"Boudica of the Romans" an exploit or not

[PieceOfMind]

A simple test for everyone would be to play using the UL option. Then make sure there is always a Boudica of the Romans in the game (as an AI of course). Play it out. Did she win? Now do it again, and again, and again. Did she win all those games? Did any other AI players do better than her? If she didn't win all or even half of those games, you'll probably not think much of her any more. Rather than argue about it, let's test it out for ourselves like was mentioned in the Phi/Ind thread. If we all get steamrolled, then yes, it's way overpowered and verging on being an exploit. If not, we'll have to come up with something else to complain about. Patch 3.13 anyone?

@SwordofStriker,
Your post was reasonable until you mentioned this. Judging whether a particular combo is unfairly overpowered when chosen by the player can't be tested by giving AIs the task of exploiting it. Complex strategies are performed far better in the hands of an experienced human player so testing using the AIs is almost irrelevant. It may happen to reveal a bit of an advantage like, say, Justinian or Joao seem to have in the core game but this is not very useful to the judgement.

@UnspokenRequest

First, I would say that in single player game I don't consider anything unfair against the AI. I mean, if I, in my own privacy, go and worldbuild myself ten cities to start with or whatever, it's not an unfair advantage, cheat, exploit, or anything else. The AI feels nothing. We thus have to consider game in some other framework, not simply "private game at home nobody ever the wiser".

As I said earlier, (I'm basically agreeing with you)

In SP I really don't care whether one wants to call it an exploit, cheat, a cheap trick, a game rule etc. because every person has the right to impress their own attitudes and beliefs on their own games.

I'm still baffled to see people passionately discuss the meaning of cheats and exploits in SP games. Such labels can only lessen the fun for some players who enjoy using cheats and exploits.

It should be noted as well that many veteran players used to take advantage of flaws in the AI that were borderline exploits. For example, in earlier patches of vanilla and warlords, you could steal a worker from an AI and camp on a hill near his capital and watch as he never attempted to improve his land again. Yet it is not common to see these people refer to it as an exploit or cheat.

But having said that, UnspokenRequest is making a (valid) distinction between exploiting the features of the game rules and exploiting features/flaws in the AI playstyle.

[actually I shouldn't necessarily state boudica since it could be any agg/cha leader if there were more than one in the game]

IIRC she is the only leader with that combo. This is half the reason why there was so much interest in her, since in the BtS expansion they were going to introduce the forbidden combination Agg/Cha. The other half of the reason is less mature of course!

Back then, it was a common impression that an Agg/Cha leader would be overpowered and thus game-breaking. Maybe this impression is carrying on into these discussions, where the game-breaking combination is being enhanced further by matching it with a civ with a powerful UU.

In other words, if some people consider the Agg/Cha combo game-breaking already, it's not hard to imagine why they'd think Boudica of the Romans is an exploit or "stacking the rules".

My opinion is still that it is technically not an exploit. It's more like a handicap.

 

[SwordofStriker]

My opinion is still that it is technically not an exploit. It's more like a handicap.

This is pretty much how I feel about it as well.

Also, I mentioned allowing the AI to use Boudica of the Romans because if the inherent power of the combo itself makes it an exploit, then it should be overpowering whether it's player run or not.

 

[PieceOfMind]

This is pretty much how I feel about it as well.

Also, I mentioned allowing the AI to use Boudica of the Romans because if the inherent power of the combo itself makes it an exploit, then it should be overpowering whether it's player run or not.

Hmmm fair enough but I don't think it's meaningful to test the combo detached from the player's hands. I don't think we wish to test whether the AI can exploit features. I think the main point is that this strategy (early rushing) works particularly well for players but not AIs. You don't test which leaders are good for conquest victories by seeing if AIs using the leader can achieve conquest - it doesn't work. I think the same applies here.

Side note: Having said that, I remember heated discussions over Blake's Warlords betterAI where some believed the AI was intentionally taking advantage of the handicaps given to it. In other words, the AIs were using exploits!

