Exploits

[ChickenHawk]

I continue to amazed by the lengths players go to in order to get an advantage in this game. Every week I read posts about how players take advantage of loopholes in the rules. These are called exploits.

The latest example I have found, but definitely not the most flagrant, is RCP (Ring City Placement). This exploit take advantage of the fact that the game sets a city's corruption level based on the number of cities closer to the capital than itself. If many cities are exactly the same distance from the capital, they all share the same corruption level. So if there are 3 cities inside of these equidistant cities, these equidistant cities share the corruption level of the 4th closest city, rather than each city gradually getting more corruption. So players are devising schemes to build as many cities as possible at identical distances from the capital (and forbidden palace) to lower their corruption.

Many people would argue that this is not an exploit; that it is simply a strategy. So what is the difference between an exploit and a strategy? To me, an exploit is a technique that:

a) takes advantage of a loophole in the rules. Of course, whether something is a loophole or not is again open to interpretation

b) has the player behave in ways that a historical figure would not. For example, the ruler of a nation, if he had control over the placement of new settlements, would not implement RCP. He might prefer to establish more settlements closer to his capital in order to maintain tighter control over them ( and hence lower corruption) but he would not ensure that he had a ring of cities that were "exactly" the same distance from each other from the capital regardless of local geography.

Civilization is not simply a game. It is a model of something real, albeit a VERY, VERY simplified model. It models the advance of, well, civilization, and some of the decisions the ruler of a nation might have to face in order for his nation to survive and thrive. I enjoy playing this game because I like to immerse myself in the role of such a leader. I will not use any technique that does not make sense in this context.

I'd like to know how others feel about this.

edit: RCP thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...&threadid=57026 (Thanks Bamspeedy)

 

[barron of ideas]

I assume you use the governor to control each city and do not micromanage the tiles your population work, and automate your workers, and build whatever the governor suggests, and in all other respects do nothing that the AI wouldn't do in the same circumstance. Anything else, like using human judgement is an "exploit" because the computer wouldn't do it.

Maybe the above is a little overstated, but please, the decision where to put your cities should not be subject to criticism. Some people leave about 6 tiles per city, I think this is sometimes referred to as ICS. Others settle great distances from their capital to leave room for new cities to be built in their area after the hinterlands with their resources have been claimed.

City placement is a personal decision. Please don't call this kind of personal decision an exploit

 

[cookie_monster]

Do what you want guys in your own games.

For GOTM they have there own rules. But it would be unfair for people to win by an exploit.

 

[ChickenHawk]

I assume you use the governor to control each city and do not micromanage the tiles your population work, and automate your workers, and build whatever the governor suggests, and in all other respects do nothing that the AI wouldn't do in the same circumstance. Anything else, like using human judgement is an "exploit" because the computer wouldn't do it.

I don't understand how this statement refers to what I wrote. I said that I refrain from doing things that an historical ruler would never do. I didn't say that I would only do things that the AI would do.

City placement is a personal decision. Please don't call this kind of personal decision an exploit

Everything you do in this game is a personal decision. Hence any exploit that a player performs must also be a personal decision. Could you please clarify what "kind of personal decision" city placement is that leads to it being excluded from being criticized as an exploit?

BTW, I do not own so I do not play against humans.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Well, there is definitely different degrees of exploits. Some say that ROP-rape is an exploit. Palace jumping, using the palace as a pre-build for a wonder, demanding tribute from the AI, re-negotiating a peace treaty (without fighting) could all be considered exploits. Using artillery on offense might as well be considered an exploit, since the AI can't handle it, and never does it. Where do you draw the line?

How would you enforce city placement? "Oh, no, You can't build a city at that spot because it shares the same distance from the capital as another city". The AI inadvertantly places some cities at the exact same distance as another city. Some people have had a 'Ring Style' placement for years, without directly realizing how much lower corruption they have than other build styles, or that it is an 'exploit'. OCP has many cities sharing the same distance. Is OCP an exploit? (OCP=optimal city placement, building cities so every city has 19-20 tiles/city and every land tile is used). ICS (infinite city sprawl=building many small cities) is hard to enforce because it ends up being a judgement call, because someone can get real close to ICS for some cities, and some would call it ICS and want it banned, while others think it should have been OK, or it was a 'dense-build', but not ICS.
An example: If you have a lake, and put 3 cities on that lake, but your other cities are spaced much further away so each of those cities can still get 12-15 tiles/city, that should be OK, but some would say it's not, because those 3 cities are so close to each other.

