Is this an Exploit?

[Vardis]

Thanks Memphus, this is definite proof of this bug.
No way that this exploit can be allowed, it is a variant of the Civ3 reassignment of worked tiles during end-of-turn messages.

If this is a bug, then is it a bug to chop when there is one turn left to build something so you get a big overflow and can allocate it against a settler/worker all at once the next turn?

How about if you partially chop several forests, then start producing a settler, finish the chop immediately, and end up making the settler next turn?

What if you instead just start chopping a forest so it'll be done when you start to produce a settler?

Even if chopped forests are applied as additional production next turn, would it still be a bug that you can switch to producing something else while you get ready to chop another forest? If not, all that happens is that you've saved maybe one or two turns of city growth. I really think you're making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

 

[Samson]

If this is a bug, then is it a bug to chop when there is one turn left to build something so you get a big overflow and can allocate it against a settler/worker all at once the next turn?

I think this is close, esp. if you do it when you have nearly finished a wonder that you get increased production for, so the forrest is worth 60 sheilds.

How about if you partially chop several forests, then start producing a settler, finish the chop immediately, and end up making the settler next turn?

What if you instead just start chopping a forest so it'll be done when you start to produce a settler?

Even if chopped forests are applied as additional production next turn, would it still be a bug that you can switch to producing something else while you get ready to chop another forest? If not, all that happens is that you've saved maybe one or two turns of city growth. I really think you're making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

I think it is not a bug, and is is how it is supposed to work. I think the main reason to forbid this is that it is such a drag to do, and can be quite important in many situations. Everyone would need to do it in some GOTMs. I guess in these competions someone needs to decide what is fair to expect people to do.

 

[Reuhka]

I don't know. If it's something AI doesn't understand to use and it's used unlike Firaxis meant it to be used and there's a slight chance that by using it a player might gain an advantage over AI or over other players then I would say it's not far from an exploit. Or, at least, I felt quilty after pulling it off in the game - much like as it was with prebuilding trick. So I hope this will be fixed away in upcoming patches. But nevertheless, an interesting find.

 

[Vardis]

I think this is close, esp. if you do it when you have nearly finished a wonder that you get increased production for, so the forrest is worth 60 sheilds.

I just checked, and it appears that the game will reduce production from the forests somewhat, but not completely. As India building a temple, the first forest is 60 instead of 30 as expected, but the next one is 45 even though I won't use any of it toward the temple. I think this is a bug - if I had another 20 hammers to go, it should give me 40 for the forest (10*2 for the temple, 20*1 normal overflow). If I have need no more hammers for the temple, it should only apply 30. I'm not sure why it's using 45 there...

 

[Ribannah]

If this is a bug, then is it a bug to chop when there is one turn left to build something so you get a big overflow and can allocate it against a settler/worker all at once the next turn?

No, that does not even gain you something compared to chopping while the settler is already the actual build.

How about if you partially chop several forests, then start producing a settler, finish the chop immediately, and end up making the settler next turn?

Can you do that, a partial worker action to finish it later?
If so, then this is a design flaw, not a bug - but should not be exploited nonetheless.

What if you instead just start chopping a forest so it'll be done when you start to produce a settler?

That is intended, and therefore OK. The AI can do the same.

Even if chopped forests are applied as additional production next turn, would it still be a bug that you can switch to producing something else while you get ready to chop another forest?

No (see above). I still don't like it how it is, but that's because it introduces more micromanagement.

A good solution to all of this would be if chops and overflow could not be assigned to settlers and workers at all (but would be assigned to the next build).

I really think you're making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

The point is that if exploits are allowed (this one or any other), you are forced to use them in order to compete. As a result you are no longer playing the game, you are playing the exploits. Which means that (1) all games will be the same and (2) we will all miss the pleasure of playing the game as Firaxis intended it to be.

Now this particular exploit may not seem to be a big deal to you, but I can assure you that even this one will already decide over who gets the awards, And this is just the first, there wil be others. So the top competitors will play the exploits, and will in fact be actively looking for new exploits as happened in the 3OTM, and are sure to find them. They will minimize their write-ups, or not report at all, in order not to reveal any newly found exploits, or they will boast about them, and teach the less experienced participants that the game is all about exploits. In either case, the competition degenerates.

