D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Or they might have higher aggresiveness levels and militaristic. Or you might be from a different culture group.
Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Turner
- Start date
- Status
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
Ironically this happens even with the neighbors of a weaker aggresiveness!
I've had one game that they attack me!
I've had one game that they attack me!
Paul Richardson
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 8
Hi Um is there a way to have more then 7 flavors in a Game!
I want 12 so ok.
I want 12 so ok.
The editor has only 7 and I am not aware of any way to increase it.
Keroro
Dororo: Ninja Frog
No, that's hard-coded.
I'm not so sure about everything flavors can do, but I think one thing they do is enable the editor to assign "attitudes" to certain civs. For example, you can assign two civilizations to two different flavors. Then you just set "has a X% relationship" to 0% between those two flavors. Then those two civs will hate each other.
A few years ago we tried to use it in an Aployton Univerrisy game to see if we could get the AI to behave a bit more intelligently on some issue. It was of limited success and this is the first time I have thought of it in long time.
I think Axleman made up the rules fo rthe flavor in that attempt. Probably could find it on their forum with some effort.
I think Axleman made up the rules fo rthe flavor in that attempt. Probably could find it on their forum with some effort.
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Flavors can be like for wonders to trigger GAs, so industrious would be checked for a wonder and a civ, so the GA could happen depending on the relevance of the flavors.
There has been considerable discussion lately in the HOF about whether a particular game strategy is considered an "exploit" or not. (I.e. Lord Emsworth Agreement.)
For the Pure-At-Heart and other scholarly/ethical types, would someone please give me their definition (or guess) as to what constitutes an "exploit" (cheat?) when playing Civ 3?......And an Example(s)?
For the Pure-At-Heart and other scholarly/ethical types, would someone please give me their definition (or guess) as to what constitutes an "exploit" (cheat?) when playing Civ 3?......And an Example(s)?
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
There is a bug where you can press "b" and click somewhere at the same time as a bomber and bomb any tile on the map, and depending on the version the bomber may or may not have movement at the end of the turn. This is an exploit, because it's a bug not in the mechanics but in the code, so it isn't fair to the AI, because even they can switch production.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
There has been considerable discussion lately in the HOF about whether a particular game strategy is considered an "exploit" or not. (I.e. Lord Emsworth Agreement.)
For the Pure-At-Heart and other scholarly/ethical types, would someone please give me their definition (or guess) as to what constitutes an "exploit" (cheat?) when playing Civ 3?......And an Example(s)?
In one of those HoF threads I opined that an exploit is a flaw in the game design that can be used to the player's advantage.
A bug is a flaw in the implementation of the game design.
psweetman1590
Emperor
I would second Emsworth's definition. For example, using a noncombat unit to sit on a resource in the knowledge that the AI would never demand that it be removed. That is an exploit because the game was purposely designed so that noncombat units would not be forced to withdraw. However, it was not inteded to be used this way, and using one in this fashion can be crippling to the AI, providing the human with a massive advantage.
Thanks to D0MINATRIX, Lord Emsworth & psweetman1590 for the responses. I find this subject quite interesting because of the divergence of opinions.
1. Doesn't build them
2. Will not attack an Army unless its strongest unit far exceeds the strength of the Army.
So, does that mean that if the human builds an Army, it's an exploit ('cos the AI doesn't?) Does it mean the so-called Tunnel (Funnel) Of Doom (using a few armies to wipe out a large number of AI units) is an exploitive strategy?
How do you define a "massive advantage"? For example, at Sid Level, the Funnel Of Doom is a much larger advantage to the player than at, say, Chieftain level, where its unlikely you would ever need to use it to win.
For competitive situations like HOF and GOTM, isn't it easier to allow the competitors to take advantage of game weaknesses and may the best man/woman win? At least everyone is playing by the same rules and its harder to cheat!?
This is the easiest one for me to understand, providing it's obviously a program bug. However, some things are not obvious to me whether they are program bugs or not. For example, take Armies, the AI:
1. Doesn't build them
2. Will not attack an Army unless its strongest unit far exceeds the strength of the Army.
So, does that mean that if the human builds an Army, it's an exploit ('cos the AI doesn't?) Does it mean the so-called Tunnel (Funnel) Of Doom (using a few armies to wipe out a large number of AI units) is an exploitive strategy?
How do you determine what's a flaw in game design? Is it obvious? For example, if you have 10 Aztec Warriors about to attack an AI city but the AI moves 4 spearmen out of the city, leaving 2 in defense......Does this mean you should not attack the city because it's obviously a flaw in the game design? Is it an exploit to make a gpt deal with the AI in exchange for a Tech and then declare war? The AI may do the same thing to you, so does that make it okay?
