bio_hazard
Prince
Thanks! Probably should have seen that.
Discussion thread for exploits and strategies
- Thread starter John Steele
- Start date
DaviddesJ
Deity
Grampaw said:
There's a fair amount of information here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=159109
It's not really well explained in any one place. But the calculation of how many hammers you get when pop rushing, is "wrong".
DaviddesJ
Deity
I discovered a new bug (new to me, anyway). If you are building a worker or settler, then unhappy people don't consume any food.
E.g., suppose your city is size 6, with 4 happy people and 2 unhappy people, and suppose the 4 happy people are working tiles (plus the city center) that generate 16 food and 6 hammers. Then, you have a food surplus of 16-12 = 4 (assuming no unhealth), so, if you're building a settler, you should get +10 hpt (4f 6h). But you actually get +14 hpt (8f 6h); the food required to feed the two unhappy people is not counted against you.
I couldn't find a thread for this bug, so I started one here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=183852
E.g., suppose your city is size 6, with 4 happy people and 2 unhappy people, and suppose the 4 happy people are working tiles (plus the city center) that generate 16 food and 6 hammers. Then, you have a food surplus of 16-12 = 4 (assuming no unhealth), so, if you're building a settler, you should get +10 hpt (4f 6h). But you actually get +14 hpt (8f 6h); the food required to feed the two unhappy people is not counted against you.
I couldn't find a thread for this bug, so I started one here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=183852
DaviddesJ
Deity
DaviddesJ said:
Follow up: Alexman says this is intentional, not a bug.
DaviddesJ said:
Interesting. Any speculation what its purpose might be?
DaviddesJ
Deity
DynamicSpirit said:
Follow the link in #124.
Not that I really want to reignite the (rather heated) discusion that has filled most of this thread, but since the gold gifting / resorce trading exploit has not made it into the list of disallowed strategies, I guess it is OK to use? Have people been using it? It could give me slightly more than a snowballs chance in hell in Septembers immortal game.
DaviddesJ
Deity
Samson said:
It no longer seems worth banning, to me. So far, I haven't found it all that useful. A minor benefit sometimes, but not a major one. The fact that, in general, it's hard to figure out how much gold the AIs will give back to you, makes it less useful. If you were reloading (as some non GOTM players might) it becomes better because you can play around with different trades to see what they will net you.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Minor or major (I just read about upping your score by passing the domination limit on your final turn by the widest margin you can manage), all exploits diminish the game.
Are you sure that works? I thought a change was made in one of the patches so that only territory you've owned for X turns (where I think X=10) counts towards your score...Ribannah said:
Ribannah said:
Samson was using the term "exploit" loosely, reflecting only his/her opinion on the issue. The cutthroat IMF tactic has not been established as an exploit at all, minor or major.
Certainly the OFFICIAL position is NOT: it is an exploit, but too minor to regulate.
Discovered by player Rustavelli from Civru.com
If quick moves are turned off and you give a GP a command to discover science/join city/finish production/build academy or great shrine or art masterpiece, while he's waving his hands you can select another GP in this city and activate GA. The first GP would both complete the assigned task and aid in Golden Age. You get free Great People this way.
This exploit should be monitored and banned in the official games.
The relevant bug thread
Edit: it is fixed in Warlords.
If quick moves are turned off and you give a GP a command to discover science/join city/finish production/build academy or great shrine or art masterpiece, while he's waving his hands you can select another GP in this city and activate GA. The first GP would both complete the assigned task and aid in Golden Age. You get free Great People this way.
This exploit should be monitored and banned in the official games.
The relevant bug thread
Edit: it is fixed in Warlords.
thrallia said:
I think you're wrong, I recall some people other than occam maintaining it is not an exploit. (ex : eqqman)
I will give my opinion (un-wanted maybe, but I will still give it) on this subject :
IMO this IMF tactic is nothing to worry about and even something people should be able to try from time to time as it enhance the gameplay.
I will agree that this tactic uses a bug in programming.
BUT:
1) it is NOT a loophole : you cannot obtain an infinite cost for a ressource. It would be a loophole/exploit if by giving 100gpt to a +12diplo civ, you would obtain a 102 gpt for a ressource and then you would cancel the gold income you provide and earn 102gpt from a ressource ad vitam aeternam. In fact it does not work that way : that uber-friendly civ will never buy you a ressource more than a few dozen gpt.
2) It is screw or be screwed. Have you checked how much a civ asks you for a happy ressource ? : 12-20gpt. And how much they propose you for that same ressource in the opposed situation (go to the world builder, delete their source of dye, put one in your territory and do the experiment again) : They will only propose what they have as a surplus of gold : 2-5 gpt.
