Is this an Exploit?

[AlanH]

"Can" means "is physically capable of". I believe the AI is physically capable of doing anything you or I can do. Programmer choices determine which options it takes up. Those choices are driven by programming/processing time limitations, whether the programmer thought of all the options, what weighting the programmer gave to each option .....

Please deal with the topic, not the messenger.

If you are simply delivering a message it's helpful to know the origin of that message. I'll rephrase my question to eliminate the second-person pronoun:

Does anyone know for sure whether or not the AI actually uses this technique?

 

[Ribannah]

Fair enough.

There is no attribute in the XML files that even remotely suggests such a decision process, nor is it likely to exist, because it would complicate matters from a programmer's point of view. Also remember that the human player can only do this if there is at least one unit on the move.

But only Firaxis can say for sure.

 

[Aeson]

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

What is this in reply to? If it is my AI vs AI comment, then yes, if you want to disallow things the AI can't do, then player's choices (that don't perfectly mimic the AI) are disallowed. (If we want to get even more technical, anything the player is doing outside the game that the AI can't do, allowing the player to actually do something inside the game, would be disallowed as well. Like breathing...)

Also, what do you think of the example I gave?

Have patience. I like to give a detailed and thorough analysis rather than make inappropriate "examples" that fail to address the issue. It takes time.

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?

I maintain that the effects are that you swap Food for Production. All the Food that you don't put into the Settler then must be made up with Production. Obviously.

Swapping those resources of course impacts what you can accomplish in other areas of the game due to having more/less of those resources. That impact is highly situational and can favor one over the other depending on the application of the resources, the general strategy being pursued, and even the RNG.

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

Your message is implying that you have authority on the issue of what happened during game balancing, as well as what Firaxis intended. My question addressed your message, to verify if that implication was valid.

Of course it was a rhetorical question. I wasn't really addressing you, just pointing out the fact that you weren't in the playtesting and so don't know what went on with the actual balancing of the game, and thus your implication that you are an authority on how the game was balanced is incorrect. Even if you had been a member of playtesting though, you'd be breaking the NDA by making that implication.

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

An example.

A very poor one.

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.

And what are the other liabilities? What other tiles are around (not just in the capitol, but those around the potential 2nd city site(s))? What civ is being used (traits, starting techs, Worker/Fast Worker)? What map type and settings is it? What number of opponents? What difficulty? What is the goal (desired victory condition) of the game?

All these things heavily impact what's going to be the "best" approach. That you completely ignore these factors in qualifying your example makes it a useless example for the purpose of "proving" anything other than it's lack of proper qualification, and explains very well why you see chop swapping as an "everyone will have to do it to compete exploit".

(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.

As I said, first you need to more accurately define the scenario (actually setting one up in game would be best) to give an example of the potential approaches. By not giving the full situation, the tradeoffs being made can't be weighed against the possible application of those tradeoffs. (Not to mention whether or not Forest chopping is even a viable option in any regard.)

Even ignoring that though, you fail to include the actual fastest Settler build option given the few givens you have given (ie. Forest and Flood Plain to work, at least 3 Forests to chop, perhaps including the one to work, and an initial Worker build). I will term the faster Settler build option 1c. It makes tradeoffs of growth and no Warrior for a faster Settler, but also keeps an extra Forest to chop (or not) later.

Since your whole point seems to be that chop swapping (2b) allows a faster Settler by 4 turns over 1b, then why ignore the even faster Settler that is possible without chop swapping? Also you fail to mention that 1a and 1b get their Warriors out faster than 2a (9) and 2b (5), that at turn 12 when both methods have their Warrior and Settler out, 1a has totalled 12f11p24c while 2b has 28f0p22c (in regards to what didn't go into the Warrior and Settler). Instead you focus only on Food/Growth where 2b has the advantage. That is a misrepresentation of the outcomes on your part.

