Strategy vs Exploits

[Dai]

The only things I'd really call exploits are reloading, because that's operating outside of the game mechanics proper, and possibly declaring-war-completes-research-pacts, because that seems more like an actual bug than a terrible balance choice. That said, many of the things listed are things I generally avoid because they're obviously unbalanced tactics - they simply feel unfair. It's unclear to me to what extent the human player is expected to exploit some of the AI's more heinous failings. (Selling them stuff for way, way more than it is worth, especially when you're about to go to war with them, is the worst in my opinion because it's such a massive advantage, is super easy to do, and has no real costs or risks associated with it.)

 

[Zhahz]

While I consider a lot of this to be cheese, it's hard to fault players for using it. I'm kind of disappointed in the devs for having this much cheese in the game to begin with and it's sad that either testers didn't find this stuff quick or that the devs blew off tester feedback.

other:

-taking lump sum for gold/turn, resources then declaring war on AI
-selling open border
-making research agreements then declare war (you get a free tech)
-making research agreement with small, "non-factor" civs, even gifting them the money they need-still much much cheaper to get a tech this way.
-accepting peace while the AI gives you all its cities
-farming xp with barbarians or with city states (the later has no xp limit)

Not sure I'd include helping weak civs pay for research agreements since they're getting tech too - although it does seem pretty stupid for AIs to accept research agreements when they have exactly 250g or will otherwise end up broke. AIs don't seem to value holding on to their gold much. :/

Not sure I'd include farming barbs for xp since barb xp dries up quick and I'm not sure how you farm them anyways. Finding and beating up barbs is easy. If you farm a city state you usually end up in a state of permanent war which isn't the end of the world but it's not helpful either.

 

[The Great Apple]

I'm very suprised that selling resources has got more votes than selling cities. I consider selling resources to be fairly alright (they can use luxuries for GAs, and stratigic resources only become pointless near the end), where selling cities is a pretty big exploit as pretty much most of the time the city is useless and you get a huge amount for it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Exploiting something is by definition a good thing in a strategy game, and so any good tactic is an exploit.

However, with the negative connotations exploit carries in OP, none of the options on the list are exploits, and it is ignorant to say otherwise.

However, there are some options (reloading) that are cheating, but cheating isn't the same thing as an exploit so those don't get a vote either.

 

[Axxon]

Strategy is making a series of choices designed to confer advantage. The line between strategy and exploit is fuzzy, but these seem to be the generally accepted criteria:

- Anything that clearly gets around intended design constraints is an exploit. You aren't supposed to be able to choose what your puppets build. If you are doing so, you are exploiting the game.

In that case we should only stick to design constraints as explicitly set out in the manual. Selling your cities for 2k$ gold, or slingshotting to a tech, does not constitute exploits because "what designers intended" is entirely subject to opinion. In fact, looking at some other posts, it's clear some people thought some strategies were "against designer's intent" while they clearly aren't. I'm pretty sure some of the behavior aren't by intent - but that's for the designers to clarify, not forums.

Since the designer's wishes aren't spelled out clearly, only bugs according to the manual would qualify as exploits. If they patch a behavior out that will mark intent, in the mean time, everybody can play armchair designer.

- Stacking the deck is exploitative. If you're playing a peaceful game against pacifistic AIs that you selected, that's an exploit.

This is really a question of standards rather than "exploits". Clearly playing on chieftain isn't "exploitative". It's just a standard of difficulty. If people want to compare e-penis, they let them just compare similar standards, aka same size map & speed & difficulty & game options. I don't see this as relevant to exploits. Marathon is easier than Standard, but that's not the definition of "an exploit". Selecting pacific AIs (not that it's going to do you much on Deity) is just a different standard.

- Any action that compels the AI to make a move a competent human obviously would not make is an exploit. The degree of exploitation is reduced by the difficulty the devs would have in fixing the problem. Getting the AI to trade away half of its empire for peace is exploitative, because a simple revaluation of items would resolve the problem. Ditto selling worthless cities for cash, taking out a loan right before a DOW, and the like. But the combat AI is naturally going to be bad, and we're supposed to be better at fighting wars than the AI, so taking advantage of this is much less exploitative.