 

[Arlborn]

There are so many ways of exploiting(note the difference of the verb) the AI's weakness used by the high level players that can win deity, like the fact that the AI starts with archers, so playing Inca makes it easier. Or the whip bug for a long time, or declaring war VERY early only to get the extra worker(s) the AI gets in higher levels. Or Military Academy early, or spam privateers to make the coastal cities of the AIs build ONLY ships, and etc and etc.


Are you telling me that the victory of those players in Immortal or deity using this kind of things is just by cheating and by using exploits, and so they gotta play more "fair"? I don't think so. Almost impossible, if not impossible, to win a Deity level playing like you would play in noble or so.

 

[ShunNakamura]

There are so many ways of exploiting(note the difference of the verb) the AI's weakness used by the high level players that can win deity, like the fact that the AI starts with archers, so playing Inca makes it easier. Or the whip bug for a long time, or declaring war VERY early only to get the extra worker(s) the AI gets in higher levels. Or Military Academy early, or spam privateers to make the coastal cities of the AIs build ONLY ships, and etc and etc.


Are you telling me that the victory of those players in Immortal or deity using this kind of things is just by cheating and by using exploits, and so they gotta play more "fair"? I don't think so. Almost impossible, if not impossible, to win a Deity level playing like you would play in noble or so.

I am unaware of the whipping bug[that or I just didn't associate it as a bug] so I don't really know if that would be a cheat or an exploit. It certainly does sound like at least an exploit by how you worded it though.

As for some of the others. It really depends on if you consider it fair or not[there is no question that you are making use of flaws]. Personally I think the term fair is completely inapplicable on such levels of play[well at least if deity is as hard in this game as I have heard some other games are]. Sometimes on those type of levels you are MEANT to have to 'exploit' those flaws in order to win. A pure test of ones ability to fully exploit the game to their advantage; that is what those kind of levels of play are[of course deity in this game may not be that powerful I haven't tried it yet]. However, I do think I would still call the 'techniques' as exploits. But I certainly wouldn't hold exploits of that level against someone playing a level of play that is meant to have the exploits used.


There are varying levels of exploits/cheats. Some are serious, others are not. For example if you go outside the rules of a game in order to give yourself a sweet avatar or some such that likely wouldn't be considered a serious cheat unless it screwed up the game in some way. Exploits have the same varying degree. Exploiting the the flaws in the AI intelligence is a minor exploit at the very worst in most cases. Some cases are worse than others even in such normal flaws[making the AI caravel spam would be one I would consider somewhat worse than your usually exploit of AI intelligence].

 

[onedreamer]

The gaming experience is not different enough between warlord and BTS to claim that the effect of Unrestricted leader versus the effect of modding an existing leader is not the same. With all due respect, I think this is nonsense.

With all due respect, you have not understood what I wrote, that's why it sounded nonsense. I meant that the OPTION was not there before BtS, that's what makes the game different. If you'd change the game to gain this particular advantage before BtS you would be cheating, but since in BtS it is an option, and therefor a part of the game, you can't say it's the same thing to use it as if you modded Warlords or Vanilla, heh.
Modifying the Vanilla and Warlord in this game would clearly be a cheat since if you played your game in this modified way, it wouldn't work with other players in multiplayer.

It has exactly the same game effect: in both case, you get an Agg/cha Praetorian... Something which doesn't happen in normal games. That is a fact.

It happens in a normal BtS game when you activate that option. In Warlord and Vanilla there is no such option, so it can't of course happen.

1) "going against the game rules" or "using [...] game rule" as you say are not intentions. They are actions.
2) The intention is revealed by asking: what was the player's purpose by the observed action? Whether the observed action is "using the game rule" or "going against the rule" doesn't change the intention.
As you recognize it (see bold), both actions are done "in order to take an advantage". That is the intention...
In both case, the aim is: getting an advantage. Whether the mean to get this advantage is provided through an option or through modding is ultimately irrelevant to determine the intention. The intention is still to get an advantage...