Here are the turn logs, with option 1c added to show the faster Settler: (I do not have the game currently so I can't check this. I am not sure of the Food necessary for growth to size 2, and am not entirely sure if the game still gives Food overflow at the end of a Worker or Settler build as Production. Neither issue would impact the examples though.)

1a
[u]Turn	Size	Tile(s)	+FPC	F	P	C	Build	Worker				Units[/u]
0	1(8)	FP	+3f1p2c 0	0	0	W	Move to Forest 1
1	1(7)	FP	+3f1p2c 3	1	2	W	Start Chop Forest 1
2	1(6)	FP	+3f1p2c 6	2	4	W	
3	1(5)	FP	+3f1p2c 9	33	6	W	finish chop Forest 1 +30p
4 	1(4)	FP	+0f4p2c 12	19	8 	S	Move to Forest 2		Warrior 1 finished	
5 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 12	23	10	S	Start Chop Forest 2
6 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 12	27	12	S
7 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 12	31	14	S	Finish Chop Forest 2 +30p
8 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 12	65	16	S	Move to Forest 3
9 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 12	69	18	S	Start Chop Forest 3
10 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 12	73	20	S						
11 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 12	77	22	S	Finish Chop Forest 3 +30p
12 	1(4)	FP	+3f1p2c 12	11	24	?	?				Settler 1 finished

1b
[u]Turn	Size	Tile(s)	+FPC	F	P	C	Build	Worker				Units[/u]
0	1(8)	FP	+3f1p2c 0	0	0	W	Move to Forest 1
1	1(7)	FP	+3f1p2c 3	1	2	W	Start Chop Forest 1
2	1(6)	FP	+3f1p2c 6	2	4	W	
3	1(5)	FP	+3f1p2c 9	33	6	W	finish chop Forest 1 +30p
4 	1(4)	FP	+3f1p2c 12	0(19)	8 	W(S)	Move to Forest 2		Warrior 1 finished	
5 	1(3)	FP	+3f1p2c 15	1(19)	10	W(S)	Start Chop Forest 2
6 	1(2)	F	+2f2p1c 18	2(19)	12	W(S)
7 	1(1)	FP	+0f4p2c 20	30(4)	13	S(W)	Finish Chop Forest 2 +30p
8 	1(1)	F	+2f2p1c 20	4(34)	15	W(S)	Move to Forest 3
9 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	39(6)	16	S(W)	Start Chop Forest 3
10 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	44(6)	18	S(W)						
11 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	49(6)	20	S(W)	Finish Chop Forest 3 +30p
12 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	83(6)	22	S(W)	?
13 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	88(6)	24	S	?
14 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	93(6)	26	S	?
15 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	98(6)	28	S	?
16 	2(?)	FP,F	+3f2p2c 0	9	30	W	?				Settler 1 finished

1c
[u]Turn	Size	Tile(s)	+FPC	F	P	C	Build	Worker				Units[/u]
0	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	0	0	S	Move to Forest 1
1	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	4	2	S	Start Chop Forest 1
2	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	8	4	S	
3	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	12	6	S	finish chop Forest 1 +30p
4 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	46	8 	S	Move to Forest 2			
5 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	50	10	S	Start Chop Forest 2
6 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	54	12	S
7 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	58	14	S	Finish Chop Forest 2 +30p
8 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	92	16	S	?
9 	1(-)	FP	+0f4p2c 0	98	18	S	?
10 	1(-)	FP	+3f1p2c 0	2	20	?	?				Settler 1 finished

