A very serious exploit in this game - must be fixed

[Bhoy]

Don't question why the game play mechanics are broke, you'll just be told it's because it's a new game.

But really the answer is that the developers were not given the resources to do everything they probably wanted to do and rushed the game for release. This is somebody's fault and it should not be above criticism, probably not the overworked developers, but somebody's.

 

[winthrowe]

Don't question why the game play mechanics are broke, you'll just be told it's because it's a new game.

But really the answer is that the developers were not given the resources to do everything they probably wanted to do and rushed the game for release. This is somebody's fault and it should not be above criticism, probably not the overworked developers, but somebody's.

There's a thread elsewhere detailing that Take 2 Interactive hadn't been doing well, and the release of civ5 was timed so they could get their initial sales in, giving them a big boost before their fiscal year ended. if anyone actually cares enough to look it up, it's plain to me that Firaxis was backed into a corner and forced to release, and they will bring it up to standard ASAP, considering the limited staff.

 

[fantsu]

Hahaha! What?!? People still try to play this game?

Have fun!


Anyways. I bet the next update will bring you forced treaties. Don't worry.
Now just focus in the game so that you won't "cheat".

 

[brindle]

oddly, many people think that it is the per/turn part of the deals that should be removed. actually, it is the lump sum part that should be removed. then $$ per turn for resources would equally cancel out when deals are broken.

it is really unbelievable that Civ5 has such huge exploits in trading (note the 5 part)

 

[Slowpoke]

Heh, this reminds me of settlers of catan. "I'll give 3 wheat for 1 sheep!" (use wheat monopoly)

 

[dexters]

Leaving it in was intentional. the dumbed down Civ4 trading was really boring.

more rice for more pig. It felt like a bartering system rather than a trading system.

I'm pretty sure you incure a penalty for breaking deals like this.

 

[fantsu]

Leaving it in was intentional. the dumbed down Civ4 trading was really boring.

more rice for more pig. It felt like a bartering system rather than a trading system.

I'm pretty sure you incure a penalty for breaking deals like this.

This!

 

[narmox]

Yeah. Wonder why they didn't implement such a diplomatic system this time. It's like they were so intent on creating a brand new game that they ignored past wisdom totally.

As I remember, everyone HATED that "feature" of Civ3.. because it meant that as soon as you were dishonest once, even to honor a war declaration pact against another civ, or a defensive pact, every other civ would flat-out REFUSE treaties with you - even civs you possibly could not have had contact with back then, ie 3000BC, for example. Everyone hated that, and was happy it was taken out in Civ4.

Now people want it back in Civ5??????????? Oh, the memory of humans, how it fades and twists and how even bad things become glorious once enough time has passed!

 

[wapamingo]

It's a new game. There are all new mistakes to make and to learn from. Some people forget this.

I can't believe people use statements such as this to defend glaring mistakes or omissions. This is why there is a good old adage that goes along the lines of "do not reinvent the wheel".

 

[mmmfloorpie]

Remember one of the original glitches with Civ 4... If you went to war with an AI and then wanted to negotiate peace, you could set any number you wanted in the GPT that you demanded and the AI would give it to you! I used to put 999GPT and sure enough the AI would grant that! Then they patched it to limit it to how much GPT the AI actually had.

 

[Jharii]

I can't believe people use statements such as this to defend glaring mistakes or omissions. This is why there is a good old adage that goes along the lines of "do not reinvent the wheel".

I was not defending anything. Merely stating a fact.

Did I miss the memo that everyone is now perfect and that no one can make mistakes? I wouldn't be surprised since I have obviously also missed the one that instructs everyone to be judgemental towards others simply because they exhibit patience and understanding.

Kudos to you for demanding more for your money. But you lose all those points by doing so at the expense of others.

 

[Helmling]

SMAC had a fix for this. After the war with an AI was over they would say something like "now that hostilities have ceased we will resume our payments of..." or something like that.

Man, SMAC rocked...oh, sorry, just getting nostalgic.

 

[Rohili]

oddly, many people think that it is the per/turn part of the deals that should be removed. actually, it is the lump sum part that should be removed. then $$ per turn for resources would equally cancel out when deals are broken.

I don't think lump sum deals should be removed. There are many legitimate uses for lump sum deals and without them, trading would be even more boring and one-dimensional than it already is. We need more trading options, not less.