Man you have such a wicked philosophy... as you said we're talking of actions. So I can have the goal to win a race and for this reason I will train with the best equipment possible, because I am rich. Others who are poor cannot do it and for this reason they MAY not win (note: playing Boudica of the Romans is by no means a sure victory). You call this CHEATING ? Please...
At the same time you're saying that if I killed my best opponent instead of training well it would be the same, because my aim is the same (winning the race). It is surely not the intention which determines if you cheat or not -_-"

@onedreamer: there are multiple definitions of the word exploit. also, definitions will change based on the overall usage of a word within the vernacular. If three hundred million people in a society of three hundred-two million begin referring to oranges as apples, eventually, it will change.

Also, who cares? how about the question: "Is Boudica of the Romans Unfair?" Now we don't have to squabble about precise definitions.

Well, how about you read the results of THIS question ? It seems that three hundred million people on three hundredtwo millions are calling oranges as oranges and not apples.
When you will ask the right question they may give a different answer. Go ahead and ask if it is fair or not. Unfair can't possibly be a synonim of exploiting a bug.

Onedreamer even if we use wiki it still doesn't say an exploit has to be a bug.

As for taking your word that exploit in gaming is just short for "exploiting a bug", I think I will take the Video Game theorist Jesper Juul's word that exploit is Mostly used about multi-player games, an exploit can be defined as a case where a player knowingly uses a flaw in a game to gain an unfair advantage. Once again thanks to hoopsnerd for the site.

It blatantly says it is about a bug. And your quote says the same, a game flaw is clearly a game concept that is not working as the devs intended. But this option works exactly as they intended, there is not flaw there and therefor using it can't be an exploit.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Well, how about you read the results of THIS question ? It seems that three hundred million people on three hundredtwo millions are calling oranges as oranges and not apples.
When you will ask the right question they may give a different answer. Go ahead and ask if it is fair or not. Unfair can't possibly be a synonim of exploiting a bug.

Okay, most of what you said makes very little sense, but that may be English isn't ur first language. You are correct, though, my question is a poor example. I was simply trying to suggest an alternate way of asking this because so many people are harping over the semantics of the definition of "exploit".

 

[UnspokenRequest]

A lot of good points. I won't answer to everything.

Still a few points:

@Onedreamer
I think you didn't get the meaning of my texts on Warlord, Vanilla versus BTS and on why the game is still rather the same even if it's now BTS.
Please, read a few of my other posts on this thread (especially since page 6). You'll get what I mean. I don't like repeating myself all that much. I've already explained what I'm about to tell you in a few sentences.
The crucial point if you want to understand my position on this: the simple fact that the unrestricted leader (UL) option is now available in BTS while it was not in previous versions is not a very good argument to claim that Boudica of the Romans isn't a cheat or an exploit. Why, because the effect on the game is the same, whether it is allowed as an option or not.

How can something that was cheating in warlord and vanilla suddenly becomes not cheating simply because there is now a little box you can check to play this way instead of modding it? The fact that this little box next to the words "unrestricted leader" appeared didn't change the game all that much. This little box doesn't give much legitimacy to the option. When such games (Alexander of the Romans) were modded (in warlord and vanilla), people who did it tried it because they wanted to experiment with the game, to have fun, etc.. They knew they were getting huge advantages by doing this. Now they don't have to mod. They just have to click on a box. But beside this little box, what else has changed to make a previously illegitimate mod, a now consensual way to play the game? Nothing. Yet people changed their whole point of view on something simply because there is now a little box... That is one powerful little box!
Let's face it! Firaxis just decided to make it easier for players to customize their games in all the way they want to. It's obvious Firaxis added this option for people who wanted to have fun and who wanted to try all kinds of crazy combination they could think of. Why would adding this little box suddenly give legitimacy to something that was previously "against the rule"?
To me, the fact that there is now a box which makes the option more easily available doesn't change what it is. It still has the same effects on the game.

