Discussion thread for exploits and strategies

[DynamicSpirit]

Who's to say there isn't?

There could be, but I did say, something extreme: Which means, it's theoretically possible but pretty unlikely.

I don't play this game, so I can speak from a position of supreme ignorance, but if it can be scripted to 1500 BC just on the basis of the information in the opening screenshot then it seems to me that something's gone out of the game since Civ3.

But if it's that predictable and mechanistic, why shouldn't all players get the same starting script? All of the information is available to everyone, and if players want to divulge their methods for optimising the opening turns then so be it. Players still have to be able to deal with the unexpected coming out of the fog, and if there's none of that, the real game starts at 1500 BC.

My €0.02

Sorry, looks like I expressed myself badly. I don't mean the game is predictable and mechanistic. The fact that a script can in principle be (and it seems for all practical purposes has now actually been) published for this GOTM start doesn't imply it's the only way to play, but it is does provide one recipe for how you could play, ostensibly a very good early game--even though all you're doing might be following a script.

To explain the situation: If you are going for a CS slingshot on monarch, then to pull it off you need to almost absolutely prioritize maximizing research over everything else - in order to get over the steep hurdle of researching code of laws (by the standards of the early game, a very expensive technology) before an AI builds the oracle (on monarch, I'd say typically between 800BC and 500BC, though some people have reported that happening earlier).

Now there is no one single way to do that - there are quite a few different possibilities for research path (eg. sidetrack to BW so you can chop a library?) with their own advantages and disadvantages, but the thing quite a few of the different possibilities tend to have in common is this: *If* (as is the case in GOTM8) the starting location gives a very good prospect for high early gold, then you will tend to just develop the capital to maximize gold, you probably won't found any other cities until you have CS - which with this kind of location and a good player will probably be around 1500BC. (And you probably also won't want to make any early wars). So, within reason and if you are going for CS slingshot with the GOTM8 start, then on balance of probabilities (ie. assuming nothing extreme/unusual), nothing that you see outside of the starting screenshot, is likely to matter from the POV of what you build/research/improve etc. up to that date. (obviously it matters from the POV of what your scout(s) do, and of the mental plans you'll be making for what you do after you have CS, but that's peripheral at this point).

In terms of coping with things coming out of the blue, that doesn't matter too much either at this point because up until a certain date (not sure what the date is, on monarch I suspect around 2000 BC), barbarians won't cross into cultural borders [1]. That means that, other than not doing anything daft with your exploring units, you don't need to worry about out-of-the-blue things too much. Similarly, it'd be rather unusual for an AI to start a war that early.

([1]: I'm not sure whether animals or barbs can theoretically still cross over for the sole purpose of attacking a unit just inside the border, but in practice I've never seen that happen in the early game and, other than for those few animals with 2 movement, you're guaranteed to see the danger the turn beforehand so you can move your worker to safety anyway)

 

[AlanH]

Well, if it's not the only way to play it there's no real problem with it being aired, is there? Some players will follow that recipe because they don't have time or energy or expertise to develop an alternative approach. Anyone who wants to get a head start on that group will try another path, maybe based on responses to things discovered in the fog, or on an alternative master plan.

If the recipe gets more players into the game with a fighting chance of survival then I'd say that's a good thing. More players will experience the slingshot and want to try to work it out again for themselves. They still have the rest of the game to make their own mess of things

 

[starbolt]

To explain the situation: If you are going for a CS slingshot on monarch, then to pull it off you need to almost absolutely prioritize maximizing research over everything else - in order to get over the steep hurdle of researching code of laws (by the standards of the early game, a very expensive technology) before an AI builds the oracle (on monarch, I'd say typically between 800BC and 500BC, though some people have reported that happening earlier).

FWIW - I had one instance in this game's simulation where the AI produced Oracle in 1800 BC, but in practice the average was closer to your range; maybe 800BC-1000C for me.

---

Even assuming that the CS slingshot provides a good game on all maps in all situations, the consequences of not being able to exploit additional resources are severe as is the cost of not expanding as quickly as the AI civs. No matter how good your capital is, you won't be able to outproduce an AI's entire civ with it not will you be able to sustain a tech advantage against it.

And if the CS groupthink turns out not to be a panacea, then the recipe will result in a lot of crashing and burning - lol

([1]: I'm not sure whether animals or barbs can theoretically still cross over for the sole purpose of attacking a unit just inside the border

Animals cannot cross cultural borders. I'm not clear on barb AI rules, but they certainly seem to have an order of operations (empty city, unprotected worker, attack enemy unit, pillage resource/improvement en route to city -- or something like that).