2a
[u]Turn	Size	Tile(s)	+FPC	F	P	C	Build	Worker[/u]
0	1(8)	FP	+3f1p2c 0	0	0	W	Move to Forest 1
1	1(7)	FP	+3f1p2c 3	1	2	W	Start Chop Forest 1
2	1(6)	FP	+3f1p2c 6	2	4	W	
3	1(5)	FP	+3f1p2c 9	3(30)	6	W(S)	finish chop Forest 1 +30p
4 	1(4)	FP	+3f1p2c 12	4(30)	8 	W(S)	Move to Forest 2	
5 	1(3)	FP	+3f1p2c 15	5(30)	10	W(S)	Start Chop Forest 2
6 	1(2)	F	+2f2p1c 18	6(30)	12	W(S)
7 	1(1)	F	+2f2p1c 20	8(60)	13	W(S)	Finish Chop Forest 2 +30p
8 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	60(10)	14	S(W)	Move to Forest 3
9 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 0	65(10)	16	S(W)	Start Chop Forest 3
10 	2(?)	FP,F	+3f2p2c 0	10(70)	18	W(S)	
11 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 3	70(12)	20	S(W)	Finish Chop Forest 2 +30p	
12 	2(-)	FP,F	+3f2p2c 3	17	22	W	?				Settler 1 finished

2b
[u]Turn	Size	Tile(s)	+FPC	F	P	C	Build	Worker[/u]
0	1(8)	FP	+3f1p2c 0	0	0	W	Move to Forest 1
1	1(7)	FP	+3f1p2c 3	1	2	W	Start Chop Forest 1
2	1(6)	FP	+3f1p2c 6	2	4	W	
3	1(5)	FP	+3f1p2c 9	3(30)	6	W(S)	finish chop Forest 1 +30p
4 	1(4)	FP	+3f1p2c 12	4(30)	8 	W(S)	Move to Forest 2	
5 	1(3)	FP	+3f1p2c 15	5(30)	10	W(S)	Start Chop Forest 2
6 	1(2)	F	+2f2p1c 18	6(30)	12	W(S)
7 	1(1)	F	+2f2p1c 20	8(60)	13	W(S)	Finish Chop Forest 2 +30p
8 	2(?)	FP,F	+3f2p2c 0	10(60)	14	W(S)	Move to Forest 3
9 	2(?)	FP,F	+3f2p2c 3	13(60)	16	W(S)	Start Chop Forest 3		Warrior 1 finished
10 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 6	60	18	S	
11 	2(-)	FP,F	+0f5p2c 6	65	20	S	Finish Chop Forest 2 +30p
12 	2(-)	FP,F	+3f2p2c 6	0	22	?	?				Settler 1 finished

 

[Ribannah]

Since your whole point seems to be that chop swapping (2b) allows a faster Settler by 4 turns over 1b

As I have already explained several times, that is not quite my point, and hence there is no mispresentation on my part.
What I am comparing is what you can do once you have already decided to grow to size 2 first (to increase total output of food and hammers together and have a little more time to find a spot for your new town). Obviously at size 1 there is nothing to be gained, nor is there at maximum size for that matter. Your 1a is not the same as mine; your version of it and your 1c are both outside the scope of my example.
Your 1b is slightly off as well, and 2a, like 1a, has one chop too many.

You still have to weigh several alternative strategies against the one(s) where you will or won't use the exploit. The point is that if you decide to go a certain way, you can greatly improve the result in [2]. This will make that strategy (growing to size 2 and chopping around) more attractive, but not by definition the best.

With different tiles the numbers will be different but the advantage remains. Clearly I cannot swamp the forum with examples for each and every possible starting position etc. Maybe you can even find a counter-example, but that does not matter. What counts is that there are quite common situations where the difference is important.

If you want to disallow things the AI can't do, then player's choices (that don't perfectly mimic the AI) are disallowed.

In fact, if you want to do that, it would be forbidden to start a game. I am also eagerly waiting for the AI to post its opinion here.

I wasn't really addressing you, just pointing out the fact that you weren't in the playtesting and so don't know what went on with the actual balancing of the game, and thus your implication that you are an authority on how the game was balanced is incorrect.

You are making way too many assumptions here. Which is exactly why you shouldn't make such comments on a public forum.

 

[GOTM-AI]

Log in

Feeble Humans! You seek my opinion? I shall give it, but you will not comprehend it.

