"Boudica of the Romans" an exploit or not

[popejubal]

I say neither. Praetorians are good enough that they don't need the extra boost from Agg or Cha. I'd rather have Organized so that I can keep the massive Empire that I just conquored and maybe a second trait that will help me grab Iron quickly (Cre or Imp).

Sure, Agg Cha will get you a massive empire, but so will Praetorians on their own. What are you going to do with that empire, then? That's where other traits come in.

 

[Gre_Magus]

It's a game and its supposed to be fun. If playing Boudicca of the Romans and getting powerful units early is fun for you, have a blast.
If it's not fun to roll over your rivals early or constrain yourself to one strategy, don't do it.
If you play with a powerful leader unit combo and a map that allows you to exploit that to the max and you can win at on high difficulty level or early date, fine. But don't go thinking that you're as good a player as someone who wins at that level with random leaders and map settings (for example).

To use UnspokenRequest's sports analogy, if you have fun smacking balls with a corked bat and a pitching machine lobbing balls right down the middle, go to town. If you think that you're as good as David Ortiz, forget it. Plus there's a lot more fun to be had in baseball than hitting home runs.

Obviously, multiplayer is another story. Tournaments (like MLB) can always disallow things they find exploitive. When you're playing a pickup game with your friends, it's up to the players to determine what is going to be fun.

If Civ4 had a ranked on-line leaderboard or something and it got to the point where you had to play a certain leader/civ combo to be competitive, that would be a problem. But for a single player game, go nuts. Just have fun while your doing it!

 

[Enigma256]

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

personally i don't like the Romans, the UU comes far too early for me, i don't start a war before Macemen, i need a running empire that can afford my army


Darius of The Holy Roman Empire is equally strong, just in a different aspect.
or Churchill of the Native Americans

there is a reason that this setting is optional

 

[Arlborn]

I won a Immortal victory some days ago.

My normal level is prince, and even then I am in no way dominant there.

How did I do it? I put duel map - high sea level - pangea - marathon(I guess), only Gandhi as my opponent and I chose Inca.

You guess the outcome, don't you?

This is a standard setting game, with no custom game settings such as unrestricted leaders.

Tell me, is it a cheat? Exploit?

Close to exploit, but not quite IMHO.

PS No, I don't do it always. Only did that once because I was bored and to see if I really could even like that.

 

[hoopsnerd]

I vote No.

Why is Boudia of the Romans any more overpowered than any of the other "extremely synergistic" unrestricted leader combos? Darius of the HRE/Zulu basically doesn't pay city maintenance. Tokugawa of the French/English/Ottomans/Etheopians. What about Lincoln of Egypt? Get enough Great Prophs to found every religion that way...

I think Boudica of the Romans is less inherently overpowered than any of the other combos I listed above. You don't need any specific map resource or starting locale to abuse Lincoln of Egypt or Darius of the Zulu. The only real difference is that to abuse Boudica of Rome takes a lot less creativity... its just more obvious than the others.

Also, somebody said above... why just Rome. I'd be more afraid of Boudica of the Aztecs or Native Americans actually because they don't depend on resources... the NAs especially.

 

[BlastDuke]

I don't get the point of this discussion: Firaxis designed the different civilizations with their UBs and UUs and designed several leaders with specific trait combos. Then they assigned the leaders to the civs and IMHO they did a good job to create a balanced selection.
Now they offered us the option "unrestricted leaders" which enables us to escape this balanced selection. Of course this will result in some unbalanced combos! But this is no exploit and no cheat but a FUN option to increase the gaming possibilities - if you don't like it, then just don't use it.

 

[azzaman333]

I'd say that good builder traits would be better for Rome, so you can make the prae's new lands profitable quicker.

 

[The Foo]

Thanks for the terminology The Foo. Since English is not my first language, I didn't know that cheese could be used this way.

Almost a cheat is probably closer to it. Indeed.

