"Boudica of the Romans" an exploit or not

[Venger]

I voted cheat, but I think we're hung up on language...

Though I would note, for the record, that "stacking the deck" is the very definition of cheating at cards.

If you used Boudica's trait with the Praetorian, they would have called the game "Rome Wins".

It could be argued that Boudica's traits actually fit Caesar. But you'd never get those traits because it'd be too powerful for Rome.

Venger

 

[ShunNakamura]

I think some people need to read the definition of exploit.

"to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" - From Merriam-Webster.

It doesn't really matter what you are using. Thus, exploiting doesn't have to use a bug[it is just that using a bug is almost, if not, always exploiting].

 

[PieceOfMind]

It favors a very particular strategy... like playing Gengis ignoring all other tech beside Horseback riding... not really going for cultural victory...

Yes. the combo favours a particular strategy.

However I think there is a common belief, however controversial it may be, that early game rushes are the "optimal" strategy. That is, it is the strategy that under most circumstances gives you the best chance of winning the game. And so it's not surprising that a leader combo which favours the "optimal" strategy receives a lot of attention in discussions like these.

In my experience, MP games are where you're more likely to see people attempting their supposed "optimal" strategies because MP games are by their very nature more competitive. This is why I would agree it is a cheap combo in a MP game.

I guess it's worth mentioning that early rush is not necessarily the best strategy in larger FFA MP games anyway, as the game becomes more like RISK, and players may opt for more peaceful development to avoid opening themselves up attacks from behind etc. Intelligent players will maintain a decent military and obviously in civ the defender will usually have the advantage (assuming equally sized armies) - just like in RISK.

In SP games, it's a mostly pointless issue as others have already noted since there are other more effective and blatant ways of cheating or exploiting the game rules.

Though I would note, for the record, that "stacking the deck" is the very definition of cheating at cards.

That's a very good point! Enlightening as usual.

 

[hoopsnerd]

I think some people need to read the definition of exploit.

"to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" - From Merriam-Webster.

It doesn't really matter what you are using. Thus, exploiting doesn't have to use a bug[it is just that using a bug is almost, if not, always exploiting].

Yes, that's the dictionary defintion... but since this discussion pertains to a video game the term "exploit" is almost a slang term meaning "abusing a bug in the software to gain an unfair advantage" amongst the gaming community. To say that something is an exploit on a gaming message board would be incorrect if the user is merely taking advantage of intended game mechanics.

MMORPGs are probably the best example of this terminology. If you are caught using an "exploit" in many MMORPGs you get banned from the game forever with your account deleted, but doing things that are very "cheap" but allowed within the games intended mechanics it would not be considered an "exploit" and would not warrant punishment but would probably give you a reputation as a "cheap" player.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

With the new colony costs / corporations in BTS, with no infrastructure traits (org / fin / spiritual), maintaining the giant empire made with the Overpowered army is much harder to do. I don't think it's a cheat or OP, it's another method of playing. I prefer to warmonger with at least 1 (if not 2) infrastructure based traits.

Personally, I feel Augustus of the Romans is more powerful unless you plan on winning the game with praetorians before astronomy.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Actually, i think now that Alexander of the romans is way worse than boudica.

Seconded.

Having tried both in consecutive (SP) games, Roman Alex is the really evil combo.

Spoiler :

Boudica's super-powered Praets are truly awesome, surely the most overpowered units (for their time period) you can build in BtS. But, on higher levels at least, there's a limit to how many cities you can capture and keep that early in the game without utterly crippling your economy.

On a pangea map, Roman Boudica is nigh-on unstoppable (though there are other leader/civ combos which can still be very tough to break down). But if you can't literally win the game with Praets (ie. early conquest or domination), then the lack of a serious economic advantage from Boudica's traits can be a major handicap. And good luck if you get a totally isolated start - this combo is pretty awful if there's no-one to kill until after Astronomy.

