Is this an Exploit?

[Ribannah]

I'm sorry to interfere but there are a few questions and issues unanswered actually:

1) Is switch/chop actually an advantage or disadvantage? Or it does not matter? And how correctly to test it? Or it depends on circumstances?

It is always an advantage compared to just chopping, but in cases where chopping is not the best strategy the advantage may not be enough to turn chopping into the best strategy.

3) If it gives and advantage, then how important (big/critical) this advantage is? Is it a game-breaking trick or something which lets you build an extra 10th warrior apart from normal 9 warrior which are being built for a certain period, let's say first 80 turns of the game.

It is definitely a potential game-breaker and competition-breaker. In 4OTM1 it is so for certain, gaining a couple of turns on everybody who doesn't use the exploit.

Moderator Action: Comment deleted. That subject was already declared off-topic by ainwood.

 

[kingjoshi]

I think you and others are reading intent here that doesn't exist. There is an article at the end of the manual that explicitily states the intent with regards to growth and the old way of doing settlers and workers. And no where in that is there anything about "preventing growth". In fact the moral of the story was that losing population was confusing and bothersome to most players especially new ones trying to learn to play.


Additionally I believe the real intent was to generalize starting positions with regards to early growth. If as with Civ3 food resources was the main determinate for settlers and workers then many MP games would basically hand most players a poor starting position. The person with pigs or river wheat (etc) would out perform with growth all others and thus easily win the game. This, while more realistic, does not a fun multiplayer game make.
By putting both production and food in the production of settlers and workers you've generalized the starts and any good resource will contribute to growth. That is, you are not immediately shot in the foot if you don't start next to some wheat or corn by a river.

I thought I had read that somewhere. Maybe in the chat with the developers run by this site. But I could be mistaken.

However, I still see this as a loophole. To do this, it's beyond just normal micromanaging, you have to control the production of the city and the worker in specific ways (multiple times in one turn!) to get such results. It's not just optimizing resources, it's an exploit (imho).

 

[A+ombomb]

Producing a settler only with forests costs alot more lumber than combining the city output with the chopping, not to mention it takes longer. So what if you grow in the mean time? City size means very little in the very early game, when your tiles are underdeveloped. Chopping further exasperates the underdevelopment of the tiles by dominating the worker where the worker could be improving food. I think you might find that clever use of slavery with irrigated abundant food squares will expand your civilization faster than chopping (slavery is my lynchpin in this gotm).

I will not make the claim that chopping isn't very powerful - it certainly is, and I always aim for bronze as a first or second tech - but there is no way in hell switching productions to direct chopping to a settler is an exploit. You guys are oversimplifying the problem to "growing while producing a settler", when clearly production and growth are variables not fully explained by such a blanket statement. I think the production switch technique is much more powerful in multiplayer, where many early game warriors are much more useful. In single player, more often than not, simply producing a settler outright, even if your city is size 1, will probably be a better option in the long run, as computers are less likely to prevent your early undefended expanding (the barbs are the real problem, but simply using your initial warrior as an escort that can move on after the city is built is adequate).

 

[DaviddesJ]

In single player, more often than not, simply producing a settler outright, even if your city is size 1, will probably be a better option in the long run, as computers are less likely to prevent your early undefended expanding (the barbs are the real problem, but simply using your initial warrior as an escort that can move on after the city is built is adequate).

At Emperor level and higher, barbarians (including archers) can start appearing by the time you build your first settler. A single warrior is not nearly enough protection.

 

[akots]

It is always an advantage compared to just chopping ...

Can you illustrate this with a simple playtesting example please?

 

[Memphus]

@akots

The First couple of pages in this thread include a walkthrough of how it is done (chop/switch).
It also includes other players which used the same save(without chop/switching)... and had different results.

Having played more games now and Investigating it further I would say that the best boost/exploit comes from rushing a second worker while still letting your city grow. (this is because a worker is exactly two chops on anygame speed)

So if it is not an exploit and is legal to use then for future games step I would see as the msot advantgeous
build worker while researching bronze
begin warrior, city is ow growing
chop switch for worker * 2
lost city growth for one turn
Now you have two workers VERY early on and only lost one turn of city growth after the initial.

With two workers I now combine two strategies one who continues to clear cut,the other who actually improves the terrain.

I will come up with another example of it tonight

But from my experience so far getting that second worker early on is huge. while only loosing city growth for one turn.

 

[Ribannah]

This is exactly what I found.

Here, you see clearly how allowing an exploit reduces the game: if you want to compete, it limits the opening game to a single strategy. Everything else is below par.