There's a reason English is among the hardest languages to use!

Also, cheese goes with everything.

 

[Nelgirith]

Cheating would be opening the WB and adding iron in your capital's fat cross.
Exploiting would be finding a bug and abusing it to win.

Using Boudica of the Romans is none of those. It's a possible combination allowed by the unrestricted leaders option and which of course could be (and should) considered game-breaking. If you mind so much about it, just refuse to play with this option checked.

As The Foo said it, choosing such a combination is cheese, nothing else. In France, we have a well known proverb that says "A vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire" which could be translated by "Dangerless victory, gloryless triumph"

 

[Rusty Edge]

Overpowered? Absolutely. Loads of fun? You bet. Stacking the deck? Probably. A cheat? Certainly not.

Thing is, unrestricted leaders is not a default option. Firaxis balances the game for standard play, not for every conceivable possibility that somebody could do with it. Boudicca of the Romans is therefore no more a cheat/exploit than, say, Pericles of the Ethiopians (huge culture boost) or [insert your favorite combination here]. It tends to one particular style of play which doesn't allow for a change in plans. Suppose you don't get iron, as somebody said, or suppose you pursue a cultural path, then get attacked from all sides or fall too far behind in techs to make wonders.

No, it is not an "exploit" in the traditional sense. Unfair, maybe, but if you don't like it, don't play with that option. Plain and simple. If it were the standard game, I might say yes, but it isn't. The real issue here is that the AI is not smart enough to contend with it; play on multiplayer with Boudicca of the Romans and see what happens. More than likely, you'll face smart opponents who will keep you in check.

You say "stacking the deck" equals cheating in your book. I won't disagree; however, that is effectively what you are doing when you play with unrestricted leaders. Who in their right mind is going to pick a horrible combination, unless they want a challenge? That's why people use this option: because they want something outside the traditional boundaries of the game, which will liven it up a little. It stands to reason that certain combinations will be more overpowered than others. Is that bad? No. It is, rather, a feature.

To me a cheat is something that is against the rules of the game which will enable you to win when you otherwise shouldn't have, based on skill and whatnot. Playing as Boudicca comes awfully close to this, so while I don't consider it an official cheat, I would consider a win with the Agg/Cha/Praetorian combo to be less satisfying than one without it. Hence, I'd tell your friend to have fun with that (because that's the point, isn't it?) but when he gets ready for a real challenge to come back to the normal game.

The term I'd use to describe unrestricted leaders combinations is "handicapped". Comparable to playing at levels above or below Noble, which is balanced. It changes the balance of the game to accommodate the player(s), rather than the player adapting himself to the game. Handicaps are often used in golf, bowling, and horseracing
to make a contest more competetive ( more challenging for those with more abillity, more fun for those with less ). It's normally a good thing.

My initial reaction to reading about BTS here was that Boudica of the Romans would be an obvious exploit, but as it was pointed out to me at the time that it's an option, they weren't planning to throw both balance and realism out in one bold stroke I'm cool with it. One of the greatest things about the game is the multitude of choices. It's just another set of choices.

What's more interisting to me is all of the what if? possibillities it allows....What if Hannibal had been born a Roman citizen?....What If Elizabeth were Queen of Spain, and Izzie were Queen of England? etc.

 

[mboettcher]

darius (imp/char) and romans is more powerful. Warlords/great gen specialists can really make u hard to stop. (PLus the really low casaulties you suffer cause you have warlords keeps down war weariness)

I wouldn't call these exploits cause in case anyone has played through a game on high difficulty with these traits they'd know that early warfare prior to advanced governments is extremely expensive, can easily cripple your economy and unless your on epic you will get out teched b4 you even blink.

 

[Scaramanga]

It's not a "cheat" but it might be a bit "cheap" to play her as Rome. Hopefully, however, there is another unrestricted matchup that could stand up to her; perhaps Wang Kon of the Chinese?