That's a lopsided argument, especially for Deity when it's your cheese vs the AI's bonus cheese. Who's to say Deity level wasn't balanced taking all the wacky cheesy behavior into account? The AI won't always be flush with cash to give away for nothing in exchange, and getting a free 50gp for open borders isn't a game ender. On Deity giving a "worthless" city to an AI that will instantly get massive production bonuses on it is kind of a big deal, so it shouldn't be sold for just 500gp.

If the AI is dumb then exploiting that weakness isn't an exploit. It's supposed to be a test of wits and mettle, playing to the best of your ability vs a computer to the best of its programmed ability.

In short, the argument on exploits is that you should not be doing anything other than beating Civ the way the devs mean you to - by being a more efficient empire manager and warmonger than the AI.

Again, no one knows what the devs "mean you to". Without having the designers on the forum, there's no basis for an official definition here.

I'm playing on Deity pangea game with standard settings and using the Greeks. I'm using every AI exploit I can think of - overpowered companion units, trading for cities, luxuries, borders, trading before DoW. And it's still a massive massive uphill struggle.

And it's the most fun game I've had. Because the game is finally challenging and I could lose that game, yet I still have a chance. I can't find that sweet spot on any lower difficulty, even without "cheesing" - the lower diffs are so easy and predictable its mindnumbing. Of course without the cheesing on Deity there'd be no way to win. Is it not what the developers intended if I'm actually having fun for a change?

 

[Tyrael]

This thread is fairly senseless because everyone has their own defintion of "exploit".

Personally, I'd say everything you do in the game is an exploit. Settling your first city is an exploit, because you're exploiting the fact that cities are productive and help you win. Building a worker is an exploit because you want to exploit higher tile yields and resources to help you win. Adopting policies is exploitive because you want to exploit the benefits they give you to help you win. So in my eyes, this discussion isn't about what's "exploitive" or not- it's about what's "too abusive" (another arbitrary term).

 

[mrt144]

If the Dev's did not want rifling to be bee-line-able, they would have made it dependent on more then one tech line. Yes, shift-enter is obviously an exploit, bee-lining a tech that has little in the way of pre-reqs? Not so much.

I'd qualify this more as a design gaffe, not an exploit then.

 

[The Great Apple]

This thread is fairly senseless because everyone has their own defintion of "exploit".

You've got that backwards. It'd be fairly senseless if everyone had the same definition of exploit.

So in my eyes, this discussion isn't about what's "exploitive" or not- it's about what's "too abusive" (another arbitrary term).

Perhaps I should have put "abuse" rather than "exploit". Perhaps you could read this thread assuming they are synonyms? I think this is what a lot of people understand.

 

[dannythefool]

Selling cities to the AI for cash: Clearly an exploit, because the AI doesn't realize how bad the deal is.
Selling AI resources it doesn't need: Same.

Stealing early workers from city states: Tactic/strategy since there are consequences (up to permanent war if you do it too often).

Marathon speed + early wars: Maybe or maybe not, early wars are easier but maybe that's just what marathon is about.

Excessive allying with city states: Valid strategy but the benefits from some of them are too good.

Forbidden Palace + Order policy: I think it's not an exploit because the number of cities is borderline meaningless for your unhappiness in the late game (especially if your other option is picking only one of them) and there is a hammer/culture cost you have to pay for this.

Blocking AI movement at times of peace: Hard to decide, I think the AI should be able to detect this and possibly open hostilities, and then it's not an exploit.

Using a navy: The AI uses water tiles (if reluctantly) so it can hardly be an exploit if you work with that.