 

[Penguin Glory]

Like everything, this has its ups and downs. If you keep all the cities a certain distance from your capitol, they will be easier to conquer. And harder to defend. I hope I understood you correctly.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Well, you could build cities so they are 3 tiles from each other, so defending units can go from one city to the next in 1 turn.

Against the AI, it is very rare for me to have to worry about defending cities. When I do defend them, they are only the border cities.

Here's the RCP method, that Chickenhawk is referring to:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57026

 

[ChickenHawk]

Bamspeedy:

Where do you draw the line?

I consider something an exploit if an historical leader would never do it. So...

Not Exploits:
----------------

ROP-rape
Palace jumping
Demanding tribute from the AI
Re-negotiating a peace treaty (without fighting)
Using artillery on offense
ICS
Building tightly packed cities on fresh water

Exploits:
-----------

RCP
OCP - edit: I no longer feel that OCP is an exploit, since it does not give the player an unfair advantage.
Using the palace as a pre-build for a wonder (although if the wonder I am working on gets built elsewhere, and there are no other wonders to switch to, I will switch to the palace until another wonder is available.)

P.S. Thanks Bam for that link. I should have included it in the original post.

 

[TheBoogieMan]

I think what ChickenHawk didn't mention clearly is this: the effect of having several cities at exactly the same distance from the capital is not logical, it is an oversight by the programmers. I'm not 100% sure of that, but come on, shouldn't all such cities share a *higher* average level of corruption?

Consider the percentiles on standardized tests, like GRE, SAT, TOEFL, etc. If your percentile rank is 92%, that percentage is made up of the following: all those who scored lower than you, and *half* of those who scored equally with you. Corruption due to number of cities should follow the same or similar logic. Therefore, it's a bit of an exploit of the mechanics of the game.

But after all, any sort of city placement should be allowed! Who says that ICS or OCP are an exploit? There are always drawbacks to every scheme. If your opponent beats you using a particular style, give him credit for it. It should drive you to improve your style or execution, not criticize minute details.

Just my 2 cents.
TheBoogieMan

 

[TheBoogieMan]

Ok, just tell me why Palace Jumping is not an exploit? You DO NOT deserve a newly built palace just because you decided your old capital isn't cutting it anymore. It DOES NOT materialize out of nowhere for you.

Also, why is OCP an exploit? Utilization of available resources, including LAND, should be every leader's goal. I'd like to hear from some die-hard moralists on this.

 

[Veers]

They stick it to us when it comes to corruption - tactics like these are a natural result of this. I don't know what they're thinking...my brother won't play Civ III because of bombardment and corruption. They’re part of the reason Civ III didn’t go mainstream. It needs to be fixed for Civ IV or even Conquests.

 

[Nad]

as everyone points out, what you consider an exploit is a personal decision, and there is no "right or wrong" about it. Simply find what you are comfortable with and don;t use other tactics. To me, an exploit is something that takes advantage of a loophole in the AI or the nature/spirit of the game.

One of the reasons I never play GOTM is that it allows what are to me, blatant exploits. I disagree with that and would not want to be aprt of a community that plays using those exploits, so, quite simply, I avoid GOTM. Problem solved.

For what it's worth, I consider the following exploits:

ROP rape: takes advantage of the weakness all turn-based startegy games have: you cannot reply to a move simply because of your turn order where in any real situation you would be able to react.

ROP abuse: eg, signing ROP and then parking units on your ally's unhooked resources so he/she can't connect them

Negative science: the penalty you pay, losing a unit and a building, is absolutely minute compared to the hundreds of gpt advantage you can gain

Extended ICS: if you base your whole empire on the 2-tile build pattern to go for quantity over quality. For me, this is against the spirit of the game rather than the rules, taking excess advantage of the corruption formulae and the size 12 city limit.

False treaties: signing gpt for lump sum item treaties or peace treaties with the intent of not honouring them: takes undue advantage of the AI.

Non-leader palace jump: disbanding your capital to get a free palace jump to a city where you want your palace to be

As far as I know, all the above are fair game in GOTM

I do not, however, consider RCP, sneak attacks, renegotiating peace, demanding tributes etc as exploits, as they are not capitalizing on loopholes within the game nor do they exploit the AI system.

 

[ChickenHawk]

TheBoogieMan:

shouldn't all such cities share a *higher* average level of corruption?

Yes! If this were the case, RCP wouldn't be an exploit (IMHO) since the player would not gain an "unrealistic" advantage using it.

If your opponent beats you using a particular style, give him credit for it. It should drive you to improve your style or execution, not criticize minute details.

In my second post I said:

BTW, I do not own so I do not play against humans.

