FLEECING the AI for gold!

Surprise !!!!!!

This is a new take on an old tactic that has been cropping up here and there and everywhere (like the gummi bears, except MOAR WIN )!

So you see an AI has the max gold available per turn that it is willing to trade. You have lots of resources and want to convert lots of resources into CASHMONEY . Here is how you simultaneously ruin that AI and make yourself some deeper pockets. Contrary to popular belief, women actually like deep pockets due to their similarities to a purse. A purse with MONEY in this case (I am not being genderist either, as I also like having money, so here is a way to GET SOME):

1. Make a trade involving a resource you have only 1 of and a ton of GPT to the AI.

2. Trade as many resources that you wish to sell to that AI to get MAX GOLD. Keep in mind that AI will only cap out at so much gold per turn per resource, based on its population. IIRC it's 1/10, will look into that again and update if it needs changing.

3. Once you have traded to get back all that gold/turn you're giving the AI, now you pillage your own resource involved in the subsidy trade. Instant cancellation! The AI can be 50 or even 100 per turn in the relative to you. Obviously this means you get all dat lewt.

4. Profit!!!!!

If you call this an exploit, then I call tech trading an exploit.

Brought to you by the "Tachy wished for this foundation".

#SkillfulCivPlay

Well gee. What a useful and balanced introduction to the technique.

I especially liked the way in which you incorporated pop-culture allusions, internet slang, and insider references to broaden the appeal of your argument. The counter case gets short shrift because, after all, that worldview (gameview?) is objectively wrong.

This is also a wonderful way to reach out to those new players who, unfamiliar with efficient play in Civ IV, turn to the General Discussions board and S&T for help, advice, and discussion.

I am sure that any posts that follow in this thread will be as amicable as they are productive. Thanks for raising the topic.

If I understand correctly, all you're doing is making sure you get maximum value out of the resources the AI wants to buy from you. Usually the AI doesn't have much GPT available to trade so you have to undersell your resources if you want to sell them at all.

So if this is an exploit, it would only be because the AI overvalues resources in trades?

PieceOfMind said:

If I understand correctly, all you're doing is making sure you get maximum value out of the resources the AI wants to buy from you. Usually the AI doesn't have much GPT available to trade so you have to undersell your resources if you want to sell them at all.

So if this is an exploit, it would only be because the AI overvalues resources in trades?

Click to expand...

actually you can abuse the way Ai does trades according to the thread from TMIT took inspiration

you give them for example 10x the max amount they trade and trade 10x 1 resources for the maximum amount of gpt they trade which is capped per trade, but not per X trades.

as a bonus if you raze resources that were given together with the subsidy you can even be in big plus with no problems of paying subsidy money

If you need to use tricks like this to win at Civ 4 it is a very sad day. It is clearly not intended by Firaxis. It's sad TMIT seems to be encouraging new players to do it. i think this goes against the spirit of the forum.

Can I request this be moved to the bug report part of the forum by a mod. As that is clearly what it is.

Next time, I'll show to the world how to trade techs for GPT. :3

BTW, quit smoking bad stuff Phil!

Gumbolt said:

If you need to use tricks like this to win at Civ 4 it is a very sad day. It is clearly not intended by Firaxis. It's sad TMIT seems to be encouraging new players to do it. i think this goes against the spirit of the forum.

Can I request this be moved to the bug report part of the forum by a mod. As that is clearly what it is.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah! That's gonna be useful. Not for us though. Given solutions are ignored for moar discussions.

It is clearly not intended by Firaxis.

Click to expand...

I really don't like that argument. Like Firaxis knows its game better than top players here.
Firaxis is at Noble, since AI stops at Noble.
Just for example, I could make a hell of a reflex game, but it doesn't mean I have good reflexes.

Their (developers in mind) intentions are not relevant for anything. Only how we react to the end product counts. Any side track from that is a delusion.

Fun fact: 1UPT in Civ5 was intended by Firaxis. Actually, Civ5 is just what devs had in mind.

Your myth is BUSTED!

I really don't like that argument. Like Firaxis knows its game better than top players here.

Click to expand...

Actually, I really don't think the opinions in Firaxis development team were ever uniform, and now the people who made this game are not all with Firaxis. On top of that, we have basic selection flaws in the game, broken tech trades, and COMPLETELY imbalanced starts all over the place. In such a game, it is naive and probably unrealistic to guess at dev intent .

Firaxis is at Noble, since AI stops at Noble.

Click to expand...

but the AI gets a 50% upgrade discount at noble and no penalties .

Next time, I'll show to the world how to trade techs for GPT. :3

Click to expand...

You should definitely do that. I can help if you wish, unless the way involves "play civ V again", then I'm not so sure.

BTW, quit smoking bad stuff Phil!

Click to expand...

I am high on life only.