 

[Memphus]

Alright as promised I set up a second test case with the same settings
standard, continents,temperate, noble
Civ chosen India as the fast worker expediates the process

Goal: Demonstrating what I see as the pros and cons(not if it is good or not but what you get by doing it versus what you get without doing it) of switching your production mid turn.

For you to decide: Is it required to compete at a high level.

Method: comparing building two workers and a warrior in various orders using chop/switch and not using it

 

[Memphus]

Steps taken:
Research bronze working (14 turns)
Build worker (15 turns)

==>please note that the warrior is not exploring but is just fortified in the city as this is again a test case (further upon cultural border expansion a goodie hut netted 60 gold, but this is irrelevant)


Result: 3440 B.C. Bronze working is discovered
at this point I just chose agriculture, other good or better choices include masonry (because of the marble), the wheel, etc again this part is now irrelevant for this test case.

3400 B.C. Worker is out
-From here on there are three different approaches tested:
Process A the chop switch: build a warrior allowing Delhi to now grow, upon chopping switch to a second worker then back to warrior
Process B no chop switching start with warrior
Process C no chop switching start with a second worker

Note this is the last save posted as running the actual test for yourself takes very little time and you can varry many ways of using the chop switch now (i.e. what tech you choose)

 

[Memphus]

Process A: using the chop switch

Begin with warrior (as shown above) 8 Turns
Delhi Growth in 11 turns

Note in 3360 you must activate your warrior to be able to perform the chop/switch in 3320 (it requires an active unit).
after chop switching:
warrior 6 turns
2nd worker (8 turns)
Delhi growth in 9 turns (nothing lost)

 

[Memphus]

3200 chop/switch again
-this time you now stay on the worker as he will be complete in one turn

Final Result:
3160 B.C.

2 workers ready to go
1 Warrior in 1 turn
Delhi growth in 6 turns

 

[Memphus]

Process B

Method: No chop/switching Warrior first then second worker

Results:
Second warrior out at 3280 B.C. (4 turns sooner than chop switching)

at 3160 B.C.

Second fast wroker is out in 1 turn
Delhi growth in 9 turns

(don't let the number 16 in the pic fool you as currently there worker is still being produced so the city is not growing, so technically from 3120 B.C. Delhi growth is in 8 turns)

 

[Memphus]

Process C:

Method: No chop/switching second worker first the warrior

Results:
3160 B.C.
2 workers out
1 warrior in 1 turn
Delhi growth in 11 turns

 

[Memphus]

Summary:

Process A:
3160 B.C.
2 workers
2nd Warrior in 1 turn
Delhi growth in 6 turns

Pros: Delhi grows in 6 turns which is the best (3 turns faster than process B, 5 turns faster that process C)

Cons: Second warrior isn't out exploring/defending until 3120 B.C. (4 turns after Process B)

Process B:
3160 B.C.
2nd warrior was out at 3280 B.C.
1 worker
1 worker in 1 turn
Delhi growth in 9 turns

Pros: Second warrior is out the fastest 4 turns before either process A or C

Cons: Delhi growth is in 9 turns (3 more than process A)

Process C:
3160 B.C.
2 workers
1 Warrior in 1 turn
Delhi growth in 11 turns

Pros: None that I can see

Cons: No early second unit, no city growth what so ever ( 5 turns behind A, 3 turns behind B)


Discussion: Overall as you can see Process C is blatently the worst out of those two.
So the question becomes from looking a Process A and B, which is more important:

Having a second warrior out 4 turns sooner
Having your city grow 3 turns sooner

It is all for you to decide


Final Comments: Thank you for you time on this second example hopefully it will stir up so more interesting debates
please remeber when addressing this test case that it is only one varyation of what can be done
i.e. you could opt to get a second settler instead of a worker, you could opt for a wonder, there are countless other things you can do but that was not the focus of this test.

Finally:
It is my opinion that using this switch to get workers is an advantage, not a huge one but it still is.
My reason is simple:
No matter what difficult no matter what game speed a worker is always exactly two chops.

Thank you
Memphus

 

[DaviddesJ]

Process C:
3160 B.C.
2 workers
1 Warrior in 1 turn
Delhi growth in 11 turns

Pros: None that I can see

Cons: No early second unit, no city growth what so ever ( 5 turns behind A, 3 turns behind B)

Discussion: Overall as you can see Process C is blatently the worst out of those two.

I think your summary is quite misleading.

In Process A, at 3160 BC, you have 10/22 food stored, and 14/15 production toward a warrior (including the carryover from finishing the worker the previous turn). In Process C, at 3160 BC, you have 0/22 food stored, but you have 24/15 production toward a warrior (including the carryover from finishing the worker the previous turn). You can describe both of these as "1 warrior in 1 turn", but this conceals the advantage of the extra accumulated production. Certainly, having 10 more hammers of accumulated production, which you can use for whatever you want (e.g., another warrior), should count as a "Pro".