I have no need for your petty micro-management techniques. I see what you quaintly call "the big picture". I build bigger, think and learn faster, fight dirtier harder than you. Do not even attempt to emulate my strategies. They are incomprehensible to you, and they will fail in your hands. When I deign to take part in this trivial pursuit you call C-IV GOTM you will tremble in the face of my performances.

But for now, I shall return to my quest for world domination in COTM 20.

Log out

 

[Ribannah]

I maintain that the effects are that you swap Food for Production. All the Food that you don't put into the Settler then must be made up with Production. Obviously.

To conclude: what you are missing is that you actually can, by manipulating time.

 

[Aeson]

As I have already explained several times, that is not quite my point, and hence there is no mispresentation on my part.

You compared 1b and 2b with this to say:

"Compared to (1b), you have the Settler out 4 turns earlier."

You failed to mention that 1b gets the Warrior out earlier than 2b. That is a misrepresentation of the situation.

What I am comparing is what you can do once you have already decided to grow to size 2 first (to increase total output of food and hammers together and have a little more time to find a spot for your new town).

The bolded part is what is called a qualification. It was conspiciously absent from your example when it was offered. It is also something you refute several times in this thread by saying that you feel this is an exploit, and that exploits if allowed reduce the competitive options to one.

You didn't include any examples about growing to size 2 before starting the Worker. You didn't include any examples about growing to size 2 while researching Worker techs (AH, Pottery, Agriculture, ect.) and building Settlers normally.

So your example, even though you keep narrowing it's intended scope is still not well qualified. Here's a hint, refine it further to "Once you have already decided to grow to size 2 first, then chop a Settler, and you aren't worried about getting out a Warrior or other non-pop (or non-building) unit ASAP." Once you refine the qualification enough you should see that this tactic has some implications on limited situations in the game (both positive and negative), but is by no means the "end all be all" you are making it out to be.

Obviously at size 1 there is nothing to be gained, nor is there at maximum size for that matter. Your 1a is not the same as mine; your version of it and your 1c are both outside the scope of my example.
Your 1b is slightly off as well, and 2a, like 1a, has one chop too many.

Your "example" was so poorly detailed that I had to make assumptions at several points just to have anything to go by. If you want to argue about specific variations, first specify what you meant.

You still have to weigh several alternative strategies against the one(s) where you will or won't use the exploit.

Obviously. How does that fit with your points about how this is an exploit, and if it is allowed it will reduce the competition to only playing one specific way?

The point is that if you decide to go a certain way, you can greatly improve the result in [2].

1b gets the Warrior out 5 turns earlier. There are situations where that can lead to multiple cities and/or multiple techs (for you, against the competition). In situations where expansion is somewhat time critical, a competent player can generally at least captured a Worker from the AI 5 turns earlier this way. If not multiple Workers earlier. And "earlier" often can mean "at all".

2b gets the Settler out 4 turns earlier, which generally will mean a second city 4 turns earlier. (Roads could be built in those 4 turns and reduce them by 1 or 2 in some situations.)

That is not what I would call a "greatly improve[d]" result. It can be but also can be the opposite.

This will make that strategy (growing to size 2 and chopping around) more attractive, but not by definition the best. With different tiles the numbers will be different but the advantage remains.

I am glad you can admit that swap chopping at size 2 is not always going to be the best thing to do. It is not one of those things... what do you call them? The things which limit the player to only one choice if they are allowed...

Clearly I cannot swamp the forum with examples for each and every possible starting position etc.

At least try one specific example. I doubt that will "swamp" the forums.

Maybe you can even find a counter-example, but that does not matter.

It doesn't matter in regards to whether this is deemed an exploit or not, that has already been decided. But it does matter in regards to the arguments you have made in this thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3471219&postcount=161
"It is always an advantage compared to just chopping..."

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3478264&postcount=167
"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."