Those agreeing with the "option available = not cheating" point of view use a very legalist definition of cheating. It's a definition I don't agree with. For the reasons and my arguments on this: read my other posts on page 7 and 8.

You say "It happens in a normal BtS game when you activate that option [unrestricted leader]."
Again, you didn't understand my post or maybe I didn't make myself clear (and again read my other posts).
Using the unrestricted leader option is not a "normal game". It is a custom game. When the designers tested and adjusted the balance of Civ4 Vanilla, of Civ4 Warlord and of Civ4 BTS, unrestricted leader was not their priority. It is well knowned that CIV4 (BTS or not) is designed primarily with UL checked off. Heck, even marathon games (a much often used option) are considered anormal games for BTS designed team (it is known that games are tested at normal speed first and then adjusted for other game speed. this is one of the reason which lead to espionnage problems on marathon...

Unrestricted leader is a marginal option (many people who say it is neither a cheat nor an exploit agree that UL is a flavor and marginal option). Sorry, but it is not a normal game.

Man you have such a wicked philosophy... as you said we're talking of actions. So I can have the goal to win a race and for this reason I will train with the best equipment possible, because I am rich. Others who are poor cannot do it and for this reason they MAY not win (note: playing Boudica of the Romans is by no means a sure victory). You call this CHEATING ? Please...
At the same time you're saying that if I killed my best opponent instead of training well it would be the same, because my aim is the same (winning the race). It is surely not the intention which determines if you cheat or not -_-"

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).

First, intention alone doesn't determine if a person cheats. I never said that. I clearly stated that intention is one of the conditions, with "effect of the cheat" (advantage to the player) and with "perception of legitimate behavior" (what many call rules or norms), that determines if a person is cheating.

Second, this part of my posts to which you respond was intended to refocus you on intention rather than on action. 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.

Now, on your example. It doesn't represent my view of the Unrestricted leader option.
Unrestricted leader doesn't resemble training with the best equipment.
An athlete training with the best equipment knows that there'll be others in the competition who'll have the same equipment than the one he does... Not with UL.
In UL, while the player gets to choose his highly powerful combo, the AI doesn't and can easily get (through random leader) very poor combination of leader/civ compared to what the player choose.

From my point of view, UL can be likened to training and competing with equipment, that is not normally allowed in a game. As I said above, it's like playing baseball with a baseball bat made from a material that is not permitted in regular competitive games (lets note however that exhibition game, at the opposite of competitive games have sometimes permitted the use baseball bat that are made of materials which permit to hit the ball farther away). I don't know. Try to imagine a F1 racing Ferrari using a piece of mechanic normally forbidden in competition races, but that could be permitted in private essays. That is how I view UL. A way for players to experiment, to have fun, to test the games' limit to balance, etc.
This view is partly supported by what others wrote here: HoF (and another type of game on CFC I think) don't permit Unrestricted leaders. Why do you think it is so? Because the legitimacy of the option is dubious.

@Elandal

You stressed intention several times in your response to Arlborn. This means that an outside observer can never call a cheat without the subject agreeing on intent first - for as long as the subject denies intent you can't prove otherwise (possible exceptions - I'm no psychologist).

According to your logic, Court trials can never determine the intention of a killer, of a raper, or of a thief. Is that it? Court trials can never determine whether a killer wanted to kill his victim or whether it was legitimate defense.
Come on! You're pushing my argument on intention too far.

When a player stacks the deck in his favor, he knows in his own mind he is doing it. I don't want to call this person a cheater. We don't need outside observer to determine the intentions of the cheaters.
The player should be honest enough to himself to recognize the games he is stacking the deck in his favor from the times he is playing a fair game. It's a simple honesty question.
When I play as Roman Boudica, Roman Alexander or Tokugawa of the Natives, am I aware that I'm not exactly playing a fair game?
As soon as I am aware that I ame pursuing these kind advantages, I don't lie to myself, I'm getting quite close to cheating.

