SGOTM 17 - Pre-game Discussion Thread

[Deckhand]

Assume the AI considers 8 Wpt for a resource a fair trade. Team A can get 1 Wpt and Team B can get 7 Wpt. How is that either fair to the AIs or more importantly fair to the Team A and Team B? So, is it really better to just take what the AI first offers? By offering a subsidy, every Team can potentially get the 8 Wpt that the AIs considers a fair trade. The cost is the 1-7 Wpt in subsidies for 10t. Also there is a risk it won't even work.

Offering a substidy is simply intelligent play. There is no exploit. There is nothing wrong with maximizing your return on every game mechanic, unless that return exceeds the design limit. Assume again that the AI considers 8 Wpt for an ordinary resource like Corn a fair trade. Getting 1-8 Wpt for such a resource is therefore fair from the AIs perspective. However, if we were able to get 9-99 Wpt or more for an ordinary resource that would exceed what the AI considers fair and that would an exploit. Even getting just 9 Wpt would be an exploit. The maximum this technique can provide in this example is 8 Wpt which the AI considers fair, thus there is no exploit.

Sun Tzu Wu

Good post. It changed my mind.

So, if we look at it that the AIs don't intelligently use their slider, so as to have wealth available for trade; or that the code limiting their Wpt offer to their existing positive cash flow - then this technique is just helping the AI make a fair trade for our resource, given how the game decides how to make trades.

Spoiler :

It seems a little tedious and less fun; but not much more so than other micro.

I also agree with Chris S - U.S. is unlikely to use it.

 

[kcd_swede]

I didn't read your or the original post that close. I would guess it is one of the flat maps that is 52*32 for 1664 tiles.

Yes. 52x32. If you want to know the land/sea ratio, THAT's WHAT THE SCOUT IS FOR!!!

 

[Manco Capac]

Wow, again on that subject.
If I knew, I would have never digged that out.

 

[kcd_swede]

I think we can lay the thing to rest. We aren't imposing a new ban on resource/gpt trading. If you think it gives you an edge, do it. If you think it makes your game tedious, don't do it. If two or more teams make a gentlemens agreement on any aspect, that's for you guys to reguate yourselves.

Court adjourned.

 

[bcool]

I'm sorry to add after the court is adjourned. However, If an AI offered a resource for 8 gold (or more) I think most human players would take the trade. Just saying that +1/2 happiness or +1/2 health empire wide for 8 gold is a darn good deal.

 

[nocho]

I think we can lay the thing to rest. We aren't imposing a new ban on resource/gpt trading. If you think it gives you an edge, do it. If you think it makes your game tedious, don't do it. If two or more teams make a gentlemens agreement on any aspect, that's for you guys to reguate yourselves.

Court adjourned.

Ok. Bah.

So can all teams but Kaku make the gentlemen's agreement to not use this tedious exploit? Sorry if this is not the appropiate thread for proposing such an agreement.

 

[ZPV]

Assume the AI considers 8 Wpt for a resource a fair trade. Team A can get 1 Wpt and Team B can get 7 Wpt. How is that either fair to the AIs or more importantly fair to the Team A and Team B? So, is it really better to just take what the AI first offers? By offering a subsidy, every Team can potentially get the 8 Wpt that the AIs considers a fair trade. The cost is the 1-7 Wpt in subsidies for 10t. Also there is a risk it won't even work.

Offering a substidy is simply intelligent play. There is no exploit. There is nothing wrong with maximizing your return on every game mechanic, unless that return exceeds the design limit. Assume again that the AI considers 8 Wpt for an ordinary resource like Corn a fair trade. Getting 1-8 Wpt for such a resource is therefore fair from the AIs perspective. However, if we were able to get 9-99 Wpt or more for an ordinary resource that would exceed what the AI considers fair and that would an exploit. Even getting just 9 Wpt would be an exploit. The maximum this technique can provide in this example is 8 Wpt which the AI considers fair, thus there is no exploit.