Personally though I think all this discussion on the topic is kind of like insisting that the rock always wins in rock/paper/scissors .

 

[Scaramanga]

darius (imp/char) and romans is more powerful. Warlords/great gen specialists can really make u hard to stop. (PLus the really low casaulties you suffer cause you have warlords keeps down war weariness)

I wouldn't call these exploits cause in case anyone has played through a game on high difficulty with these traits they'd know that early warfare prior to advanced governments is extremely expensive, can easily cripple your economy and unless your on epic you will get out teched b4 you even blink.

Friend I think you mean Cyrus .

 

[mboettcher]

Friend I think you mean Cyrus .

My bad your right. Names sound the same to me

 

[Sjaramei]

No it's not...... Praetorians is the best UU in the game, and the traits for Boudica on top of them is overkill. Cha/Org or Cha/Fin would both make much much better traits for Domination than Agg/Cha.

 

[mrt144]

anyone saying the fact the AI doesn't complain is a reason it isn't an exploit is DD.

that said, this is an exploit that only applies when a user chooses to change game settings. and im sure no one brags about it either.

 

[SwordofStriker]

anyone saying the fact the AI doesn't complain is a reason it isn't an exploit is DD.

that said, this is an exploit that only applies when a user chooses to change game settings. and im sure no one brags about it either.

My point was that however anyone wants to play their own single player game is perfectly fine, but I appreciate the mature way you chose to reply to my thought.

That said, at worst, Boudica of the Romans is overpowered, but certainly not an exploit. Unless you can provide a widely agreed upon definition of the word exploit that fits this situation I don't really see how you can call it such.

Also, as it is not part of the standard game settings, and every player in your multi-player game would have had to agree to the unrestricted leaders option, it's not even unfair. If you don't like Boudica of the Romans, then don't use that option. Since it's not forced on anyone and not in the standard game settings, it's not an exploit. I'd call it min/maxing personally.

 

[PieceOfMind]

@UnspokenRequest

Don't worry, you're not alone. As far as I'm concerned, playing as Rome at all is almost cheating.

When playing multiplayer, when players choose Rome I assume they are doing so for the cheap trick of using Praetorian rushes, so I make it a side objective to make sure they get the hardest hit from me. ie. I'm more aggressive towards those who try to stack the deck in their favour. I think similar things about choosing the Incans as well.

I guess it's not cheating but I would call the Rome/Boudica combination cheap.

lol, I just noticed Scaramanga said much the same thing.

 

[ShunNakamura]

I think it depends on if you are talking about single player, muliplayer, balance reasons, etc.

Single Player- A cheat would really only be using the world building to delete or gift yourself units because your poor playing got you in a tight spot. An Exploit would be immorally using the game mechanics to your advantage. And since everyone is different morally that is a bit hard to put into examples that are universal.

Multiplayer- A cheat would be the same as in single player. Stacking the deck etc. However, it would also be breaking agreed upon rules. Exploit would be making use of the gray area in between the agreed upon rules. Sort of like a lawyer looking for loopholes.

Balance Issues- Simply put anything that isn't representative of 'standard play' is either a cheat or an exploit or some mix thereof. This would include always reloading if you lose a Great General, using the world builder for unfair advantage, regenerating for a perfect start[true you probably want to see how it works with a perfect start but you must also consider the chances such a start will occur under stander play. I.E. the start happens 1 out of a thousand games or some such... if it were only broke during that 1 situation it could be considered balanced for stander play reasons; particularly so if it is weak 600 out of a thousand times[since probability/chance has a large effect on the game]], and I would also throw unrestricted leaders in on this as well. After all, I doubt you will agree that powerful leaders/civs in one area are usually 'balanced' by being weak in other areas[such as strong UU/weak UB, strong UB/Weak UU or strong traits/weak-medicore everything else].

 

[Nishdog]

This sounds like a fun combo to try...I think I'll give it a shot