Article Concerning Flaws in the Rules

[Sirian]

I've written an article detailing what I've found to be the ten worst flaws/loopholes in the rules, accompanying exploits, why I believe these are problematic to the lifespan of the game, and what might be done about each of them in a future patch.

The article may be found on my Civ III fansite. Follow this link:

Sirian's Great Library

Any comments you may have can be posted here. I'll check back in and reply from time to time.


- Sirian

 

[Troyens]

Only ten???

More like a hundred.

I'll check out the article.


OK, I found the site. Now where's the article? I am not conducting a search.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

LOL @ Troyens...partly for considering himself the authority on the "flaws" of civ3 and partly for not noticing the plug this guy was making for his site...

Though I for one am impressed by the presentation of the site! Didn't take the time to read what was presented to me...too tired! it is 7:20 am and I should really go to bed.

 

[Dinorius R.]

The article is in there if you look hard enough. It's under the "Epistles" section. Seems to be a well-intentioned and constructive summary of the quirks in the Civ 3 rules. I wouldn't knock the guy for writing it or drawing our attention to it.

.

 

[Ironikinit]

The article is here:

http://sirian.warpcore.org/civ3/exploits.html

It's pretty good reading. I was unaware of some of the exploits, such as the Blitz.

However, I don't agree with some of the proposed solutions. For example, in response to the whip exploit, the author suggests that cities can't be disbanded in the next patch. Personally, I feel that normal players shouldn't have to deal with inflexible rules because of exploits.

 

[Tarquelne]

Overriding Contentment: (Main problem is draft and whipping.)

You can diminish the bite of this exploit quite a bit in the editor, but I too would like to see "excessive" whipping/drafting carry a larger penalty. The solution I like is a chance of immediate (pre-build/draft) revolt with an increased chance of loosing a contentment-causing building. The article's proposed solution should work too, though, and I imagine would be easier to impliment.


Food Preservation Threshold: Oh yeah! I see this one as being more troublesome than the OC exploit because its so easy to use without even noticing.

Bait: Gotta agree with the article.

Blitz: Yeah, the AI, while better than most, is still utterly clueless in some situations. As the article indicates, a general improvement of the AI would be the best solution.

Razing vrs. Revolt: I like the idea of increased diplomatic penalty (is there currently _any_ penalty?), and I'd be pleased if that were implimented.

But I enjoy the diplomatic aspects of the game. I'd rather my brutal destruction of a civ early on didn't queer my diplomatic policy as much as it would need to to really deter me. How about making conquest more attractive, rather than simply penalizing razing more? I think this is a thorny problem, and will probably be difficult to fix. As the chances of govenor being deposed goes down the effectivness of the conquest/military strategy go up, and I think the military strategy is already too effective. (Which is a whole seperate discussion onto itself. And I'm not completely convicned the military strategy is too easy... maybe it just seems too easy given my play style.) Anyway... you make conquest (rather than razing and re-seeing) much more effective and I fear that civ3 really will devolve into a bad wargame. But the _really_ "thorny" part of the problem is that the game does work with the present rule - its just working in a way that most people don't seem to like.

How about making the "resistance" period last much longer, and as long as the # of military (but not bombard or ships) units in the city is equal to or greater than the number of resisters the city _can't_ depose the governor (or drastically reduce the odds). And have those resistors each cancel 1 or 2 Content or Happy faces. Holding such cities should also increase war weariness. So with a decent garrison you don't have to worry much about loosing the city, but you do have to put up with a long resistance period during which the city is of little or no use.

Starvation: I don't think this should be called an exploit... but other than that, I agree. I'd rather such ruthlessness weren't so often the best tactic.

I doubt that this would happen, but what I'd like to see added to the game is a companion "effect" to war weariness that'd be derived from how well you treat your people. Treating citizens poorly (whipping, starving, drafting) in one city would cause unhappiness or corruption in _all_ your cities.