As I remember, everyone HATED that "feature" of Civ3.. because it meant that as soon as you were dishonest once, even to honor a war declaration pact against another civ, or a defensive pact, every other civ would flat-out REFUSE treaties with you - even civs you possibly could not have had contact with back then, ie 3000BC, for example. Everyone hated that, and was happy it was taken out in Civ4.

Now people want it back in Civ5??????????? Oh, the memory of humans, how it fades and twists and how even bad things become glorious once enough time has passed!

I never hated that feature. It presented you with an interesting strategic choice - should you cheat a civ for short term gain and screw up your long term reputation and limit your future diplomatic options? Perhaps its implementation in Civ III was somewhat flawed, but the concept behind it is realistic and makes sense. Some simple ways to improve it would be:

1) Only civs that have made contact with the AI you cheated would hear of your duplicity (and while we are at it, please bring back the "bring X civ in contact with Y civ" trading option, which would provide useful strategic value).

2) Civs would only flat out refuse treaties of a similar nature with you. So, if you broke a defensive pact, civs would become very reluctant to sign defensive pacts with you. If you broke a per-turn deal, civs would be reluctant to accept your per-turn offers. They should still be willing to accept other deals like lump sum gold, open borders or research agreements.

3) Civ distrust of you should slowly fade with time. Emphasis on "slowly" to make sure that you stay in the diplomatic doghouse for a hundred turns or so.

 

[Rohili]

SMAC had a fix for this. After the war with an AI was over they would say something like "now that hostilities have ceased we will resume our payments of..." or something like that.

That sounds like a viable (but more boring) fix too, though what happens if you lost your luxuries during the war?

 

[Jaroth]

I always wondered why the AI valued GPT more than lump sums, seems odd to me. If I'm incorrect, they at least value them almost equally.

As in real life, $$$ NOW is worth more than $$$ LATER.

Lump sums should be valued much more than GPT. I myself don't exploit this from the AI because it ruins the quality of my games, but it can be abusable.

 

[dexters]

Yeah, I tried to give the AI a loan (risk was all mine) giving them lump sum upfront from my treasury, and asking for GPT in return.

I could only make the deal work if they paid negative interest. That is, their GPT payments, totalled together over 30 turns is less than the lump sum.

One of my upcoming proposals is to re-introduce interest rates, or at least the concept of time value of money. this is something the Civ3 AI understood!

 

[Rohili]

I always wondered why the AI valued GPT more than lump sums, seems odd to me. If I'm incorrect, they at least value them almost equally.

As in real life, $$$ NOW is worth more than $$$ LATER.

Lump sums should be valued much more than GPT. I myself don't exploit this from the AI because it ruins the quality of my games, but it can be abusable.

The AI does value lump sum more than GPT. For example, if you ask for 200 lump sum, they will ask for something like 10 GPT (for 30 turns). The problem is that you can declare war immediately after and renege on your GPT deal.

 

[dexters]

The AI does value lump sum more than GPT. For example, if you ask for 200 lump sum, they will ask for something like 10 GPT (for 30 turns). The problem is that you can declare war immediately after and renege on your GPT deal.

That's the point. It is not a problem if you incur appropriate reputational penalties for doing this.

 

[Rohili]

Yeah, I tried to give the AI a loan (risk was all mine) giving them lump sum upfront from my treasury, and asking for GPT in return.

I could only make the deal work if they paid negative interest. That is, their GPT payments, totalled together over 30 turns is less than the lump sum.

That might be because the AI simply doesn't like you enough and was offering you unfavourable trading terms.

 

[Jaroth]

Yes, I know what the specific problem is that's being discussed. Like I said, it's an exploit I choose not to delve into myself.

I was just stating my opinion of lump sum vs. GPT values after reading some of the discussions. Which to me, is another smaller problem that should be addressed eventually. But if that's not the case, and the AI does value lump sums more, then that's good to hear.

I just remember being able to trade luxuries for 300 gold each. When they didn't have the amount, I'd settle for GPT. They would never give me 10 GPT (10x30=300), it would always be less. Hence, it seemed to me that they valued lump sums less since they were willing to give more total gold. I would expect MORE than 10 GPT if I wanted a fair trade to myself.