Immortal difficulty - total cheating?

[Xiao Xiong]

I think it's fair to call something "solid game play" only if the technique works as well against human opponents. If it's taking advantage of design flaws in the AI I'd rather call it an exploit, one that should be fixed in a future version.

 

[MkLh]

I think it's fair to call something "solid game play" only if the technique works as well against human opponents. If it's taking advantage of design flaws in the AI I'd rather call it an exploit, one that should be fixed in a future version.

Abusing AI design "flaws" is not an exploit, it's just playing rightfully according to the rules of the game. Things like the AI always giving 220 for the luxury is a rule of the game. Devs have chosen that it should be like that. It would be silly to not "abuse" it.

What is an exploit however, is abusing coding flaws. For example, previously you were able to sell a free library from GL every turn as it always gave you the new one. That wasn't how devs meant it to be, it was just bad programming (and was fixed).

 

[Civsassin]

I think it's fair to call something "solid game play" only if the technique works as well against human opponents. If it's taking advantage of design flaws in the AI I'd rather call it an exploit, one that should be fixed in a future version.

A previous post referred to these types of things as "exploits:"
- Skip buildings (specialization)
- Sell worthless cities
- Build a small focused army that can trash a city in minutes

I submit that none of these things are exploits. I also don't think that selecting the appropriate policies for your strategic plans, using Great People, choosing a tech path for your particular civ and its unique attributes, etc. are not exploits. They are tactics to achieve a particular strategy.

I completely agree with MkLh.

 

[TyBoy]

You can mostly skip the AI luxury money on immortal and still win if that's what you choose to do. It's not strictly necessary and probably just means you won't be running away with it come the industrial/modern era like you would be with that extra money. Deity seems to require some extra advantage, whether that be luxury money or an exceptional start. That line is going to vary from person to person though.

I would guess the biggest things that hold people back at the high difficulties are perfectionism and tactics. You really have to accept you won't be getting all the wonders and such that you would build on lower difficulty or make due with the army you have rather than the well rounded army you would prefer. You should be able to completely destroy the AI tactically. Obviously it's not hard to be better than the AI at combat, but you should be absolutely ripping them apart against big odds. I probably play too conservatively (the perfectionism thing I mentioned before) and would be more effective with more units built and lost, but I've conquered most of the world only losing a few units on immortal. It makes a big difference if you can be aggressive while not needing to spend much production on military.

For a strategy to work well against human opponents is an odd standard to use in a game like this. Supposedly more than previous games the AI plays to win, but it's still mostly trying to play out the history of civilization. Multiplayers do a lot of things that are optimal for winning the game but are really absurd in the context of world history. While the game rules try and force the human player into following human history they're not perfect at it (nor would you want them to be). Some of the AI number advantages are not only to cover the gap in intelligence and creative thinking, but also to cover the AI handicap that comes with a playstyle that makes the game "Civilization" and not a large-scale turn-based battle-arena game as well as the unreasonable amount of foreknowledge the human player will have.

 

[Brigg]

A previous post referred to these types of things as "exploits:"
- Skip buildings (specialization)
- Sell worthless cities
- Build a small focused army that can trash a city in minutes

I submit that none of these things are exploits. I also don't think that selecting the appropriate policies for your strategic plans, using Great People, choosing a tech path for your particular civ and its unique attributes, etc. are not exploits. They are tactics to achieve a particular strategy.

I completely agree with MkLh.

Well, some of that is exploits, but some is focus.

Selling a 3 pop city with no buildings and no resources is an exploit.
The AI buying a luxury 3 turns before DoW is stupid AI and a bit of an exploit.
Selling a luxury and using it to buy alliance with a city with the same lux, smart exploiting.
Using the "worker lure" is a bit of an exploit.

When you are facing the Landsknecht Landslide with 2 archers and a warrior, you need it.

 

[Civsassin]

Well, some of that is exploits, but some is focus.

Selling a 3 pop city with no buildings and no resources is an exploit.
The AI buying a luxury 3 turns before DoW is stupid AI and a bit of an exploit.
Selling a luxury and using it to buy alliance with a city with the same lux, smart exploiting.
Using the "worker lure" is a bit of an exploit.

Your third point is certainly not an exploit. You now have an allied CS and the opportunity to sell your spare luxury every 30 turns. This is a good tactic.

Your fourth point is also not an exploit. If you steal a worker from a CS, you have a diplo hit for a long time to come: not only with the CS, but with other civs that you've met. If you steal a worker from a civ, you had better be ready to deal wit the consequenes. If you do it early enough, you will probably get a quick peach treaty, but again, you accept the diplo hit.

Don't be so fast to call playing the game as it is designed an exploit. You may not agree with the method, but if you work within the game's ruleset, you are using the game's resources to your advantage.

 

[Gamewizard]

I think he was referring to using a worker to lure the enemy into certain hexes. The AI will essentially sacrifice a unit to grab one of your workers, you destroy that unit the next turn AND get your worker back. This is a fun way to set traps, but IS an exploit IMO. The AI should not value stealing a worker at the expense of a military unit.