Betrayals: Onc again I agree that more diplomatic-type penalties would be a good thing. I don't think anything other than a reputation penalty that'd effect trade deals is needed, though.
What'd be really nice is a screen somewhere that displays a numerical measure of your civ's reputation, with notations on how a relatively low rep. negatively effects trade.

 

[Black Waltz]

I think that in the Diplomatic section the consequences are too great in a way. I agree that there should be some, but they are a bit too servre. And is the worker thing really an exploit? You still need the cash to pay for the workers that you make.

 

[Ironikinit]

I suppose Soren Johnson will make the call on whether or not things like the size six phenomenon are exploits or not. For all we know, some of them are fixed already in the upcoming patch.

I do know that he reads strategy sections looking for exploits, so I reckon he knows about the ones mentioned in this article.

 

[chiefpaco]

First off, that's a great article, and I think those who wish to criticize this game ought to check out how Sirian presents the arguments.

Ok, to your posts, which mostly, I agree with.

1. Contentment. Agree. Though it basically would mean you can't rush much at all during the early stages because you'll have to have more pop points than rush jobs for a content city (i.e. you couldn't do your 1st rush job until you had a pop of 3, 2nd until 4, etc...). I'm willing to give this up for the sake of this exploit though. I'm not sure an instant revolt would be the best solution but converting everyone to taxmen or facing revolt would be good. Then you couldn't work those irrigated flood plains.

3. Bait. Agreed heavily. Makes invading your neighbour too easy. My problem is that my automated workers rush to those newly conquered cities and inevitably get captured the next turn (then I kill all them vunerable cavalry). It would be better that they be off the AI's priority list than an equal threat.

One other thing about the automated workers, in Rollercoaster Tycoon, you could define areas where your handymen would work & not step out of. Something like that would be really helpful here.

5. Razing. This is a really touchy subject on these boards & I'm torn a bit about it too. Global opinion suffering? Yes, but maybe not with every city you raze (maybe every 2 or 3 but then rise exponentially?).

Flipping & losing your units. I don't think it's an exploit if you plan things right:

Past the ancient era, I use a large swordsman garrison and conscript defenders to quell resistors & at the same time I find I don't lose too many cities via the flip (and there's too many defenders for the AI to consider it conquerable, until, say #3 is implemented). This is really easy once railroads are in place. So, personally, I'd keep the flipping, even with the unit destruction (at least that's better than the opponent gaining the units too, which is an arguable case).

Overall, most of your ideas are good, but may be hard to implement in a patch since we're really talking play balance. These fixes can easily swing something back the other way too and often require a lot of testing. But good work and nice arguments, (but for those long paragraphs, you really need some paragraphs for readability:crazyeyes ).

 

[Mapache]

They may whip some military out for emergency defense when a city is threatened, but otherwise do not use forced labor or the draft.

They are often in emergency and use draft more than me. I preferably use Veteran units. They are much more effective.
I also think that the current nationality conversion of sold cities is unrealistic. And that there are units given for free is also unrealistic.
I also have more than enough workers and never build granaries.
Every worker costs maintenance. And you are blocking one city from a useful production.

 

[Moulton]

Cool. I would be careful about removing some things just becuase they can be used to exploit.

Flipping/razing and corruption are my two biggest concerns. I want to play a fair and reasonable, honorable tyrant who conquers the world. Maybe I just cant be both in the same person.