 

[drkodos]

Dynamic Spirit: Excellent discussion started.


~ I think the script offered is possibly inferior to other offerings in the same thread. I have my own plans, either way. I guess we will see (eventually) what works. At that point, I reserve the right to change any opinion expressed here!

~ Excellent analogy made by starbolt to the study of opening theory in chess. It serves to reminds me that in war, no good plan survives initial contact with the enemy anyway.

~ What is there to "discuss" if we eliminate potential strategies and tactics that could be used? I would agree 100 percent to a complete elimination of "contact between combatants" prior to tournament start if anything real was on the line.

It isn't.

Talking smack ahead of game time is not an exploit or a cheat, in my opinion. It would only be so if it were real information was being doled out regarding the upcoming game instead of crystal ball gazing.

The best computer models show what could happen when hurricanes make contact with coastal civilization outposts yet the human element seems to disregard the availabale information and is always an unforeseeable "X-factor"

It was stated that the use of computers would ruin chess. It hasn't.

Yet.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I've played about 10 practice games on random maps with the same settings up to around 500AD. I believe that I have come up with an optimal starting strategy for up until around 1AD. After that I still have to figure out what I'm going to do. This is probably going to give me a huge advantage over someone else just going at it cold without any pre-game practice.

I think it's absolutely fine for you to practice as much as you want. Of course putting more time into the game is going to give you an advantage. That's no different from the advantage that the players who take 30 hours per GOTM have over the players who play the whole game in 3 hours.

(Sometimes, I spend an hour with pencil and paper calculating things I might do. That's no different than the information that you get from practice games.)

But, personally, I think the things you can't see in the screenshot (available resources nearby, other city sites, relative locations of AI players, etc.) make a big difference, and following a fixed strategy through 1 AD without regard to what you discover isn't going to give you "optimal" results. If you think otherwise, great---comparing different opinions and ideas about the game is what GOTM is all about!

Finally, for me, even if I could get better results by following a single "script", it wouldn't be as much fun for me, so I'm not likely to play that way. And I think that really applies to almost all participants: there may be several people with similar ideas posting in the pre-game thread, but it's still a very small fraction of all participants. (And even within that small group, there are many different ideas.)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Before I respond, I'd like to say that I admire the tact with which you raised this concern and the intellect behind it.

Thanks. And I should perhaps restress that, although I cited one of the posts in the pre-game discussion, that was just as an example, I'm not trying to single out any post: My concern is with the whole trend of where the pre-game discussions seem to be heading.

If you followed the thread, the herd thinks CS slingshot is the end-all. This is just part of the evolution in opening theory (chess had it, too) and that's natural and ok, I think.

Yep. I suspect the CS being the end-all is temporary. Besides the evolution you mention, it's a powerful strategy in some situations, and looks particularly relevent to GOTM8 thanks to the combination of available gold, and the archipelago maptype disfavours popular alternatives like the axe rush.

Simulations with such limited data are never remotely close to the real game and your starting strategy evolves the moment you expose tiles that differed from the simulator. Add or subtract a coastline or resource, and the whole game changes.

But that's the problem: I don't agree with that analysis. What you say would be true if you were doing something like an axe rush, or worker-stealing, or hunting for stone so you could build the pyramids quickly, but I'd say if you're going for CS slingshot (or for that matter, any strategy that involves focussing everything on the capital initially) and you have everything you need in the tiles that are visible at the beginning, then the limited data available actually is incredibly close to the early part of the real game, in regards to everything that matters (at least for that strategy). It's almost like you're getting a chance to circumvent the no-reloading rule by playing a near-identical early game and seeing what works, and going back and trying something else if it doesn't work.

 

[Murky]

I think it's absolutely fine for you to practice as much as you want. Of course putting more time into the game is going to give you an advantage. That's no different from the advantage that the players who take 30 hours per GOTM have over the players who play the whole game in 3 hours.

(Sometimes, I spend an hour with pencil and paper calculating things I might do. That's no different than the information that you get from practice games.)

But, personally, I think the things you can't see in the screenshot (available resources nearby, other city sites, relative locations of AI players, etc.) make a big difference, and following a fixed strategy through 1 AD without regard to what you discover isn't going to give you "optimal" results. If you think otherwise, great---comparing different opinions and ideas about the game is what GOTM is all about!

