Strategy vs Exploits

[PieceOfMind]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but what about offering a gpt deal in return for a large lump sum from the AI before declaring war? I just managed 900 gold or so from Gandhi that way. That definitely felt to be an exploit.

 

[vendur]

I've begun to really dislike the term "exploit". I exploit everything on a strategy game, or any other game for that matter. Exploit really only means to take full advantage of a situation that prevents itself.

Now, there are certain things that are clearly not intended by the developers, such as catherine being able to dupe strategic resources. That's a true exploit in the gaming sense. The weird golden age multiplication with the chichen is another such exploit.

So basically in a gaming sense, an exploit is taking advantage of a bug that the developers had no intention of including n the game, while "exploiting" poor AI programming is not an "exploit" at all.

 

[The Great Apple]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but what about offering a gpt deal in return for a large lump sum from the AI before declaring war? I just managed 900 gold or so from Gandhi that way. That definitely felt to be an exploit.

Yeah, should have put that in. Don't you get a rep hit from this though?

So basically in a gaming sense, an exploit is taking advantage of a bug that the developers had no intention of including n the game, while "exploiting" poor AI programming is not an "exploit" at all.

There is a fine line between a bug in the way the game rules are implemented and a bug in the AI code. It's easily arguable that the AI only accepts some of the dumb deals it accepts because of a bug in the way that it's programmed.

 

[vendur]

There is a fine line between a bug in the way the game rules are implemented and a bug in the AI code. It's easily arguable that the AI only accepts some of the dumb deals it accepts because of a bug in the way that it's programmed.

Anything is possibly a bug. We don't know what a true bug actually is because we did not program the game. Clearly when a mechnic acts completely inappropriately from how its described, it's a bug. I gave specific examples of that, like resource duping. But a stupid AI making stupid choices does not fall into the "bug" category.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yeah, should have put that in. Don't you get a rep hit from this though?

Probably, but who cares if it's the last remaining AI, particularly on duel games.

 

[Abegweit]

Slingshotting to an advanced tech is an exploit?

An exploit is something which is legal under the rules of the game but which was clearly not anticipated by the devs and which they fairly clearly did not intend to be doable. The line separating a normal tactic from an exploit is not always clear but it is certainly real.

For example, using the free GS from the GL to grab Civil Service is not an exploit as this is a perfectly normal tactic which the devs must have expected. Using Shift-Enter to delay the free tech until the prereqs are in place IS an exploit. It's a loophole in the UI similar to the nonsense you could perform in the Inter-turn in Civ3. It is rather obvious that this was what was not intended.

I would argue that combining deep beelining with GSs to take techs far down the tree, like Acoustics or Rifling is also an exploit. Advanced units and social policies should not be available when you haven't even finished the first row of the tech tree. It is an abuse of the game.

 

[Zelig]

An exploit is something which is legal under the rules of the game but which was clearly not anticipated by the devs and which they fairly clearly did not intend to be doable. The line separating a normal tactic from an exploit is not always clear but it is certainly real.

For example, using the free GS from the GL to grab Civil Service is not an exploit as this is a perfectly normal tactic which the devs must have expected. Using Shift-Enter to delay the free tech until the prereqs are in place IS an exploit. It's a loophole in the UI similar to the nonsense you could perform in the Inter-turn in Civ3. It is rather obvious that this was what was not intended.

I would argue that combining deep beelining with GSs to take techs far down the tree, like Acoustics or Rifling is also an exploit. Advanced units and social policies should not be available when you haven't even finished the first row of the tech tree. It is an abuse of the game.

Well, I agree that shift+enter to delay techs is an exploit, but not the rest.

Great scientists are just horrendously overpowered compared to all the other specialists, and you'd be foolish to bulb less expensive techs.

I don't really see any problem with deep beelining either, this is an integral part of pretty much any 4X strategy game and already is accounted for as part of the game design. (Just assign more pre-reqs for later tech, so that they don't become available until players research earlier techs.)

 

[sleepingbear]

An exploit is something which is legal under the rules of the game but which was clearly not anticipated by the devs and which they fairly clearly did not intend to be doable. The line separating a normal tactic from an exploit is not always clear but it is certainly real.