The concept of flipping is fine, adds a lot to th game. However, it does make conquest hard. Maybe it was intended to. I can deal with some of it. I can put lowgrade troops, such as warriors and spearmen and swordsmen as garrison to quell the resistance. No big loss it that city flips. Helps the budget, too, since swordsmen cant upgrade.
I resist the urge to bombard a city, expecially if it has an airport and/or a port. But flipping brings a cramp into my play style... I like to bring bombers to the front to bomg the next city or outside units and ships. This puts them at severe risk. Units heal overnight in a barracks, much slower outside, even with battlefield medicine. Of course, with rails intact, I can send them back to one of my own cities to heal, and still have them on line for the next city.
Don't have a fix in mind, haven't been able to come up with one that really works..Maybe just leave it alone, and work around it as one of the lesser loved facts of life. I only had two flip in the last campaign. the first caught me by surprise, but shouldnt have. China's culture is as good as mine, and this was an ancient city. The English city I was ready for, but her culture was nothing next to mine. However, it was one of her original dozen central cities...
As a rule, I do not raze cities, and do not like to starve them. Do not, intentionally. However, towards the end of my last campaign, conquered Chinese cities had NO content people. Every survivor had to be an entertainer or unhappy. None. This on MY continent, with JSBAch. There should have been at least 4 content. Cities were connected to the capital, and I had 7 luxuries, plus lux tax at 30%. Of course, if a city is producing no wealth, lux tax does not help them. therefore, they would not work, so starved down to the one or two the central square would support without work.
The English cities had two content. Therefore the large cities starved. Noting I could have done to change that that I know of.

However, corruption is an issue. It looks like another design change intended to make conquest hard. It does. It is hard to support all those conquered cities that contribute nothing. Might as well just raze them and forget them. The only thing valuable about them is their contribution to the final score, and access to luxuries and resources. Perhaps a port on the opposite sea. Corruption should be limiting--it does change the nature of the game -- but not crippling. Before I started playing for the contest rules, I modified the library, cathedral and temple to reduce corruption. The game worked much better for me. It was an issue, but nanageable.

I do not find happiness too easy. the opposite. because of the war. Maybe I should just accept that as the price of conquest. Easy to say, have short wars. But, if they won't talk to me?? the war goes on without my permission. Even wars I did not start. I can do UN, or space. I finished a long conquest last night. But culture? You have to have territory to have culture. you have to have war to have territory. I have a problem. I will try again. Maybe I can find the key.

I do not draft, except in extreme circumstances... like an imminent attack where I cannout bring support. But that is what the AI does. Leave it. It can be exloited, but it is OK as is.

 

[-proletarian-]

This is a great site. I stumbled upon it last night by way of this thread, and spent the next 3 hours reading the various articles and chronicles of games played out by Sirian. This guy gets a TON of great leaders! Sheesh........

Anywho, excellent site, I already bookmarked it into my favourites list, and would be very receptive to any future plugs on this forum concerning any new additions to your site.

 

[Sirian]

Proletarian: thanks, glad you found my site useful.

Mapache said: I preferably use Veteran units. They are much more effective.

Sure. Of course they are. But the choice isn't between using a stack of 20 vets or a stack of 20 (or more) conscripts. The choice is between using 20 vets... OR 20 vets PLUS 20 conscripts. Now when you look at it that way, doesn't that change things a bit?

Militaristic civs promote to Regular on ANY victory by a conscript, so you are just a few attacks against weak opponents (wounded cav, obsolete spears/bows/pikes/swords) away from having a stack of regulars. Even nonmilitaristic civs promote most of the time on any conscript victory.

It's one thing to trade a population AND an unhappy face for a conscript unit. Still worth it, sometimes. It's quite another to trade neither, and get the unit for free, because the combo of size 7 and Overriding Contentment exploits can give you unlimited conscripts, one free per turn, from half-cities set up for the draft rush.

Units do more than attack. You need bodies, and lots of them, for garrison to prevent flip of captured cities. Having stacks and stacks of completely expendable conscripts on hand is much stronger than you seem to be imagining. It's certainly WAY overpowered if you set up more than one or two draft rush cities. Five such cities can draft you a HUNDRED free conscripts in 20 turns. Ten such cities could do it in 10 turns, or get you a whopping THREE HUNDRED free units in just 30 turns. That's more than a transport full per turn. Sure, if you use them on attack, they are going to die a lot, but you can afford that. Then there are other things you can use them for, such as all kinds of blockading (of both friendly and enemy units), jam up roads/rails, prevent passage through your lands, use them for pillaging, or as bait, or any number of uses. Fill your secure cities with them and move vets to front line duty. On and on the list goes. And this is a "great" use for your ancient whipping cities that are already hopelessly unhappy and never going to be able to grow much. Just go from ancient-era exploitation to modern.