Finally, for me, even if I could get better results by following a single "script", it wouldn't be as much fun for me, so I'm not likely to play that way. And I think that really applies to almost all participants: there may be several people with similar ideas posting in the pre-game thread, but it's still a very small fraction of all participants. (And even within that small group, there are many different ideas.)

You are right that 1AD is probably stretching it a bit. My strategy is not so much a script as a plan of action. What techs to research, what to build, when to expand, etc.

 

[malekithe]

But that's the problem: I don't agree with that analysis. What you say would be true if you were doing something like an axe rush, or worker-stealing, or hunting for stone so you could build the pyramids quickly, but I'd say if you're going for CS slingshot (or for that matter, any strategy that involves focussing everything on the capital initially) and you have everything you need in the tiles that are visible at the beginning, then the limited data available actually is incredibly close to the early part of the real game, in regards to everything that matters (at least for that strategy). It's almost like you're getting a chance to circumvent the no-reloading rule by playing a near-identical early game and seeing what works, and going back and trying something else if it doesn't work.

You make an interesting argument, but I think you may be confusing cause and effect to some degree here. I believe it is precisely because all we can see initially is the area immediately around the settler, that many choose a starting stategy for their practice games that focuses on that area. Any other strategy would reduce the relevance of their practice games. The gold hill only strengthens the desire to optimize the starting area. If you can only see 20 tiles, the natural instinct is to optimize those 20 tiles. The CS slingshot does this, but *probably* at the expensive of the other 980 tiles on the map.

Personally, when I plan through games like this, I might have an inital goal of a CS slingshot, barring any interesting information revealed about my surroundings. My plan will include various decision points based upon my assessment of the surroundings. For instance, I may prioritize Bronze working so that I leave the door open for an axe rush if there is nearby copper and an opponent on the starting island. I may purposely build in some flexibility for 1-2 early game settlers for the purposes of settling more gold mines or stone/marble patches. My planning quickly changes from a script to more of an iterative decision tree. Further, as the game proceeds, and I receive more input, the decision tree evolves to encompass new choices.

 

[drkodos]

Thanks. And I should perhaps restress that, although I cited one of the posts in the pre-game discussion, that was just as an example, I'm not trying to single out any post: My concern is with the whole trend of where the pre-game discussions seem to be heading.



Yep. I suspect the CS being the end-all is temporary. Besides the evolution you mention, it's a powerful strategy in some situations, and looks particularly relevent to GOTM8 thanks to the combination of available gold, and the archipelago maptype disfavours popular alternatives like the axe rush.



..... I'd say if you're going for CS slingshot (or for that matter, any strategy that involves focussing everything on the capital initially) and you have everything you need in the tiles that are visible at the beginning, then the limited data available actually is incredibly close to the early part of the real game, in regards to everything that matters (at least for that strategy). It's almost like you're getting a chance to circumvent the no-reloading rule by playing a near-identical early game and seeing what works, and going back and trying something else if it doesn't work.

To address the highlighted part of the quote first, then use it as part of a larger point:

~ All the ingredients for the recipe, and even the recipe itself are made evident by the game creator. How then could it be a spoiler to merely recognize this and communicate it to others likely seeing it as well, or to enlighten those others that may not see it?

Interestingly enough, in this particular case we have highlighted, the overtly powerfulful insistance of going for CS is more like a : Thank you Captain Obvious! then it is a true spoiler, isn't it? Now, revealing a very hidden or incredibly inobvious methodology that becames a single poison pill that kills all situations would be a bust, but getting CS is hardly that.

What is the very point of the GotM?

I think this (extensive & detailed pre0game analysis) encapsulates the Civ experience, helps bring more people to the table, and even helps teach an old goof like myself how to play the game a bit better.

The larger point I wanted to make regarding posting about practice games is that ANYONE can create/fabricate a simulation game to pre play/practice. It does not give away ANY INFO what-so-ever on the actual game that will be played or what strategies will ultimately work the best or even be succesful.

It is nice to see people put up precise plans and then we all get to see how well they come to fruition, or whether or not they even congeal at all.

So long as people are honest and forthwith in the post-mortems, I think its all good and the major function of the GotM is served.

 

[Nares]

Yep. I suspect the CS being the end-all is temporary. Besides the evolution you mention, it's a powerful strategy in some situations, and looks particularly relevent to GOTM8 thanks to the combination of available gold, and the archipelago maptype disfavours popular alternatives like the axe rush.

