"Boudica of the Romans" an exploit or not

[blitzkrieg1980]

Exploits, cheats, worldbuilders... whatever. I can't imagine that an option that was purposefully designed by Firaxis could ever be considered an exploit.

 

[hoopsnerd]

^^ For a definition of "exploit" in a video game context, I found this:

Exploit
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. In many concrete cases, it can be difficult to distinguish between cheats, exploits, and players who optimize their strategies for playing.

from:
"Game." From Half-Real: A Dictionary of Video Game Theory. http://www.half-real.net/dictionary/#game. (Accessed October 4, 2007.)

I think that's a fair definition, and although it might not seem like it I do agree with the second part.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I agree with the most of it. Overall, though, I couldn't care less. At this point, we're just pulling hairs.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

So you are just a troll. OK, noted.

WHAT?

Would you please read my explanation as to why I posted this thread. It's on the first page. You should read it before insulting me based on a single sentence.

It's not because a person is not able to convince me with his argument that I'm a troll. For your information, I rallied myself to other arguments, just not the ones cited by Libari.

I remained civil and polite throughout the whole exchanges. Is it the behavior of a troll?

For all I know, you're the one acting like a troll by insulting me for no justifiable reason.

BTW, I asked for people's opinion because I wanted to know if I was alone to think the way I do. I'm not alone, but I'm a minority. I still wanted to hear other's arguments. It's not because I won't agree with these arguments, that I don't want to hear them. I always want to hear people who have a different viewpoint then the one I have.

Also, I read the first 3 1/2 pages of the thread and the conversation remained civil and polite. How can you claim I am a troll if there's no flaming going on?

You labeled me a troll for no reason and I demand that you retract yourself. This was really uncalled for.

Edit: I just read the last part of page 4. Ok, a few people used insults (jerk, douchebag), but that's not what I wanted. You can't blame it on me if 3 1/2 pages (and a few days) after I post a poll, people start insulting each other. There'll always be people who resort to "insults". It's not the first time (3,13 thread anyone?) and it won't be the last.
Actually, if I could have posted a simple poll, without the possibility to write comments about it. I probably would have.

 

[ShunNakamura]

^^ For a definition of "exploit" in a video game context, I found this:

Exploit
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. In many concrete cases, it can be difficult to distinguish between cheats, exploits, and players who optimize their strategies for playing.

from:
"Game." From Half-Real: A Dictionary of Video Game Theory. http://www.half-real.net/dictionary/#game. (Accessed October 4, 2007.)

I think that's a fair definition, and although it might not seem like it I do agree with the second part.

Thank you very much, that is more or less what I was hoping for. And I do agree it is a fair definition as well as the second part[in that it is difficult to distinguish]. Odd that I didn't come across that site even when I was looking for a video game dictionary.

Though I would argue that my definitions of cheat/exploit are darn close to the video game dictionary. The difference being that exploit has the addition of it having to be a flaw that is utilized to its fullest advantage... but flaw is a pretty large category in my mind[after all even intended features by the developers can be considered a flaw or mistake].



So lets see if I got this right.

Exploit = using a flaw in a game to gain an unfair advantage.
Cheat = willfully breaking the rules of a game.

These are both fair definitions that I think we can agree upon[which will make it much easier to argue whether or not Boudica of romans is a cheat, an exploit, or neither[and in what cases each answer fits].


Anyways I still stand by my original post. In single player it is neither an exploit or a cheat. In multiplayer it depends on the agreements prior. If the rules state no boudica of rome/toku of NA/'whatever other combos are considered overpowered"... you cheat if you play as those. In multiplayer if you abuse a flaw in the rules or game you are exploiting[think of lawyers and looking for legal loopholes]. And for balance purposes I think unrestricted leaders is completely out of bounds. After all you balance the leader with their civ... not with every civ.



Edit- Did you realize your link leads to the entry on "Game" rather than "Exploit"? Just a heads up.