The effect of the "chop/switch" is, exactly, to transfer 10 production to 10 food.

Note that, without using the mid-turn "chop/switch exploit", you could do Process D, where you put 2 turns of production into a warrior, switch for one turn to a worker to receive the chop, then switch for 2 more turns to a warrior, and switch for the final turn back to the worker. If you did it this way, you would have almost the same effect as Process A (8/22 food and 16/15 production). So a rule against the "exploit" of changing production twice in one turn, to capture the chop, would have very little effect on the achievable result (you could still get 80% of the effect, without the "exploit").

Note in 3360 you must activate your warrior to be able to perform the chop/switch in 3320 (it requires an active unit).

You don't have to do this, and I think it's not the best way to do it. The best way is to activate your worker in 3360, after he's finished chopping for that turn, and cancel the chop order (tell him to "skip turn"). Then, when the next turn comes up, he won't finish the chop until you order him to do so, which lets you do any production finagling that you want, first.

 

[Aeson]

Why do you keep choosing not to move to the Plain Hill? That move is going to make more difference than between A and B in both the games you posted. (It's also not an exploit, just a good decision in many cases.)

-----------------

Those who are saying this is an exploit, rather than just a good decision (situationally), are ignoring:

Production was intended to carry over.
Workers and Settlers were intended to be built with Food and/or Production.
Production was intended to be maintained in builds that were switched away from. (With a slight reduction over time.)

You're doing things that were all intended. Getting the effects that were all intended. The only thing that could make this an exploit in any sense of the word is if the developers came out and said that the possibility of using these in conjunction with each other to only have to invest (yes, invest, not "lose") a turn of growth into the Settler or Worker was not intended.

There are at least 3* other ways to do that besides chopping switching that I can think of off the top of my head though. Option 1 is massive Production overflow. Option 2 is cash rushing. Option 3 is getting a big enough city to build Workers or Settlers in 1 turn. Options 4 through virtually infinite are various combinations and permutations thereof. All are intended effects of intended actions. So I wouldn't hold your breath in having the developers call this an exploit.

*Since the purpose of chop switching is to increase Food towards growth in relation to simply chopping, I have not included the possibility of pop rushing Workers or Settler.

 

[MeteorPunch]

using India isn't fair for comparison because their worker can move onto a forest and chop it on the same turn.

 

[Jove]

Playing these kind of 'games' is a big part of what Civ is about, IMHO. I can't see how it's an exploit. Like Aeson says, all the used features are clearly built in to the game. There's a resource, you go get it, you move your sliders... why not?
Anyway, the real down side that isn't getting enough attention is that this razes your forests. Want a treeless empire by 2000 BC? Be my guest. Maybe it really does win games, I don't know. I think it's 1 facet of resource management, no more, no less.

 

[Memphus]

@DaviddesJ
Perfect thank you so much I had never noticed that
You are exactly right though all the switching does is change food for production, whether it be 10, 14, 20, etc. (based on worker settler, India non India)

So the new question is (for everyone) In the early game which is more important: 10 Hammers or 10 Food? Is it completely situational? Does it matter on the difficulty?

@Aeson
You are right and 9 out of 10 times I do move to a plains hill as well, but I was just to demonstrate a difference.(like for example had I actually been playing I probably would have gone for masonry instead of agriculture,well maybe not who knows , but then again you never know what you might pop from a hut.
On a seperate note has anyone done a turn comparison of the advantage for moving to a plains hill?

@MeteorPunch
Using India is a fair comparison, it just does this faster.
As DaviddesJ has pointed out it all boils down to switching food for production. So if you didn't have a fast worker this process would take 2 more turns. Conclusion: Instead of trading 10 food for 10 production it would be 14 food for 14 production.

 

[AlanH]

.... so where's the exploit?

There are a gazillion ways to trade off food, gold and production in the Civ series. I don't have Civ4, so I'm in no position to judge this one, but why is this trade-off any wronger than any other? Is it akin to the gold-mine exploit in Civ3 where you take advantage of the inter-turn calculation order to get double work out of a citizen? Or is it simply that an optimum (in some circumstances) way to use a resource has been identified, like efficiently running a Civ3 settler factory?

I repeat what I've said elsewhere. I believe GOTM's objective is to provide competitive enjoyment playing one of the most popular strategy games on the planet. And we should play it as Firaxis designed it, as far as possible, not try to create a new game that no one else in the world plays. Unless a technique clearly trashes the designers' objectives for game balance I contend that we should play it as it is.