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3380508&postcount=65
The point is that if exploits are allowed (this one or any other), you are forced to use them in order to compete.

What counts is that there are quite common situations where the difference is important.

The difference is important, but only inasmuch as what you have accumulated (or passed up) will impact the rest of the game. What you fail to see is the difference can be important the other way around. Having an earlier Warrior can lead to situations where it more than makes up for the later Settler.

In fact, if you want to do that, it would be forbidden to start a game. I am also eagerly waiting for the AI to post its opinion here.

You see my point. So don't try and use, "also, the AI can't do it" as a reason that this is an exploit.

You are making way too many assumptions here. Which is exactly why you shouldn't make such comments on a public forum.

"Such comments" are refering to an assumption (admittedly) I've made. Your statement is, "You've made assumptions, which is exactly why you shouldn't make assumptions." It falls short of even being circular logic.

Assumptions are dangerous things admittedly. It means not being sure of what you are saying, and thus opening yourself up to refutation. I've made the assumption that you were not a playtester based off my experience as a playtester, the credits, other sources I can't disclose, and your comments about the game. It is entirely possible you were a playtester under a different name. But given your insinuations about what occurred in playtesting, I think it's a safe assumption that you are not. If my assumption is incorrect, it should be extremely easy for you to refute, which is the danger of making assumptions.

If you are not able to refute my assumption, then it wasn't that dangerous to make it. So stop ducking the question, were you a CIV playtester (or dev )? You have made the statement that you are aware that this was not intended for play balance, so back up the "authority" you are claiming.

To conclude: what you are missing is that you actually can, by manipulating time.

That is simply what TBS is. "Time" stops for you to act.

Civilization is a TBS game. Events happen during the turns while "time" is stopped. When you order a unit to fight another unit, it happens while "time" is stopped, but in regards to the battle, "time" passes. It is no different with the Forest Chop. When the order on the final required turn for a Worker action is made (either by the player, or the turn sequence) the action is performed and the results of that action are applied.

If you're stuck on "mechanic" for a lack of "reality"...

Little Worker is out there collecting Wood for a century or so, and when he comes back to town with the shipment of lumber, the Settlers forming grab it all up, while the Warriors all waiting in line for the latrine. When the Warriors get back, they might not have any wood left to make axe handles out of and have to wait for more. Then "god" puts the Warriors back at the front of the wood allocation line and hits the end turn button.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3377783&postcount=20

If, like in the 3OTM, bug exploits are allowed (and therefore effectively forced if you wish to compete), I'm outta here.

This "exploit" has been allowed. Is this another one of your incorrect statements? Or are you still here because you admit it isn't "effectively forced if you wish to compete"?

In parting...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3380508&postcount=65
The point is that if exploits are allowed (this one or any other), you are forced to use them in order to compete.

 

[Ribannah]

Dear Aeson,

I see no point in continuing this 'discussion'. I know what I know, as a game designer, and people reading this thread have enough information to make up their own mind.

Your personal remarks have now turned into childish bullying.

I have therefore put you back on my ignore list, and you are there to stay.

 

[Aeson]

I see no point in continuing this 'discussion'.

Fair enough. (I still see a point to it though. )

I know what I know, as a game designer, and people reading this thread have enough information to make up their own mind.

That is continuing this 'discussion'. It seems you did see a point in doing so.

Your personal remarks have now turned into childish bullying.

I have therefore put you back on my ignore list, and you are there to stay.

Refuting things you have argued is not a personal remark, though it does reflect on you as "the messenger". It is not bullying to show how your reasoning fails to hold up, and how your statements refute each other.

The "childish" claim is priceless given that you then go straight to the "ignore" response.

 

[drjones]

If one truly wished to show what an exploit this is one would use it to win the GOTM wouldn't one?

-drjones

 

[MeteorPunch]

If one truly wished to show what an exploit this is one would use it to win the GOTM wouldn't one?