Also thanks for the sit[now bookmarked].

 

[nightbringerggz]

You want a better "Exploit?" Try Alexander of Rome. You still get the Agg bonus, but you're also spawning Great People twice as fast, supporting your SE. This means you have excellent synergy with both your UU AND your UB.

And it's not the only leader/civ trait that's more powerful than the default settings. Unrestricted leaders are not a standard game setting, and thus will lead to unbalanced results. Some combos will be terrible, some will be great, but none of them are cheats or exploits.

 

[Mesix]

@MrFrodo

Agg gives combat 1 promotion for free
Cha makes the thresholds for promotion easier to attain ( 4exp for level up instead of 5, 8 exp for level up instead of 10, etc.)
With Charismatic you can get highly promoted units much faster.
This combines very well with Agg because the Combat 1 promotion is at the base of MANY (if not most) good promotion for offensive units like the Praetorians, the axemen or the swordsman. Since Agg gives combat 1 for free, the units' first level up enables him to select promotions reserved normally to level 2 units.
So an Agg/cha unit, starts choosing its promotion from the second level of promotion (combat 2, etc. medic 1, etc.), while only needing much less experience to attain the third level of promotion.
You easily endu with an entire army of highly promoted unites.

Combining this ultimate warmonger combo with clearly the best UU in the entire game (considered overpowered and unbalanced by many. Many have asked Firaxis to nerf it), creates the ultimate Unique unit to take over the world in ancient/classical and even medieval period.

You can take those highly promoted units, and attack Tokogua with his agg/pro traits and loose most of them to his early archer and longbowmen units (starting with at least city defense 3, drill 1, and later combat 1 for musketmen) and lose most of your pratorians.

Any high tech civ could make to to musketmen before you finish them off.

Unless you are playing on a small map, you can't conquer the entire world fast enough to outpace players who elected to not go for an early war rush. Often times they will outpace you economically especially since they built wonders while you were warmongering. What good are your pratorians when they meet up with panzers?

The game is well balanced enough that any "exploit" only works with the right conditions. If you think that a setting makes the game too easy, don't use it. Better yet, increase your difficulty level.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

The ongoing conversation in page 4-5 got me thinking:
Many people argue that since the option is available, it is not cheating nor an exploit.
The idea behind this argument is that: since the option is available, it's not theoretically against the rules.

I'm just wondering: in the prior version of Civ. When the option was not available. Would it have been cheating or an exploit to create a Agg/cha leader of Rome?

One can say that in these versions of Civ4 (even of Civ3, one could also say), it was technically against the rules provided by the game-maker to make such modifications...

Based on this legalist definition of cheating, it would have been cheating then, but it's not cheating anymore.
Still the effect on the game and the intention of the players doing this are the same...

That is why I don't agree with this very legalist definition of cheating (solely based on breaking the official rules or not).

My definition of cheating is more "effect-based and intention-based" than "rule-based".
If the player has the intention of grabbing unfair advantages (the effect), I think it is quite close to cheating.

And no need to get at each other's throat to discuss this. If people can't discuss politely, I'd rather have the thread closed by one of the mods, than a flame war.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

@ Mesix:

First of all, if your best unit is Praets and you're attacking panzers, you should already have been eliminated a long long time ago. And if you haven't, then you must be in a PA with a very very powerful ally. Even on a standard map (pangea) you can absolutely conquer your way through the enemy before gunpowder or even before optics. Go to the HOF, there are plenty of entries with domination victories pre-0AD on immortal. Wonders aren't going to be worth much unless the AI is given plenty of time to utilize them.

Even on immortal, the AI is never going to be able to reach gunpowder from Ironworking before you come knocking. And when you come knocking, a relatively weak army will answer since the AI has been concentrating on Wonders and science.