 

[Samson]

No, that does not even gain you something compared to chopping while the settler is already the actual build.

Except that the city is not growing for fewer turns. Wastes worker turns though (unless you are india).

Can you do that, a partial worker action to finish it later?
If so, then this is a design flaw, not a bug - but should not be exploited nonetheless.

You can do it, and I do not think it is a design flaw. Just because the worker has left the square, would all the work he has done suddenly disapair? It was something that iritated me from civ 3.

 

[eg577]

It is not an exploit.

Haven't you ever built a road in one turn using 2 workers? There is nothing exploitive about using that road that turn. On the other hand if you have 1 worker it will take 2 turns to build that road. 2 turns later that road *won't* be usuable right away because the cpu views a '2 turn road building action' as an automated process and will wait until all active units nearby have moved to complete the process (as opposed to a '1 turn, 2 worker road building action' which it views as an instant process). If you order your units in the vicinity of the worker to 'wait' then can use that road this turn.

Clicking 'wait' can't be considered an exploit because what if I legitamitely wanted to wake a sleeping unit after my active units moved? For example suppose my active units died attacking the enemy. Now I want to wake a fortified unit to continue the attack. Is is cheating that this new unit can use the road when the other now dead units couldn't use it without 'waiting'?

The forest chop is the same thing as the road. If you had 3 workers then you could chop in one turn. With 3 workers you wouldn't need to awkwardly deal with the way the cpu handles automated actions/instanenous actions.

 

[Memphus]

Originally posted by eg577

It is not an exploit.

I am not saying it is...just curious if it will be allowed in future GOTM games or not.

Originally posted by eg577
The forest chop is the same thing as the road. If you had 3 workers then you could chop in one turn. With 3 workers you wouldn't need to awkwardly deal with the way the cpu handles automated actions/instanenous actions.

And it is not the same thing, the 'exploitive... micromanagement' issue is the switching of production from non growth inhibiting production, to a city growth inhibiting one (ex settler, worker) getting the Hammers mid turn then switching back,

If you had three wrokers you could still do this
start turn on worker/settler chop with three workers get the Hammers
before ending turn change to a warrior, thus allowign your city to gain the food for the turn
next turn repeat.
Is this tedious yes
Is the benefit huge ...i have no idea, seems to be a no out there

Originally posted by Ribannah

The point is that if exploits are allowed (this one or any other), you are forced to use them in order to compete. As a result you are no longer playing the game, you are playing the exploits. Which means that (1) all games will be the same and (2) we will all miss the pleasure of playing the game as Firaxis intended it to be.

Now this particular exploit may not seem to be a big deal to you, but I can assure you that even this one will already decide over who gets the awards, And this is just the first, there wil be others. So the top competitors will play the exploits, and will in fact be actively looking for new exploits as happened in the 3OTM, and are sure to find them. They will minimize their write-ups, or not report at all, in order not to reveal any newly found exploits, or they will boast about them, and teach the less experienced participants that the game is all about exploits. In either case, the competition

in thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=143828&page=2

..BTW reasons not to have two threads...

--edited spelling... and changing shields to hammers

 

[Ribannah]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that.
The flaw is not that the work done is not lost, I like that too, but that you can use this new feature to undo the necessary balancing that was introduced by not letting cities grow during the production of settlers and workers.

 

[Memphus]

@ Ribannah

Beat me too it, , good explanation

@ any moderator

sorry for making two threads thought it was a good idea at the time... noob error...
Jumping back and forth now is getting tiresome

is there any way to combine them?

Being http://forums.civfanatics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3380722
And
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144214

or is this a bad idea?

Sorry for the trouble again

 

[Dairuka]

It's an exploit.

Hopefully it will be patched.

 

[Samson]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that.
The flaw is not that the work done is not lost, I like that too, but that you can use this new feature to undo the necessary balancing that was introduced by not letting cities grow during the production of settlers and workers.

