Is this an Exploit?

[Ribannah]

@Jove, Ravellion - see my reply to Methos below.

@Ainwood: While early expansion is less frantic, it is still just as important. It is not just about expansion, however, but about the opening game in general. Stealing a few extra turns makes a lot of difference no matter which strategy you play.

(Btw, in Civ3 Conquests, setting up settler factories was no longer the single best strategy, since the slingshot came a lot faster than before.)

The most significant observation here though pertains to the attitude to exploits in general. If this one is allowed, then so is the next, and they will add up.

 

[Methos]

I’m not sure how relevant my post is to the argument.

Recently I joined an OCC SG which the primary early strategy is chopping forests to get the Oracle and Pyramids. I admit it works great and we’ll get both of them extremely early in the game, but at what cost?

Due to the above strategy we have skipped most of the worker techs (the only one we know is Mining- started with it). Because of this when our workers are not chopping (in-between wonders) they sleep since there’s nothing for them to do. We have two workers and only one hill tile, they don’t do very much.

Now IMO the chop strategy in our game is definitely great to get those early wonders (we’re playing on Monarch), but look at what we are losing. Other than the one mined hill none of our tiles are improved. We have a cow tile with no improvement, no farms (the majority of our city tiles are river tiles), no cottages, and no roads. The hill wasn’t even mined until after turn 50.

So IMO is this an exploit? No, it’s a strategy just like any other. I realize that the worker techs could have been researched after Bronze Working in a different game than the one above, but that still doesn’t change things that much. You are using worker turns to chop a forest when the worker could have been improving the land. Plus consider after x amount of turns the hammers you make from working the tile earn more than the chop, and you still have access to the chop.

I realize the primary argument here is the quickness of getting that early settler out, and not really about my statements above. The thing is that early settler will still cost city maintenance, which you may or may not be able to afford. Plus you need additional military units to protect those cities. By using the early settler chop you are forcing yourself to follow certain builds to protect those early cities, and may have to lower science to maintain them.

Again, IMO this isn’t an exploit, just another type of strategy.

 

[Ribannah]

Hi Methos,

This thread is not about whether to chop or not to chop. There are indeed advantages and disadvantages to that.

This thread is about the fact that WHEN you chop, you can use a trick to avoid halting growth and still assign the chop to a settler (or worker). Which in OCC is obviously less relevant.

 

[Methos]

Hi Methos,

This thread is about the fact that WHEN you chop, you can use a trick to avoid halting growth and still assign the chop to a settler (or worker).

My mistake.

 

[Ribannah]

Unintended advantage? Forest Chopping, delayed Worker actions, and production changes are all basic game mechanisms. Their use is obviously intended.

Of course, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Combining them in whatever manner the player deems is best is an obvious extension of these basic mechanisms, and is part of what makes CIV and GOTM interesting - how will a particular player combines these and other mechanisms to achieve a good result.

Except when the combination is a bug exploit. Then it makes the game dull.

Ribannah - you have argued that this tactic is SO powerful that everyone will have to do it to be competitive, and that this makes the game less interesting because everyone would be forced to do the same thing every game.

That is, indeed, the argument. With the restriction that this particular exploit will not be relevant in all games, but only when chopping as such is already something to consider.

On the other hand, outlawing lots of different tactics because 'someone' felt they were exploitive would have the same effect.

It surely would. That is why it should always be discussed first, so that we can ascertain that the someone is right (or not).

Forcing everyone to play in some restricted manner so as to not offend the 'exploit police'.

I don't think that anyone is offended by either possible decision. Disappointed or pleased, but never offended.
The reason not to allow an exploit can only be that such a decision benefits the gaming experience.

And causing a lot more confusion as to what is permitted, what isn't, and putting a lot more pressure on the staff to identify games where exploits have been used.

Confusion can be prevented by using a list, the same way as it was done for the 3OTM.
I don't think it is fair, however, to ask the staff to check all games for exploit abuse, even if that were at all possible. It was not done in previous competitions either.