 

[ChickenHawk]

TheBoogieMan:

Ok, just tell me why Palace Jumping is not an exploit? You DO NOT deserve a newly built palace just because you decided your old capital isn't cutting it anymore. It DOES NOT materialize out of nowhere for you.

I can imagine an historic leader relocating his center of government to a more centralized location at a time before he had the resources to build a new palace. If the leader was strong enough and committed enough, he could persuade his subject to abandon the capital city for a new one. Alternatively, he could have his capital city razed to the ground to compel his subjects to resettle in his newly chosen capital. This act might have to be blamed on a scapegoat so as not to cause any resentment. Because I can imagine this scenario, and I feel that it is plausible, I allow myself to palace jump.

Also, why is OCP an exploit? Utilization of available resources, including LAND, should be every leader's goal. I'd like to hear from some die-hard moralists on this.

OCP seems to me to be somewhat unrealistic. I have trouble imagining a leader in the distant past laying out cities in such a rigid framework. Settlements were generally founded either in places where the natural resources are more plentiful than other nearby locations, or at militarily stategic locations. I do not know of a case where a nation laid out their settlements in a regular grid, nor can I imagine a historic leader wanting to do so.

 

[Moonsinger]

I think suicide galley is the ultimate exploit of all, but it seems acceptable by most people. Unless a suicide galley make another suicide run to get back home, how on earth can it be able to immediately communicate with its homeland?

 

[pdescobar]

@Moonsinger: carrier pigeons

You are right though; the suicide galley illustrates a general problem with having "instant communications" in a game where radio doesn't get invented for quite some time.

 

[Bamspeedy]

ROP abuse: eg, signing ROP and then parking units on your ally's unhooked resources so he/she can't connect them

I don't think that one is allowed. Scout resource denial isn't allowed, and I don't really think that is any different than this one.

Negative science: the penalty you pay, losing a unit and a building, is absolutely minute compared to the hundreds of gpt advantage you can gain

The best players never use this because they can run 100% science and still make money (from the AI), so I wouldn't worry about this. You wouldn't want your university in your best city to be sold off.

I do not, however, consider RCP, sneak attacks, renegotiating peace, demanding tributes etc as exploits,

What if someone has a 'false' power lead over the AI? He has absolutely no military, but because he has so many cities (ICS), and/or territory size, he can get stuff from the AI (by demanding tribute, or renegotiating peace).

False treaties: signing gpt for lump sum item treaties or peace treaties with the intent of not honouring them: takes undue advantage of the AI.

What if you know the AI is going to sneak attack you, so you sign a gpt deal, knowing the AI is going to break the deal?

OCP seems to me to be somewhat unrealistic. I have trouble imagining a leader in the distant past laying out cities in such a rigid framework. Settlements were generally founded either in places where the natural resources are more plentiful than other nearby locations, or at militarily stategic locations. I do not know of a case where a nation laid out their settlements in a regular grid, nor can I imagine a historic leader wanting to do so.

Have you ever been to any of the Great Plain states in the U.S.? Not exactly a perfect format (OCP), but close to it. If you look at a road map of some states like Minnesota, it is pretty much a grid of roads.

 

[barron of ideas]

Columbus would have been a suicide galley run except he ran into the Americas. He didn't have food and water for as long a voyage as he really faced to Asia. He had a defective view of the circumference of the earth and argued, unsuccessfully in most courts that he could find asia using available shipping by sailing west. Most educated people, who knew how big the earth was (no-one thought it was flat, the curature is obvious when sailing, and the greeks has measured it indirectly thousands of years earlier.

So, historically there is at least one "suicide galley" for exploration. You need to find a meglomanic for an admiral, though.

Maybe the rule should be, you get one. If it succeeds, you get another, and another until one of them fail. Then no more crazy captains will follow the suicide route.

 

[katka]

What is negative science and suicide galley?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Negative Science:
Run science at 100%, even if you are losing money and have 0 gold. The game penalizes this defecit by selling off 1 unit or 1 building/turn. Losing 1 warrior/1 worker per turn isn't bad later on in the game when they can easily be replaced every turn.
Edit: And on Chieftain, there is no penalty.
Another reason I don't consider this an exploit, is because this leaves you with absolutely no money to rush buy anything.

Suicide galley: Using the galley to cross sea/oceans (before astronomy/navigation) to try and find other civs. It's called 'suicide' because sometimes the galley doesn't survive and sinks. I don't consider that an exploit, but the AI never does it. I never do it, because I hate wasting shields that way, and if you are always successful in it, people may suspect you of cheating.