First, I would say that in single player game I don't consider anything unfair against the AI.

This has been adressed several times. You talked about building ten cities, throug worldbuilder. Of course the AI feels nothing and doesn't care about it.
But in your own mind, do you think that your victory at the end of this game against the AI was a fair fight? Is it a fair win?
Will you come here bragging about it?
Don't you think that if you explain here how you won your first diety game, people will congratulate you and tell you it was a well deserved victory? Of course not. Building 10 cities through worldbuilder reduces the merit of the win, because it was not a fair fight.
The fact that this fight was against AIs rather than against player is irrelevant. It still was not a fair fight.

 

[ShunNakamura]

1. An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness: a flaw in the crystal that caused it to shatter.
2. A defect or shortcoming in something intangible: They share the character flaw of arrogance.
3. A defect in a legal document that can render it invalid.

1 a : a defect in physical structure or form <a diamond with a flaw> b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness <vanity was the flaw in his character> <a flaw in the book's plot>

Therefor, by definition a flaw does not need to be a bug.

And I think I already stated that ANYTHING that seriously breaks game balance is a flaw in my opinion[I realize very little will be 100% perfectly balanced... but I do draw the line at some point].

And let me re-qoute wiki for you. and I will embolden the KEY word for your understanding[since you have obviously overlooked it several times thus far].

"]
In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers.

And in case it is not that you missed usually but that you think anything not intended is a bug....

Computer Science: A defect in the code or routine of a program.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

@UnspokenRequest: Yeah, this is what I've been trying to say, too. The AI isn't given the chance to choose their combination with respect to UL. There are a few posters who brought up the Tokugawa of Native Americans with respect only to the Multiplayer. Really, this is the one combination that can successfully stop the Boudica Praetorians. But, once again, the AI has a very low chance of getting this combo randomly.

 

[Thyrwyn]

. . .The AI isn't given the chance to choose their combination with respect to UL. . .

The AI doesn't get to choose the difficulty, either: is that cheating? Is that an exploit?

Every choice the player makes when setting up the game or when deciding upon self-imposed restrictions changes the inherent difficulty of the game for that player.

Is choosing Gilgamesh of Sumer as your leader/civ when you want to run an espionage game an exploit? Or Choosing Ragnar of the Vikings on an Islands map?

 

[King Flevance]

I voted for exploit. Although, I am aware Firaxis meant for it to be this way. I personally find it a little much. Mostly because I think Praets are already broken and always have been. To have them start with Agg is a big deal. That makes them a 9 almost right out of the gate. With a barracks, they can be a 9.6 out of the gate. Cha I don't see as too big a bonus. But when added in with Agg's bonus, it pretty harsh. It makes it extremely easy to have 10+ praets walking out of the gate. There is nothing really to even obsolete them for entire eras.

I think this is merely a position of using a broken feature (Praets) with another broken feature (UL) to produce an exploit. It's really the same exact things people gripe about Civ 3 for. The only difference is in CIv 3 you didn't have as much control over the mechanics.

I think Firaxis just has a hard-on for Rome though and stand by that. Not only do they get 3 leaders, they also get 2 Civ spots. And a spin-off title (CivCity:Rome)

The bottom line is if you think this is an exploit or cheat, don't use it. I personally won't play a MP game using UL unless either there are some mechanics changed or rule perameters set pre-game.

 

[Elandal]

According to your logic, Court trials can never determine the intention of a killer, of a raper, or of a thief. Is that it? Court trials can never determine whether a killer wanted to kill his victim or whether it was legitimate defense.
Come on! You're pushing my argument on intention too far.

I'm sorry, but I'm not a lawyer either. To my understanding courts do, where necessary, consider probable intent. To say that they do actually determine the intent to the level of fact (100% probability) seems foolish. If you wish to discuss court procedure, we may need to find better sources than cIV forums..

However, that is a bit far fetched from my argument. Will some court start considering the intent of a player who chose to play Rome using any aggressive leader (even Boudica)? Nope. Nobody will spend resources to find out the intent of the player.