Hence why discussion of it has dominated the pre-game thread. I tried games playing with the alternative methods of opening, in particular emphasis on The Great Lighthouse and The Colossus. I found both to be lacking in comparison to a Bureaucracy/Academy combination. The Colossus has obvious drawbacks, mostly in the fact that actually utilizing it means delaying the development of Cottages for a significant period of time. The effective power of The Great Lighthouse is difficult to predict in a test game, though there's little doubt that it can surpass the overall potency of the Bureaucracy/Academy combination, it just takes a very long time to do so.

The larger point I wanted to make regarding posting about practice games is that ANYONE can create/fabricate a simulation game to pre play/practice. It does not give away ANY INFO what-so-ever on the actual game that will be played or what strategies will ultimately work the best or even be succesful.

This is, indeed, the larger point of the discussion. The only accurate information in a test game is based off the initial screenshot, sans hidden resources. This only serves to make for a strong case for or against a CS slingshot as being possible via the initial starting position. Given the map type, most forms of interferrence could be ruled out.

 

[DaveMcW]

You can figure out all your opponents on your 2nd turn by renaming your capital.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=181384

 

[occam]

Knock, knock!

Yes, who is it?

Why, we're the Incan IMF!

IMF?

International Monetary Fund of course, we invest in back....I mean nations with low scores.

Go away, we don't want anything. We are self-sufficient.

Oh, ok. (Pause.) But you could be so much more!

Just GO AWAY! (Pause.) Wait, what did you mean?

We have studied your great nation and its economy, and we know that you can be more productive. (Cue positive sound track.)

How? We have no modern resources! Our proud horses are useless now. Copper is too weak to make buildings or cars.

Many economic agents, some of whom are from my own friendly but humble nation, would be willing to provide these modern resources by trading with you. Your economy would thrive! And you would be a very popular leader! (Nudge.)

Fool! We have inquired about the very trading opportunities you describe, we have been refused. We are too poor.

Ah, we have anticipated this problem. Your economy is strong, it is not at anywhere near maximum capacity in terms of how much cash it can produce. If you only had a small amount of FREE money, right now, you could even use those modern resources to improve your economy further! Exponentially!

What do you mean, free money?

(Click of a briefcase opening.) What part of 'free money' is so hard to understand?

(10 turns later)

Come, have a drink on me, comrade. You were right, my noble representative to the Incan IMF. Our economy is thriving, we are trading for many modern resources. I am proud to say that in a spirit of friendship, many of these contracts have gone to your great nation. (Pause.) Say, I have a meeting with my science and culture advisors later today, could I get a little more of that free money?

I am sorry, oh great one, I have .... um.... run out. But that is not bad news, a modern nation like yours has grown beyond charity or dependency. Yes?

(Pause.) Yes. Yes, of course.

So should I cancel your modern resources?

NO! I mean, no. No need for that.

(From offstage) Great one, the ministers of Science and Culture have arrived.

(Cue ominous music.) Send them in.

========

I am lost about where the exploit comes in. I am entirely unconvinced that giving up some GPT is not a proper price to pay for another civ to run their sliders at different settings. Could someone post a quote that this is not a design feature from a dev, or was that bit just an assertion, too?

 

[Vynd]

Knock, knock!

...

========

I am lost about where the exploit comes in. I am entirely unconvinced that giving up some GPT is not a proper price to pay for another civ to run their sliders at different settings. Could someone post a quote that this is not a design feature from a dev, or was that bit just an assertion, too?

That's a cute little story occam. But it's misleading. The AI doesn't sit there and think "If only I could trade for some modern resources, I could improve my economy and military!" If you offer resources it doesn't have access to, and it has money to spend, it'll make the trade. Even if the resource is just another happy or health resource when it already has more happiness or health than it can use.

Furthermore, this isn't something that one can use just to squeeze a little extra cash out of backwards, destined to lose anyway, empires. If anything it is even more effective on empires with big, powerful, economies. You can get more money out of them, and you can hurt what are presumably your biggest opponents.

And what do you mean by "Giving up some GPT?" The human in this scenario isn't giving up any GPT. He gets back most or all of the money he "gives" to the AI via the resource trades. So for the first 10 turns he breaks even or makes a small profit. And then after 10 turns he cancels the "gifts" to the AI and really starts raking in the cash. The only thing the human player gives up are resources, resources that he presumably doesn't need anyway.