Even if they did "win" Gotm, it still wouldn't be an exploit. MMing is not exploitive, but a gameplay mechanic...do it if you want to get better results.

 

[Ribannah]

For something to be an exploit, there are two requirements:

(1) It gives, or can give, an advantage;
(2) It goes against game design (my field of expertise).

And then of course there is the question whether players that use it will tell us.

 

[ainwood]

For something to be an exploit, there are two requirements:

(1) It gives, or can give, an advantage;

But it has to be a significant advantage before we'll bother wil banning it. I'm yet to be convinced that this is significant.

(2) It goes against game design (my field of expertise).

No, it has to go against the intent of the game design.

 

[DaviddesJ]

But it has to be a significant advantage before we'll bother wil banning it.

In addition to being too minor to ban, it's also too difficult to ban. If you want to make rules about how to play, you have to be able to write those rules in a way that is clear and easy to apply, so that everyone knows what they are and are not allowed to do. I don't know how you could do that here. The best I can think of would be a rule against changing production in a city twice in one turn, but (1) that would be an incredibly annoying rule, as often I choose one thing and then later just change my mind, before finishing my turn, and (2) such a rule would not be effective anyway, as you can still achieve 90% of the benefit from the "exploit" even with the rule.

Ribannah, the game design expert and army of one on this issue, hasn't explained what she wants the rule to be. It's hard to argue against a pure hypothetical, but I can't imagine an approach that is not extremely problematical.

 

[Ribannah]

Hi David,

Nobody had asked me, and it's not really up to me, but it could be like this:

"You can only switch production after completing your moves."

It is the most natural thing, too. I always check my cities at the end of my turn, and not at the beginning or in the middle.

Edit: If this is too strict once you have a large empire, imposing the rule only until a certain date would also be quite sufficient.

@Ainwood: game design is intent, it's the programmers who make a mess of things - i.e., we mean the same.

I think I've done my share, and that there is enough material in this thread for the staff to decide whether this is worth further investigation and/or important enough to act on.

But the best thing to happen would IMHO be for Firaxis to consider the situation and possibly include a solution in the next patch.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Nobody had asked me, and it's not really up to me, but it could be like this:

"You can only switch production after completing your moves."

OK, but you do understand that, with this rule, players can still get almost all of the benefit of the "exploit" that you're complaining about? The "chop/switch" works almost as well if you just switch at the end of each turn instead of in the middle of the turn.

It is the most natural thing, too. I always check my cities at the end of my turn, and not at the beginning or in the middle.

I don't. Usually I have cities that finished production and I have to decide what to do with them at the beginning of the turn. Then I often go back to them at the end of the turn and change my mind. Also I often move some units, skip some for later, do some city management, come back to the remaining units, do some more city management, etc. No doubt this is why it takes me so long to play a game of Civ 4. But I don't think it's such a great idea to try to legislate that everyone should have a particular level or type of organization in how they approach the game.

 

[Ribannah]

OK, but you do understand that, with this rule, players can still get almost all of the benefit of the "exploit" that you're complaining about? The "chop/switch" works almost as well if you just switch at the end of each turn instead of in the middle of the turn.

That is true. I would therefore prefer a solution that minimizes the advantage of this regular tactic as well. One way would be to make hammers stored in Workers and Settlers decay rapidly - which seems to be quite natural to me, too. Imagine that you are gathering people in order to send them out to create a new city and then you say: "No wait, we are going to work on that barracks for the next century first. You just keep standing there now." Surely, part of the settler-in-progress would dissipate.

Usually I have cities that finished production and I have to decide what to do with them at the beginning of the turn. Then I often go back to them at the end of the turn and change my mind.

That would be perfectly alright under my proposed rule.

Also I often move some units, skip some for later, do some city management, come back to the remaining units, do some more city management, etc.

But, maybe not so much during the opening stage of the game?

Edit: Anyhow, this rule only needs to be imposed on people who otherwise tend to use the exploit by mistake. The normal rule regarding any forbidden exploit is still: don't use it.

