of the starting location and given the kind of start location revealed by the GOTM8 pre-game screenshot, the CS stringshot strategy doesn't depend very much on any information that isn't visible - so in this case you can pretty much have your city research/building/worker action strategy all sorted for you right up to around 1500BC.

I appreciate that for obvious reasons we don't want to keep introducing new restrictions on GOTMs but I am starting to think the pre-game discussion of GOTMs is reaching a level that is bordering on what I'd think of as cheating - and ought not to be allowed.

Thoughts anyone?

(edited for a couple of sentences that looked ambiguous when I read them back)

barring something really extreme just out of view of the starting locationWho's to say there isn't?

I don't play this game, so I can speak from a position of supreme ignorance, but if it can be scripted to 1500 BC just on the basis of the information in the opening screenshot then it seems to me that something's gone out of the game since Civ3.

But if it's that predictable and mechanistic, why shouldn't all players get the same starting script? All of the information is available to everyone, and if players want to divulge their methods for optimising the opening turns then so be it. Players still have to be able to deal with the unexpected coming out of the fog, and if there's none of that, the real game starts at 1500 BC.

My €0.02

It will be interesting to see if an improvement in the level of pregame discussion correlates to an improvement in GOTM scores.

I appreciate that for obvious reasons we don't want to keep introducing new restrictions on GOTMs but I am starting to think the pre-game discussion of GOTMs is reaching a level that is bordering on what I'd think of as cheating - and ought not to be allowed.

If people want to follow someone else's script, instead of making their own decisions, it doesn't bother me. They still have to make all of the decisions relating to everything that appears when they actually start playing. My guess is that there are few people who just want to follow someone else's script, anyway.

I like the fact that people play practice games and post their discoveries. It puts those of us who don't have the time to play multiple practice games, on a more equal footing. I don't think it would be better to bar the postings, and thus give an even bigger "advantage" to those who do a lot of practice with sample games.

If a change were needed, I hope it would be in the direction of reducing the pre-game information (e.g., censoring the screenshot to give less information than what will be visible at start, or just selecting start positions with a bias toward those that reveal less of the map), rather than cutting down on the discussion, which I think is one of the most interesting aspects of the GOTM.

... the GOTM8 pre-game discussion that gives detailed step-by-step instructions all the way for completing the CS slingshot on such a map.
[snip]
Thoughts anyone?


Before I respond, I'd like to say that I admire the tact with which you raised this concern and the intellect behind it. While I'm pretty certain that I don't have the definitive answer for Civ IV, I do have a solid background in several peer games that have bearing on the topic of internet community and game play.

I've been a semi-professional chess player, a serviceable tournament bridge player, and a strong, but casual Magic: the Gathering player. All of these sports have had responded differently to emerging internet technologies and the evolving community.

In chess, my strengths were tactical, rather than strategic, and this put me at a disadvantage against players who were more committed to mastering opening variations. That style of play did not appeal to me and I left chess largely because I felt I couldn't improve much without dedicating the rest of my life to opening game theory. I can't, in good conscience, argue that the players of the other school were inferior, cheating, or 'bad'; just different. In the end, we had access to the same pieces, the same board, and the same resources. As an aside, Kasparov's use of the internet for Kasparov vs. the world was a totally engaging experience, not unlike the SGOTM. I hope that people continue to do this because this kind of sharing produces refinement from diversity and is cool for converting specators to participants. Moreover, it challenges designers to stay on their toes and develop better games.

In Magic: the Gathering, I found myself on the other side of the equation. I was drawn to the game because I could choose my starting pieces to fit my personal style and pit myself against others in a more tactical game. However, online resources like theDojo made it possible for poor deck designers (strategists) to cover this weakness and construct tournament caliber decks and generally school my innovative decks; often with designs to which I had contributed but not refined to perfection. It was disappointing that I couldn't remain competitive in a sport that seemed well suited to me and I certainly resented not having the time to invest to compete. My personal sense of honor did not equate to what was fair nor did I have the right to judge those who played differently than I.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun-Tzu

Every competitive environment has a barrier to entry of which mastering the fundamentals is but the first step. Mastering your resources and preparing is the process that forever evolves in every walk of life. Learn it, love it, live it :)

---

The Civ IV GOTM rules impose some conditions for fairness that encourage the behavior you're questioning.

