Discussion thread for exploits and strategies

[grangerm]

I am more confused as to how the amount in his treasury changed without waiting a turn. I can see his gpt changing if he adjusts his sliders based on his new income. But how can he accumulate more gold in his treasury without you trading him some or a turn expiring so he can collect his taxes?

I would contend that that shows that the amount of gpt and gold they show in diplomacy is only the amount they are willing to part with at that time, not the total amount they have available.

I don't have warlords, but based on the gold in his treasury changing, I'd have to agree with this.

 

[Ribannah]

I'd say that for the treasury this is pretty obvious since it's always a round number on the negotiating table.
I'm not sure about the available gpt. This could go up because of the resource trade you just made, for instance.

 

[Thrallia]

why would trading say, cows for 5 gpt make them suddenly able to give 3 more gpt for a different resource? I could understand if a happy resource gave them more income by taking cities out of unhappiness, but a food resource wouldn't give any immediate impact on economy.

 

[malekithe]

I don't understand this distinction. We know how the AI manages its economy. (You can look in the SDK code if you want.) They allocate a certain amount to research, maintenance, etc. If the balance is positive, then this is what they show for trade.

Actually, there is an upper limit on the amount they are willing to offer at any given time that is dependent upon your current relations and the size of their empire (as near as I can guess). They could have 300GPT "available" for trade, but if they just don't like you or their empire is just too small, the trade window may simply show 8GPT. There are two caps at work (in Vanilla and Warlords); the cap given by available GPT and the cap given by empire size and current relations. The maximum you can ever get in trade from a civ will be the minimum of these two numbers.

This can be readily seen through the following exercise. Load up a saved game in which you had a much larger economy than anyone else. Set your research slider to 0% and then gift all of your available GPT to another civ. Then, sell off your resources one by one. You will notice the amount they are willing to offer in trade never changes until they have traded away their entire GPT surplus while running at 100% research.

The difference in Warlords is that, when you make a trade with the AI, they immediately re-adjust this allocation. So, if you give them gpt, that doesn't mean their available gpt will go up. It might go down, if they increase their research rate.

Correct, the only way, in warlords, to ensure that any gifted GPT will be immediately available for trade is to first gift them so much that they are able to peg their research slider at 100%. So, the idea of subsidized trading has not dissappeared, it just requires a much larger up-front subsidy.

 

[Thrallia]

or making them a vassal I've had a vassal paying me over 300 gpt for just 7 resources before

 

[Infantry#14]

from my recent game, I come across these:

since I dont have iron/horse/copper, my army is consist of cat/treb/longbowman. when I take over the city, I see there is a big force coming. I know they will take it back cuz i dont carry enough longbowman. So I leave one trebuchet in that city and the next turn the ai station all his reinforcement and capture his city back. Well, since my main army consist of siege weapons, I was able to destroy his army with the city raider 2 and 3. So is this an exploit, purposely leaving an undefended city and capture it again with advantages on my side?

Also, one of my other city was about to fall and my enemy could capture it next turn. However, I give it away to a neutral ai. Is this allow or not?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

since I dont have iron/horse/copper, my army is consist of cat/treb/longbowman. when I take over the city, I see there is a big force coming. I know they will take it back cuz i dont carry enough longbowman. So I leave one trebuchet in that city and the next turn the ai station all his reinforcement and capture his city back. Well, since my main army consist of siege weapons, I was able to destroy his army with the city raider 2 and 3. So is this an exploit, purposely leaving an undefended city and capture it again with advantages on my side?

Also, one of my other city was about to fall and my enemy could capture it next turn. However, I give it away to a neutral ai. Is this allow or not?

Those are both legitimate ways of playing. The first is admittedly taking advantage of AI stupidity, but then so is most warmongering that the better players do. I'm pretty certain that both of those are fine for GOTMs.

btw if I don't believe I can hold a city during the first turn (which can arise because if most of my attackers have attacked, I might not have many units left with movement points to move into the city), I often simply reduce the city to one injured defender, then wait till the next turn to capture it. Deliberately leaving a city that I'm certain to lose undefended so my units can live to fight another day is also a strategy that I've used myself occasionally.

