How powerful are the "exploits"?

[leandrombraz]

If you really have incentive to learn, given you've played such long time, if you have learned sth, there shouldn't be any 200+ games, except that you're playing with very strict limitations. (besides no chop, no harvest, no pillage and no trade, you shall add further constraints)

If you still have 200+ games without constraints, maybe even with somethings that make the game much easier(such as more CSs, larger maps, etc). I'm not saying you're inferior, however I think it is justifiable that you shouldn't claim yourself "superior" and shouldn't try to promote your 200+ "strategy", at least not to me.

You're overconfident, however you don't play as well as you try to claim, and that's the thing.

I don't like to win that early. That's what you don't get, most people aren't trying to win that early, mainly because Civ has a roleplay side to it. I like to be efficient, I play well, but I don't aim to win before turn 200. I find it boring, unfulfilling and not really a good measure of how well I played, since that isn't what I aim for. What usually makes my games take longer is that I set to myself secondary roleplay objectives that doesn't necessarily help me win faster, I care about how my Empire looks and I'm usually peaceful, even when being aggressive would be more beneficial. The only limitations that I set to myself is that I don't abuse war, which is one of the most unfair advantages the player has over the AI, and I avoid what I actually consider exploits, like those trade shenanigans (not trade as a whole).

The T1-save is on #0, you can try yourself.

I don't have the time, nor the will to play in a way that I don't enjoy. I would, however, love to see you play peacefully.

 

[JesseS]

Congrats Lily, very fast finish. I think that the results show the “exploits” described in this thread are most important for fast peaceful play. If you’re warring with the AI, your trades are going to be inherently less valuable and it’s more important to eke out efficiency through chops from a smaller, all settled empire. That said, I wouldn’t call war an “exploit” just like I wouldn’t call chopping or most trading (excepting stuff like bugged +1gpt for 1 resource repeated trades or trading luxuries or gpt for raw gold just before war declaration) an exploit. It’s all part of the game, even if used by top tier players to finish science victories on turns that the developers probably never conceived of being possible.

I’d like to see you try a sub-200 peaceful science victory without any chopping or trading, even if you chose a civ with decent bonuses towards scientific development (maybe Scotland, Japan, or the Netherlands?). On the flip side, it would also be really interesting to see how quickly you could finish off the same map using chopping and trading.

I am curious about a couple choices here:
1) Why did you choose to switch into Digital Democracy before Synthetic Technocracy? Is the extra culture and amenities at that stage of the game worth more than extra production towards campus projects?
2) Why so many spaceports? Is it because of not being able to chop at the end and needing to feed builders into the laser projects quicker?
3) How much did you prioritize industrial zones?

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I am curious about a couple choices here:
1) Why did you choose to switch into Digital Democracy before Synthetic Technocracy? Is the extra culture and amenities at that stage of the game worth more than extra production towards campus projects?
2) Why so many spaceports? Is it because of not being able to chop at the end and needing to feed builders into the laser projects quicker?
3) How much did you prioritize industrial zones?

1- Of course Digital Democracy first, it provides 2 extra amenity, making all your cities +3, which provides +5% more yields than +1. Before you do the last project you don't really need Synthetic Technocracy. Also, you need culture for the spaceport+power/aluminum card, all envoy civics, running future civic for the extra governor title also helps.

I don't run campus projects, an information GS cost 9050 GP points, that's crazily expensive. Also you have to spend 2455 GP points for every useless atomic GS before unlocking the information ones.

2- I usually build/buy 8-10 spaceports for SV. The idea is simple-- you shall build lasers, you shall build as many lasers as possible, the spacecraft is slow, and the only way to accelerate it is through lasers. What else can you do?

3- Make sure every city is powered. At least for every spaceport city, lasers need power.

4- peaceful? Ask the Canadians. Being "peaceful" is a faked topic, as you cannot expect AIs not declaring on you.

 

[Deadly Dog]

Well I got enough out of this thread to see past the "blunt" messaging about superior vs. inferior play. I wouldn't be here if I took it personally that I still find deity level challenging while the tone of these forums is that it's too easy. While I see most of the speed in this victory comes from early conquest, lots of the mid-game and end-game strategies are familiar. Some good tips though, like catching an upcoming era discount for an advanced technology and leaving it 20% unresearched. I consider that nice finesse.