Heck, conscripts can even be exploitatively used as disbanding material, to get 20 or 22 or 27 transferable shields per turn out of even the most corrupt cities, if you first invest in the necessary contentment improvements. You could trade conscripts for vet units, even ships or buildings, just not wonders. I didn't go far enough to explain this, as I've never used it. (I do use disbanding, but not like THIS, with free draft-rush units). The parts I did detail are sufficiently bad in themselves, and could stand some patching.

It is my view that Overriding Contentment is currently the worst and most exploitable flaw in the game. Could be argued, but that's how I see it.

The ONLY drawback I have found from using the draft rush is fewer great leaders. Lot fewer elites getting into the action because, frankly, the targets are wiped out too quickly. Only so many enemy targets to attack, then they're all dead, and you end up with dozens of regulars and your opponents brought to heel before tanks even come on the scene in many cases. But... what do you need a leader for by the time you can draft? To save for building the UN? Heh. If you're draft-rushing, odds are that the game isn't going to last into the modern era. Unless you restrict your exploit to just one or two cities, or are playing catchup on Emperor/Deity (and didn't overdo the ancient poprush).



Thanks for the comments, guys.

- Sirian

 

[Marzipan]

Razing and flipping: Fix it so that razing a city over size 3 kills half the population and destroys city improvements (so that they would have to be rebuilt if the city is recaptured) but not wonders (or maybe give you the option) instead of wiping the whole city away. If the city is size 3 or less, the whole thing is wiped away when it is razed. Keep the city flipping in, but instead of having the city flip and take away the garrison, damage the garrison every turn there is resistance. I'm not sure how severe I would want resistance to damage the garrison, but it could be something like damage the best defender 1 hit point for every turn there is resistance, and destroy one defender every turn the city would have flipped. Then eventually if resistance lasts long enough, or there are enough attempted flips, the defenders would be destroyed (unless replacements are sent in). Maybe treat the number of resistors asthe hit points of the resistance fighters, and roll the dice against the best defender. If the resistors win, one hit point is knocked off the best defender of the garrison. If the garrison wins, one resistor is "quelled". Anyways you get the picture. Why isn't it already like this

If razing worked like this, it would take a few cycles of capturing a city to completely obliterate it. For example, a size 12 city would have to be razed 3 times to completely wipe it out (1st raze population goes to 6, 2nd raze pop goes to 3, then 3rd raze city is gone, assuming no growth during this time).

Agree that there should be more severe penalties for violating things like the right of passage agreement or lack of agreement. One step in that direction would be to allow a civ that has foreign units trespassing on it to cancel any other agreements it has with that civ without penalty. If a civ uses an RoP to position units for a sneak attack, all other civs can cancel any existing agreement without penalty. It might be good to let a civ close the embassy of another civ that violates agreements, forcing them to pay for a new one if they want one. Maybe for serious enough diplomatic breaches, a civ could be penalized by automatically losing all of its embasies.

 

[Ironikinit]

One easy adjustment for the programmers would be to take away one of the rewards of razing. Now, when people raze, they get free workers. That should be simple to take out.

 

[Dillo]

I think the penalty for breaking agreements is already just fine, you get penalized for any stupid little thing you do.You break arop, or any little thing you are penalized for all eternity, but the AI suffers no penalties, and it does use all these dirty little tricks to attac the player. I cant count how many times a AI has declared war on another, only to gain ROP from me, then move all their troops into my territory,call peace with the other, then attack me in the next turn. I think the system is balanaced as far as that goes. I use them and so does the AI, what needs fixing there?

Plus I dont like the site too much, there is too much content and to few links to the stuff, I like to ba able to find what I want on a site right away, not haveing to rifle through the crap to get to what I want. Needs some links on the main page, or at least a simpler explaination of the links, the site just made no sense to me.