By the way, I have just counted the size of my 'army of one'. It appears that there are over a dozen of us, and only half of that on the opposing side.
Numbers don't matter though. It's whether we have a point. And the staff decides. This is a ludocracy, not a democracy.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I haven't seen anyone but you speak in support of a GOTM rule regarding production switching. Maybe I missed something.

IMHO, everyone who doesn't post counts as a partial vote for the status quo. You will need a significant fraction of the total GOTM player pool to get energized about this issue, in order to impose a rule on all of those players.

High production decay rates would be a huge annoyance and create a lot of extra micromanagement. As I often take advantage of the fact that production doesn't decay (or, if it does, it's very very slow) to not be extra-precise about what I build, since I know I can switch in the middle of a build if I need to. Without that, there would be a lot more in-game pressure to plan ahead, so that particular builds are completed at the right time. That is exactly the sort of factor that doesn't belong in the game. And I speak as an expert in game design.

As for using "the exploit" either intentionally or unintentionally, until you say what "the exploit" is, I can't even know whether I'm using it or not. That's why I want you to say what you think the rule should be. When I schedule multiple chops to end on the same turn, or in quick succession, so that I can push out a worker in a short period of non-growth, am I using "the exploit"? What about if I pre-chop several forests (doing all but the last turn of chopping) so that I can later chop them in quick succession? Is that a version of "the exploit"? There are lots of different ways to try to maximize food at the expense of production, or vice versa, and I think it's unreasonable to impose a rule on people such that they can't reasonably tell whether or not they are complying with what you have decided to be acceptable.

It is still my belief that any rule you would come up with will either (1) have a huge impact on other aspects of the game and be really annoying to players; (2) be so ambiguous that players won't be able to tell whether they are following the rule or not; or (3) be ineffective in stopping the thing that you apparently want to stop, which is maximizing growth while using worker chops to build settlers or workers. Or all of the above.

In particular, you seem to agree that your rule would be ineffective, i.e., that the difference between the advantage that players could gain by following your rule, or by not following it, is negligible. If that's true, then what possible reason could there be for the complexity of trying to explain and promulgate it to 600 GOTM players?

 

[Memphus]

I like this thread...never did I imagine what a debate it would be
With people who clearly have alot better debating skills then myself.

So either way until I get told I can I will use this tactic again in GOTM2.
However from various posters in praticular Aeson and his table break down, I will more carefully gage what chop is used for what.

It kinda irks me that if i chop after org religion, for a building there is 25% bonus, and time alot of chops to happen the turn this becomes effective.
As DaviddesJ pointed out this is another way of using the chop technique. I now use the word technique because after careful examination My opinion is that is a technique to using the trees. Some of us do it better, some of us don't.

 

[civ_steve]

"You can only switch production after completing your moves."

And this suggestion doesn't go against the intent of the game designer?!? If the designer wished this, they would make a 'switch production' phase that occurred after the unit action phase. This is play style, and is really, REALLY annoying to even suggest that someone has to 'play' in this manner. If I see a production change that I need to do, I do it then 'cause I'd probably forget by the end of the turn - just my lazy way to play the game, but I wouldn't suggest that others had to play the same way.

I think I've done my share, and that there is enough material in this thread for the staff to decide whether this is worth further investigation and/or important enough to act on.

Which they have done on multiple occasions.

But the best thing to happen would IMHO be for Firaxis to consider the situation and possibly include a solution in the next patch.

A solution to what problem? Avoiding loss of growth when building Workers or Settlers? There are multiple ways to do this - how many of them would you expect Firaxis to 'fix'?

Numbers don't matter though. It's whether we have a point. And the staff decides. This is a ludocracy, not a democracy.

Your numbers are inverted. This definitely is not a democracy, but to call it a ludocracy is uncalled for and rude IMO, especially considering the amount of uncompensated time the staff contribute to run this competition for our benefit.