I recognized long ago that Civ (actually started with Railroad Tycoon) is fundamentally an economics game. People who are economists or think like economists likely have an inherent understanding of the mechanics of civ that lets them see immediately where higher growth potentials are, and from a purely mathematical standpoint more=superior and less=inferior.

Like many civfanatics I like flavour/roleplay in my games. So a fast finish isn't important, and so maybe I refrain from extensive conquest. But nonetheless as I work my civ I'm making choices that I think are going to increase resources for my civ, and with myself I will apply the very same notion of superior vs. inferior meaning those choices that net more yields vs those that yield less. So whatever we play, recognizing that elements that lead to a faster victory are going to be described as "superior" is inevitable. You can say "more efficient", "higher payoff", "faster turnover time" when being specific of course but the notion of "better" is common to all our descriptions.

I recently found myself playing a Kupe/Terra game which even though on Deity, against AI opponents rated highest by this community, was so easy it wasn't really a game at all of course (all the CityStates and their continents to myself). But it got me thinking of ways to play Kupe with some serious "roleplay" restirctions (no chop, no CO2, no Magnus, etc) to make some challenge out of it, not just on Terra maps but most water maps. The point being that in a purely RP/flavour game, when I find the right balance of "rules" for myself I will be challenged to make the best choices, within those rules, to get the best of the resources available and my success will be measured in terms of yields and how efficiently they are used. Even if I don't shave turns of a Victory but instead build extra wonders just to make my Civ look nice I'm still using the higher yields that I got through "superior" play.

Cheers all.

 

[Pietato]

4- peaceful? Ask the Canadians. Being "peaceful" is a faked topic, as you cannot expect AIs not declaring on you.

You denounced them...

Not sure what this game proved, other than it is easy to kill civs early with Scythia's ability, which we already knew...

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Not sure what this game proved, other than it is easy to kill civs early with Scythia's ability, which we already knew...

The game tells you that a baseline SV setting, for a random Civ on a random deity map, without chopping, harvesting, trading and pillaging, lasts 190-200 turns.

Without exploits, the baseline finishing time for SV is on 190s, that's all. I'm sure you already knew it-- On the other words, how ridiculous it is for one to win SV after 200 turns.

 

[lotrmith]

The game tells you that a baseline SV setting, for a random Civ on a random deity map, without chopping, harvesting, trading and pillaging, lasts 190-200 turns.

Without exploits, the baseline finishing time for SV is on 190s, that's all. I'm sure you already knew it-- On the other words, how ridiculous it is for one to win SV after 200 turns.

A sample size of 1 does not make a baseline.

Nor is it "ridiculous" for anyone to perform outside the top 0.1%.

Full stop, we are not elitists.

 

[leandrombraz]

The game tells you that a baseline SV setting, for a random Civ on a random deity map, without chopping, harvesting, trading and pillaging, lasts 190-200 turns.

It doesn't matter if it was random. You got Scythia and a Pangaea and made full use of her ability there, which certainly had a considerable effect on your win time. You can't call that baseline for anything but an aggressive Scythia game on a Pangaea, which is what that was. You successfully demonstrated that a light cavalry rush while getting 2 units for the price of one is pretty good, which we already know since 2016. Congratulations, I guess.

 

[Minou]

Thanks for the interesting experiment. I’m too lazy to play a whole game with no chopping but it is cool to know it is possible to win in under 200 turns without these features. Now if only they would fix trading and throttle back chop and pillage scaling we could all enjoy the game more.

Not to beat a dead horse but I think most players use fastest time as the measuring stick of a strategy because the AI is so bad there is no real chance of losing unless you get rushed in the Ancient Era. If the AI posed a credible threat, slower but safer strategies would make sense - later time but lesser chance of dying. But unless the AI improves miraculously the only challenge is speed (or some fun self imposed goal like building 20 wonders or having 1000 pop).

 

[Tabarnak]

You should try another one Lily. I suggest to start a thread and discuss for basic rules, civs, etc with others before starting new one.

Congrats on your last game btw.

 

[Casualty of war]

Hugely appreciative of the detail and effort, @Lily_Lancer. I noticed several areas where I could improve my game, opportunities I've been missing.

For those of you seeing this playthrough as an implied criticism, it's your game. If you are having a satisfying experience, you're doing it right. Some people enjoy playing chess with a clock, some play games lasting months.

But there is a lot of benefit out of getting the most work out of your Hammers and Gold, having insight into when and where to apply resources to get the most reward.