 

[Smokeybear]

OK, I have to make a confession here. I have played Civilization 3, 4 and 5 and I mostly play at the lowest difficulty level because I don't like to lose. Also, I don't have time to study the game in great detail because I am employed and I play other games as well.

But recently, I won my first King difficulty and that was after many loses. I would like to learn about the game in more detail but the lack of time that I have is almost frustrating.

Does this mean the unemployed players are more well versed in this game?

Well, um.... probably, yes

I'm employed, but have not felt like venturing beyond King, myself. I could probably win at Emperor if I wanted to mess with it, but that would be moving from fun to work, and I don't feel like making that transition, as I play games for fun.

 

[Civsassin]

I think he was referring to using a worker to lure the enemy into certain hexes. The AI will essentially sacrifice a unit to grab one of your workers, you destroy that unit the next turn AND get your worker back. This is a fun way to set traps, but IS an exploit IMO. The AI should not value stealing a worker at the expense of a military unit.

Perhaps I am demonizing the use of the word exploit, but as mostly used in the forums is probably an accurate assessment of the word. In real life warfare, you exploit an enemy's weaknesses to give yourself an advantage. We set traps, we use bait, etc. We've done it in every war we've fought. Do you suggest we don't do that because its an exploit? Of course not. We do the same thing here.

 

[NotSure]

No, I think you're right. The words "exploit" and "broken" get thrown around loosely in discussions about this game. I don't think most people intend exploit to mean simply use or utilize, I interpret their use of the word as taking unfair advantage. The things you pointed out are not exploits just like AI bonuses are not cheating.

 

[vahe]

Hmmm, city states being constantly much more advanced and usually having much more units than my civ with several cities... that's total cheating.

Other civ's enjoying several allied city states shortly after the start of the game while I can't even get one ally - that's even more cheating.

Not being able to summon a decent army because the much smaller ai creates units out of nowhere and attacks you without a feasable end, building wonders at the same time - that's awful cheating.

I understand there are ways of winning immortal, but I agree it's mostly about exploiting and knowing how AI reacts to different events and how to use those, which is not how things work in real life. Since this is a simulation game, I expect it to be realistic and more logical, especially taking into account it's in version 5 now.

I think they should put a serious effort to improve AI fighting tactics and to make it better with each level, rather than granting AI unilimited powers to easily ally with any number of city-states and preventing AI from having cities which build new units in one-two turns completing wonders at the same time.

 

[Brigg]

I think he was referring to using a worker to lure the enemy into certain hexes. The AI will essentially sacrifice a unit to grab one of your workers, you destroy that unit the next turn AND get your worker back. This is a fun way to set traps, but IS an exploit IMO. The AI should not value stealing a worker at the expense of a military unit.

I just wish I could figure out why my worker gets deleted when I get DoW and captured.

 

[Brigg]

Hmmm, city states being constantly much more advanced and usually having much more units than my civ with several cities... that's total cheating.

Other civ's enjoying several allied city states shortly after the start of the game while I can't even get one ally - that's even more cheating.

Not being able to summon a decent army because the much smaller ai creates units out of nowhere and attacks you without a feasable end, building wonders at the same time - that's awful cheating.

I understand there are ways of winning immortal, but I agree it's mostly about exploiting and knowing how AI reacts to different events and how to use those, which is not how things work in real life. Since this is a simulation game, I expect it to be realistic and more logical, especially taking into account it's in version 5 now.

I think they should put a serious effort to improve AI fighting tactics and to make it better with each level, rather than granting AI unilimited powers to easily ally with any number of city-states and preventing AI from having cities which build new units in one-two turns completing wonders at the same time.

Well, the AI gets good advantages at high levels to start, but they can be overcome by smart play. Wars, smart city placement, specialists all give you the chance to close the gap.

 

[MkLh]

I understand there are ways of winning immortal, but I agree it's mostly about exploiting and knowing how AI reacts to different events and how to use those, which is not how things work in real life.

I don't agree. Winning comfortably on Immortal is mostly about right tech, SP and build choices (including when and where to build new cities). AI civs can be ignored mostly (apart from obvious things like resource trades, RAs and war targets).

 

[rondo]

Yeah, I'm really unaware of these 'exploits'. I don't find selling open borders and luxuries to the AI or bribing them to war exploitative in any way (I'm guessing these aren't included).

I think it's nice that you really have to fight for your city state allies and pay close attention to what your own cities are doing to keep up with the AI. Afterall, playing against a computer...I'd be totally bored if things were a breeze. In fact, I'd even vouch for a difficulty level where the AI uses a bit more commonsense especially in combat and makes it harder for the human player (buying nearby city state allies, making peace with other civs if at war with a human etc.).

 

[chazzycat]

Honestly immortal is a pretty beatable level for the most part. I play random civ/random map type and usually come out on top.