In a game of "touch-move", we're not supposed to reload or replay errors in game-play even if they are clearly against our intent. Lazy play / game play examples include dragging a unit to a wrong square, failing to wake a unit, moving the wrong unit because the game lags and cycles units oddly, or using slavery to whip oracle only to have the game announce afterwards that someone else has just built it. Preparing helps avoid these kinds of mistakes.

Strong chess players routinely look several moves ahead. Civ calculations are more complex and there are many more variations. Someone else in this thread argued effectively that there's only a subjective difference in the motives behind using a piece of paper, a spreadsheet, or a world-builder simulation. In no way does this latter simulation even come close to a real model, due to the extensive variation unavailable to players. The builder can artificially handicap or enhance civilizations, choose appropriate opposition, punish certain game-styles, or modify victory conditions. You only see about 20 or so tiles of a thousand, you don't know who you have to race, and you always have to deal with the evil random number generation. The opening can only take you so far... eventually; YOU have to do the rest.

If you followed the thread, the herd thinks CS slingshot is the end-all. This is just part of the evolution in opening theory (chess had it, too) and that's natural and ok, I think. Simulations with such limited data are never remotely close to the real game and your starting strategy evolves the moment you expose tiles that differed from the simulator. Add or subtract a coastline or resource, and the whole game changes.

---

In summary, you've raised a valid concern that I think offends the honor of many players to differing degrees. I can't agree that it's potentially unfair or wrong. In fact, I'd argue the opposite because I think this sort of community challenges players on many levels and in turn creates better scenarios and better games. For some, it might not be 'fun' to not be truly competitive in this environment but then I question how realistic an expectation that is if credit isn't given to those who invest more in the competition.

Good topic!

I've played about 10 practice games on random maps with the same settings up to around 500AD. I believe that I have come up with an optimal starting strategy for up until around 1AD. After that I still have to figure out what I'm going to do. This is probably going to give me a huge advantage over someone else just going at it cold without any pre-game practice.

Is this still within the spirit of the GoTM rules? I don't think that I will get the high score but would probably do a lot better than if I had not played any practice games.

Who's to say there isn't?


There could be, but I did say, something extreme: Which means, it's theoretically possible but pretty unlikely.

I don't play this game, so I can speak from a position of supreme ignorance, but if it can be scripted to 1500 BC just on the basis of the information in the opening screenshot then it seems to me that something's gone out of the game since Civ3.

But if it's that predictable and mechanistic, why shouldn't all players get the same starting script? All of the information is available to everyone, and if players want to divulge their methods for optimising the opening turns then so be it. Players still have to be able to deal with the unexpected coming out of the fog, and if there's none of that, the real game starts at 1500 BC.

My €0.02

Sorry, looks like I expressed myself badly. I don't mean the game is predictable and mechanistic. The fact that a script can in principle be (and it seems for all practical purposes has now actually been) published for this GOTM start doesn't imply it's the only way to play, but it is does provide one recipe for how you could play, ostensibly a very good early game--even though all you're doing might be following a script.

To explain the situation: If you are going for a CS slingshot on monarch, then to pull it off you need to almost absolutely prioritize maximizing research over everything else - in order to get over the steep hurdle of researching code of laws (by the standards of the early game, a very expensive technology) before an AI builds the oracle (on monarch, I'd say typically between 800BC and 500BC, though some people have reported that happening earlier).

