"Boudica of the Romans" an exploit or not

[Bhruic]

correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, the AI is not programmed to take advantage of any trait. The leaders are given certain, programmed tendencies (builder, aggression, yada, yada, yada. . .) but the behavior programming is isolated from the traits themselves.

Consider yourself corrected!

The AI doesn't know anything about traits. But it's aware of the effect of traits. Churchill is well aware he can build walls/castles faster. He's aware that Monuments make give him a higher happy cap.

Look at it another way: If you were to change AI Churchill from CHA/PRO to CRE/IMP, his behavior would not change at all. The problem is not that he wouldn't realize that his Archers no longer start with Drill I/CG I - it is that he was never aware that they got it to begin with.

"Aware" is a hard word to use when talking about the AI. I wouldn't say he's "aware", but when it comes to figuring out what the best thing he can build is, it certainly factors into his consideration. And changing him from CHA/PRO to CRE/IMP would certainly affect his behaviour.

She will put them into stacks and march them off to war as if they are identical units, because (at that point in her AI brain) they are defined as the same type of unit.

True, but not true. They are defined as the same unit class, yes. But the AI is programmed to take strength into consideration.

Bh

 

[Arlborn]

Consider yourself corrected!

The AI doesn't know anything about traits. But it's aware of the effect of traits. Churchill is well aware he can build walls/castles faster. He's aware that Monuments make give him a higher happy cap.



"Aware" is a hard word to use when talking about the AI. I wouldn't say he's "aware", but when it comes to figuring out what the best thing he can build is, it certainly factors into his consideration. And changing him from CHA/PRO to CRE/IMP would certainly affect his behaviour.



True, but not true. They are defined as the same unit class, yes. But the AI is programmed to take strength into consideration.

Bh

But they are also programmed to have a certain personality besides their traits/UU/UB right? So an AI with a completely lousy set of traits/UU/UB for warmonger, might still do if the AI is a war nuts no? Or take Gandhi with the best warmongering traits/UU/UB, would he ever go to war, anyway?

 

[Bhruic]

But they are also programmed to have a certain personality besides their traits/UU/UB right? So an AI with a completely lousy set of traits/UU/UB for warmonger, might still do if the AI is a war nuts no? Or take Gandhi with the best warmongering traits/UU/UB, would he ever go to war, anyway?

Oh, yes, there are a lot of other factors that go into their decisions. I just wanted to point out that they aren't completely oblivious where traits are concerned. They are aware of the ways that it directly impacts them (faster building, better units, more health, etc). But they aren't aware of any strategic elements (ie, financial = cottage industry, aggressive = early rush, etc).

Bh

 

[Thyrwyn]

Thank you for the correction and the info, Bhruic!

 

[onedreamer]

With all due respect, I tend to think, as Blitzkrieg those, that you may have problem with your English (Don't worry, mine is not perfect either. I'm French Canadian).

How does this influence the discussion ? We're understanding each other perfectly.

You say we're talking of actions. I'm not talking precisely about action, but about a player's intentions, when he selects an option which gives him an (unfair) advantage.

Well I agree with you that when he selects that option he clearly has in mind to take an advantage. I can even agree that it is an unfair advantage. That's perfectly legit for you to say, but you can't possibly say that he's cheating, because nowhere in the manuals of the game is written that you can't choose that option. It's a bit like bluffing in a card game (typically poker). You don't necessarily need to bluff to win, but you may do it, and if you win this way you won by bluffing, not by cheating. You can even go as far as saying this person who bluffed at poker cheated the other players, but he did not cheat the game. I hope my awful english made sense, you know it's pretty hard to explain the obvious in a foreign language, because it's hard to find other words to explain what most people find pretty clear and straight forward.

 

[SwordofStriker]

How does this influence the discussion ? We're understanding each other perfectly.