Roman Alex, on the other hand, still gets over-powered Praets but with a huge bonus to GP generation. Philosophical + Forum is almost as overpowered as Aggressive Praets in the short term, but lasts throughout the game. And this combo has nothing to fear from an isolated start: sure, you won't get to use that UU for much, but super-fast GP generation is ideal for a cultural or space race win.

As to the question of whether playing an overpowered combo is exploitative....

Spoiler :

Any Roman leader is going to be OP on a pangea (providing you find Iron), just like any Dutch or Viking leader will be OP on an islands map. In both cases, pushing the difficulty level up a notch or two will be necessary if you want a proper challenge.

But 'too easy' isn't the same as 'exploitative' or 'cheating'.

An 'exploit', in the sense most commonly used around here, is the abuse of a game mechanic to reap a disproportionate advantage vs. the AI.

Classic exploits from civ3 include 'RoP rape' (using a Right of Passage agreement to attack enemy cities on the same turn as the DoW), 'ship-chaining' (using a chain of ships to move units across a huge ocean in a single turn), and 'pre-DoW trades' (buying a tech from the AI with a 'per-turn' payment, then DoWing so you don't have to pay).

All of these have now been nerfed (though ship-chaining lives on in a severely reduced form), but civ4 has a few minor exploits of its own, none of which are game-breaking imo.

To me, what separates an exploit from a strong play is that it involves using the game mechanics to gain a significant advantage without paying any significant cost. In all three of the classic examples, this is clearly the case. In all three cases, and imo with all true exploits, the trick is also something the AI has little or no understanding of (in terms of both its ability to abuse the exploit and its ability to defend against it).

Cheating, on the other hand, involves bypassing the game mechanics altogether - giving yourself a stack of techs or units in the WB, for example.

Choosing an overpowered leader/civ combo doesn't abuse the game mechanics in any way - you'll still have to abide by the same rules as the AI is following - and you may find yourself facing an equally OP opponent.

And it certainly isn't cheating.

I'd say playing as Boudica of the Romans on a pangea, on your usual difficulty, and restarting if you don't find iron, is best described as 'extreme cheese'.

 

[Bhruic]

Though I would note, for the record, that "stacking the deck" is the very definition of cheating at cards.

That's because "stacking the deck" is against the rules in card games. Selecting Boudica of the Romans is not against the rules in BTS.

Bh

 

[Venger]

That's because "stacking the deck" is against the rules in card games. Selecting Boudica of the Romans is not against the rules in BTS.

Bh

If you look at the rules of most card games, it says nothing of stacking the deck. It is simply understood as cheating, as taking deliberate steps to advantage a player outside the normal conduct of the game. Which is why I voted cheat.

Again, we're just hung up on language...

 

[Bhruic]

Actually, most card game rules that I've read have included something to the effect that "cards will be shuffled", or "cards will be distributed randomly", or something to that effect.

For example, grabbing the first link google threw up:
http://www.pagat.com/boston/bidwhist.html

Or to quote the relevant part: "When the game first starts, the deck is shuffled and dealt around"

Bh

 

[hoopsnerd]

If you look at the rules of most card games, it says nothing of stacking the deck. It is simply understood as cheating, as taking deliberate steps to advantage a player outside the normal conduct of the game. Which is why I voted cheat.

That point is completely invalid on the grounds that if using any Unrestricted Leader combo you want is "cheating" then it wouldn't be permitted as an optional checkbox when starting the game. What would be "simply understood" as cheating would be going into the XML files and making Aggressive and Charismatic have additional bonuses from what they are supposed to have in the game.

Since "unrestricted leaders" is an option, it is not "outside the normal conduct" of the game and should not be considered cheating. You're only getting hung up on language because you choose to define "cheating" in an incorrect way, and that's your own problem.

 

[Venger]

Since "unrestricted leaders" is an option, it is not "outside the normal conduct" of the game and should not be considered cheating.