It's sad TMIT seems to be encouraging new players to do it. i think this goes against the spirit of the forum.

Click to expand...

We here at S&T AI abuse department advocate cheesing the AI in all kinds of manners, including:

1. Tech trades
2. Collateral initiative by siege
3. Defending with high city garrison, high drill units to get AI to throw stack away (Firaxis themselves said this was abusing the AI in development ...#DEV INTENT)
4. Bulbing (AI doesn't do it and doesn't understand it after all, just like trades! #worksasintended)
5. 2 move unit warfare
6. Worker stealing (totally not abusive of the AI to provide a big advantage whatsoever!)
7. Bribing into wars that screw both parties and neither has any real incentive to fight
8. AP cheese insta win!

Wow, that's quite a lot off hand. A player must truly be SAD to use these things . But I am not a sad panda. I am instead high on life.

you give them for example 10x the max amount they trade and trade 10x 1 resources for the maximum amount of gpt they trade which is capped per trade, but not per X trades.

as a bonus if you raze resources that were given together with the subsidy you can even be in big plus with no problems of paying subsidy money

Click to expand...

And bingo was his name, oh!

I especially liked the way in which you incorporated pop-culture allusions, internet slang, and insider references to broaden the appeal of your argument.

Click to expand...

Why thank you.

The counter case gets short shrift because, after all, that worldview (gameview?) is objectively wrong.

Click to expand...

The only objectively wrong thing in this case is an object located wrongly, such as in minecraft when you fall too rapidly. That said, I did provide a fun and equally ridiculous counter-argument as a kickstart because tech trades are amazing.

This is also a wonderful way to reach out to those new players who, unfamiliar with efficient play in Civ IV, turn to the General Discussions board and S&T for help, advice, and discussion.

Click to expand...

It's a tip, and it involves a strategic benefit!

I am sure that any posts that follow in this thread will be as amicable as they are productive. Thanks for raising the topic.

Click to expand...

I sincerely thank you for your vote of confidence! <3.

TheMeInTeam said:

...
If you call this an exploit, then I call tech trading an exploit.
...

Click to expand...

It's official ...
... TheMeInTeam thinks tech trading is an exploit.

1. Tech trades
2. Collateral initiative by siege
3. Defending with high city garrison, high drill units to get AI to throw stack away (Firaxis themselves said this was abusing the AI in development ...#DEV INTENT)
4. Bulbing (AI doesn't do it and doesn't understand it after all, just like trades! #worksasintended)
5. 2 move unit warfare
6. Worker stealing (totally not abusive of the AI to provide a big advantage whatsoever!)
7. Bribing into wars that screw both parties and neither has any real incentive to fight
8. AP cheese insta win!

Wow, that's quite a lot off hand. A player must truly be SAD to use these things . But I am not a sad panda. I am instead high on life.

Click to expand...

So, now I need to:
1) outtech the AI all by me lonesome
2) attack with only melee
3) defend with only scouts/explorers
4) settle all GP
5) hit <space> after moving one tile
6) build workers
7) only bribe into peace
8) ... the lamest VC ever!!!

Now, I am sad

re: high on "life"
... was that what the label on the little plastic bag said?
... was it printed or written in crayon?

RD-BH said:

It's official ...
... TheMeInTeam thinks tech trading is an exploit.

Click to expand...

I think it's a valid counter argument to using the E WORD willy nilly. I mean who ever thinks it's a good idea to go willy nilly?

That's silly!

... was it printed or written in crayon?

Click to expand...

Things are written with crayons?

So, now I need to:
1) outtech the AI all by me lonesome
2) attack with only melee
3) defend with only scouts/explorers
4) settle all GP
5) hit <space> after moving one tile
6) build workers
7) only bribe into peace
8) ... the lamest VC ever!!!

Now, I am sad

Click to expand...

NO! No sad panda. Happy panda only.

Utilization of this technique does require *actually having the resources*, and trading them to said AI. There are lots of things that we know how to do any take advantage of the AIs not knowing. Tech trades are a particularly good example because...well...they are in fact trades. When you sell techs the AI doesn't need for LOTS of gold, bribe it into war, and do other things that screw it utterly because it can't handle transactions in the diplo screen, the line between "exploit" and "accepted practice" blurs. Why should getting a game-changing advantage through one kind of trade on the diplo screen be fundamentally different from another, when in both cases the source is the AI's inferiority at handling trades?

Argument cat argues agreeably that the position of "selective abuse" is not viable for strategy and tips. When the AI is routinely abused, why single out one particular one? What basis has one for doing so, especially noting that firaxis has implicated abuse on practices well-accepted here?

Zounds, what a treat of a consideration! Off we go to merry enjoyment in jolly debate. Perhaps one can point out a logical reason that these abuses are fundamentally different that is not sourced in preference alone?

