Pillaging Bug Exploit?

[BurnBabyBurn]

Do you believe that pillaging a tile that has been conquered is a bug you should not exploit and is cheating? Also placing your workers to repair/pillage to purposely use this exploit... What are your opinions on this?

 

[Mahasona]

Do you believe that pillaging a tile that has been conquered is a bug you should not exploit and is cheating? Also placing your workers to repair/pillage to purposely use this exploit... What are your opinions on this?

No not a bug at all. Exploit - hmm, maybe.

It's a powerful tactic esp if you have Pyramids - healing and making money in one turn is great for wartime economies, but if you're uncomfortable doing it then don't.

Play the game how you want to.

 

[kaspergm]

Do you believe that pillaging a tile that has been conquered is a bug you should not exploit and is cheating? Also placing your workers to repair/pillage to purposely use this exploit... What are your opinions on this?

Not a bug, but it does feel like an exploit. I really hate the fact that your workers can repair improvements in enemy lands, because it does make conquest ridiculously easy when you have Liberty + Pyramids. Just send in a worker with each of your infantry, and you have +25 free HP each round.

 

[Mesix]

I've never thought of this before. Perhaps I'll give it a try in my next domination game and see how icky I feel afterwords.

 

[lindsay40k]

Think of it as having a baggage train including civilians who can keep the land able to support your army. Hannibal's troops lived off the Italian land for over a dozen harvest cycles.

 

[BurnBabyBurn]

Bringing along civilian units to rebuild say a farm so that it can again be drained of resources to restrengthen army units, yes, this actually has some historical and real world validity and thanks for broadening the view. I think that being reasonable about it is the question. For instance, in WW1 the farms and infrastructure of Belgium and Northern France were completely eaten to death by the starving German war machine. I don't think that was ever rebuilt even many years later. Part of the following harsh terms of surrender. So it's up to the player to decide at what point that this is abusing the game engine. One could argue that say DOWing a CS for training military units is a cheat, but then again many armies over the years were sent on 'soft targets' to sharpen up their swords so to speak.

Really the bug with the repair/pillage is that the game engine does not intend for you to continually re-up your strength this way, it's meant after you capture to then use that tile through repair as a source of resources. It's merely an oversight of programming... Perhaps a limitation on the pillage amounts self imposed would be fair to the AI(it cannot help it is somewhat handicapped as it cannot be made as intelligent as we are, it has to rely on numbers to win, not tactics)

 

[Acken]

It's an exploit or abuse yes.

Hard to say if the devs always intended to allow you to repair enemy tiles. I personally think it shouldn't be possible from a gameplay perspective.

 

[Dushku]

Hard to say if the devs always intended to allow you to repair enemy tiles. I personally think it shouldn't be possible from a gameplay perspective.

I was in a game earlier where I had a Worker start to develop an enemy tile because by time he'd be finished, it would be my tile. I would consider such such a prohibition as akin to not being able to even build a Caravan just because there's currently no valid trade routes: Pointless to the point of being anti-fun and even punishing for those who plan ahead. The very ability that separates skilled players from new players.

 

[Acken]

But then it doesn't really make sense considering it's not your land. By the same logic you should be allowed to build farms and mines. Or if you repair and can pillage you should also be able to pillage your own tiles.

As much as I understand the strategical aspect of it, outside the possible exploit, it just seems like an inconsistent and unintuitive rule leading to said exploit.

 

[GenuineRisk]

I would consider such such a prohibition as akin to not being able to even build a Caravan just because there's currently no valid trade routes: Pointless to the point of being anti-fun and even punishing for those who plan ahead. The very ability that separates skilled players from new players.

That isn't a valid comparison because if you're at a point in the game where you have no valid trade routes (i.e. so early that you haven't even met a CS yet) and you're (pre-)building a caravan that you can't even use, that's not "planning ahead", that's a waste of hammers.

I occasionally repair enemy tiles, but only with workers I captured in the immediate vicinity in that same war. I don't actually bring workers with me to wars - they're annoying to manage and it feels exploitative to me.

 

[Dushku]

That isn't a valid comparison because if you're at a point in the game where you have no valid trade routes (i.e. so early that you haven't even met a CS yet) and you're (pre-)building a caravan that you can't even use, that's not "planning ahead", that's a waste of hammers.

"waste of hammers" is subjective and therefore can not be a standard. You could settle a city that would have valid trade routes from the time you begin production to the time you end it. I'm playing on a map where right about the time I was ready to maybe build a Caravan, my Warrior cut through the rough and discovered a city state within range. It's dismissive to say that just because you cannot imagine or haven't encountered a scenario where the decision could be useful, it could never be useful.