Now there is no one single way to do that - there are quite a few different possibilities for research path (eg. sidetrack to BW so you can chop a library?) with their own advantages and disadvantages, but the thing quite a few of the different possibilities tend to have in common is this: *If* (as is the case in GOTM8) the starting location gives a very good prospect for high early gold, then you will tend to just develop the capital to maximize gold, you probably won't found any other cities until you have CS - which with this kind of location and a good player will probably be around 1500BC. (And you probably also won't want to make any early wars). So, within reason and if you are going for CS slingshot with the GOTM8 start, then on balance of probabilities (ie. assuming nothing extreme/unusual), nothing that you see outside of the starting screenshot, is likely to matter from the POV of what you build/research/improve etc. up to that date. (obviously it matters from the POV of what your scout(s) do, and of the mental plans you'll be making for what you do after you have CS, but that's peripheral at this point).

In terms of coping with things coming out of the blue, that doesn't matter too much either at this point because up until a certain date (not sure what the date is, on monarch I suspect around 2000 BC), barbarians won't cross into cultural borders [1]. That means that, other than not doing anything daft with your exploring units, you don't need to worry about out-of-the-blue things too much. Similarly, it'd be rather unusual for an AI to start a war that early.

([1]: I'm not sure whether animals or barbs can theoretically still cross over for the sole purpose of attacking a unit just inside the border, but in practice I've never seen that happen in the early game and, other than for those few animals with 2 movement, you're guaranteed to see the danger the turn beforehand so you can move your worker to safety anyway)

Well, if it's not the only way to play it there's no real problem with it being aired, is there? Some players will follow that recipe because they don't have time or energy or expertise to develop an alternative approach. Anyone who wants to get a head start on that group will try another path, maybe based on responses to things discovered in the fog, or on an alternative master plan.

If the recipe gets more players into the game with a fighting chance of survival then I'd say that's a good thing. More players will experience the slingshot and want to try to work it out again for themselves. They still have the rest of the game to make their own mess of things :)

To explain the situation: If you are going for a CS slingshot on monarch, then to pull it off you need to almost absolutely prioritize maximizing research over everything else - in order to get over the steep hurdle of researching code of laws (by the standards of the early game, a very expensive technology) before an AI builds the oracle (on monarch, I'd say typically between 800BC and 500BC, though some people have reported that happening earlier).

FWIW - I had one instance in this game's simulation where the AI produced Oracle in 1800 BC, but in practice the average was closer to your range; maybe 800BC-1000C for me.

---

Even assuming that the CS slingshot provides a good game on all maps in all situations, the consequences of not being able to exploit additional resources are severe as is the cost of not expanding as quickly as the AI civs. No matter how good your capital is, you won't be able to outproduce an AI's entire civ with it not will you be able to sustain a tech advantage against it.

And if the CS groupthink turns out not to be a panacea, then the recipe will result in a lot of crashing and burning - lol

([1]: I'm not sure whether animals or barbs can theoretically still cross over for the sole purpose of attacking a unit just inside the border

Animals cannot cross cultural borders. I'm not clear on barb AI rules, but they certainly seem to have an order of operations (empty city, unprotected worker, attack enemy unit, pillage resource/improvement en route to city -- or something like that).

Dynamic Spirit: Excellent discussion started.


~ I think the script offered is possibly inferior to other offerings in the same thread. I have my own plans, either way. I guess we will see (eventually) what works. At that point, I reserve the right to change any opinion expressed here! :lol:

~ Excellent analogy made by starbolt to the study of opening theory in chess. It serves to reminds me that in war, no good plan survives initial contact with the enemy anyway.

~ What is there to "discuss" if we eliminate potential strategies and tactics that could be used? I would agree 100 percent to a complete elimination of "contact between combatants" prior to tournament start if anything real was on the line.

It isn't.

Talking smack ahead of game time is not an exploit or a cheat, in my opinion. :) It would only be so if it were real information was being doled out regarding the upcoming game instead of crystal ball gazing.

The best computer models show what could happen when hurricanes make contact with coastal civilization outposts yet the human element seems to disregard the availabale information and is always an unforeseeable "X-factor"

It was stated that the use of computers would ruin chess. It hasn't.

Yet. :crazyeye:

I've played about 10 practice games on random maps with the same settings up to around 500AD. I believe that I have come up with an optimal starting strategy for up until around 1AD. After that I still have to figure out what I'm going to do. This is probably going to give me a huge advantage over someone else just going at it cold without any pre-game practice.