These are neither exploits nor strategies for obvious reasons:
Picking poorer AI civs at map set-up
Picking your own civ at map set-up
Playing on Archipelago
Playing on Continents
Playing on Pangeo
Playing on smaller map sizes

Restarting bad starting locations: Well I don't do it, but it's hardly an exploit if you realize that a game is lost 100 turns earlier than you otherwise would

Reloading if you lose a fight: More a matter of taste. The game explicitly offers it as an option or we couldn't turn on "new random seed". It also logs each reload. So there is a cost.

Reloading if you do something stupid/fail to notice something: Same.

 

[Syiss_]

I find many of these to be 'cheating' or in bad taste, but not exploits. Exploit implies you are abusing a game mechanic in a way that it was never intended to work or taking advantage of an obvious bug.

For example, reloading after a risky move didn't pay off isn't an exploit, the game designers have clearly put in a mechanic to allow you to re-roll your combats by giving you the random seed on reload option. I still find it to be in bad taste, but whatever makes the game enjoyable to someone is whats important.

Similarly, playing a certain map clearly isn't an exploit. Just because the AI is bad at the map doesn't mean you are abusing anything, it just means they aren't good at the map you want to play.

 

[Jediron]

To me that sounds more the gamedeveloper did a bad job, when a AI is bad at a certain map.

Selling cities to the AI for cash: Clearly an exploit, because the AI doesn't realize how bad the deal is.

Are you sure it ain't a dev's choice ? Intended to do so ? Who know's. A new gamer doesn't, if he gets the idea to sell.

it's about what's "too abusive"

Are you serious about that ? So now we are gonna play-balance our game, cause apperntly the dev;s made some silly choices ?

a Bug = technical issue's or problem's with you User interface or graphical/sound related.
- Exploit = something in the game mechanics, allow you to do something that clearly is not intended for you to do so. Shift-enter is such a exploit.
-Abusive behavior = are "things" which give the player (or AI) unreasenable advantage, which ruins the gameplay. If these abusive behavior was intended or not, you cannot tell for sure. It could been overseen (=exploit) or intended =(abusive in a players mind).

But a bug = a bug (mostly technical)
and a Exploit = A exploit (workaround the game-mechanics, which were not intended to do so , to your advantage)
and abusive= maybe a exploit or a "by the player seen as a abusive thing, while the dev's agreed on using it".

While in plain english "exploiting" good is, we speak afcource "of exploits, never intended bij de DEV's to be there", It's more like "a gap in the game mechanics code" then a generic "bug".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

- Anything that clearly gets around intended design constraints is an exploit. You aren't supposed to be able to choose what your puppets build. If you are doing so, you are exploiting the game.

Arguments like this are a JOKE.

Did the designers say anything one way or another about puppet building choice, other than that we can't directly control what they build? No, they did not. They *did* limit what puppets can construct to what your empire can build, however. Taking advantage of actual game rules is an exploit now?

"Exploit" used as a negative term in gaming always has been a term used by players of iffy caliper to attempt to deter themselves or others from using strong tactics. Granted, some tactics in an IMBALANCED GAME are so strong that using them makes it too easy, but then "good strategy" = "exploit". Maybe that's the point.

A good game that is handled well post-release will curtail garbage strategies that make it a joke to win...but don't forget that when those strategies still exist, most if not all of them were known or at least considered, and much of the game was balanced around them (and certainly the majority of people here do not know what the developers were actually intending, instead only guessing).

 

[CultureManiac]

I'm playing on Deity pangea game with standard settings and using the Greeks. I'm using every AI exploit I can think of - overpowered companion units, trading for cities, luxuries, borders, trading before DoW. And it's still a massive massive uphill struggle.

And it's the most fun game I've had. Because the game is finally challenging and I could lose that game, yet I still have a chance. I can't find that sweet spot on any lower difficulty, even without "cheesing" - the lower diffs are so easy and predictable its mindnumbing. Of course without the cheesing on Deity there'd be no way to win. Is it not what the developers intended if I'm actually having fun for a change?