Anyway, my simple point was that stressing intent is foolish as you won't establish that apart from starting an open game in public forum with statement of intent preceding the game. If you do require intent to call a cheat, just forget about the issue - someone who actually stands to gain something from cheating will not agree on intentionally cheating nor will anyone have enough to gain in establishing intent that it would ever be done. Cheat is called without intent if there's gain (eg. tournament prizes) involved.


If you still want to talk about the intent issue, then I would rather use another example - Darius of HRE. I think this synergy is even greater than that of Boudica of Rome, although it hasn't been established yet that Rathaus would be the Praetorian of UB's (most people call it overpowerful).

I have toyed around with that combination with the intent to explore synergies of Fin/Org leader (such leader would be cheating if we played Warlords, right? Just like Agg/Chm would be?) and Rathaus - the HRE unique courthouse replacement. I have played most of the way (not a complete game) a few times, and agree that the synergy is clearly too powerful.

If you would ask me if I intended to cheat, I would not agree. I was exploring the synergy that I expected to be very powerful.

If you asked me whether I expected that combination to be more powerful than other financially minded combinations in the game, then I would say that yes, I expected this to be a combination under which the expense side can be lowered so much that the financially boosted income could allow for extreme research speed or eg. to maintain military of such size that no other civ could even dream about. But as with everything, it does have drawbacks: now UB has been used to boost leader traits where in many cases you might be able to supplement leader traits with UB (eg. Shaka has absolutely no fiscal traits and Zulu Ikhanda supplements his traits by giving him a mini-organized boon).

From my response you can probably gather that I expected to play a game where I have more powerful combination than is normally available in the game, albeit with some cost. I did not consider cheating nor fairness at all - I considered exploring this issue further. And I found that it's a powerful combination.

Now, after the game and even given this thread, I still can't see how me playing Darius of HRE would in any way be cheating, and therefore I will not admit to cheating.

This has been adressed several times. You talked about building ten cities, throug worldbuilder. Of course the AI feels nothing and doesn't care about it.

You seem to have lost the rest of my post. You might want to re-read it..

I continued by presenting a context in which the game result is made public. And this is where I can agree to forms of cheating.
While I don't agree that I could cheat in SP game against the AI, I agree that not presenting the full information to humans to set a context for the result can be cheating. But in that case all forms are cheating equally: "Deity win!" (was it the Inca duel pangae win? If yes, please close the door behind you while we continue our discussion), is even worse than "Conquest with Rome in 1000BC!" (with Boudica or normal Roman leader? - I think map settings are more important than leader at that).

 

[azzaman333]

The crucial point if you want to understand my position on this: the simple fact that the unrestricted leader (UL) option is now available in BTS while it was not in previous versions is not a very good argument to claim that Boudica of the Romans isn't a cheat or an exploit. Why, because the effect on the game is the same, whether it is allowed as an option or not.

I've been meaning to get around to posting about this.

It was clear from my point of view that Firaxis intended to add some form of unrestricted leaders in Civ 4, just by looking at the custom settings screen in Vanilla. Why it wasn't actually added until BtS could've been for a number of reasons, but the intention to add it was definately there from the start.

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

Wow everybody is soo fascinated with BootyCall and her two big traits hehe

I didnt vote in the poll because I didnt like the choices. I wouldnt call it a cheat or exploit. Anymore than someone playing on settler instead of diety is exploting or cheating.

I like the choice someone said earlier of calling it cheesy more than cheating. But really any cheese is pretty much JUSt form using Rome to begin with. I mean c'mon even Ghandi can be a effective warmonger with those guys.

Bootycall is fun if you just want to smash and burn on pangea or something but her biggest problems outside of her breast implants are pretty much thats it. She really has nothing to get the ball rolling or to really help keep going after the carnage is all done.