But then it doesn't really make sense considering it's not your land. By the same logic you should be allowed to build farms and mines.

Maybe they felt that things like repairing a tile and/or removing marsh are always beneficial, and therefore it either wasn't considered for exclusion or deemed not appropriate for exclusion *shrug* For that matter, why would an enemy unit being on your land prevent you from working that tile, but not actually kill/capture the citizen that was working the tile? Since this is a game, there's nothing that says such decisions have to be logical at all.

 

[Acken]

You misunderstood. There is a difference between what is logic compared to reality (something that I don't care in a game) and trying to maintain logic and concistency in the rules of a game.
Since this is a game, the latter is actually very important and is what I'm talking about. To me repairing is in the same category as building improvement and if you don't allow building improvement you shouldn't allow repairs. It's in my opinion inconcistent and unintuitive.

And on top of it it allows for exploitation. Hence why I'd be for its removal.

 

[Dushku]

To me repairing is in the same category as building improvement and if you don't allow building improvement you shouldn't allow repairs.

This is stated as if no distinction was offered.

You misunderstood.

I beg your pardon, but communication is the responsibility of the communicator I understood you fine. Pointing out the lack of conformity to reality was a side note. One you appear to have focused on to the point of missing the distinction above. Which would mean that you misunderstood

 

[KmDubya]

Or you can play on Epic speed where it takes two turns to repair a tile with pyramids instead of one. Much less 'exploity'.

They need to keep the ability for your workers to build and repair in an enemy's territory so that before you take a city you can repair the damage and build a road to connect to your empire.

 

[Acken]

I beg your pardon, but communication is the responsibility of the communicator I understood you fine. Pointing out the lack of conformity to reality was a side note. One you appear to have focused on to the point of missing the distinction above. Which would mean that you misunderstood

Then I don't know what you were trying to say in post #11 as a response to post #10.

Spoiler :

For that matter, why would an enemy unit being on your land prevent you from working that tile, but not actually kill/capture the citizen that was working the tile? Since this is a game, there's nothing that says such decisions have to be logical at all.

You seem to say it's only a side note so fair enough.

Maybe they felt that things like repairing a tile and/or removing marsh are always beneficial,

Well yes being allowed to make buildings would create problems. Like the removal of the previous ones. The problem with repair being excluded is that maybe it could have been ok to keep it as a way to repair your ally land or to help for your conquered land. The problem is that with the pillage system it creates this issue. What would be an elegant solution then ?

 

[killmeplease]

Well yes being allowed to make buildings would create problems. Like the removal of the previous ones. The problem with repair being excluded is that maybe it could have been ok to keep it as a way to repair your ally land or to help for your conquered land. The problem is that with the pillage system it creates this issue. What would be an elegant solution then ?

maybe the player should not be able to pillage improvements he has built/repaired
or there should be a system more coherent in general to close this hole of abstraction leak, e.g. you spend gold both to build improvements and to heal units, and when you pillage that gold goes to healing if the unit is damaged, plus there is a more effective way of paid healing e.g. a special supply unit or a caravan assigned to supply your army.

 

[kaspergm]

That isn't a valid comparison because if you're at a point in the game where you have no valid trade routes (i.e. so early that you haven't even met a CS yet) and you're (pre-)building a caravan that you can't even use, that's not "planning ahead", that's a waste of hammers.

I occasionally repair enemy tiles, but only with workers I captured in the immediate vicinity in that same war. I don't actually bring workers with me to wars - they're annoying to manage and it feels exploitative to me.

You misunderstood. There is a difference between what is logic compared to reality (something that I don't care in a game) and trying to maintain logic and concistency in the rules of a game.
Since this is a game, the latter is actually very important and is what I'm talking about. To me repairing is in the same category as building improvement and if you don't allow building improvement you shouldn't allow repairs. It's in my opinion inconcistent and unintuitive.

And on top of it it allows for exploitation. Hence why I'd be for its removal.

Very much supporting everything written in these posts!

 

[Dushku]

maybe the player should not be able to pillage improvements he has built/repaired

Perfect!

 

[FrostK]

Yes it is.

Actually, the only reason why repairing enemy tiles is allowed is probably that this worker action is in same "group" as clear marsh/forest actions, which should be allowed on enemy territory.

 

[Acken]

Yes it is.

Actually, the only reason why repairing enemy tiles is allowed is probably that this worker action is in same "group" as clear marsh/forest actions, which should be allowed on enemy territory.

No, repair is is handled by the canBuild function like all build actions. It's checked at the start of the function and allowed without conditions. It's not grouped with anything.