TheMeInTeam said:

If you call this an exploit, then I call tech trading an exploit.

Click to expand...

Where we disagree is that, IMHO, tech trading per se isn't an exploit. This is because, in it's most basic form, the simplest tech trade merely allows someone who needs a tech the opportunity to acquire it from another by giving up GPT and / or a tech / map etc. in a mutually beneficial exchange that cannot be cancelled.

The problem here however is that the AI is clearly unable to recognise the contingency of the trades made in your point 2 upon the one trade made in your point 1. Instead, it is only able to recognise the contingency or dependency in each set of trades made in your points 1 and 2 separately.

If the AI recognised the dependency between the trades in your points 1 and 2 above, it would obviously respond by cancelling its trades with you outlined in your step 2, the moment you pillaged the resource traded in step 1.

Simple tech trading isn't exploitative at all IMHO. The issue with the strategy however is that you added a complexity (ie. a dependency between subsequent sets of trades) that the AI is unable to recognise.

I find it hard to believe how people can think this is NOT an exploit.

Let us say the AI is willing to trade you 10 gpt for fish or whatever. Okay. Fine. Then you carry out your 2-step exploit and suddenly you get for example 100 gpt.

That's an awful lot, and means the AI will have to run a lower research slider just to pay you the gpt, while you of course can run a higher slider.

So it's true - the AI overvalues resources in trades.

The AI just needs to be taught not to pay for resources it gets no benefit from. I just tested it against Saladin in an old savegame and managed to sell 13 resources for 9gpt each, and the lowest value of ) - ) he had for any of his cities was 11 (after the trades), and a similar story for health.

It's just taking advantage of AI stupidity.

Pangaea said:

Let us say the AI is willing to trade you 10 gpt for fish or whatever. Okay. Fine. Then you carry out your 2-step exploit and suddenly you get for example 100 gpt.

Click to expand...

@Pangaea: This isn't quite right....unless you're suggesting that you rinse and repeat across multiple AIs.



Just to clarify, what's actually happening here is something along the following lines:


Step 1: You (ie. the human player) trade away any resource of which you have only one. Just for illustration, let's assume you have just one corn, which you therefore trade away.

More importantly, you also agree to give a lot of GPT away to the AI. Let's assume for simplicity that you can manage to trade away 10 GPT, as per @Pangaea's example.

In exchange, you request a resource from the AI. That resource you request in exchange can be anything and is irrelevant to what's going on. Let's say you receive bananas in this trade, just for illustration.

So, to summarise: this step ends with a trade in which you sell your lone corn and 10 GPT to an AI in exchange for some bananas.


Step 2: @TMIT then suggests that you sell as many other resources as you need to (bearing in mind that you sold your lone source of corn in step 1), to the AI, in order to receive 10 GPT from it. This is course is the very same 10 GPT you just traded away to the AI in step 1. Of course, if the AI is willing to trade you more than the 10 GPT you just gave it, you'd trade for that too.

As an aside BTW, it's worth noting that if people are getting confused at this point with what's going on (with all the resource trades flying everywhere), you can consider a very simple variant on @TMIT's step 2: imagine you sell only one of your other resources (let's say gold, just for illustration) to the AI, in exchange for the 10 GPT you just gave it in step 1. It's completely possible to consider this alternative BTW, because the only reason that the player will likely need to sell more than one resource to the AI, to get back the 10 GPT at this stage, is because the amount of GPT that the AI will give you in trade is capped at 10% of it's population (as @TMIT notes). This abstraction does not change the logic behind what is going on &#8211; instead, in this variant, I'm simply implicitly assuming that the AI's pop is 100 or greater at this point, so that it can offer the very 10 (=10% of 100) GPT just given to it in step 1.


Step 3: You then pillage your corn. Since it is the only corn you had (and this is why you have to trade away your only one of a resource in step 1), the trade you made in step 1 is now cancelled. Remember, that trade saw you give the AI your lone corn and 10 GPT in exchange for some bananas from the AI.


However, the AI now has a very clear problem. The trade done in step 1 has been cancelled because you pillaged your lone corn. However, the trade (or trades) done in step 2 are still active. In other words, the AI is still committed to giving you 10 GPT in exchange for whatever resources you sold in step 2. The problem for the AI is of course that it is no longer in receipt of the 10 GPT which you gave it in step 1, because that trade was cancelled when you pillaged your only corn.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the real issue here is that the AI does not now recognise that the optimal thing to do is simply cancel the trade(s) you did with it in step 2. In short, the AI does not recognise the dependency between the trades in steps 1 and 2 above: you gave it GPT in step 1 and have traded for it all back in step 2. Having seen it's GPT taken away from it once the player pillages the resource (here corn), the AI should simply realise it no longer has the GPT given it in step 1, to fund the trades in step 2. However, because the AI does not recognise this and act accordingly to cancel the trade(s) in step 2, the AI will now have to find that 10 GPT in some other way, perhaps by trading with another AI, building cottages etc.



