r_rolo1
King of myself
Just to refer to the original thread
High withdraw naval units showing blitz-like behaviour vs enemy patroling units
- Thread starter r_rolo1
- Start date
A couple of comments:
1. The AI doesn't use sea patrols, so nerfing second pillage attacks gives the human player an even bigger advantage.
2. If you don't like the way pillaging works with sea patrols, then don't use it. Because of (1), not using it puts you on even grounds with the AI.
3. The expoit seems to be the "free" blitz behavior, because pillaging isn't treated as an attack. Nerfing it to prevent the blitz may be an okay work-around, as long as it doesn't prevent the AI from simply moving into a resource tile (and not pillaging a second time).
4. You are supposed to be able to pillage multiple times per turn, without blitz. Nerfing it for sea patrols seems to be against the spirit of pillaging. You could then use sea patrols to prevent an enemy from being able to pillage, even if he wins the battle hands-down. (A second ship would stop him.) Essentially, you could use triemes to stop attack subs from pillaging. That doesn't seem right.
1. The AI doesn't use sea patrols, so nerfing second pillage attacks gives the human player an even bigger advantage.
2. If you don't like the way pillaging works with sea patrols, then don't use it. Because of (1), not using it puts you on even grounds with the AI.
3. The expoit seems to be the "free" blitz behavior, because pillaging isn't treated as an attack. Nerfing it to prevent the blitz may be an okay work-around, as long as it doesn't prevent the AI from simply moving into a resource tile (and not pillaging a second time).
4. You are supposed to be able to pillage multiple times per turn, without blitz. Nerfing it for sea patrols seems to be against the spirit of pillaging. You could then use sea patrols to prevent an enemy from being able to pillage, even if he wins the battle hands-down. (A second ship would stop him.) Essentially, you could use triemes to stop attack subs from pillaging. That doesn't seem right.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Woody, I strongly disagree with your 2) . Not making things just to be fair with a dumb AI that doesn't know how to do it ... 
just because HC doesn't quechua rush you, using quechuas should be verbotten? Just because Ai doesn't know how to wage a effective disembark in other continent against a equal foe, does it mean that I should not make it myself?
In the rest I agree...
just because HC doesn't quechua rush you, using quechuas should be verbotten? Just because Ai doesn't know how to wage a effective disembark in other continent against a equal foe, does it mean that I should not make it myself?In the rest I agree...
Fair enough. I was simply pointing out that if you think the AI is "cheating" by doing this, then you can stop it by not using sea patrol, and you're not at any disadvantage by doing so (because the AI doesn't do it either).
I'm not convinced it's a cheat or exploit, though. You're supposed to be able to pillage multiple times per turn. I can see if this is "fixed", then it opens up far worse exploits (like triemes stopping battleships from pillaging).
I'm not convinced it's a cheat or exploit, though. You're supposed to be able to pillage multiple times per turn. I can see if this is "fixed", then it opens up far worse exploits (like triemes stopping battleships from pillaging).
Hi
I dont see what is going wrong. Way pillaging is supposed to work is ship can pillage once for each movement point. So if it tries to pillage and is blocked by patrol, retreats but still has movement points they way pillaging works says it should be able to try again.
I dont see it as violating how blitz works as much as keeping with how pillaging works. Like the title of thread says it may be a little "blitz-like" but its not REALLY a free blitz.
And even if you want to call it a "free" blitz promotion and violation of how how blitz works. I dont see how violating how pillage works to protect blitz is really much of a difference logic wise. A rule is gonna be violated one way or another. So why is blitz more sacred of a rule than pillaging or vice versa for that matter.
But as is right now to me it doesnt really seem as blitz being violated as much as pillaging seems to be working like its supposed to.
Kaytie
I dont see what is going wrong. Way pillaging is supposed to work is ship can pillage once for each movement point. So if it tries to pillage and is blocked by patrol, retreats but still has movement points they way pillaging works says it should be able to try again.
I dont see it as violating how blitz works as much as keeping with how pillaging works. Like the title of thread says it may be a little "blitz-like" but its not REALLY a free blitz.
And even if you want to call it a "free" blitz promotion and violation of how how blitz works. I dont see how violating how pillage works to protect blitz is really much of a difference logic wise. A rule is gonna be violated one way or another. So why is blitz more sacred of a rule than pillaging or vice versa for that matter.
But as is right now to me it doesnt really seem as blitz being violated as much as pillaging seems to be working like its supposed to.
Kaytie
r_rolo1
King of myself
At Katie and all, about Dan proposed solution ( that is what Woody is refering) :
Hey Woody1, I'd like to recommend looking at one of r_rolo1's or my saved scenario to follow directly what is going on.