 

[occam]

Vynd, thank you for the time and consideration of your reply! Before I address any specific points, would it be fair to say that, to your knowledge, the claim that "the devs did not want this tactic" is a pure assertion? Would still love any quote there!

That's a cute little story occam. But it's misleading. The AI doesn't sit there and think "If only I could trade for some modern resources, I could improve my economy and military!" If you offer resources it doesn't have access to, and it has money to spend, it'll make the trade. Even if the resource is just another happy or health resource when it already has more happiness or health than it can use.

The point of the story is to suggest that in real life something like this "exploit" (sic) happens all the time. Please mentally change my story to include trading for some resources that have little utility, and more prestige value, which of course does happen in real life. At best your line of argument suggests that this is difficult to model perfectly -- something much of CIV suffers from but certainly not rising to the level of an exploit.

And what do you mean by "Giving up some GPT?" The human in this scenario isn't giving up any GPT. He gets back most or all of the money he "gives" to the AI via the resource trades.

What I meant by "giving up some GPT" was the 10 turns' worth that you have to pay to get the AI to run the sliders at different settings. The equation is NOT something for nothing (an exploit), it is something for something! After the AI is willing to run their sliders at different levels, any further, specific resource trades are ones the AI evaluates as beneficial (again something for something). It is true that you can't get the best rates at the lowest slider setting.

Other posters in this thread have already suggested that reifying the current available AI GPT as an important number is a foolish error... that is a fluid number that changes on any turn. The true, interesting cap is the economic maximum the AI can sustain. Don't be confused by what you see in the diplomatic screen when you are talking to them at any given moment.... that is just a snapshot of what their sliders imply --> revealing more about their sliders than their actual maximum.

I think that the number of people who wouldn't mind this tactic would dramatically increase if Firaxis has just called that number on the diplomatic screen: current economic surplus or something. I mean, you can't even describe this tactic as an exploit using that term.... go ahead, try it at home! I like to think that the Civ Fanatics can analyze more deeply than blindly demanding obedience to a mislabeling by Firaxis.

Thanks for reading!
- Occam

PS: As further evidence of how "off-base" and weird I am, I would love to have the actual AI sliders right there in the diplomacy screen. Of course, making the AI move them could be difficult in peacetime, but at the end of a war it seems very realistic to demand as a concession less military research (think Japan after WW2) or more economic reparations (think Germany after WW1, Iraq after Kuwait).

 

[Equendil]

Vynd, thank you for the time and consideration of your reply! Before I address any specific points, would it be fair to say that, to your knowledge, the claim that "the devs did not want this tactic" is a pure assertion? Would still love any quote there!

Quote ? The "devs" have implemented a game mechanism preventing the AI to buy resources at any cost for itself, it's in the game, you can see it yourself, gifting the AI gold per turn is bypassing that mechanism, that's precisely the reason to do it, what do you want a quote for ?

 

[occam]

Quote ? The "devs" have implemented a game mechanism preventing the AI to buy resources at any cost for itself, it's in the game, you can see it yourself, gifting the AI gold per turn is bypassing that mechanism, that's precisely the reason to do it, what do you want a quote for ?

Equendil, thank you for the time and consideration of your reply.

I am interested in the "dev quote" since some people claim to be reading their minds. If no quote exists, I can play mind-reader also!

The mechanism you assert is to prevent AIs from foolishly buying resources seems to me to be more a mechanism to make sure the numbers add up on every single turn. There are many good reasons to think this.... here is one: it applies to the human too, at any given slider setting you have a GPT cap on trading -- surely this cap for the human is to make numbers add up, not to prevent you from abusively trading with yourself? Here is another one: it is bypassable.
[Reminder: bypassing is nowhere near the test for exploit.]

So, do you have anything besides an assertion that the PURPOSE of this cap is to avoid the rapacious IMF behavior (anyone still debating the realism of this anymore? or have I carried that point?). I think the purpose of that cap is provably something else. Food for thought: if you were a dev and you wanted to model this rapacious IMF behavior (hypothetically speaking).... would you (a) put a big button in the diplomacy screen labelled "IMF rape this nation" and have a tech that unlocks that button... or would you (b) require a gradual economic and resource build-up as well as some clever trading to influence the nation's sliders to addict them to your resources? Which is more realistic?

