"Boudica of the Romans" an exploit or not

Someone (whom I won't tell the name, because I'm not posting this to attack him) said this to me: "Boudica of the Romans is not an exploit".

To me, using the Agg/cha combo with the Praetorians is an exploit (even a cheat for me).
For this person, it isn't because unrestricted leader is an option that was made available by Firaxis.
For me, toying with the numerous options to give yourself such a big advantage over the AI is almost like cheating.

Some have made comments that I should define the terms or give more options (overpowered). I don't think I can add options once the poll is posted.

I would go with this: exploit:
using the rules and features of the game in a way that was not meant to be, in order to maximize your advantage over players or AIs (the fact that AIs don't complain is irrelevant. Using worldbuilder is widely considered to be cheating even if you play against AIs).

Cheat: my personal definition is quite large (I'm sure many won't agree with it, but that is how I see things). Deliberately choosing to give yourself an advantage that you know is unfair to others and which makes the game much easier to win (it doesn't mean you'll win it).
Think using drugs in sports. To me Boudica of the Romans is like an Athlete on drugs. It doesn't mean you'll win, but you artificially enhance your chances.

There is no moral judgment in my use of the word cheat. I played once with Boudica of the Romans. Of course, it's fun. But I still felt not much merit when I won. Had I won with a less powerful combo, the win would have been much more rewarding, as I wouldn't have stock the deck in my favor before the start of the game.

Why specifically are Praetorians overpowered with Agr/Cha? I've never tried this, just a newb trying to understand why this would be different than other early units, e.g. Gallic Warriors?

Dude, if you put things that way, it's not a cheat. You are stacking your deck into your favor, but only pieces of it. You may not get the needed resources (Iron/Copper), or the near-by enemy for the first rush. Or to get that needed resource, you need to extend//overextend to get it.

It's like Magic sometimes: You can stock the deck with what you want, but sometimes, you ain't gonna get it.

Thanks for you opinion Liberi.
But I don't agree and you won't convince me.

"Stocking the deck" in your favor as you call it is a cheat where I come from.
Taking the best warmonger traits with the best UU is just too much advantage for a single player.
Of course, random is still at work. It won't win you the game all by itself, but I'd say it is like starting a 200 meter race with a 20 meters advance.

In Olympic game this would be a cheat.

Why do you wan't anyone's opinion if you cannot be convinced?

@MrFrodo

Agg gives combat 1 promotion for free
Cha makes the thresholds for promotion easier to attain ( 4exp for level up instead of 5, 8 exp for level up instead of 10, etc.)
With Charismatic you can get highly promoted units much faster.
This combines very well with Agg because the Combat 1 promotion is at the base of MANY (if not most) good promotion for offensive units like the Praetorians, the axemen or the swordsman. Since Agg gives combat 1 for free, the units' first level up enables him to select promotions reserved normally to level 2 units.
So an Agg/cha unit, starts choosing its promotion from the second level of promotion (combat 2, etc. medic 1, etc.), while only needing much less experience to attain the third level of promotion.
You easily endu with an entire army of highly promoted unites.

Combining this ultimate warmonger combo with clearly the best UU in the entire game (considered overpowered and unbalanced by many. Many have asked Firaxis to nerf it), creates the ultimate Unique unit to take over the world in ancient/classical and even medieval period.

Boudica is allright, so are the Romans. The synergy is quite powerfull, but I wouldn't call it an expolit.

Quagga said:

Why do you wan't anyone's opinion if you cannot be convinced?

Click to expand...

I want to know if my position is marginal or if there actually other people who think this combination is just too much.

It seems I'm marginal. I'm not that surprised, people like feeling powerful. Agg-cha offers a nice and easy way to power and it makes for fun warmongering games.

BTW, I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the game. That is not the issue.

MrFrodo said:

Why specifically are Praetorians overpowered with Agr/Cha? I've never tried this, just a newb trying to understand why this would be different than other early units, e.g. Gallic Warriors?

Click to expand...