Well I agree with you that when he selects that option he clearly has in mind to take an advantage. I can even agree that it is an unfair advantage. That's perfectly legit for you to say, but you can't possibly say that he's cheating, because nowhere in the manuals of the game is written that you can't choose that option. It's a bit like bluffing in a card game (typically poker). You don't necessarily need to bluff to win, but you may do it, and if you win this way you won by bluffing, not by cheating. You can even go as far as saying this person who bluffed at poker cheated the other players, but he did not cheat the game. I hope my awful english made sense, you know it's pretty hard to explain the obvious in a foreign language, because it's hard to find other words to explain what most people find pretty clear and straight forward.

You're doing fine, and you make very good points.

 

[L4zXX0r]

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.

Forgive me if people have posted similar comments, but I'm only starting to read this thread.

How is this a cheat? Simply put, if the computer allows you to do something without modding/hacking the game, it's not a cheat. Now you of course are exploiting the game so that your units, specifically the praetorians start out stronger, and can only get stronger quicker. However, it's my view, that the Praetorian in general is SUPER STRONG, and it really does not matter who the leader is with the Romans, since you will still have the best units in the game when you get Iron Working. Is this an exploit though, in classic computer game terms? No. Is it exploiting existing game rules to have a really good leader/civ combo, yes. It's not breaking any rules though. Of course, there is no "single player" rule book, so by definition, it can't be cheating.

 

[L4zXX0r]

if you want to play with unrestricted leaders, Boudica of the Romans is fair game.
if you don't want that, don't check that option

Actually, it's not technically fair game. While it might be fun to experiment with different leader/civ combinations, some combo's are more powerful than others. Some leaders also do not have any synergy with certain civilizations, either because of their UB or UUs, or even because of their starting techs. So since the game is probably balanced using civ's with their proper leaders, it becomes unbalanced right away when switching to unrestricted leaders.

 

[L4zXX0r]

Actually, i think now that Alexander of the romans is way worse than boudica.
His PHI complements the +25% GPR from the roman forums for the logical extreme in GP bonus, while Aggressive is enough for prets.
Charismatic just doesnt pay off:


What say you?

I say it does, but in the long run. A veteran army is nothing to scoff at, and that one happiness you get from being a charasmatic leader is awesome, and the happiness from monuments and radio towers really adds up. Those additional happiness points means bigger cities earlier. I tend to have happiness issues before I ever have health issues.

 

[L4zXX0r]

...but would probably give you a reputation as a "cheap" player.

I'd proudly take that reputation. It just means people were not good enough to beat me and called me "cheap" because it made them feel better. Just because someone has a winning strategy, doesn't mean it cannot be countered. If you're playing multi against someone who is running boudica/rome, just consider better strategies to beat them. Take their iron resources, build defensive axemen, rush to get crossbowmen or longbowmen or macemen. It is a strategy game. Being concerned with what is "cheap" is important, being concerned with beating cheap is more important.

 

[L4zXX0r]

Allow me to be a bit blunt: What is the significance of this thread, besides for the pure sake of argument?

Isn't that the best reason for a thread?

 

[azzaman333]

Elizabeth with Praetorians > Boobica with Praetorians.

 

[Thrust Vectorin]

I'd proudly take that reputation. It just means people were not good enough to beat me and called me "cheap" because it made them feel better. Just because someone has a winning strategy, doesn't mean it cannot be countered. If you're playing multi against someone who is running boudica/rome, just consider better strategies to beat them. Take their iron resources, build defensive axemen, rush to get crossbowmen or longbowmen or macemen. It is a strategy game. Being concerned with what is "cheap" is important, being concerned with beating cheap is more important.

or start on a different continent and have two overlapping cities working 6 tiles (hopefully 4+ floodplanes) with cottages on them as elizabeth and tech liberalism --> printing press at like 600 AD.

Then invade with tanks and marines ^________^

 

[Thrust Vectorin]

oh also, it can't be much worse than a modern or industrial age start on an archipegalo map with the dutch.

 

[L4zXX0r]

or start on a different continent and have two overlapping cities working 6 tiles (hopefully 4+ floodplanes) with cottages on them as elizabeth and tech liberalism --> printing press at like 600 AD.

Then invade with tanks and marines ^________^

Which is something Boudica will never do, since she sucks at tech. I'd argue having Tanks when everyone else still have swords and arrows is way stronger than Boudica.