=======

I think the worst you can say about this tactic is that it is counter-intuitive. It is not broken, it is not something for nothing, it might be the sole point of access to the AI sliders. The real problem is the AI strategic sense about the value of resources -- that strategy edge we humans get is why the AI gets all the other handicaps, right? Counter-intuitive isn't that bad! In a game modelling the real world, that may just be a compliment.

- Occam

PS: Of course, a dev quote, or worse, a patch, would prove me utterly wrong. On the other hand, if they patch how the AI values resources only, I would feel vindicated.

 

[Equendil]

The mechanism you assert is to prevent AIs from foolishly buying resources seems to me to be more a mechanism to make sure the numbers add up on every single turn. There are many good reasons to think this.... here is one: it applies to the human too, at any given slider setting you have a GPT cap on trading -- surely this cap for the human is to make numbers add up, not to prevent you from abusively trading with yourself? Here is another one: it is bypassable.

I don't have the slighest idea what you mean by "making the numbers add up", and surely, you're not arguing that the player bypassing the AI's limit is equivalent to the player altering his *own* slider on purpose ?

[Reminder: bypassing is nowhere near the test for exploit.]

I don't believe you are an authority on what does or does not constitute an exploit, so I'll hapilly ignore this pretentious "reminder".

So, do you have anything besides an assertion that the PURPOSE of this cap is to avoid the rapacious IMF behavior (anyone still debating the realism of this anymore? or have I carried that point?).

Do *you* have anything besides cute stories with next to no relevance to the game to show that this is an intended game mechanism ? A line in the thick game's manual explaining how to bypass the AI's GPT limit maybe ? Since you seem to think devs are prolific writers, maybe you *do* have a quote ?

I think the purpose of that cap is provably something else. Food for thought: if you were a dev and you wanted to model this rapacious IMF behavior (hypothetically speaking).... would you (a) put a big button in the diplomacy screen labelled "IMF rape this nation" and have a tech that unlocks that button... or would you (b) require a gradual economic and resource build-up as well as some clever trading to influence the nation's sliders to addict them to your resources? Which is more realistic?

Funilly enough, I am a dev, and I would not model your "rapacious IMF behaviour" period, quite the opposite, my job would be to make sure the AI doesn't shoot itself in the foot. Unfortunately, I would probably overlook a few things, errare humanum est as they say. Eventually people would find a way to exploit the weaknesses in my sloppy code, label it "tactic", and argue that if I can't be quoted stating some exploit I don't know about is an exploit, then it's an intended game feature.

I think the worst you can say about this tactic is that it is counter-intuitive.

I really wonder why ...

 

[occam]

I don't have the slighest idea what you mean by "making the numbers add up", and surely, you're not arguing that the player bypassing the AI's limit is equivalent to the player altering his *own* slider on purpose ?

Sorry, please let me admit that was vague. What I mean by "making the numbers add up" is so the AI doesn't spend money that they have already spent on science etc that turn (an exploit common to previous civ versions). So there is a cap on what a nation can trade that turn based on its income split among its sliders, and an AI can't change a slider during your turn (perhaps), just like you can't during the AI turn. I could gladly clarify exactly what details are implemented to a much more granular level, but you would first have to specifically point to the 'mechanism' you are referring to. Perhaps it is in one of the XML files? If my explanation seemed vague, it is only because I didn't want to trouble you by requiring further clarification. But now I find I must, please forgive me.

Do *you* have anything besides cute stories with next to no relevance to the game to show that this is an intended game mechanism ? A line in the thick game's manual explaining how to bypass the AI's GPT limit maybe ? Since you seem to think devs are prolific writers, maybe you *do* have a quote ?

At the risk of your calling me pretentious (again), I remind you that the process of assessing tactics as exploits includes a presumption of innocence... most everything will be allowed unless demonstrated to be a problem. It is a burden of proof thing - I certainly don't intend to provide anything like what you suggest, nor am I seriously claiming to know what the devs really think. I intend to severely and credibly question the case for calling this an exploit, and then just trust in the system.

Thank you for your reply! Good to know the devs are listening!
- Occam

 

[bio_hazard]

I played GOTM1 but then haven't revisited as I couldn't really play on my PC laptop. I have the mac version now- would like to re-enter the GOTM world (but not on Emperor! will see what next month brings) With all this discussion of potential exploits, just wonerding if there is an official list yet for Civ4? I clicked a link on the GOTM web page but it took me to what looked like Civ3 exploits. Thanks.

 

[AlanH]

This sticky thread is currently one up the list from the one we're in. That's the nearest we have to an official list for Civ4.