Praetorians have str 8 (vs default str 6 for Swordsman). The Aggressive trait gives an automatic Combat I promotion, giving them str 8.8. Charismatic decreases the XP they need to gain promotions, meaning they get promoted faster.

So if you have Iron in the early game, you are going to be running around with extremely powerful "Swordsmen" who have no real counter - even Shock Axemen aren't going to be able to take them on.

Bh

UnspokenRequest said:

It seems I'm marginal. I'm not that surprised, people like feeling powerful. Agg-cha offers a nice and easy way to power and it makes for fun warmongering games.

Click to expand...

You know, you'd have had much less argument if you had simply said "Boudica of the Romans is an overpowered combination" and not "Unrestricted Leaders is cheating". I'd semi-agree with the first. You know how I stand on the second.

Bh

UnspokenRequest said:

Thanks for you opinion Liberi.
But I don't agree and you won't convince me.

"Stocking the deck" in your favor as you call it is a cheat where I come from.
Taking the best warmonger traits with the best UU is just too much advantage for a single player.
Of course, random is still at work. It won't win you the game all by itself, but I'd say it is like starting a 200 meter race with a 20 meters advance.

In Olympic game this would be a cheat.

Click to expand...

Olympic athletes train almost exclusively in and/or for (including cross-training) the sport they are competing in. They "stock the deck" in the way they wish to. But they may be sick, or one of there rivals may be faster/stronger/better then them, so is a cheat? Nope (unless he/she or the other guy was doping or something).

Quagga said:

Why do you wan't anyone's opinion if you cannot be convinced?

Click to expand...

Exactly.....

Perhaps the op should define the word exploit first. Either way, it won't change the fact that's it's not an exploit.

The op also should have given us more voting options.

I vote: It's not an exploit, and it is fair to players who agree on those settings before the game. Fair to the AI has no bearing as they don't ever complain.

Overpowered? Absolutely. Loads of fun? You bet. Stacking the deck? Probably. A cheat? Certainly not.

Thing is, unrestricted leaders is not a default option. Firaxis balances the game for standard play, not for every conceivable possibility that somebody could do with it. Boudicca of the Romans is therefore no more a cheat/exploit than, say, Pericles of the Ethiopians (huge culture boost) or [insert your favorite combination here]. It tends to one particular style of play which doesn't allow for a change in plans. Suppose you don't get iron, as somebody said, or suppose you pursue a cultural path, then get attacked from all sides or fall too far behind in techs to make wonders.

No, it is not an "exploit" in the traditional sense. Unfair, maybe, but if you don't like it, don't play with that option. Plain and simple. If it were the standard game, I might say yes, but it isn't. The real issue here is that the AI is not smart enough to contend with it; play on multiplayer with Boudicca of the Romans and see what happens. More than likely, you'll face smart opponents who will keep you in check.

You say "stacking the deck" equals cheating in your book. I won't disagree; however, that is effectively what you are doing when you play with unrestricted leaders. Who in their right mind is going to pick a horrible combination, unless they want a challenge? That's why people use this option: because they want something outside the traditional boundaries of the game, which will liven it up a little. It stands to reason that certain combinations will be more overpowered than others. Is that bad? No. It is, rather, a feature.

To me a cheat is something that is against the rules of the game which will enable you to win when you otherwise shouldn't have, based on skill and whatnot. Playing as Boudicca comes awfully close to this, so while I don't consider it an official cheat, I would consider a win with the Agg/Cha/Praetorian combo to be less satisfying than one without it. Hence, I'd tell your friend to have fun with that (because that's the point, isn't it?) but when he gets ready for a real challenge to come back to the normal game.

@Swordstriker
Read my message a few post above yours. I explained why I posted this poll.

Bhruic said:

You know, you'd have had much less argument if you had simply said "Boudica of the Romans is an overpowered combination" and not "Unrestricted Leaders is cheating". I'd semi-agree with the first. You know how I stand on the second.

Bh

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know and that's fine, but I was not making a poll to be right. I wanted to check if I was a minority in the way I see this whole issue. It seems I am. That is okay, maybe I'm more of a purist than I thought I really was.