Exactly

 

[CornPlanter]

"Exploit" used as a negative term in gaming always has been a term used by players of iffy caliper to attempt to deter themselves or others from using strong tactics

This. Anyone who had played any multiplayer game competitively, be it MMO or strategy or shooter, can recall how often they were called exploiters by those who lost. So tired of this.

Considering this poll, I just can't believe that someone could think of "using navy" or "allying with city states" or basically 90% of this list as possible exploits.

 

[Paeanblack]

Or having half of your empire composed of junk riverless grassland cities?

With the base happiness and production bonuses that the Deity AI receives, there is no such thing as a "junk city". A riverless grassland city will produce units/buildings/science just fine.

 

[aimlessgun]

I just voted for the reloading stuff.

Frankly in a single player game there are no exploits except things which the devs flat out say are unintended, or things which are obvious bugs.

Exploiting, in the sense of cheat, is really something more applicable to multiplayer games. Single player, everything just depends on the challenge you want to set yourself, if the game has not been properly balanced by the developers.

I think a lot of people are using the word 'exploit' much more loosely. Where I come from, exploiting = cheating. Almost everything on that list may be cheesy, or OP, or whatever, but none of it, except reloading, is cheating.

 

[Druin]

I have no idea if this is the "mechanic" that was implied by the poll, but I actually answered my own question about selling "useless" lux resources to the AI.

Last night I was playing as Arabia and had some staggering numbers of lux resources due to a massive post-war empire + bazaars. I opened a trade with Rome, the biggest AI, who had something like 600gpt. I clicked each of my resources and then his gpt and the "what will make this work" button. He said "good to go" at 5gpt (obviously) and after gradually increasing that number and checking over and over I was able to get something like 48gpt for 1 of each of my resources.

Then I tried something else ... I put 200gpt in for his side and clicked "what would make this work" and he added a little gold from me, decreased it to 170gpt and said "good to go." This clearly made no sense what-so-ever as I had just stabilized the trade at 48gpt and nothing had really changed on my side, but I accepted and BAM I lost a TON of happiness. Apparently I traded him EVERY copy of each of those resources for all that gpt.

I then used a ton of gold to rushbuy Bazaars in cities that didn't have them but did have access to a lux resource and immediately got most of my happiness back because I only needed 1 of each of those for the happiness and, once my surplus of 4-6 of each was gone I needed that 1 more again!

I assume you could also do this, get your side of the trade window to be 100% of your resources instead of 1 of each and then switch his 170gpt for his 10,000 gold surplus and DOW the next turn for maximum effect!

I am highly skeptical that this was an intended effect as the 6 cotton following the 1 that actually gave him +5 did absolutely nothing for Rome and yet he paid me gpt for each of them. If this was not intended, it is absolutely an exploit.

Is this the idea that was being put forth in the poll?

 

[aimlessgun]

Hrm I didn't know that was possible. That's definitely an exploit haha. Falls under "obviously a bug"

 

[g++]

I really should have learnt about more exploits before I posted this! Didn't know about shift-enter...

Still. I'm finding the results quite interesting. The thing I'm most surprised about is selling cities vs selling resources. I was expecting selling resources to be considered a lot less dodgy.

Actually I think I feel the most like im exploiting when trading strategic resources. Next time your playing a game when you bulb rifleman or any modern tech find a rich opponent and start throwing horses and iron up. Trade till you have all their money and they have 20 horses for 30 turns? Then upgrade your military and roll them. The problem with the game is there is not enough situational code to make the AI smart. Would it have been hard for the designers to add a flag to the game for when the first person hits the ren era to severly devalue those strategic resources? Or to devalue horses when they already have 5 excess? No it would not have been hard at all. Did they do it? No. They just coded a flat increase in production, science and gold on higher difficulties but the AI really in a huge array of situations is extremely stupid. So stupid in fact that you can almost funnel their own advantage to yourself and turn it on them.

 

[aimlessgun]

They do have a trigger where the old strat resources just become valueless...but it's incredibly late. I suspect it is when they literally cannot build any units that use those resources.