Sun Tzu Wu

That's not strictly true - there's also a line in the code that stops the AI from paying any one player more than a certain amount of net gpt. It won't start any new trades to go over that. That limitation is part of the judgement of a fair price, just like the amount they'd pay with gold to burn.

Giving them large tranches of gold to get around that limit, and then taking advantage of the fact that they don't cancel deals immediately to get back under that, can only be described as an exploit, albeit a minor one in the context of this game.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

That's not strictly true - there's also a line in the code that stops the AI from paying any one player more than a certain amount of net gpt. It won't start any new trades to go over that. That limitation is part of the judgement of a fair price, just like the amount they'd pay with gold to burn.

Giving them large tranches of gold to get around that limit, and then taking advantage of the fact that they don't cancel deals immediately to get back under that, can only be described as an exploit, albeit a minor one in the context of this game.

The amount of Wpt an AI will provide for resource is never more than the maximum that an AI would provide under optimal circumstances, so I don't understand how getting that amount can be so game breaking that players reject optimal play.

This detail doesn't effect fairness between Teams, so why do we even care?

If all teams agree to use subsidies, nothing could be fairer. So what if teams get a couple more Wpt per resource than the designer intended; it is a more level playing field for all teams than trying to construct rules that detail which types of resource trades are forbidden and which are allowed to ensure this single line of code is not circumvented. If I'm not mistaken, LowtherCastle tried to do this, but could not without also forbidding trades we want to allow.

Allowing the Wpt tactic requires no verification of compliance, since BtS as it currently exists does this adequately. Banning the Wpt tactic requires either banning more than just the subsidy trades (not all Wpt gifts are necessarily subsidies) or a complicated set of rules that hasn't met muster yet. If such rules are adopted by all teams, we can never be absolutely sure any individual player never uses the subsidy trade tactic and simply says we got lucky trades unless the turn set period is required to be 10 turns or less so the tactic can be seen in sequential saves.

Further more, who is to say that the extra line of code wasn't simply added at the coding level of the Civ IV (BtS) project and is not mandated by the BtS requirements or may even contradict the BtS requirements. Or even more likely, causes the limit on Wpt to be far more than the design intended.

As I've said before, we are far better off banning just exploits that are either unbounded in their effect (like multiple techs from TO, unlimited city liberation while at war, etc.) or cause the competition betweens teams to become unfair (unlevel playing field). All other exploits should be published, so teams have the option of using them, if they want.

An example of such an exploit with a return (ability to transport military units over vast areas of Ocean in 1t) that far exceeds the Wpt tactic is Caravel/Galleon/Transport chaining. xOTM does not ban "Galleon chaining", so why should the Wpt tactic which offers far less return be banned? Isn't it simpler to just allow all teams to use both?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Ozbenno]

Completely co-incidentally, over at the Hall of Fame, we are conducting a little sand box competition to discover, which Civ/Leader is the best equipped to take out a conquest victory (Emporer difficulty, Standard size, Normal speed, Lakes map)?

if you've never played a Classical Era start, can have a go at this set-up, it is the level below the SGOTM but is Conquest and Normal speed. Can even try out Charlemange on this.

So if you are interested, head on over to the discussion thread and have a go.

 

[kcd_swede]

Ok. Bah.

So can all teams but Kaku make the gentlemen's agreement to not use this tedious exploit? Sorry if this is not the appropiate thread for proposing such an agreement.

I'm not going to establish it as a rule. I'm not going to try and police it. The judgement is final. But the saves are made pulic at the end, so you guys will know who uses it and who doesn't if you are interested enough to dig for it.

My suggestion would be: don't pump up an AI's gpt just to take it away from them intentionally. But if a deal comes up that helps you, don't feel you can't take it just because you already have another trade with gpt gping in the other direction. Use discretion: do what the game makes available without gaming the mechanics.

 

[astre]

You will start in the Classical Era (2000BC), but Meditation, Polytheism, and Monotheism technologies have been removed for the player and for all AI (and for Barbs, who will start with same techs as AI).

question: is priesthood removed too? That would seems logical but it is not written.

 

[Manco Capac]

Doesn't matter because the Oracle is available for an ancient start only. Unless you are attempting to beat the AI's with missionaries...