Someone like Zara would make for a stronger civ. Creative organized lets you expand a bit early with wide city radius to give you the best chance to make sure you get iron for your prats and then it also helps you to actually keep anything you capture. Sure you will be killing those little archers with just CR2 prats and not combat1, CR3 prats but those extra promotions not gonna make those poor archers any deader hehe

And if you JUST want to war early and often Cyrus would even be more fun I think for that. Charismatic for LOTS of promotions and Imperialistic for LOTS of GG's then keep sticking your GG's to your prats and REALLY feel like you're killing baby seals hehe.

This is all from SP perspective. I dont play MP but I am sure if someone picks BootyCall and Rome and thinks they are being clever they might get a little surpize when others pick combos like Shaka of the Incas or Brennus of Egyptians and Quechas and War Chariots are visiting before Rome is half way to bronze working hehe.

Kaytie

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

The AI doesn't get to choose the difficulty, either: is that cheating? Is that an exploit?

Every choice the player makes when setting up the game or when deciding upon self-imposed restrictions changes the inherent difficulty of the game for that player.

Is choosing Gilgamesh of Sumer as your leader/civ when you want to run an espionage game an exploit? Or Choosing Ragnar of the Vikings on an Islands map?

Oh for God's sake, as I've said about 4 times already, I voted that UL is NOT cheating, NOR is it an exploit. The issue is not about difficulty level (which, btw, the AI doesn't have to react or adapt to, since the programing and bonuses do this for the AI). The issue is Unrestricted leaders. And the AI cannot adapt to this option.

 

[Elandal]

The issue is Unrestricted leaders. And the AI cannot adapt to this option.

This statement feels like serious progress in this thread. If there's a problem with AI not being able to play outside it's restricted civ, then UL has serious flaws. However, that'd raise the question of random personalities, as in my understanding a leader is personality + traits + art (including bad jokes). The difference in UL and RP is where they cut the AI from it's comfortable programmed position: does it get to keep traits or not?

Note: I started playing with UL some time ago. Random leader, produces combinations of which some are interesting, some are boring, some are fun. The only constants are that: England is the only civ as of yet to have its own leader (each of the three English leaders has had that honor, no other civ has even once), and Monty still is in all my games, whether dressed as Arabian or as American (or other civ).

 

[dl123654]

After reading a few pages of this thread it gave me an idea of a succession game, The Kings of Unfair, thank you for the idea everyone. We will be playing against:

Boudica of Rome
Julius Caesar of Holy Roman Empire
Churchill of Native Americans
Darius I of Portuguese
Huayna Capac of Germany
Bismark of India

We will be random

Still have one spot available and of course lurkers are welcome for anyone thats interested. We will see how good the AI is using these combinations.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Oh for God's sake, as I've said about 4 times already, I voted that UL is NOT cheating, NOR is it an exploit.

I apologize if I appeared to be taking issue with you, blitzkrieg1980. I was only throwing out similar considerations.

The issue is Unrestricted leaders. And the AI cannot adapt to this option.

Actually, I think the issue is even deeper than that: 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.

AI Churchill has no idea that he builds walls&castles faster. I don't believe (but a less sure about this) that he is even aware that Monuments make his people happy.

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.

Boudica of Rome is going to build just as many Praetorians as Boudica of Celtia would Gaelic Warriors. 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. When faced with a defending Axeman, she may decide differently based on which UU she has, but only because she can consider the actual combat odds "in the moment".

 

[Arlborn]

I apologize if I appeared to be taking issue with you, blitzkrieg1980. I was only throwing out similar considerations.Actually, I think the issue is even deeper than that: 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.

AI Churchill has no idea that he builds walls&castles faster. I don't believe (but a less sure about this) that he is even aware that Monuments make his people happy.

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.

Boudica of Rome is going to build just as many Praetorians as Boudica of Celtia would Gaelic Warriors. 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. When faced with a defending Axeman, she may decide differently based on which UU she has, but only because she can consider the actual combat odds "in the moment".

I tend to agree with you! I was thinking the same, I just didn't come around to post it.