Let's remember that we are all Civfanatics. It's kind of why we ended up here in the first place.

 

[lotrmith]

Let's remember that we are all Civfanatics. It's kind of why we ended up here in the first place.

I agree. That's why I believe we should be generally supportive of all playstyles and skill levels. Certainly we should not be claiming that one style is better than the rest or the one way that should be played. Neither should we outright claim that anyone failing to perform to the highest standards is "ridiculous".

 

[AlanC9]

​

Not to beat a dead horse but I think most players use fastest time as the measuring stick of a strategy because the AI is so bad there is no real chance of losing unless you get rushed in the Ancient Era. If the AI posed a credible threat, slower but safer strategies would make sense - later time but lesser chance of dying. But unless the AI improves miraculously the only challenge is speed (or some fun self imposed goal like building 20 wonders or having 1000 pop).

I find that I still can lose space races in games where I never conquer anything. Or is that one of those self-imposed limitations?

 

[Pietato]

The game tells you that a baseline SV setting, for a random Civ on a random deity map, without chopping, harvesting, trading and pillaging, lasts 190-200 turns.

Without exploits, the baseline finishing time for SV is on 190s, that's all. I'm sure you already knew it-- On the other words, how ridiculous it is for one to win SV after 200 turns.

You got Scythia, a smallish Pangea, and weak AI military civs. You could not have gotten an easier all-war game if you had selected it...

 

[Pietato]

I also believe that the game is too easy, and getting easier with each update, and that science, culture and eras need to be severely slowed down. But you just going around killing every other civ the moment you met them is not exactly proving anything,

 

[Fluphen Azine]

this will be my last post on the forums for a while, the whole experience is just draining and frustrating. I had so much fun talking with you guys @knighterrant81 @Bibor @Denkt @The Highwayman @Victoria , but especially @Fluphen Azine , thank you very much for that, but I'm not super masochistic and frankly the Civ 6 strategy forum was mostly a stillbirth compared to the Civ 5 one, even though there were many beautiful attempts to revive it. the climate here is very toxic recently and that kills all of my enjoyment. I hope maybe the benchmark thread will stay alive, but even if it doesn't it's fine

You just need a break from the forum or forums in general.
That happens to all of us.
I found it best not to get into debates, in general, on forums as it tends to get too emotional.
I always liked this forum because I usually just focus on the game and how I can improve on the game.
You should play the GOTM with us this month as it is another Deity Challenge.
Looking forward to seeing you around, in the Future, as it is very difficult not to open this website back up eventually

LL is who LL is.
I appreciate his posts though because of the useful game information.
I also understand the brashness and his POV but like I say I am not looking to argue with anyone.
I thought his commentary on Canada was funny and added flavor to the Let's Play Story.
I was expecting a: "I'm not your buddy, guy" South Park Rant!

I do believe this thread proves that finishing under 200 turns should be easy and the norm.
Unfortunately, I'm not able or focused enough to learn how to consistently do it.
In the end, I just want to learn how to finish faster but I lost the love for Civ again after the Maya Update.
I know the addiction will spark up again in the next 6 months or so as usual

@Lily_Lancer

Thanks for posting this though.
I'm enjoying the rundown and early game detail you provided.
Too bad you got clobbered for political statements as I was finding that funny.
I'm only around turn 60 or so and page 6 but looking forward to the rest of this thread.
Wish you would post in the GOTMs and or make some Youtube Videos so I can see all your moves.
Same goes for @DanQuayle and @Victoria as I would pay money to see their Let's Play Videos.

Not sure what some of these members are upset about?
I heard long ago that a Picture is worth a thousand words.
I think you said plenty with all those pictures!

You're the one who keeps asserting yourself as superior, because of how early you win, and judging those who like to play longer games as if they are inferior, so don't be surprised when people are extra judgmental about your games and expect you to really show all that superiority.

Strange, I never seen this or took @Lily_Lancer this way.
The point he is trying to make, is that the game can easily be won with SV under 200 turns without using chops and trade.
Therefore, the SV game should be won even faster with using chops and trade as he points out that it should be finished around turn 170 or so.
Not only has he suggested this but he has proved it many times over and he also plays Quick Speed as well and proves how to do certain things on that speed.
I get that the personal history is a war but that has nothing to do with what LL is proving inside the game.
I honestly believe that LL can replicate the same win times with the worst Civs.