An opinion I respect and is logically valid, though I rather feel the use of it crosses a fairness level such that I would consider it a cheat. My opinion, as expressed. You may feel free to differ. The game has load and save options, but loading and saving every combat until you win each one I also consider a cheat, despite the fact it merely uses natural presented processes of the game.

You're only getting hung up on language because you choose to define "cheating" in an incorrect way, and that's your own problem.

I vote cheat because it crosses a sportsmanship line, to me. My opinion. You could work harder to come across as a bigger jerk, but it would be hard work indeed.

 

[alpaca]

I'd in fact agree that it's an exploit.
An exploit in my book is to use a feature in the game in a way that it gives you an advantage over your opponents which makes the game much easier to win than it normally is, on average - or using a feature in a way that it clearly wasn't meant to be used.

Playing Boudica with Praetorians gives you a huge advantage over anyone you play in most of the games (i.e. every game in which you get iron and some opponents to break early), therefore on average you'll fare much better than you would for example normally do with Boudica.
The second criterium I mentioned doesn't apply here since we have to assume that unrestricted leaders was meant to be played this way.

However, I wouldn't even call it necessarily unfair. If you agreed to allow Boudica of the Romans before the game, it's not exactly unfair because every participant of the game had a chance to veto this combination. The problem here is however that newer players for example might not see the inherent strength of the combination (although it should be apparent after some thinking) and allow the other person to completely surprise them with it.

I experienced a similarly broken example about a game mechanic some months ago playing with two friends: My best commerce city was only two tiles away from my opponent's border which meant that upon researching cavalry he could conquer it in the same time he declared war in without me being able to do anything about it. All four of us ranked it as an exploit later and as a result we introduced a house-rule that demanded a DoW to be preceded by a warning three turns prior so that defenses can be bolstered.
Now I'm sure most people wouldn't rank that as an exploit, either - but it's definitely an unfair advantage and I refrain from using it (also on the AI in most cases because I try not to use what I feel are exploits on the AI).


-------------------------------------------

A cheat however is a completely different issue. Cheating for me means that you deliberately break the game rules by modifying them from the outside. In civ4, this would be using the worldbuilder to give you a perfect starting position, modding the game so that you have a super-leader or using a 3rd-party program to add money to your treasury. Simply choosing an option inside the game that the developers made available can't be a cheat, it's an exploit to me (at the maximum).

 

[johnny5000]

I don't think it is cheating.

I've completely dominated my neighbors with regular Praets using Julius/Augustus, to the point where I expanded my empire into bankruptcy.

You can only expand so quickly in Civ4 no matter how strong your units are.

Hell, if you used modern armor in the ancient era, you'd win every battle against warriors and archers, but you still couldn't make a gigantic empire without breaking the bank.

 

[hoopsnerd]

An opinion I respect and is logically valid, though I rather feel the use of it crosses a fairness level such that I would consider it a cheat. My opinion, as expressed. You may feel free to differ. The game has load and save options, but loading and saving every combat until you win each one I also consider a cheat, despite the fact it merely uses natural presented processes of the game.

I agree with you that load/saving every time would be "cheating", but it would obviously fall under the "simply understood as cheating" category just like "stacking the deck" in cards or entering WB in civ would.

I vote cheat because it crosses a sportsmanship line, to me. My opinion. You could work harder to come across as a bigger jerk, but it would be hard work indeed.

Ok, so your opinion is that "bad sportsmanship" and "cheating" are synonymous? So every time a player whines to an official in a sport he's cheating? Well what if it's my opinion that the word "douchebag" means "Venger?" I didnt know that "opinions" worked that way but maybe you have a better definition for that too.

Sorry I didn't do a good enough job being a jerk before, is this better?

Edit: Sorry - I probably do sound like a real jerk but I'm just frustrated that people are so quick to call something "cheating."