And I won't argue with everyone here. I just wanted to set the debate. I'll let people argue with each other. believe it or not, I have other things to do...

If I had written simply "overpowered", the answers would have been too obvious. I would have felt like I was setting the question in my favor. I took the statement I greatly disagreed with and I turned it into a poll, with not much interference.

Thanks for clueing me in. I didn't realize Praetorians were so dominant. I played a game with Boudica of the Celts the other day and she is pretty awesome in herself, with Gallic Warriors, especially in Hilly terrain. Was getting crazy promotions early, made a Gallic Warrior with 80% withrawal chance for fun with my first General But what I found is there was no way to stabilize her economy after conquering 1.5 other civs she was too spread out. I guess that depends on the kind of game/maps you play.

Ironically, after I'd written my last post I returned to the main BtS forum, and guess what I saw? A thread that's titled "Best Leaders for SS Victory." Well, that's basically what we have here. This combo would likely be the best for a conquest/domination victory, but if you want something different, it may not work so well. There are some exceptions (space race can still be done) but you get my point. It's not more of a cheat than picking Elizabeth to go for a late-game space race win, or picking Pericles to do a cultural victory. The only thing that makes it iffy is the unrestricted option, and I've already dealt with that above.

UnspokenRequest said:

It seems I'm marginal. I'm not that surprised, people like feeling powerful.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a cheat, and I've never done it, so my wanting to "feel powerful" doesn't really enter into the equation. I'm afraid you can't put this one down to people just wanting to steamroll the opposition.

The term you're looking for is not "cheat" but "cheese". It's not breaking the rules, per se, but it does push them in your favour. That's cheesy, not cheating.

There are many ways in this game to stack the deck in your favour. Every game on a duel sized map with the Romans (and it doesn't even have to be Boudica) with balanced resources (ensures that iron is somewhere close) will result in an easy game, even at the higher difficulty levels.

It just means that difficulty level is not that important in this game. There are many starting settings that can make the game easier or harder for the human player. Personally, I like a hard game and I like a bit of realism in my games, so I probably won't ever be using Boudica of the Romans. It wouldn't be fun for me. But it might be fun for someone else, so I'm glad the option is in the game.

When someone comes bragging on the forum that this game can easily be beaten on deity level, then that doesn't mean a lot when this person achieved this deity victory on a balanced resources duel sized pangea map with high sea levels where he was playing Boudica of the Romans and his opponent was a non-aggressive, non-charismatic, non-protective leader of a civilisation with a late unique unit. Probably an average standard settings noble level game is harder than that.

I purposefully avoided the word cheat and exploit in this post. These are words which will only confuse any serious discussion. On the other hand, we can all probably agree that Boudica of the Romans is one of those settings that will probably make the game easier.

I agree with just about everything M. Johansen said.

On the word choice. You're probably right, it's true that the words exploit and cheat often leads to passionate debate. I didn't want that. I'm not judging morally. An easy game or a flavor game is fun once in a while. That is why I always like it when Firaxis adds new options (I'm not against adding a Ind/phi leader).

LiberiGlacialis said:

Olympic athletes train almost exclusively in and/or for (including cross-training) the sport they are competing in. They "stock the deck" in the way they wish to. But they may be sick, or one of there rivals may be faster/stronger/better then them, so is a cheat? Nope (unless he/she or the other guy was doping or something).

Click to expand...

To perfect the analogy, I'd say this:
The athlete is the player. Not the leader you choose.
The leader could be your equipment. Boudica of the Roman could be a bit like a Baseball bat with a materials normally forbidden in baseball.
A training athlete = playing civ, learning from your mistakes, thinking of new strategies

The Foo said:

I don't think it's a cheat, and I've never done it, so my wanting to "feel powerful" doesn't really enter into the equation. I'm afraid you can't put this one down to people just wanting to steamroll the opposition.

The term you're looking for is not "cheat" but "cheese". It's not breaking the rules, per se, but it does push them in your favour. That's cheesy, not cheating.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the terminology The Foo. Since English is not my first language, I didn't know that cheese could be used this way.

Almost a cheat is probably closer to it. Indeed.