So it seems that either you try to build +12 diplo with a civ to attain the price the civ think of right /or you would never ever exchange ressource for gold /or you accept (and force other people) to be screwed.
It is the same reasonning as the "pop-rush" bug: either you do not use it and you are f---ed by the game programming* or you use it and you "abuse" the AI.
3) When I know I can obtain decent prices for my ressources (even when it is obtained through a very hard work of diplomacy) I am much more keen to spend gold to buy ressource to the AI (with price moslty in the same range as the "exploit" prices). When I didn't knew about this possibility, I would never trade a ressource(AI) for gpt (mine): only ressource vs ressource or I make war with them as it seems their price was too expensive. And thus I would put aside an important trait of civ : trading my gold for the ressource of the computer (and most of the people do the same I think). Now I will sometime buy these ressources, as I know I can also attain such price in my favour. (and I'm still screwed as it demands a tremendrous work of diplo for the AI to be screwed by the IMF bug while it needs no work for me to accept the deal).
4) I'd rather have people use the "bug" and exchange ressources for gold with the AI than having gpt only used as tributs for peacemaking.
5) I agree the bug has to be corrected, maybe by giving the possibilty for the AI to re-negociate any trade after 15turns or maybe giving it the ability to check if the ressource is worth the cost (in terms of happy...Etc) every 10turns. But banning it or saying it is an exploit is exactly like giving away your gun and fighting barehanded because you ennemy only has a sword**.
-----------
* I have every respect to the programmers as I do not know of any way to easily enforce the antagonistic aims of allowing the AI to not be exploited of all its commerce and allowing the player to have fair trades proposed from the AI.
** and he won't put his sword aside. either he kill you with his sword or you kill him with the gun... fighting him barehanded is not honourable, it is stupid. Maybe some black belt martial artist will be able to still win in this situation but not ask everybody to do the same in the name of fairness.
sorry, I post here again :
I think I have found a 6th point in my reasonning:
6) the ending result of the "bug" can be achieved otherwise : so that the result : a civ paying eternaly +16-24gpt for 1 ressource is not a bug. (I haven't yet the willpower to test if it works but in theory it works)
1) say you sell gems to civ A for 3gpt
2) If you wait ten turns (as the contracts reach an end) you notice that the Ai has +3gpt available to exchange against another ressource.
3) Cancel the trade for gems, the Ai will then have +6gpt available that he will pleasantly trade again with either the same gems or another ressource.
redo steps 2) and 3)
as with the "bug" you will need to have a great diplo with the guy so that he still will to buy again ressources for a long time. as with the "bug", your diplo is enhanced by the process. As with the bug, with your long diplo and high diplo points, the Ai will mostly never put an end to the trade.
I can hear you : "it takes more time"
ok, but is it true that it shows that without the "bug" of "paying money for nothing" (I hate to call it that but its detractors seems to like this appelation) is it true that without the bug it is possible to attain high price for a ressource?
If it is true, it seems the "bug" is not an exploit but merely a clever way to rush the process of correcting a loophole in programming that forbade the AI from giving the price it was willing to pay.
another option is available
1) sell gems for 3gpt
2) 1-3 turn(s) later sell dye for another 3-5gpt (what the AI will have)
3) 1-3 turns later sell another ressource for as much money avilable
4) do this again for any ressource you can spare (even ressource you 1 only one time if you can spare them for a few 10-20 turns, even strategic ressources if you do not care about the AI threat against you)
5) 10 turns after the last exchange : you should have some 15-30 gpt coming in from many ressources.
6) cancel all trades!
7) without quiting the diplo screen, trade gems for as much as you can. You should reach the same kind of prices as for the bug.
Lets do a little math with an exercise:
In this case, if the AI is working correctly, (ie: balancing it's economy, it should have regained some positive gpt every few turns)
A) the "bug" allow you to have +20 gpt after 10turns in which you gave of 160gold (+16 gpt given freely for the first 10turns then gift cancelled assuming +4gpt available for the AI)
B)if it works, option 2 gives you (with AI equilibrium reached every 2t):
5 ressources sold +4 each
turn 1: ressource 1 = 4gpt (earn 0)
turn 3: ressource 2 = 4gpt (2*4gpt : earned 8)
turn 5: ressource 3 = 4gpt (8+2t*2*4gpt : earned 24)
turn 7: ressource 4 = 4gpt (24 + 2t*3*4gpt : earned 48)
turn 9: ressource 5 = 4gpt (=+20gpt total) (earned 48 + 32)
on turn 9 you sell 5 ressource for 20gpt, with already 80gold earned.
turn 19 : cancel all trades, sell ressource 1 for 20gpt, 280 already earned.
by comparison, the bug on turn 19 allowed you to earn 380(given from trad) -160(from the early gift) gold = 220.