In my save:
2 Attack Subs are already sitting on the resources (placed there via WB). Several patroling MCs are sitting in adjacent tiles. <End Turn>
1. First Attack Sub engages a regular combat with an MC--and wins. It advances automatically to the NW tile (5 XP gained, 6left).
2. It moves back to the Fishing Boat (5
3. a) It attempts to pillage.
3. b) Pillage attempt is intercepted by patrolling MC in eastern adjacent tile.--> Combat is triggered!
3. c) Attack Sub attacks MC in eastern tile, is not able to do any damage and retreats (1XP gained, 4
4. the exact same sequence as in 3 happens (pillage attempt, interception, triggered combat, attack, retreat, 1XP gained)
5. - 7. all this happens until Attack Sub has no
Result: Improvement not pillaged, 5 free XP gained.
My proposed changes prevent the Attack Sub to attempt to pillage after it engaged the first (regular) combat--so it just moves away.
Pillaging land improvements and multiple pillaging of unprotected sea improvements are not affected at all as well as the mere movement onto or through the tile with the improvement. Also units with Blitz are allowed to attempt to pillage protected sea improvements and engage the following combats.
Avoiding the Sea Patrol just like the AI means giving up the 10% coastal defense bonus for ocean resources combined with the need for a lot more naval units.
I don't think a solution is really needed, but Roland had a better proposal that preventing 2nd pillage attempts. He mentioned preventing the pillager from withdrawing. That at least allows him to keep pillaging if he has lots of hit points left. I don't know if the AI would know how to handle it, though.
r_rolo1
King of myself
I don't think there is anything to handled in case of withdraw. The actual problem ( that causes all this mess ) is the fact that, in spite of theoretically being defending from the patrol ships, the pillager unit is actually attacking...... making that the unit gains the best out of the two worlds in this particular situation .
That would be, OFC far more dificult to solve, because, technically all of this happens in the AI turn, and technically the patroling units already played, so they can't be the attackers.... and as in a battle someone has to attack.....
That would be, OFC far more dificult to solve, because, technically all of this happens in the AI turn, and technically the patroling units already played, so they can't be the attackers.... and as in a battle someone has to attack.....
Hi
Honestly I see part 1 of DanF's scenario working exactly like it is supposed to. A ship attacks another ship and wins and still has movement points after attack. It has every right to attempt a pillage a workboat improvemnt if its in its movement range.
So stopping that DOES affect how pillaging works. Since it is always safer to sink nearby ships first whether they are in patrol mode or not and THEN pillage with reamining movement points if any are left. But DanF's solotion would no longer make that possible. And since THAT situation seems MUCH more common then the situation of AI ship milking exp points by repeated pillage attempts and withdrawls. I dont think it is worth it to "fix" a rare situation that maybe annoying but still doesnt sound broken.
So why stop it at the point of regular combat? If ANYTHING the place to start is AFTER a pillage attempt. Say like
1) ship comes in attacks enemy ship directly and lives by either wins or withdraws. it can still attempt to pillage if it has movemnt point just like game has always allowed.
2)Ship comes after attempts to pillage (whether it has just finished a normal combat or not is irellevant in this situation) a enemy ship is on patrol mission so there is a fight instead and it loses but retreats so pillage is unsuccessful becuasue it was blocked by a patroling craft. If repeated attempts really need to be stopped THIS is point where "problem" should be addressed. Two solutions might be
A) make it so after unsucccessful pillage due to a ship on patrol mission engagng in combat when ship tried to pillage can no longer attemp to pillage that turn (but ONLY on unnsuccessful attempts if it won the combat and successfully pillaged the resources it should keep its right to attempt to pillage something else if it has the movement points)
or if doing that is too difficult then
B) make it so any ship that has WITHDRAWN from a combat can no longer make a pillage attempt that turn. This isnt as good as A since it STILL affects ships that have engaged regular combat with other ships but not as much as making it so after ANY combat it cant pillage. At least a ship wont be penalized for WINNING a combat.
But stopping all pillage attempts after a regular combat changes how game works and affects a situation that has nothing to do with the "problem" trying to be fixed. So if that is the ONLY way to do it I would rather it just be left as is.
Kaytie
Honestly I see part 1 of DanF's scenario working exactly like it is supposed to. A ship attacks another ship and wins and still has movement points after attack. It has every right to attempt a pillage a workboat improvemnt if its in its movement range.
So stopping that DOES affect how pillaging works. Since it is always safer to sink nearby ships first whether they are in patrol mode or not and THEN pillage with reamining movement points if any are left. But DanF's solotion would no longer make that possible. And since THAT situation seems MUCH more common then the situation of AI ship milking exp points by repeated pillage attempts and withdrawls. I dont think it is worth it to "fix" a rare situation that maybe annoying but still doesnt sound broken.