I would prefer to save the term 'exploit' for game breaking tactics or obvious bugs in the way the game works.

Hence the use of the word for this occasion.

 

[Aeson]

@Ainwood: While early expansion is less frantic, it is still just as important. It is not just about expansion, however, but about the opening game in general.

Make up your mind. Either early expansion is just as important (in all ways) or it's not. You can't say early expansion is just as important, but not as frantic (read: not as time critical). Expansion in Civ III was as frantic as it was because it was so important to place as many cities as possible ASAP. That is no longer the case in CIV.

Stealing a few extra turns makes a lot of difference no matter which strategy you play.

I specifically qualified my statement as regarding expansion only. Obviously the early game is still important to make good decisions in. But the choices are more balanced than they were.

If you disagree, start a huge map in CIV, get 200+ cities in the BC's. Not only is it economically impossible, it is a tremendous mistake to even try to expand that fast. "Too many" cities (there actually was not such a thing) in Civ III meant not getting as much value from the "too many" cities as from the previous ones. They still gave value though, just minimal (or rather in a less obvious manner). Too many cities in Civ IV means you are actually taking away value from what you already had, not just adding value. It is entirely possible to bankrupt yourself in some cases by expanding too fast. In Civ III, it was entirely impossible to bankrupt yourself in any case due to expanding too fast.

The most significant observation here though pertains to the attitude to exploits in general. If this one is allowed, then so is the next, and they will add up.

That is easily refuted. All you need to do is actually look at what has happened in the GOTM past. "Exploits" have been both allowed and disallowed in the past. Allowing one did not mean all things anyone deemed an exploit were then allowed. Disallowing one did not mean all things anyone deemed an exploit were then disallowed.

 

[Aeson]

That is, indeed, the argument. With the restriction that this particular exploit will not be relevant in all games, but only when chopping as such is already something to consider.

That is an argument which ignores the examples which have been given. Please provide an example where "swap and chop" is quantifiably better before making the assertion that it is.

The examples so far have shown that it is simply trading some Production for Food, which can be a benefit either way. Though the examples are not real world examples. They have been set up to only focus on the benefits of Settlers, Workers, and Forest chopping/swapping. They specifically ignore all possible value from the tradeoffs that are being made. (Which is understandable, quantifying those tradeoffs is going to be extremely difficult given the impact of the RNG on things such as opening Huts, Warrior rushing a neighbor, ect.)

 

[civ_steve]

Of course, but that is not the topic of this thread.

The original topic was whether using forest chop(s) with production switchs to avoid loss of a city's growth was an exploit. Ruled not an exploit on multiple occasions by the staff.

Except when the combination is a bug exploit. Then it makes the game dull.

Agreed. IMO, doesn't apply here. Having a choice between using stronger tactics or weaker tactics doesn't make the use of the stronger tactic an exploit.

That is, indeed, the argument. With the restriction that this particular exploit will not be relevant in all games, but only when chopping as such is already something to consider.

IMO, exploits worth banning are usually applicable to all games. And you're wandering away from the original topic here.

It surely would. That is why it should always be discussed first, so that we can ascertain that the someone is right (or not).

And it has been discussed ... a lot. The original thread starter has posted several examples noting the differences between the tactics; they are fairly small. Perhaps you should do the same and document the effect before calling this an exploit.

I don't think that anyone is offended by either possible decision. Disappointed or pleased, but never offended.
The reason not to allow an exploit can only be that such a decision benefits the gaming experience.

Offend as originally used was not to imply someone would take offense that a player would use this tactic. Rather that persons working to take note of games with questionable tactics in play would scrutinize that game, possibly for exclusion. Agree with last statement.

Confusion can be prevented by using a list, the same way as it was done for the 3OTM.
I don't think it is fair, however, to ask the staff to check all games for exploit abuse, even if that were at all possible. It was not done in previous competitions either.