I think it's absolutely fine for you to practice as much as you want. Of course putting more time into the game is going to give you an advantage. That's no different from the advantage that the players who take 30 hours per GOTM have over the players who play the whole game in 3 hours.

(Sometimes, I spend an hour with pencil and paper calculating things I might do. That's no different than the information that you get from practice games.)

But, personally, I think the things you can't see in the screenshot (available resources nearby, other city sites, relative locations of AI players, etc.) make a big difference, and following a fixed strategy through 1 AD without regard to what you discover isn't going to give you "optimal" results. If you think otherwise, great---comparing different opinions and ideas about the game is what GOTM is all about!

Finally, for me, even if I could get better results by following a single "script", it wouldn't be as much fun for me, so I'm not likely to play that way. And I think that really applies to almost all participants: there may be several people with similar ideas posting in the pre-game thread, but it's still a very small fraction of all participants. (And even within that small group, there are many different ideas.)

Before I respond, I'd like to say that I admire the tact with which you raised this concern and the intellect behind it.


Thanks. And I should perhaps restress that, although I cited one of the posts in the pre-game discussion, that was just as an example, I'm not trying to single out any post: My concern is with the whole trend of where the pre-game discussions seem to be heading.

If you followed the thread, the herd thinks CS slingshot is the end-all. This is just part of the evolution in opening theory (chess had it, too) and that's natural and ok, I think.

Yep. I suspect the CS being the end-all is temporary. Besides the evolution you mention, it's a powerful strategy in some situations, and looks particularly relevent to GOTM8 thanks to the combination of available gold, and the archipelago maptype disfavours popular alternatives like the axe rush.

Simulations with such limited data are never remotely close to the real game and your starting strategy evolves the moment you expose tiles that differed from the simulator. Add or subtract a coastline or resource, and the whole game changes.

But that's the problem: I don't agree with that analysis. What you say would be true if you were doing something like an axe rush, or worker-stealing, or hunting for stone so you could build the pyramids quickly, but I'd say if you're going for CS slingshot (or for that matter, any strategy that involves focussing everything on the capital initially) and you have everything you need in the tiles that are visible at the beginning, then the limited data available actually is incredibly close to the early part of the real game, in regards to everything that matters (at least for that strategy). It's almost like you're getting a chance to circumvent the no-reloading rule by playing a near-identical early game and seeing what works, and going back and trying something else if it doesn't work.

I think it's absolutely fine for you to practice as much as you want. Of course putting more time into the game is going to give you an advantage. That's no different from the advantage that the players who take 30 hours per GOTM have over the players who play the whole game in 3 hours.

(Sometimes, I spend an hour with pencil and paper calculating things I might do. That's no different than the information that you get from practice games.)

But, personally, I think the things you can't see in the screenshot (available resources nearby, other city sites, relative locations of AI players, etc.) make a big difference, and following a fixed strategy through 1 AD without regard to what you discover isn't going to give you "optimal" results. If you think otherwise, great---comparing different opinions and ideas about the game is what GOTM is all about!

Finally, for me, even if I could get better results by following a single "script", it wouldn't be as much fun for me, so I'm not likely to play that way. And I think that really applies to almost all participants: there may be several people with similar ideas posting in the pre-game thread, but it's still a very small fraction of all participants. (And even within that small group, there are many different ideas.)

You are right that 1AD is probably stretching it a bit. My strategy is not so much a script as a plan of action. What techs to research, what to build, when to expand, etc.

But that's the problem: I don't agree with that analysis. What you say would be true if you were doing something like an axe rush, or worker-stealing, or hunting for stone so you could build the pyramids quickly, but I'd say if you're going for CS slingshot (or for that matter, any strategy that involves focussing everything on the capital initially) and you have everything you need in the tiles that are visible at the beginning, then the limited data available actually is incredibly close to the early part of the real game, in regards to everything that matters (at least for that strategy). It's almost like you're getting a cha