So, is the fact that the programmer didn't consider the consequences of a non-combat unit sitting on a resource to be a problem..........a bug OR a design flaw or both? The fact that the AI is weak in combat strategy........what does that mean? You shouldn't attack the AI because it gives the player a massive advantage?
How do you define a "massive advantage"? For example, at Sid Level, the Funnel Of Doom is a much larger advantage to the player than at, say, Chieftain level, where its unlikely you would ever need to use it to win.
For competitive situations like HOF and GOTM, isn't it easier to allow the competitors to take advantage of game weaknesses and may the best man/woman win? At least everyone is playing by the same rules and its harder to cheat!?
Just because I can't resist a good debate, I'll chime in here. For me, the question of exploits and cheats hinges not only on what advantage the player gains from a given strategy or mechanic, but also at what price. For example, I seem to recall reading about a "double gold" exploit (or some such name) by which a player can scroll forward through cities, rearranging citizens so that more than one citizen can work a given tile. This is clearly an exploit. The player gets multiple uses out of the same tile, at a cost of simply micromanaging so as to make it happen.For the Pure-At-Heart and other scholarly/ethical types, would someone please give me their definition (or guess) as to what constitutes an "exploit" (cheat?) when playing Civ 3?......And an Example(s)?
Armies:
Not exploitive, and AFAIK, not a bug. No, the AI doesn't build them and doesn't use them effectively. But there's a reasonably high cost to getting armies in the first place. You've either got to risk some elites to get an MGL, or you've got to build the Mil Acad and then build the armies.
Armies:
No. Opportunity cost is attached. Your armies could be out conquering cities, but they're not. They're arranged into the Funnel of Doom.
It's bad form, but not unacceptable. You can do it, but at the cost of your reputation.
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Anything the AI can do that you can do is not an exploit, even if the AI never does it well, or even at all. Anything that you can do and the AI can't is an exploit.
gmaharriet
Ancient Crone
Where would this leave us with something like "ship chaining"? Some people consider it exploitive, some do not, and some folks consider it a grey area. Certainly in Succession Games, it has to be decided by the game starter (or the team as a group) whether to allow it or not.
The BIG question which comes up then is, not only do the AI never do it, do we even know if they CAN? That would make a huge difference according to your definition.
I like this definition a lot
............But then I thought about it some more and it raised some questions. It seems like the AI "could" do everything the human can do, if it was programmed to do it. It could build Armies, sufficiently defend cities, "double gold", ship-hop, scout resource denial, Funnel Of Doom, build settler/worker factories, break trade routes to avoid gpt payments, etc. etc.
I think you get to the point where the Firaxis analyst/programmer knows about the bug/exploit but it's too complex or time-consuming (viz. uneconomical) to make the program changes.
There is no publicly available written list of what the AI is programmed to do or not do! So, how do we know what the AI can do?
On the flip side, there are certainly things the AI can do that the human can't. E.gs.:
Rush a unit to defend a city when its not the AIs turn to move
Know where all the resources are on the map, present and future and use that to the AI's advantage
Trade with other AI's at more equitable rates than with human (not sure about this one)
Force you to leave their territory or declare war versus needing to give them up to 3 demands over 3 turns before the war ultimatum......etc.
Edit: Some X-Posting with grandma.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
In some cases it is very obvious whether something is a flaw in the game design. Take the 'Big Picture' IBT for example. It has been deliberately programmed in such a way that you can pick a new research goal, and make other adjustments. That this goes so far that you can make double use of some of your commerce however is definitely not intentional. It is just a side-effect.
But of course, determining what is faulty game design and what not necessiates a lot of second guessing the programmers and designer intentions.
Ah, I see. I think I simply forgot to mention that the flaws can be actively used to the player's advantage. (I believe that I even said that in the HoF thread) With this slightly amended definition I would say that your situation is not exploitive at all, simply because you can not actively make stuff like that happen. It is just chance.
However, if, in a similar situation, you saw how the AI moved 4 spearmen into the city in the first place and based on your experience delay the attack by one turn to give the AI a chance to remove those units, then you are exploiting a weakness in the game design.
Whether something is an exploit and whether something should not be done, are two different things. Rules can be formulated in such a way that they attempt to exclude exploitive techniques, but any attempt to rule out all exploits will ultimatively make the game unplayable (at least with my definition of exploit). But rules can also be formulated in such a way as to prohibit behaviour that is not exploitive at all. Just take the self-imposed restrictions that are common in succession games, like 'AW,' 'Defiant' or what not.
Rules are just agreed upon restrictions.
Well, normally this is not exploitve. It is easy to second guess the programmers intention here since there is the penalty provided for such behaviour: A broken reputation.
However ... ahem ... during Peace Treaties this reputation hit is overruled for whatever reasons. Which means you always can go and buy a tech for gpt during peace negotions, turn around and re-declare ... and do it time and time again. Definitely exploitive.
- Status