I'm sure a list will be compiled. And the staff has stated on many occasions that they do some review of submitted games. Clearly there is no way to check for all types of exploits, but patterns can be established and compared; this has led to the exclusion of some games.

Hence the use of the word {..exploit..} for this occasion.

Your use of the word. Nearly all others posting here have the opposite opinion. Perhaps you should document the power of this tactic before calling it an exploit.

You also seem concerned about using the interruption of the turn sequence as part of the 'exploit' argument. I don't feel the same, in part because I've seen the AI use the turn sequence to its advantage; therefore I can not say that using the starts and stops of the turn to perform an action is always exploitive.

 

[Ribannah]

Aeson and Civ-steve, please discuss the topic, and not the messenger. You can use PM for the latter.

Moderator Action: It may have been unintentional on your part, but you deleted my last mod comment in this post. I have reinstated it:

Moderator Action: I could see no references to the messenger in the above posts, other than requests for you to provide illustrations to back your proposition.

I have already commented on the examples that were given.

Since the arguments are now getting repeated, this might be a good time to close this thread (hint, hint ...)

Moderator Action: Threads are seldom closed in GOTM forums.

 

[Shillen]

Exploits don't have to be powerful. It's still an exploit. I don't think it's worth banning, though.

 

[DaveMcW]

Mod request:

At the beginning of every turn, I want to know which cities have workers at "Forest Chop (1)" nearby, so I can switch production to a settler.
Then at the end of the turn, notify me again so I can switch them all back to growth mode.
Or have checkbox option to automatically switch those cities to settlers and back when chopping before 500BC.

This would be a very useful addition to the GOTM mod.

 

[drjones]

I think some of you are missing the point, being able to switch builds and maintain the amassed production is a feature of Civ4, having worker jobs complete during your turn is only appropriate. You can do this with anything, the fact that you can build a settler with tree clearing without any growth being "lost" is the value of tree clearing.

Also the thrust of the argument is centered around incorrect reasoning, growth isn't "lost" or in any way removed, its merely appended onto the production of the settler or worker. This is by design, and in my opinion good design. So you have a tree giving its correct production to an active job, this is exactly as designed and therefore not exploitive.

Yeah this is a non-issue really, you are sacrificing a very limited resource to get something faster than normal, IMO you would be better off saving that forest for a wonder or useful building or to rush a military unit if sneak-attacked. If you have made the sacrifice for the bonus of a faster settler then you should get a faster settler. The monkeying around with turn timings is secondary issue but since you can get the same effect using the queue normally I dont see why it's a problem.

-drjones

 

[Quantum7]

Yeah this is a non-issue really, you are sacrificing a very limited resource to get something faster than normal, IMO you would be better off saving that forest for a wonder or useful building or to rush a military unit if sneak-attacked. If you have made the sacrifice for the bonus of a faster settler then you should get a faster settler. The monkeying around with turn timings is secondary issue but since you can get the same effect using the queue normally I dont see why it's a problem.

-drjones

Probably because you can build military while building a settler using this method. Generally I can finish 1-2 warriors while chopping for a 2nd worker & a settler. Making it far superior (i.m.o.) to just chopping (as you also get city growth ).

 

[Ribannah]

An example.

You are 2 turns on size one, just switching from forest to floodplain, building a Warrior. A Settler will be next. Your Worker is about to finish a chop for 30 hammers.

(1) Ordinarily, you would take 6 turns to grow to size 2 first, timing it with a chop so that you can use the overflow of 25 hammers for the Settler.
You can then (a) finish the Settler in 9 more turns with one more chop, or (b) use two more chops, in-between chops put hammers in a second Warrior and grow 5turns, and finish the Settler after 8 turns instead of 9. Here you apply switching to optimal effect without using the exploit.

(2) With the exploit, you assign the first chop to the Settler, and the second chop as well 4 turns later. In 6 turns, you are at size 2 with 10 shields for the Warrior and 60 for the Settler. You can now (a) finish the Settler in 8 turns, gaining a turn at the expense of only 5 hammers, or (b) finish the Warrior in 2 turns and then, with a third chop, the Settler in 2 more turns. Compared to (1b), you have the Settler out 4 turns earlier. You can then repeat the same trick while growing to size 3, and this with a headstart of one turn of growth.