For example, using the free GS from the GL to grab Civil Service is not an exploit as this is a perfectly normal tactic which the devs must have expected. Using Shift-Enter to delay the free tech until the prereqs are in place IS an exploit. It's a loophole in the UI similar to the nonsense you could perform in the Inter-turn in Civ3. It is rather obvious that this was what was not intended.

I would argue that combining deep beelining with GSs to take techs far down the tree, like Acoustics or Rifling is also an exploit. Advanced units and social policies should not be available when you haven't even finished the first row of the tech tree. It is an abuse of the game.

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.

 

[The Great Apple]

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.

 

[City Raider]

An exploit is something which is legal under the rules of the game but which was clearly not anticipated by the devs and which they fairly clearly did not intend to be doable. The line separating a normal tactic from an exploit is not always clear but it is certainly real.

For example, using the free GS from the GL to grab Civil Service is not an exploit as this is a perfectly normal tactic which the devs must have expected. Using Shift-Enter to delay the free tech until the prereqs are in place IS an exploit. It's a loophole in the UI similar to the nonsense you could perform in the Inter-turn in Civ3. It is rather obvious that this was what was not intended.

I would argue that combining deep beelining with GSs to take techs far down the tree, like Acoustics or Rifling is also an exploit. Advanced units and social policies should not be available when you haven't even finished the first row of the tech tree. It is an abuse of the game.

Actually, in some cases they did anticipate it and if you want to look at it, they even encouraged it.
Not sure if you bought the Strategy Guide, but I did, and it specifically mentions holding on to a GS and bulbing from Muskets to Rifles. At the very least it puts the idea into the readers head that they can use bulbs that way.

Also the Strategy Guide mentions stealing a worker from a CS. It says the benefit of gaining the early worker vs. the 60 turns of early malus is worth it and not really a big deal.

Whether a player uses these is up to them but in some cases they were at least thought out well enough to be placed in the Strategy guide.

I don't steal workers, but I do save GS for multiple bulbs in a row if it fits my game.

 

[Abegweit]

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.

Not "would have". "Should have". There's a lot of things that the devs should have done in this game - but didn't. Preventing deep beelines into the tech tree using GSs is one of them. Taking advantage of the fact that they overlooked this weakness (like so many others) is an exploit. It's no different than selling cities for thousands of gold. It's exploiting defects in the game structure. Using it in ways that were never intended and that the AI has no idea how to deal with.

Note that the devs in Civ4 made it vastly harder to grab CS from the Oracle. That's because they didn't plan on having such a powerful tech available even at high levels. So they closed the loophole. Now the human typically takes CoL or Metal Casting - just like the AI. I expect (hope?) to see many of the exploits in this game to be closed as well.

 

[Abegweit]

Actually, in some cases they did anticipate it and if you want to look at it, they even encouraged it.
Not sure if you bought the Strategy Guide, but I did, and it specifically mentions holding on to a GS and bulbing from Muskets to Rifles. At the very least it puts the idea into the readers head that they can use bulbs that way.

That's pathetic. OK. It's not an exploit because they did intend it, or were at least aware of it. They obviously plan on leaving a lot of the imbalances in the game

Edit: in view of this, please gloss over what I said about beelining being an exploit. I don't have to be happy about their attitude though.

 

[City Raider]

That's pathetic. OK. It's not an exploit because they did intend it, or were at least aware of it. They obviously plan on leaving a lot of the imbalances in the game

Edit: in view of this, please gloss over what I said about beelining being an exploit. I don't have to be happy about their attitude though.

I was actually suprised to read that as well, and it was funny because I only noticed it last night.

It was a little side blurb, and just kinda mentioned using a bulb that way. I found it strange that they didn't try to prevent some of these things with the tech tree prereqs.

 

[stormerne]

I guess I'm kind of surprised, that (at the time of writing) more than half of voters consider "Blocking AI movement at times of peace" an exploit. In real life, this happens all the time, both literally and metaphorically.

You want to hinder progress without declaring war... this has happened for years. You want to get in the way of their attack on a neighbor without declaring war... this is also a real life tactic. You want to slow a nation's technical or commercial development by blockading important natural resources... just look at the 21st century.

In the game, rather than in real life, how is blockading worse than secretly gifting an attacked civ or city state some units?