 

[King Flevance]

If you're playing multi against someone who is running boudica/rome, just consider better strategies to beat them. Take their iron resources,

If you can since the strongest unit you have to batte her praets early on will be 9.25 (that's axes with combat 1 and shock) now that is assuming you are countering with aggressive leader yourself along with making a barrack. But you have to realize boudica player probably is doing the same. So her praets you are going against will be 10.8 since she will definatley be countering you counter.

Plus, if you are going for her iron, if the player is at least decent, they are going to be guarding their iron. All it takes is putting one of those praets on key forest tiles to halt your invasion. Making her praets 14.8

build defensive axemen,

As has been discussed many times, axes do not counter praets. Praets simply have no counter. Axes are simply your best chance. Just like trying to jump over a 50 yard gulf with a diving board give you better chances than just using the ledge.

rush to get crossbowmen or longbowmen or macemen.

Longbows don't really counter praets either. They are just a more formidable opponent when turtling in cities. Crossbows and Mace's are a decent counter, if you can hold out until you get them. But all boudica has to do is make sure she pillages your commerce tiles.

It is a strategy game. Being concerned with what is "cheap" is important, being concerned with beating cheap is more important.

Not all strategy games are perfectly balanced. Most aren't.

Which is something Boudica will never do, since she sucks at tech. I'd argue having Tanks when everyone else still have swords and arrows is way stronger than Boudica.

Boudica is perfectly suited to run a specialist economy and overcome and financial mongers. No leader "sucks" at tech because SE's are strong and all it requires for the most part are farms.

 

[azzaman333]

As has been discussed many times, axes do not counter praets. Praets simply have no counter. Axes are simply your best chance. Just like trying to jump over a 50 yard gulf with a diving board give you better chances than just using the ledge.

The Numidian Cavalry is probably the closest to a direct counter to the Praet.


However, the key is prevent praets appearing in the first place with mounted units guarding the iron until stronger backup arrives to take cities.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One thing that may clear up some of the confusion, cheating depends onwhich game you are playing
(Cheating to touch the ball with your hands in football? depends on the type of football)

If you look at all the Options available, you realize that Firaxis did not sell A game they sold a wide variety of related games ie
BTS
BTS Unrestricted Leaders
BTS Fantasy maps+OCC
BTS Permanent Alliances+ No Vassals+ No space Race+ Terra Map toroidal wrap+ Marathon speed

Each of those is a seperate game with a separate set of rules (very slightly)

Cheating involves violating the rules that you have agreed to.
So Unrestricted Leaders is not a cheat.

The question of whether or not it is an exploit.. well that generally goes with whether it was planned to have that effect by the developers. (I think it was, I just think they didn't intend the 'Unrestricted LEaders' game to be balanced)

The question of whether it is overpowered.. well there I'm sure it is... especialy as compared to all other ~1500 possible combinations it is definitely in the top 1% for most variants of the 'unrestricted Leaders' game (except possibly an Always Peace one, or tiny Islands+high sea level+one opponent on a huge map)

 

[King Flevance]

I can't see it as anything other than an exploit myself. Although, I remember reading an interview of one of Firaxis's employees that said he enjoyed playing Boudica of the Romans when discussing the UL Feature in the "upcoming" BTS expansion. So clearly, by definition it is not an exploit. However, from my perspective, it is.

But I also, have nerfed praets in my game to give them a weakness. I have actually nerfed praets and axes yet axes remain the counter to praets. So if someone was playing my variation, I wouldn't see Boudica, or any aggressive leader as overpowering. But by the default "balance" of the game, I would never play UL. I have been going through and rebalancing alot of units in my game. But eventually I am just going to make an actual mod out of it. Which the hardest pat of so far is getting my tech tree how I need it.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

oh also, it can't be much worse than a modern or industrial age start on an archipegalo map with the dutch.

The dutch on a water map starting in ANY era is OP, lol. Seriously though, Willem Oranje is my favorite water world leader. In fact, I'm going to start an islands game with Oranje tonight, only on Prince instead of Noble. I think I can still win