So without the bug I can theorically in 19 turns produce more commerce form a trade of ressource than using the bug.
Again the difference is that I need to have 5 disposable ressources... so what? What is the difference in terms of attained objectives ? you earn 20gpt for a ressource and the AI is not likely to stop the exchange and will never see any exploitation of his people.
if you can attain exactly the same results as the bug without the bug, it means IMO that there is no bug and that the Ai was programmed to accept 10ish and 20ish gpt costs for a ressource. What upset you is the "gift for 10turns" that is being cancelled... I understand it from an ethical point of view, But if it is the simplest way to make the AI see how it was programmed to behave..
As it's only a game only one conclusion comes to mind : we have to use it when we can manage it!
EDIT: numbers corrected
I think I have found a 6th point in my reasonning:
6) the ending result of the "bug" can be achieved otherwise : so that the result : a civ paying eternaly +16-24gpt for 1 ressource is not a bug. (I haven't yet the willpower to test if it works but in theory it works)
1) say you sell gems to civ A for 3gpt
2) If you wait ten turns (as the contracts reach an end) you notice that the Ai has +3gpt available to exchange against another ressource.
3) Cancel the trade for gems, the Ai will then have +6gpt available that he will pleasantly trade again with either the same gems or another ressource.
redo steps 2) and 3)
as with the "bug" you will need to have a great diplo with the guy so that he still will to buy again ressources for a long time. as with the "bug", your diplo is enhanced by the process. As with the bug, with your long diplo and high diplo points, the Ai will mostly never put an end to the trade.
I can hear you : "it takes more time"
ok, but is it true that it shows that without the "bug" of "paying money for nothing" (I hate to call it that but its detractors seems to like this appelation) is it true that without the bug it is possible to attain high price for a ressource?
If it is true, it seems the "bug" is not an exploit but merely a clever way to rush the process of correcting a loophole in programming that forbade the AI from giving the price it was willing to pay.
another option is available
1) sell gems for 3gpt
2) 1-3 turn(s) later sell dye for another 3-5gpt (what the AI will have)
3) 1-3 turns later sell another ressource for as much money avilable
4) do this again for any ressource you can spare (even ressource you 1 only one time if you can spare them for a few 10-20 turns, even strategic ressources if you do not care about the AI threat against you)
5) 10 turns after the last exchange : you should have some 15-30 gpt coming in from many ressources.
6) cancel all trades!
7) without quiting the diplo screen, trade gems for as much as you can. You should reach the same kind of prices as for the bug.
Lets do a little math with an exercise:
In this case, if the AI is working correctly, (ie: balancing it's economy, it should have regained some positive gpt every few turns)
A) the "bug" allow you to have +20 gpt after 10turns in which you gave of 160gold (+16 gpt given freely for the first 10turns then gift cancelled assuming +4gpt available for the AI)
B)if it works, option 2 gives you (with AI equilibrium reached every 2t):
5 ressources sold +4 each
turn 1: ressource 1 = 4gpt (earn 0)
turn 3: ressource 2 = 4gpt (2*4gpt : earned 8)
turn 5: ressource 3 = 4gpt (8+2t*2*4gpt : earned 24)
turn 7: ressource 4 = 4gpt (24 + 2t*3*4gpt : earned 48)
turn 9: ressource 5 = 4gpt (=+20gpt total) (earned 48 + 32)
on turn 9 you sell 5 ressource for 20gpt, with already 80gold earned.
turn 19 : cancel all trades, sell ressource 1 for 20gpt, 280 already earned.
by comparison, the bug on turn 19 allowed you to earn 380(given from trad) -160(from the early gift) gold = 220.
So without the bug I can theorically in 19 turns produce more commerce form a trade of ressource than using the bug.
Again the difference is that I need to have 5 disposable ressources... so what? What is the difference in terms of attained objectives ? you earn 20gpt for a ressource and the AI is not likely to stop the exchange and will never see any exploitation of his people.
if you can attain exactly the same results as the bug without the bug, it means IMO that there is no bug and that the Ai was programmed to accept 10ish and 20ish gpt costs for a ressource. What upset you is the "gift for 10turns" that is being cancelled... I understand it from an ethical point of view, But if it is the simplest way to make the AI see how it was programmed to behave..
As it's only a game only one conclusion comes to mind : we have to use it when we can manage it!
EDIT: numbers corrected
DaviddesJ
Deity
Calavente said:
Obviously, this is a bug, too.
DaviddesJ, I might have misunderstood you but do you propose that breaking a deal and amaking at again at higher price is a bug? Because it isn't: the relative value of coins drops as the game proceeds, you an sell your resources to a higher bidder, and breaking the long-term deal hurts your diplomacyu by removing + for "you've supplied us with resources", as I believe.