Oh, I see. Fair enough.

BTW, I totally agree with you on why exploits are so bad. You are totally forced to use them to be competative. BTW, do RBC do a GOTM? They always had a good (IMHO) view of exploits.

 

[Ribannah]

Realms Beyond is starting the Civ4 Epics right now.

 

[a space oddity]

For the time being there's no difference in how this issue is viewed between GOTM and RBC.

 

[AlanH]

@ any moderator

sorry for making two threads thought it was a good idea at the time... noob error...
Jumping back and forth now is getting tiresome

is there any way to combine them?
...
or is this a bad idea?

I've merged the other thread into this one. You can decide whether it works or not.

 

[Smirk]

...necessary balancing that was introduced by not letting cities grow during the production of settlers and workers.

New game, new design, new thought. Break your conditioning. I read the short essay at the end of my manual and it seems settler and workers were changed because it was a hangup for new players and created unnecessary confusion. The fact that food gets applied to settler and workers are really just an artifact of how old Civs played, they could just have easily forgotten the entire affair and made settlers and workers just like all other production tasks. They didn't, and actually added food as a surrogate for production thereby speeding up expansion, and generalizing the early map resources so one high in food or shields doesn't necessarily suffer in the opposing aspect.


I think its been adequately discussed and shown to not be the boss of all strategies and many cases its not even useful. Compare that to the ring corruption flaw in Civ3 which *does* force all competative players to think about using it, the latter was fixed. This "flaw" seems to me an inherent aspect of the system in place, and all the fixes mentioned so far don't address the issue and leave holes for other problems.


Also don't confuse useful strategies that everyone must know to compete and exploits that everyone must know to compete.

Next, I'll be hearing that using more powerful units versus weaker is an exploit! Everyone is forced to do this to stay competitive. Damn I have to micromanage single units and keep track of their power? BUG!

 

[Renata]

Maybe it's just jet lag, but I'm not understanding the issue here. Can someone explain to me in simple English what exactly the difference in outcome is between A and B?

A. Worker will finish chop on turn X, warrior is due on turn X+1. Switch to settler before the chop message comes up; afterwards, switch back to warrior. Next turn, warrior finishes with hammer overrun; switch to settler and finish that.

B. Worker will finish chop on turn X+1 with warrior due the same turn. Next turn, warrior finishes; switch to settler. Chop hammers go to settler along with any natural overrun. Finish settler.

It seems you're all saying that A will result in fewer lost growth turns than B, but I'm not yet seeing how that's the case.

 

[Vardis]

A good solution to all of this would be if chops and overflow could not be assigned to settlers and workers at all (but would be assigned to the next build).

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to make food going toward settler/worker production optional. I think I'd find restrictions on where I can allocate my chops/overflow hammers to just be annoying.

Yeah, this would result in being able to expand without slowing the growth of your city, but your expansion might be slower when going that route. Plus the AI could also optimize this to finish settler/worker production more quickly. IMO it's annoying micromanagement to have to tell the city to not start work on a settler this turn, but to wait a turn or two to grow in size first.

If food toward production was optional, it could automatically figure out whether only using hammers until growth would be optimal, and cut down on micromanagement even more.

 

[Vardis]

Maybe it's just jet lag, but I'm not understanding the issue here. Can someone explain to me in simple English what exactly the difference in outcome is between A and B?

A. Worker will finish chop on turn X, warrior is due on turn X+1. Switch to settler before the chop message comes up; afterwards, switch back to warrior. Next turn, warrior finishes with hammer overrun; switch to settler and finish that.

B. Worker will finish chop on turn X+1 with warrior due the same turn. Next turn, warrior finishes; switch to settler. Chop hammers go to settler along with any natural overrun. Finish settler.

It seems you're all saying that A will result in fewer lost growth turns than B, but I'm not yet seeing how that's the case.

By switching to settler for each chop, you can be on the settler for its last turn only because the game saves partial production. If you chop enough so that the overrun is enough to create the settler the next turn, there's no difference.

 

[Renata]

Ok, I get it now. Thanks.