Finally, even if the AI manages to stretch to gunpowder while you are still marching around with Praets, your praets are most likely promoted to the teeth. Imagine a CRIII, CombatII praetorian going up against a musketman:

Praet (str 8) + 75% (CRIII) + 20% (Combat I/II)
adjust this for attacking a fortified city garrisoned CityDef I/Combat I = str 8 + 25% + 20% = 11.6
vs.
Musketman (str 9) + 10% (Combat I) the CD and garrison bonuses are included above = 9.9

This is without using any suicide catapults. Even if the Musket was on a hill, it would be 9.6 vs. 9.9 without any sacrificed catapults. Clearly, the Praetorians with a small force of highly promoted catapults could easily take a city guarded by muskets. Since this scenario is for a severe war monger, the attacking force would probably have a large force of well promoted catapults with a large force of well promoted praetorians and some support (spears/axes) units.

 

[alpaca]

Yeah thanks for getting that definition, I can definitely mostly agree to it (my personal one is fairly close). I especially agree with the second part
However I would (and did) add the term "on average" in my personal definition because things can still be an exploit even if you screw up and don't use them properly or you just have a streak of bad luck which makes sure you can't properly utilize your advantage in one of a hundred games.

In my opinion, allowing Boudica of the Romans is a flaw in the Unrestricted Leaders feature. As I said, I'm not against anyone using it in SP or in MP games where everybody knows what they're doing and decided to allow it.
In general I believe the whole feature potentially breaks the game balance and therefore using it in this way is an exploit.
Using unrestricted leaders for something like Boudica of the Indians wouldn't be an exploit because it doesn't give you an unfair additional advantage (Fast Workers or the Mausoleum don't really have synergistic effects with Agg/Cha - in fact rather the opposite). That's why I'd not necessarily rank the whole feature as an exploit.

onedreamer: There are cases of oversight, however as you rightly explained this obviously doesn't apply in this case. We have to assume that Firaxis deemed the feature marginal enough (or assumed people for MP games would introduce house rules) that they didn't have to keep certain combos restricted - as it would be bad for SP. This doesn't mean it's not an exploit (to me), it just means that they accepted it as the price to pay for a coherent feature without additional annoying exceptions.

Mesix: Of course it depends on the circumstances. Again, we have to apply the term average to this in my opinion. A lot of people play on Pangaea or Continents maps and Mormal to Marathon game speeds. On Pangaea (and usually continents) you can at least take out one or two factions on normal map size before anybody even gets Longbowmen which will set you up with 2-3 capital locations, a lot of pillaged money and a few other good spots with cities on them (or at least room to expand to). This normally gives you such a large advantage that you'll have caught up technologically again by the time Riflemen or Grenadiers come around and then simply allows you to outproduce anybody else (unless you face an alliance of at least two strong opponents).

In fact in a MP game people can handle somebody with such a combo, but alone the fact that they'd consider the combination to be dangerous enough to warrant allying against the person using it means that using it is an exploit and has to be fought (or it's at least really bad style).

Anyways I think I spoke my mind and will retreat from the discussion unless some really new points crop up

 

[UnspokenRequest]

You can take those highly promoted units, and attack Tokogua with his agg/pro traits and loose most of them to his early archer and longbowmen units (starting with at least city defense 3, drill 1, and later combat 1 for musketmen) and lose most of your pratorians.

A good point. It'll be harder. I'm not sure it would be that hard.
And you'll still get more chance of winning against him than any other Civ/leader in the game.

The game is well balanced enough that any "exploit" only works with the right conditions. If you think that a setting makes the game too easy, don't use it. Better yet, increase your difficulty level.

Yes. It'll always be situational. Nothing assures a certain win. But it doesn't have to assure certain win to be called a cheat or an exploit.
Many cheaters still loose. Just look in sports. A good Canadian cyclist just revealed that she's been taking dope since she was 16. Almost 10 years of dope, and she didn't win that many races...
Bad tongues will likely say that, in biking, it is very likely that she didn't win that often because everyone above her were also doped
Still the point remains: cheat or exploit never guaranteed any win .