Accusing somebody of "cheating" is often a very serious allegation. If you're accused cheating in a casino, for instance, that could come with some extremely dire consequences including physical harm to one's body as well as probably a fine or arrest. Lets look at it that way. If Civilization 4: BTS was a game in a casino that pays out for winning and used whatever BTS options the user preferred, would hotel security drag you into the bowels of the casino and rough you up for choosing Boudica of Rome? I don't think so.

I'd also like to point out that using loose definitions for words like "cheating" is bad because of the seriousness of the accusation. What if your government decided to use a very loose definition of "treason?" You'd certainly object to your government's opinion of what "treason" really meant. All I'm saying is that we should be careful when throwing these terms around.

 

[Nelgirith]

I'd in fact agree that it's an exploit.
An exploit in my book is to use a feature in the game in a way that it gives you an advantage over your opponents

So in your book, a pretorian rush, Specialist economy, a quechua rush etc... are exploits. Basically, anything you do in the game could be an exploit. Playing at settler level is an exploit too then

 

[hoopsnerd]

^^Yeah no crap. I dare not use any strategy during games but just randomly build things to avoid any possible exploits or cheating.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

God forbid you city specialize, then you should just uninstall civ, strip naked, curl up in the shower and cry.

 

[hoopsnerd]

^^^ @Blitz

That's what I did last night when I promoted an Axeman to CRIII. Having an axeman with +75% attack vs. cities is a total cheat.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I'd in fact agree that it's an exploit.
An exploit in my book is to use a feature in the game in a way that it gives you an advantage over your opponents which makes the game much easier to win than it normally is, on average - or using a feature in a way that it clearly wasn't meant to be used.

In a multiplayer game the same option is available to everyone else playing the game, therefore there is no advantage. In certain sports one team gets to choose whih side of the playing field to start on: is the team that chooses to have the wind at it's back using an 'exploit'?

In a single player game there are no opponents. That's why they call it single-player. Therefore, again, no exploit.

 

[ShunNakamura]

Yes, that's the dictionary defintion... but since this discussion pertains to a video game the term "exploit" is almost a slang term meaning "abusing a bug in the software to gain an unfair advantage" amongst the gaming community. To say that something is an exploit on a gaming message board would be incorrect if the user is merely taking advantage of intended game mechanics.

MMORPGs are probably the best example of this terminology. If you are caught using an "exploit" in many MMORPGs you get banned from the game forever with your account deleted, but doing things that are very "cheap" but allowed within the games intended mechanics it would not be considered an "exploit" and would not warrant punishment but would probably give you a reputation as a "cheap" player.

I am afraid that until I see a definition as such I will have to hold that mine is the correct definition[besides I selected the definition that did pertain to games *sheesh*; unless of course you think the gaming pertient one was "To employ to the greatest possible advantage" or "a notable deed"].

As for your reference to MMORPG's. I have played some that end up labeling actions that are possible in the game as exploits even when they are not bugs; because it could be utilized for an unfair advantage and it would make leveling uber easy[the issue was the programmers intended it to be used that way; however, if it was abused to make the fullest use of it was completely broke[the developers never tested it to that degree it took close to a year of people playing to discover the way to abuse it]..... but by that point it was out of the developers hands and into the hands of the server admins[who weren't allowed to alter code]. To make matters worse the developers refused to see that there was a problem. Thus the server admins labeled it as an exploit and punished anyone caught.

What you are thinking of[as far as I can tell definition wise] is an exploit in the field of computer security; but even that is sometimes labeled as an exploit of an exploit[thus the hacker/program is exploiting a bug witch in turn exploits the game to its fullest advantage unethically].

As for cheating - "To violate rules deliberately, as in a game". So anyone who violates a rule deliberately is cheating. This doesn't mean it has to be an rule built into a game. It can be a rule ascribed to the game[thus boudica of the romans can easily be cheating in MP if the supplementary rules ban it].