I hope I counted right.

 

[Smirk]

Where's the beat a dead horse emoticon when you need one?

Ribannah: Your comparison seems to be between anal retentive micromanagement (1) and simple micromanagement (2). Your entire example for 1 is completely irrelevant with Civ4 because you do not need to time anything for anything because all jobs can be swapped at any time for any purpose.

Your logic seems to suggest that switching the active job to a warrior or archer because you just noticed some barbarians is exploitive. Fact is this, and its quite simple, production has lost its monolithic tendency. You can have many active jobs, this is a new strategy element. Deal with it already!


On another level chopping for settlers is about the most natural thing in the world, as what do you need first when you begin a new settlement? Homes, what are homes made from? Wood, what do forests gives as output when axes are applied to them? Wood.

 

[Ribannah]

This thread is not about switching between jobs.

It is about fooling the game into believing that you did, while in reality you didn't.

Now, one could imagine that it was part of the game to be able to assign chops to something that is not at the top of the queue, which is in fact the result of this trickery.

This would indeed be quite natural.

However, for balancing reasons this is not a feature of the game.
Also, the AI can't do it.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Also, the AI can't do it.

The AI can't do lots of things, so it gets bonuses to compensate. AI's will never pull off all human "tactics."

 

[AlanH]

Also, the AI can't do it.

[pedant mode]
The AI *can* do it, since it's theoretically capable of making the same choices as you, and maybe more, and maybe with more information at its disposal.

The programmers *may* not have chosen to include it in the AI's repertoire, although it would be interesting to hear how you know that.
[/pedant mode]

 

[Aeson]

This thread is not about switching between jobs.

This thread is about a lot of things. Switching between jobs is part of it.

It is about fooling the game into believing that you did, while in reality you didn't.

You click on a build. It switches to the build. You click on another build. It switches to that build. You have not fooled the game into believing you didn't switch jobs. Even if a Forest Chop is applied inbetween the clicks.

You actually did switch jobs.

Now, one could imagine that it was part of the game to be able to assign chops to something that is not at the top of the queue, which is in fact the result of this trickery.

It is part of the game to be able to assign chops to something that was not at the top of the queue. In fact chop switching is not the only way a full chop can be assigned to something that was not at the top of the queue. Overflow can do it too. Overflow can actually do it even better in some cases, benefiting from the % bonus of the previous build. If you are IND and chop a Forest while a Wonder is being built, the chop will give +50% Production to the next build if it will result in overflow.

Also, if you time the (required) chops to all finish at the same time, a Settler can be produced only using 1 turn of Growth in any case.

This would indeed be quite natural.

It is quite natural.

However, for balancing reasons this is not a feature of the game.

Were you part of the balancing process?

Anyways, it obviously is a feature of the game.

Also, the AI can't do it.

If you apply that as a valid reason why something should be deemed an exploit and eliminated from competition, you will end up with a competition which is solely AI vs AI.

 

[Ribannah]

How do you figure that? Do we lose the ability to make our own choices all of a sudden?

Also, what do you think of the example I gave?
Do you still maintain that it is merely about swapping food for hammers, or could it be that there is something else going on as well?

[linguist mode]

This thread is about a lot of things. Switching between jobs is part of it.

I'll rephrase: this thread was not intended to be, by the original poster, to be about switching between jobs as such.

[pedant mode]
The AI *can* do it, since it's theoretically capable of making the same choices as you, and maybe more, and maybe with more information at its disposal.[/pedant mode]

Did I miss a change in the definition of the verb 'can'?[/linguist mode]

Come on guys, surely we can do without the pedantry.

Were you part of the balancing process?

although it would be interesting to hear how you know that

Please deal with the topic, not the messenger. You can ask me by PM, if you seriously want to know.