The #1 thing to remember is not to freak out. The AI is notoriously bad at reaching victory conditions, so even with a large score lead they can easily lose to a human. At immortal you should have around 300 turns to work with, for the most part.

Science victory is generally the easiest IMO because RAs and GS are so strong. If you know how RAs work, use them effectively, work universities and stockpile GS for the endgame, science victory should be possible in most situations in the 250-280 turn range (even sooner for more experienced players or as Babylon/Korea).

 

[chazzycat]

I understand there are ways of winning immortal, but I agree it's mostly about exploiting and knowing how AI reacts to different events and how to use those, which is not how things work in real life. Since this is a simulation game, I expect it to be realistic and more logical, especially taking into account it's in version 5 now.

I think that's deity you are describing. Immortal is really pretty beatable without "exploits". For instance I recently won a science victory without any GS, RAs, or invading anyone.

 

[TPQ]

Hmmm, city states being constantly much more advanced and usually having much more units than my civ with several cities... that's total cheating.

That's not cheating. Cheating is breaking the rules of a game. The rules are set up so that City States do that. That's how the game mechanic works for City States.

Other civ's enjoying several allied city states shortly after the start of the game while I can't even get one ally - that's even more cheating.

At higher levels the AI gets bonuses to increase the difficulty for the player. Again, that is how the rules of the game are set up. It's not cheating, when the AIs adhere to the rules as devised by the devs.

If you can't ally a single city state early on, you need to look at how you play because I can do it on Immortal without much bother at all and I have seen it done many times on Deity.

Not being able to summon a decent army because the much smaller ai creates units out of nowhere and attacks you without a feasable end, building wonders at the same time - that's awful cheating.

No, again, no cheating here. Cheating is breaking the rules of a game. The rules give the AIs varying bonuses depending on difficulty level. The AIs don't break those rules, they follow them.

People cheat, computer programs follow rules. The rules in this case give the AIs more units to start than the player gets and makes units cheaper to produce and maintain for the AI than for the player.

The whole point of the difficulty levels in Civ games is to give the AI more power and resources than the human, to make the game harder for the human. If you can't overcome the AIs bonuses, you need to try harder, or simply play at a lower difficulty.

Complaining that the AI "cheats" (breaks the rules) when all it does is follow the rules, is just silly.

I understand there are ways of winning immortal, but I agree it's mostly about exploiting and knowing how AI reacts to different events and how to use those, which is not how things work in real life. Since this is a simulation game, I expect it to be realistic and more logical, especially taking into account it's in version 5 now.

If by "exploit" you mean the verb to exploit, as in exploiting an enemy weakness, then I agree that exploiting the AI is required increasingly as you move up the difficulty levels.

If however, by "exploit" you mean cheating, or playing the game in a way that was obviously not intended, in order to gain advantage, or take advantage of bugs, or flaws in the game code, then I disagree with you.

I and many others can frequently beat Immortal difficulty without doing anything that is unarguably taking advantage of game design flaws. Civ5 has been around for almost a year and a half and none of the tactics I and others use for winning have been patched out in that time, leading to the conclusion that these tactics are legitimate and intended play.

I think they should put a serious effort to improve AI fighting tactics and to make it better with each level, rather than granting AI unilimited powers to easily ally with any number of city-states and preventing AI from having cities which build new units in one-two turns completing wonders at the same time.

I agree that a better tactical AI would be welcome. The Civ5 tactical AI is far from perfect. I don't think for a minute that the AIs have "unlimited" powers though. You should watch some of the Deity players who've put videos up on YouTube. Even at Deity, the AIs "powers" are most certainly limited.

 

[ense7en]

The reason i referred to some "strategies" as exploits is because of how they make no sense in a human-played game.

Selling open borders and resources and luxury items for gold is something a real player simply will not do much, if at all.

Doing a huge trade for gold amount for gold per turn and then declaring war (to steal all the AI's gold) is exploiting. I don't see how it isn't, sorry.

It's not cheating, no.

But you can abuse the mechanics so incredibly that it can cripple the AI's abilities in a major way.

 

[NotSure]

I understand your point of view, but this is how I see it... Has the AI ever proposed a RA and then declared war on you? Has an AI ever suggested a joint war and then declared war on you after you've moved your troops to the front? Will a guarded or hostile AI make you pay ludicrous amounts for spare resources? Have you ever suspected the AI bribed a war against you?

Humans are smarter than game code so the human back-stab can be more successful than the AI back-stab. Humans are smarter than game code so they can perform better than the AI with regard to warfare and city management. Trade for resources and gold is a legitimate part of the game and the back-stab is move that is celebrated by the game developers. The developers make up for AI inadequacies with handicaps. So, I have to believe that tactics that are celebrated by the developer and carried out by both humans and the AI are legitimate and not exploits. I also am inclined to believe that handicaps are necessary for the game to be challenging as the player gets better, not cheating.