 

[Thyrwyn]

For every Boudica of the Romans there's a Tokugowa of the Native Americans.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

There is no way that you will lose more than one praetorian attacking Tokugawa's archer units. If you give them an extra city garrison or even give them a hill AND a second garrison. A city raider praetorian would look like this against these archers:

Praet (str 8) + 10% (Combat I) = 8.8
vs.
Archer (str 3) + 25% fortify + 20% city garrison (discounted for praet CRI) + 25%tile defense + 25% from city + 10% combat I = 6

8.8 vs. 6. This is without any suicide units or collateral damage.

The longbow is a hardcore defense unit even without Tokugawa's traits. Praets are as good against longbows as Macemen (many techs past ironworking) plus your Boudica praets should be promoted to the teeth by then.

 

[IglooDame]

There is no way that you will lose more than one praetorian attacking Tokugawa's archer units. If you give them an extra city garrison or even give them a hill AND a second garrison. A city raider praetorian would look like this against these archers:

Praet (str 8) + 10% (Combat I) = 8.8
vs.
Archer (str 3) + 25% fortify + 20% city garrison (discounted for praet CRI) + 25%tile defense + 25% from city + 10% combat I = 6

8.8 vs. 6. This is without any suicide units or collateral damage.

The longbow is a hardcore defense unit even without Tokugawa's traits. Praets are as good against longbows as Macemen (many techs past ironworking) plus your Boudica praets should be promoted to the teeth by then.

I think you're forgetting something. Sure, Tokugawa's CG1/Drill1 archers won't defend at 50% against praets, but Native America has the Totem Pole UB (vice monument) giving those archers +3XP (throw in a barracks, and you have CG3/Drill1 archers out of the gate), and Native America's UU is the Dog Soldier, a 4-strength axeman (100% strength vs melee units like praets) that is unlocked by bronzeworking but doesn't require copper or iron. Oh and Tokugawa gives it a free combat1 promotion.

Praet (str 8) + 10% (Combat I) = 8.8
vs.
Dog Soldier (str 4) +100% vs melee + 10% combat1 = 8.4

8.8 vs 8.4, and that's without giving the DS any defensive bonuses. Oh, and they cost 35 hammers to the praet's 45.

Plus the Roman civ needs to research Wheel, Bronzeworking and Ironworking for their UU (and then hook up iron), where Native Americans need to research only Mining and Bronzeworking for theirs.

So yeah, if you'd like to battle it out in an MP duel with the two unrestricted leaders, I'd be willing to help you test your theory.

Edit: I almost forgot, give the Dog Soldier a Shock promotion as well with the barracks 3xp, since it is already Combat1, so make it 8.8 vs 9.4 with the praet starting to lose more than half the time.

 

[hoopsnerd]

So yeah, if you'd like to battle it out in an MP duel with the two unrestricted leaders, I'd be willing to help you test your theory.

Edit: I almost forgot, give the Dog Soldier a Shock promotion as well with the barracks 3xp, since it is already Combat1, so make it 8.8 vs 9.4 with the praet starting to lose more than half the time.

That sounds like fun, can I get in on this?

 

[Bhruic]

That's also leaving aside the fact that if you are playing Boudica of the Romans, someone is going to get the bright idea to Axe rush you. Let's take Tokugawa of the Native Americans. As soon as he hits Bronze Working, he can crank out Dog Soldiers. Rush in with a few of those and it's game over. Boudica will not be able to mine any Iron. Even if Boudica tries to settle on Iron, the Dog Soldiers will be able to take down that city, because Boudica isn't Creative, so she's not going to be able to get any defensive bonuses for the city (the majority of the time). The Dog Soldiers might not be able to take the capital (they are a little weak for that), but they certainly will shut Boudica down. And then Toku can tech/expand at his leisure until he get Swords/Cats to take down Boudica's capital.