So why stop it at the point of regular combat? If ANYTHING the place to start is AFTER a pillage attempt. Say like
1) ship comes in attacks enemy ship directly and lives by either wins or withdraws. it can still attempt to pillage if it has movemnt point just like game has always allowed.
2)Ship comes after attempts to pillage (whether it has just finished a normal combat or not is irellevant in this situation) a enemy ship is on patrol mission so there is a fight instead and it loses but retreats so pillage is unsuccessful becuasue it was blocked by a patroling craft. If repeated attempts really need to be stopped THIS is point where "problem" should be addressed. Two solutions might be
A) make it so after unsucccessful pillage due to a ship on patrol mission engagng in combat when ship tried to pillage can no longer attemp to pillage that turn (but ONLY on unnsuccessful attempts if it won the combat and successfully pillaged the resources it should keep its right to attempt to pillage something else if it has the movement points)
or if doing that is too difficult then
B) make it so any ship that has WITHDRAWN from a combat can no longer make a pillage attempt that turn. This isnt as good as A since it STILL affects ships that have engaged regular combat with other ships but not as much as making it so after ANY combat it cant pillage. At least a ship wont be penalized for WINNING a combat.
But stopping all pillage attempts after a regular combat changes how game works and affects a situation that has nothing to do with the "problem" trying to be fixed. So if that is the ONLY way to do it I would rather it just be left as is.
Kaytie
Roland Johansen
Deity
Solver, if you're reading this thread, then I would like to point out that a lot of discussion on this subject has taken place in the original thread (from post 37 onward) and that different arguments have been used there. I don't feel like repeating everything again in this thread and if you're reading both threads, then I guess you're grateful for that. 
I would suggest that the best fix is that a patrolling unit can only attempt to stop a pillage once per turn.
That means if it fails to destroy the unit and it still has movement points then it can pillage.
This would also mean the patrolling unit can only stop one unit per turn, but this is fine a unit can only attack once per turn any how so this fits with this rule.
If you want it to be able to stop multiple units pillaging then your going to have to have multiple patrolling units or just bite the bullet and place the unit on top of the resource you want to defend.
That means if it fails to destroy the unit and it still has movement points then it can pillage.
This would also mean the patrolling unit can only stop one unit per turn, but this is fine a unit can only attack once per turn any how so this fits with this rule.
If you want it to be able to stop multiple units pillaging then your going to have to have multiple patrolling units or just bite the bullet and place the unit on top of the resource you want to defend.
some people like the fact a patrolling battleship can destroy 3 triremes in one turn but this IS NOT standard CIV IV behavior.
Obliviously you still have the advantage that one patrolling unit can still defend several resources if they are close, which presumably is the behavior firaxis was trying to simulate.
Obliviously you still have the advantage that one patrolling unit can still defend several resources if they are close, which presumably is the behavior firaxis was trying to simulate.
My only issue with that is that it is the pillager that actually does the attacking, not the ship on patrol.
So, your proposal is actually limiting how many times a defender can defend against an attack, which isn't the way things are supposed to work.
Disclaimer: I don't really think this is a problem that needs fixing. Things seem to be working pretty-much as expected, IMO. It may have an odd behavior in extreme circumstances, but if you don't like the behavior in those extreme cases then park your defenders on the resource instead.
Hi just re-read the original thread and realised what I was suggesting is already the case.
So basically I agree with Woody and dont really see a problem.
Take this example
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=281621&page=4
This Battleship/Trireme example is just an extreme example where the Patrol function is a bad choice.
Then take the same map with the 3 fish resources, but this time you have 2 Frigates and the enemy 1 Frigate.
If you have both your Frigates on 1 resource each the enemy can definitely pillage one and might be able to get away or if you attack him next turn he gets a defensive bonus.
However if you have both Frigates are patrolling then the first Frigate gets a defensive bonus and might be able to destroy the opponent without the resource being destroyed. If he loses then the enemy Frigate is unlikely to be able to successfully pillage the next resource with out being destroyed. Or you will then be able to destroy him next turn.
In this case patrol works out better. Same as any Civ IV feature plus sides and down sides I vote to keep as it is. You just need to be aware of the possibilities hence the civopedia needs to be improved not the game mechanism.
Ok when Patrol goes wrong goes it goes very wrong, but this is similar to other Civ Mechanisms.
Often a stack attacking an enemy city really has problems until enough collateral damage is done and then the opponent can easily destroy the remaining unit sometimes on 99% probably getting a load of experience points for not much.