 

[astre]

priesthood does have an other interest that oracle

 

[shulec]

In the unlikely event that a team wins a conquest victory and domination victory on the same turn, but the game announces a domination victory, does that count as a conquest victory?

 

[Folket]

I would say no. But it is not up to me.

 

[kcd_swede]

question: is priesthood removed too? That would seems logical but it is not written.

No, only the 3 techs named have been removed. I do not care what is logical, I just didn't want religions dealt out randomly to some teams but not to others. This way, none of you will get one.

 

[kcd_swede]

In the unlikely event that a team wins a conquest victory and domination victory on the same turn, but the game announces a domination victory, does that count as a conquest victory?

No. If you lose that kind of control over the outcome, then you deserve what you get. Do you feel lucky?

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

No, only the 3 techs named have been removed. I do not care what is logical, I just didn't want religions dealt out randomly to some teams but not to others. This way, none of you will get one.

So the religions are founded by the Civ that completes the cooresponding Religious Technology first, similar to an Ancient start in this regard.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We're all here to "Kill Them All"! Now players want to redefine the game so certain ways of "Killing Them All" is illegal. What kind of insanity is this?

We should ban glaringly obvious bugs like infinite technologies from The Oracle or Liberalism or liberating a City an unlimited number of times to an AI while at War with it. Other "bugs"/"design flaws"/"I just don't like the way this game mechanic works" game elements that are limited in the advantage they provide should be allowed to be used by all teams.

The list of "exploits" is long enough as it is, without adding things that simply put the AI at a disadvantage. Everyone has a level playing field with or without banning these marginal means of advancement, so why complicate things by adding yet something more to ban unnecessarily.

Perhaps we should ban the use of strategic resources when we "Kill Them All"!

Changing the game is fine, if we could change the executables to enforce it, but we can't. So let's just play the game as it is, banning only things that give unlimited advantage that consequently destroy game balance.

This little Wpt gifting tactic will not destroy game balance.

Worst of all is the burden of enforcement placed on the SGOTM staff of all these petty bans that don't affect the fairness of the game between Teams. We have no obligation to be fair to the AI. Our obligation is fairness between the Teams!

Sun Tzu Wu

+1. A ban on this while allowing war bribes where the human does nothing, allowing tech trades (AI gets abused hardcore in tech trades by humans), and using 2 move units makes no sense at all. The AI is making deals that are fair within its code limitations. There is a legit and quantifiable opportunity cost to using this tactic. The AI receives the benefit of the resources (this is not something for nothing). It is not the AI being gimped so much as it's the human making the game easier for himself ---> exactly what is accomplished via a laundry list of things that take advantage of AI limitations, which includes being able to survive on immortal at all (if AI wanted it could just archer rush and kill you instantly).

This detail doesn't effect fairness between Teams, so why do we even care?

If all teams agree to use subsidies, nothing could be fairer.

Not only is it fairer, in the context of this rule it is *guaranteed to be fair*, as in there is absolutely 0 chance that someone could cheat the rule for a small but hard-to-notice advantage, because it's allowed. Banning the tactic, at BEST, has 0 impact on competitive balance between teams, while allowing it guarantees balance in this context.

Just as importantly, the enforcement burden is *significantly less*. Has this tactic really harmed the first 16 SGOTM to the point where there is objective merit for a ban in 17?

In the unlikely event that a team wins a conquest victory and domination victory on the same turn, but the game announces a domination victory, does that count as a conquest victory?

Without vassals and allowing for city gives, this is *excessively* unlikely. Just stop around 50% and burn everything.

 

[kcd_swede]

So the religions are founded by the Civ that completes the cooresponding Religious Technology first, similar to an Ancient start in this regard.

Sun Tzu Wu

Yes.

But be aware that all AI will start with Mysticism so on Immortal level your chances of getting to one of the religion techs first is somewhere between slim and none.

I didn't do it to be evil, just to ensure that the random religion granting that normally occurs on Classical starts does not skew the competition. I did different stuff to be evil.