FWIW, I did not comment on whether this is an exploit in my earlier post &#8211; and quite deliberately so &#8211; because, as @TMIT notes, many gamers already work to take advantage of AI shortcomings in so many other areas anyway. As a result, I guess you could make an argument that the gamer is just playing to leverage yet another AI shortcoming. That said, it is not a strategy I have ever pursued, nor do I feel compelled to use it. But, each to their own, I guess.

The one point I do want to make to @TMIT however is that his assertion that defining this strategy as an exploit means that tech trading is also exploitative, is a false one. As mentioned in my earlier post, I can see little, if any, causality between these two points. A simple tech trade is an exchange of resources (here techs / gold / maps etc.) judged by both participants to be in their best interests &#8211; and whilst it is true that some may grumble about the AI logic used to value an individual trade, that is not at all relevant to what is going on here. Instead, what is happening in this strategy is that the AI is failing to recognise a dependency between the trades in steps 1 and 2 above &#8211; something that is explicitly recognised by the human &#8211; and the AI isn't cancelling the trade(s) in step 2 when the human triggers the cancellation of the trade in step 1. IMHO, that is a very different issue...and to realise this, you only have to realise that the very same issue would exist even if all the individual trades in steps 1 and 2 above were completely fairly valued.

I have no worries about this. It is well known design flaw, that haven't been addressed for years. Without any gentlemen agreements it been avoided by players here in CFC. I believe it will be avoided in the future and will be forgotten until some new Tachy will reinvent it again.

It's actually very easy to explain. Set your sliders to 0%, trade away a lone resource plus your max GPT. The AI will then have the GPT you are giving them available for trade, which you take in return for whatever else you can trade them. Then you pillage the resource in the original trade, automatically cancelling the GPT you were giving them.

So the AI is now paying for the trade and has a large deficit every turn, which they would never otherwise have because they will only trade away surplus GPT. Cripple their research and nearly double yours. If you are able to do this with every AI, you've basically turned down the difficulty several levels.

TheMeInTeam said:

...

Argument cat argues agreeably that the position of "selective abuse" is not viable for strategy and tips. When the AI is routinely abused, why single out one particular one? What basis has one for doing so, especially noting that firaxis has implicated abuse on practices well-accepted here?

Zounds, what a treat of a consideration! Off we go to merry enjoyment in jolly debate. Perhaps one can point out a logical reason that these abuses are fundamentally different that is not sourced in preference alone?

Click to expand...

Well, it isn't like I don't abuse the AI in every other way possible

I'm embarrassed not thinking of this myself
I already engage in 10 turn subsidies ... this obvious next step saves me

(RD-BH admits defeat)
"TMiT is NOT calling tech trading an exploit"

I didn't know about this exploit prior to this post, but I can't see myself ever using it in a serious forum game. I'd probably do it in a game where I had already worldbuildered myself in a few nukes and tanks when I get beat to a world wonder by one turn.

How does everyone feel about constantly begging for gold from potential backstabbers to force a peace treaty? I do this frequently when I have a neighbor who is at pleased, but could easily be bribed into a war against me or potentially can backstab me. I do this so I can concentrate my forces when I'm at war on the other front and not have to worry about defending the other side of my borders at all. It feels kind of cheap because I know that AI could gain a whole lot more by just conquering my poorly defended cities than they would gain in relations with me by giving me 5 gold. It always felt kind of cheap, but I see people do it frequently on forum games and YouTube "Let's Plays" so I guess it's community accepted.

terriFyer said:

How does everyone feel about constantly begging for gold from potential backstabbers to force a peace treaty? I do this frequently when I have a neighbor who is at pleased, but could easily be bribed into a war against me or potentially can backstab me. I do this so I can concentrate my forces when I'm at war on the other front and not have to worry about defending the other side of my borders at all. It feels kind of cheap because I know that AI could gain a whole lot more by just conquering my poorly defended cities than they would gain in relations with me by giving me 5 gold. It always felt kind of cheap, but I see people do it frequently on forum games and YouTube "Let's Plays" so I guess it's community accepted.

Click to expand...

Reason why I support gpt exploit.
No one explained how is it different from many other exploits we use all the time and are a must in competitive game.

Most amusing and even strongest argument so far had something with designer intention and even tradition (it was never fixed so it should not be fixed ever).
Getting gold along with peace from crazy son of a bit*h is accepted, on the other side.
C'mon. Who has the moral right to ban anything.
If we were consistent, all exploits should be allowed.

My personal opinion would be banning all exploits, everything far fetched for healthy mind. Then again, not everyone is normal and healthy...