So basically I agree with Woody and dont really see a problem.
Take this example
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=281621&page=4
This Battleship/Trireme example is just an extreme example where the Patrol function is a bad choice.
Then take the same map with the 3 fish resources, but this time you have 2 Frigates and the enemy 1 Frigate.
If you have both your Frigates on 1 resource each the enemy can definitely pillage one and might be able to get away or if you attack him next turn he gets a defensive bonus.
However if you have both Frigates are patrolling then the first Frigate gets a defensive bonus and might be able to destroy the opponent without the resource being destroyed. If he loses then the enemy Frigate is unlikely to be able to successfully pillage the next resource with out being destroyed. Or you will then be able to destroy him next turn.
In this case patrol works out better. Same as any Civ IV feature plus sides and down sides I vote to keep as it is. You just need to be aware of the possibilities hence the civopedia needs to be improved not the game mechanism.
Ok when Patrol goes wrong goes it goes very wrong, but this is similar to other Civ Mechanisms.
Often a stack attacking an enemy city really has problems until enough collateral damage is done and then the opponent can easily destroy the remaining unit sometimes on 99% probably getting a load of experience points for not much.
I'm all for finding some solution to this, but not if it means drasticly changing pillaging by limiting it to 1 pillage per turn per unit.
I just don't want to lose the ability to run around with gunships tearing up towns and roads.
I admit however that I never use Patrol as I always thought the description was accurate and that it used your unit to attack on your turn, so I didnt want to give up control of the unit. Now that I know it happens on the AIs turn, it is kind of a cool feature that I may want to use, but it's not worth breaking pillage for in my eyes. I'd rather see Patrol removed and leave pillage alone.
I just don't want to lose the ability to run around with gunships tearing up towns and roads.
I admit however that I never use Patrol as I always thought the description was accurate and that it used your unit to attack on your turn, so I didnt want to give up control of the unit. Now that I know it happens on the AIs turn, it is kind of a cool feature that I may want to use, but it's not worth breaking pillage for in my eyes. I'd rather see Patrol removed and leave pillage alone.
DanF5771
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,194
Hey kurtkage:
The proposed changes will remain pillaging totally unchanged except for the very special case that:
1. pillager is a naval unit which attempts to pillage a Work Boat improvement
2. pillager has already attacked a unit during its turn (either by regular attack or by triggered/forced attack due to nearby patrolling unit)
3. pillager does not have the blitz promotion
4. the improvement is protected by a patrolling unit in an adjacent tile
So this will not touch the Gunship pillage fun.
The proposed changes will remain pillaging totally unchanged except for the very special case that:
1. pillager is a naval unit which attempts to pillage a Work Boat improvement
2. pillager has already attacked a unit during its turn (either by regular attack or by triggered/forced attack due to nearby patrolling unit)
3. pillager does not have the blitz promotion
4. the improvement is protected by a patrolling unit in an adjacent tile
So this will not touch the Gunship pillage fun.
I still don't see why it needs fixing. It certainly isn't worth breaking the way pillage works, just to fix a very special case with patrol late in the game.
If you don't like the way patrol works, then park your defenders on your resources instead, or hunt down and kill enemy attack subs. Even an attack sub with flanking I and flanking II, has only 80% withdrawl (something like that, anyway). If it tries to pillage too many times, it'll die. Is that worth it for the GG points?
It really doesn't sound like much of a loophole to me. At best, it's a minor annoyance to be aware of very late in the game if you use patrol. Nobody noticed it for years, and now that just because one person screamed "the AI cheats!", people are concerned about it? You're blowing it way out of proportion.
If you don't like the way patrol works, then park your defenders on your resources instead, or hunt down and kill enemy attack subs. Even an attack sub with flanking I and flanking II, has only 80% withdrawl (something like that, anyway). If it tries to pillage too many times, it'll die. Is that worth it for the GG points?
It really doesn't sound like much of a loophole to me. At best, it's a minor annoyance to be aware of very late in the game if you use patrol. Nobody noticed it for years, and now that just because one person screamed "the AI cheats!", people are concerned about it? You're blowing it way out of proportion.
Ok thanks DanF, I didnt understand and still need some clarification.
Do all 4 of those conditions have to be met for the "no more pillages left" to trigger?
Or are they individually applied meaning you Have to have blitz to pillage multiple times per turn with a naval unit? And you can't Kill a sole defender and pillage in the same turn without blitz?
Do all 4 of those conditions have to be met for the "no more pillages left" to trigger?
Or are they individually applied meaning you Have to have blitz to pillage multiple times per turn with a naval unit? And you can't Kill a sole defender and pillage in the same turn without blitz?
Similar threads