 

[Infantry#14]

ok thanks for the clarification

 

[ainwood]

Yes, as a tactic, that is fine.

 

[BLubmuz]

It's not an exploit, but i think it's better to NOT conquer the city.
Just leave it with an injured defender and conquer it the next turn.
In this way you'll save an unit.

 

[DaviddesJ]

It's not an exploit, but i think it's better to NOT conquer the city.
Just leave it with an injured defender and conquer it the next turn.
In this way you'll save an unit.

Also you'll be more likely to keep some of the buildings in the conquered city.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Question: Am I allowed to have an isolated revolt (so it's not the continuous revolt exploit, I've not had a revolt for ages) if the primary intention of the revolt isn't really to change civics, it's just to get a few turns of grace from losing gold on 0% science?

 

[oyzar]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152399

Is this list up to date with BTS? Is anything not on the list / AI behavior not considered an exploit? There are tons of things that could be called bugs or exploits in the AI code, are these allowed during GOTM and SGOTM play?

(for example the way AI moves units or various diplo features could be considered exploit by many, but are they allowed? They certanly aren't listed here).

 

[AlanH]

There are tons of things that could be called bugs or exploits in the AI code

If the AI takes unfair advantage, that's all part of the game. But I assume you mean there are things in the way the AI (mis)behaves that *you* can exploit?

We want to ban the exploitation of program bugs, or poor design, that you as a player can exploit to gain "significant disproportionate advantage". If you are concerned about whether to use such an exploit you should contact the game designer by PM before doing so to get a ruling.

If there really are "tons" of these in the BtS code, then it is debatable whether we can even run a fair BtS competition, since it's entirely possible that players will use them without even knowing they are doing so. No one is going to play with a long list of rules at their elbow, checking their every move and decision in case it might be a foul. And the Staff are going to find it difficult/impossible to detect the deliberate use of such exploits.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Agree with what AlanH said. I'd also add that on the whole the things that we ban as exploits are situations where you can use bugs in the code to cause results that are inconsistent with how the game is supposed to work. You could consider them the 'Civ' equivalent of breaking the rules of physics.

You're asking about exploiting the AI - I'm guessing you mean, taking decisions that take advantage of the fact that you know what the AI is likely to do in a given situation and so can counter it, almost before the AI has done anything? That sort of thing is arguably just as much to do with understanding the game and so isn't normally the kind of thing that would go on the banned exploit list.

But as AlanH said, if you think you have something you're unsure about, the best thing is to PM a staff member about it.

 

[da_Vinci]

You're asking about exploiting the AI - I'm guessing you mean, taking decisions that take advantage of the fact that you know what the AI is likely to do in a given situation and so can counter it, almost before the AI has done anything? That sort of thing is arguably just as much to do with understanding the game and so isn't normally the kind of thing that would go on the banned exploit list.

Winning above noble REQUIRES exploiting the AI, doesn't it?

dV

 

[ButSam]

I find this very minor, it is difficult to exploit (especially in GotM-like competitions since I have never seen the AI gift me, or anyone else, a unit). But I still want to bring it up:

Let's say the turn order is A-B-...

Say for example Civ A has a caravel in Civ B's borders after using all movement points, then gifts it to Civ B. Now, on Civ B's turn, the caravel has full movement points still even though the game year has not advanced.

It would be interesting (and maybe I will do it) to devise a (contrived) game setup which would allow a caravel on a Standard map with 7 civs to move 7x4=28 squares in a single game year, just to illustrate the exploit.

I don't think it's a huge deal when it comes to competitions, gifting units is very uncommon. But there are 1 of 2 simple fixes:
* Gifted units are gifted with their current movement points for the first turn after receiving the gift,
or
* Units can only be gifted if they haven't been moved.

I suspect the latter is the simplest to implement.

Sam

 

[AlanH]

I must be missing something. Surely you can only take advantage of this if the gifted unit ends up with you, so that you can use its new movement points? How would you persuade the AI to give a unit back that you have given to them?