I am sure that @DanQuayle and other members can do the same thing.
I wouldn't doubt that @DanQuayle can do this while implementing his ban on upgrading units.

 

[HereticalAppendicle]

You got Scythia, a smallish Pangea, and weak AI military civs. You could not have gotten an easier all-war game if you had selected it...

yeah this sort of defeats the purpose of the thread so far as I can tell- what's the point of banning these other things, but then making ample use of (read: exploiting) what is arguably the game/AI's greatest weakness (i.e. war), and with a strong early war civ no less? It was an interesting premise at least (all the absurd e-peen measuring aside, obv).

 

[Lily_Lancer]

yeah this sort of defeats the purpose of the thread so far as I can tell- what's the point of banning these other things, but then making ample use of (read: exploiting) what is arguably the game/AI's greatest weakness (i.e. war), and with a strong early war civ no less? It was an interesting premise at least (all the absurd e-peen measuring aside, obv).

I guess many players don't think Scythia is a good Civ for SV, even with wars, you can look at the SV voting thread and see how they rate Scythia for SV. (Those threads are sure to include wars as they also have Domination Victory thread.)

And now, you're claiming that Scythia is OP in SV because of its Civilization-specific ability. What do you expect me to do? Ignoring the uniques of Scythia and play as a totally blank Civ? Civ is a game of strategy, about how to make the best use of Civ ability, map bias, etc. Not about how to not ignore strategies and play as badly as you can.

However these people are denouncing me for using Civ-specific strategy. Very Interesting.

If I random Korea, they'll say "you're exploiting Saewon, that's not a general case." If I random Rome, they'll say "you're exploiting the free monument, that's not a general case." Maybe even if I random Canada they'll still say "you're exploiting the ability of not be surprised war at, that's not a general case."

The question is, what do they expect me to do?

To conclude their logic,

"Any people who finish behind me prove my superiority."

"Any people who finish ahead of me are using exploits."

"I'm using the best strategy, which cannot be challenged"

"Any strategy helping people improve their games but I don't know/ know a little and do not wish to learn, is an exploit." (e.g. the Scythian Civ-unique ability)

It doesn't matter if it was random. You got Scythia and a Pangaea and made full use of her ability there, which certainly had a considerable effect on your win time. You can't call that baseline for anything but an aggressive Scythia game on a Pangaea, which is what that was. You successfully demonstrated that a light cavalry rush while getting 2 units for the price of one is pretty good, which we already know since 2016. Congratulations, I guess.

For those who say they "already know" Scythia being powerful in SV, (I guess that's what you mean? You already know that Scythia is too powerful an SV Civ in NFP so winning SV as Scythia is always very easy and shouldn't reflect anything?)

what are your votes on SV elimination threads?

 

[leandrombraz]

For those who say they "already know" Scythia being powerful in SV, (I guess that's what you mean? You already know that Scythia is too powerful an SV Civ in NFP so winning SV as Scythia is always very easy and shouldn't reflect anything?)

what are your votes on SV elimination threads?

I didn't participate in any elimination thread aside from the Diplomatic Victory thread. I don't have as much free time as I used to, unfortunately.

Science victory doesn't care about peace, so there's no disadvantage in being aggressive. So yeah, I think Civs like Scythia are powerful for SV, though they are limited to a playstyle that I'm not particularly fondly of, which is pretty exploitative, considering how limited the AI is at combat. By turn 114, you already got 23 cities, plus some free districts, buildings and improved tiles, without the need to spam settlers. That gives you a pretty strong advantage.

so winning SV as Scythia is always very easy

As long as the map don't screw you somehow. You got a Pangaea pretty much without any meaningful obstacle. As long as you know what you're doing and don't waste time and resources on things that doesn't help you win, I would definitely call that a very easy game.

Ignoring the uniques of Scythia and play as a totally blank Civ?

If your objective is to proof that you don't rely on exploits to win consistently before turn 200, yes, you should do it with a blank Civ or at least be humble enough to acknowledge how much that Civ's ability helped you win early, mainly one that enable you to be aggressive quite effectively. You're claiming that this game of yours set a baseline for SV "without exploits" and that it's ridiculous to win SV after turn 200. To back up your claim, you need to recognize everything that helped you achieve that result or off course we're going to call BS on your claim.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

To back up your claim, you need to recognize everything that helped you achieve that result or off course we're going to call BS on your claim.

Only a handful of you are calling BS on his claim.
Many of us realize that his claim isn't BS.