Bh

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

@Igloodude: Yes, Tokugawa of the Native Americans would indeed stop Boudica of Rome. However, it is quite a far cry that the AI will happen upon this combination. You suggest MP game. I will never play MP. And the following is why:

How can you possibly play any kind of game other than massive worldwide war? Only 1 can win (2 with PA) so this gives rise to my thought that MP games are either a bunch of 2 player teams warring for the win or a lot of single players trying to war with each other. After all, are you going to vote someone else in (diplo vic)? Are you really going to sit by while someone builds a spaceship (space vic)? Would you not vie to nuke any civ that is getting even remotely close to a cultural vic? What about domination? Would all other players not try to gang up and steamroll a player that is marching around taking over others? Come to think of it, wouldn't all other players gang up on any one player that is close to achieving ANY type of victory?

All that aside, your numbers are correct, however, quite irrelevant given single player games and the nearly impossible chance of the AI getting Toku of NativeAmer (barring the fact that you can manually put this combo in the game). Tokugawa is never on top in any of my games. Not even in vanilla civ4 pre-patches. He's always been at the very most a middle-of-the-road leader. Dog soldiers and totem poles aren't gonna help him that much.

@Bhruic: The axe rush is inconsequential since Boudica of Rome (beelining to Ironworking which would mean blowing through Bronzeworking as fast as possible) would most likely have Axemen a good deal of turns before her rival. And if you have horses nearby, a small group of chariots eliminate an axemen threat, paving a clear path for the Praets to come.

 

[alpaca]

I think you're forgetting something. Sure, Tokugawa's CG1/Drill1 archers won't defend at 50% against praets, but Native America has the Totem Pole UB (vice monument) giving those archers +3XP (throw in a barracks, and you have CG3/Drill1 archers out of the gate), and Native America's UU is the Dog Soldier, a 4-strength axeman (100% strength vs melee units like praets) that is unlocked by bronzeworking but doesn't require copper or iron. Oh and Tokugawa gives it a free combat1 promotion.

Praet (str 8) + 10% (Combat I) = 8.8
vs.
Dog Soldier (str 4) +100% vs melee + 10% combat1 = 8.4

8.8 vs 8.4, and that's without giving the DS any defensive bonuses. Oh, and they cost 35 hammers to the praet's 45.

Plus the Roman civ needs to research Wheel, Bronzeworking and Ironworking for their UU (and then hook up iron), where Native Americans need to research only Mining and Bronzeworking for theirs.

So yeah, if you'd like to battle it out in an MP duel with the two unrestricted leaders, I'd be willing to help you test your theory.

Edit: I almost forgot, give the Dog Soldier a Shock promotion as well with the barracks 3xp, since it is already Combat1, so make it 8.8 vs 9.4 with the praet starting to lose more than half the time.

If you calculate that way, Boudica's Praets get another upgrade, too (free Combat 1 and an additional upgrade of your choice) which sets them on par again. And they'll most likely have more since some always survive a city assault - in contrast to your defenders which usually die.

Besides: For that Tokugawa of the NA there will be three other civs around to kick in the fork.

 

[LegionSteve]

How can you possibly play any kind of game other than massive worldwide war? Only 1 can win (2 with PA) so this gives rise to my thought that MP games are either a bunch of 2 player teams warring for the win or a lot of single players trying to war with each other. After all, are you going to vote someone else in (diplo vic)? Are you really going to sit by while someone builds a spaceship (space vic)? Would you not vie to nuke any civ that is getting even remotely close to a cultural vic? What about domination? Would all other players not try to gang up and steamroll a player that is marching around taking over others? Come to think of it, wouldn't all other players gang up on any one player that is close to achieving ANY type of victory?

Thats what I imagine MP would be like too. I would be interested to hear from anyone who's played a lot of MP if it si or not?

 

[bardolph]

Just to get the rules clarified, in an unrestricted leaders multiplayer game, can two players pick the same combination?

Regarding the single player game, try playing the "Settler" difficulty level. Would you consider that an "exploit"?