 

[Druin]

Okay, I understand a lot of the points of view being discussed here, but I fail to see how trading lux-resources for gold or gpt to the comp is in any way an abuse of game mechanics.

Trading lux for a lump sum of gold then DOWing is clearly a broken mechanic and taking advantage of it is probably an exploit ... but it's not like the computer will buy luxury resources off you that it doesn't get happiness from. So how is it an exploit?

Am I missing something?

Also, would this work as a fix for the trade -> DOW problem: whoever declares war has to uphold their side of the agreement despite being at war

e.g. I say my 1x Lux resource for your 200g and 4gpt, then I DOW, now I no longer get he 4gpt but I still am down my 1 Lux resource for the entire 45 turns (unless the comp is completely eliminated)

Also, some form of WHEOOHRN would need to be added back in so that you can't make similar trades with the AI right before they DOW on you

 

[ds61514]

I don't think I could name a single mechanism in Civ4 that I would qualify as an exploit. I don't think I can name a feature that the AI didn't know how to use either (well, maybe espionage but it least it tries).

Off the top of my head:

1. AP victory. If you play your cards right, the AIs have no choice but to vote for you.

2. Memorizing tech beelines. AIs generally don't beeline for liberalism, and BTS AIs usually don't beeline for rifles, which makes cavalry or cuirassier/spy attacks so potent.

3. Early on, AIs almost always accept gift cities (100 hammers for war immunity? Yes please). Later on, AIs will accept city gifts near them, which leads to:

4. You can fortify spies for 5 turns in a spot, build a city, gift it, AND get the 50% stationary bonus. Also, if you have an extra city, wait one more turn; you get a espionage bonus for culture.

5. AIs can't handle mass air or modern 2-move units (aka mobile artillery). Granted, this makes me wonder why Firaxis thought the AI could handle 4-5 move units .

6. 10 turns peace by begging for 1 gold.

7. Trap a 40-unit SOD in enemy lands by bribing the AI to peace, then attacking the AI.

8. To the AI, the difference between a 0% researched tech and a 1% researched tech is humongous, which is one of the reasons why binary research was so good.

9. Excess overflow used to be converted into gold at a 1:1 ratio. Used in conjunction with walls, it made Protective a decent economic trait.

Of course there is the standard whip/chop, globe draft, pre-chopping and other sundry things.

As for whether such tactics were "exploitive" or not, it probably depends on how difficult you find the level you're playing at. To me, Civ 5 Deity reminds me of Civ 4 Vanilla AI (really dumb) with Civ 5 BTS bonuses (toned down); change one or the other and people will probably change their minds as to whether something is exploitive or not.

 

[Axxon]

None of the Civ 4 exploits listed here sound anywhere as glaring as the Civ V.

Before the patch you could literally go in the interface and control what puppet states built, defeating the entire point of puppets. That was a bug but then looking at how such an extremely obvious thing was overlooked it's no wonder so many other less severe issues issues are found.

If this isn't a game that screams "Exploit me" I don't know what is.

As a fun exercise, I would challenge anyone to name a single mechanic introduced by Civ V that is not cheesable/exploitable in some way .

 

[Martin Alvito]

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.

- Any action that resolves uncertainty/confers foreknowledge of outcomes is an exploit. This is why save/reload is considered exploitative. Ironically, save/reload is also the single best way to learn how you should be playing the game, because it enables you to conduct controlled experiments and compare outcomes. But I agree with those that believe you shouldn't consider yourself capable of "beating" a given difficulty until you can consistently win without having to use save/reload to do it.

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

- 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.

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.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

The game balance is too flawed that I have trouble calling many things exploit atm... The game simply doesn't leave you with much other options because intended design choices are broken. Like for example,

Any action that compels the AI to make a move a competent human obviously would not make is an exploit.

This renders entire warfare as exploitative in this game as AI is forced to make most bizzare and illogical moves during war. Given how war-oriented this Civ is, this definition of exploits (which is not a bad definition at all) makes a significant chunk of current game to border-line exploits.

 

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

Others:
-Resurecting AIs for RA partners
-Selling cities to faraway AI when you are about to loose them to your enemy. Then conquering them back.
-attacking land units with your navy in the ocean.