The Right of Passage Exploit--Can it be fixed?
- Thread starter Gastric ReFlux
- Start date
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
There's a simple solution to this ROP exploitation by the human, besides the fact that in this case your reputation should be destroyed forever after the first time you do it.
The instant war starts all your units in what has just become enemy territory are considered OUT OF SUPPLY if more than, say, five tiles from your own border. You may defend normally, but attack at 50%. This would not apply to Ancient or Middle Ages; for those eras a CAP on the number of offensive units in its territory would suffice.
The supply situation has always been another Civ 3 screw up. If an invading force cannot use either railroads (OK) or roads (stupid), then how does it stay in supply when expending huge amounts of ammunition not to mention food? Ancient armies could forage a bit; even those in the Napoleonic Wars could somewhat. But once armies got really large (middle of the 19th century) they needed supply, mostly supplied by rail.
ANY unit more than five tiles from a friendly railroad in the Industrial or Modern eras should be out of supply. When you think of this, it would discourage the idiocy of razing as you would want friendly cities (as bases) supporting your attack. of course having a bunch of settlers ready to build towns is an option, also.
As for Settler Diarrhea. Simple solution there , too. Any settler that enters my territory has, when ordered, one turn to get out by the way it came in - or it is an act of war. Settlers must also be coded to prevent them from building towns in tundra, deserts, or jungles, unless adjacent to a resource. Editing them to be "wheeled" will slow them down in the jungles. The rest has to be done by Firaxis. Don't hold your breath.
The instant war starts all your units in what has just become enemy territory are considered OUT OF SUPPLY if more than, say, five tiles from your own border. You may defend normally, but attack at 50%. This would not apply to Ancient or Middle Ages; for those eras a CAP on the number of offensive units in its territory would suffice.
The supply situation has always been another Civ 3 screw up. If an invading force cannot use either railroads (OK) or roads (stupid), then how does it stay in supply when expending huge amounts of ammunition not to mention food? Ancient armies could forage a bit; even those in the Napoleonic Wars could somewhat. But once armies got really large (middle of the 19th century) they needed supply, mostly supplied by rail.
ANY unit more than five tiles from a friendly railroad in the Industrial or Modern eras should be out of supply. When you think of this, it would discourage the idiocy of razing as you would want friendly cities (as bases) supporting your attack. of course having a bunch of settlers ready to build towns is an option, also.
As for Settler Diarrhea. Simple solution there , too. Any settler that enters my territory has, when ordered, one turn to get out by the way it came in - or it is an act of war. Settlers must also be coded to prevent them from building towns in tundra, deserts, or jungles, unless adjacent to a resource. Editing them to be "wheeled" will slow them down in the jungles. The rest has to be done by Firaxis. Don't hold your breath.
Bulding in these places in useful. The AI knows what's up.
Seriously, how I learn to play new games like civ well is to discern what the AI is attempting, then trying to do it better (and successfully).
That's why I never, ever use bombard units and fight wars like a ****** (j/k)
The RoP feature should be removed from the game. I mean, why on earth would I let an opponents military forces enter my territory? That's complete nonsense, and also historically incorrect.
When you sign a MPP or MA with another civ, you should automatically get RoP as part of the deal.
RoP should however be impossible without MPP or MA.
When in history have two countries signed RoPs without MPP and/or MA? The closest example I can find is that the US were allowed to use Pakistani air space during the campaign in Afghanistan.
When you sign a MPP or MA with another civ, you should automatically get RoP as part of the deal.
RoP should however be impossible without MPP or MA.
When in history have two countries signed RoPs without MPP and/or MA? The closest example I can find is that the US were allowed to use Pakistani air space during the campaign in Afghanistan.
First, I also think the suggested "pay for passage" would be a nice addition and if easily doable it ought to be added. It would certainly spice up some extort... umm... friendly protection deals 
. The key point would be that the AI can make effective use of it, though.
OTOH the "ROP rape" is not really an issue in a purely human vs. AI game provided the player has an either-or attitude towards this. The AI does not use it ever, and if the player feels it to be "against the spirit of the ROP" then he can simply choose not to use it and the issue never arises. OTOH if the player does use it, then it is like any other "cheat". Your game, your fun. Just like cheating in solitaire: the only one whom it matters is yourself. Neither the computer nor the cards won't care.
However, this is not the whole issue, because then there are people like me who think that a ROP based blitz ought to be a viable option at least to civs of certain character but that using it should then not be a "cheat" but an available strategical option with its pros and cons adjusted with suitable offerings to the dreaded deity of Game Balance. The historical accuracy is IMHO not as important in this case as playability, enjoyment and game balance.
One way to try to solve this is to think about two human controlled civs playing against each other. If they have a ROP arrangement what would be the warning signs that a blitz is coming? If we can list very simple clues at what to watch perhaps the AI could be enhanced to notice the deceit? Of course, this would mean that you (and AI of course) should be able to cancel a ROP deal, and more to the point, I think you should be able to cancel it any time you like and without any diplomatic penalties to third parties.
This reacting to warning signs does not have to be perfect. Just compare the situation to the Real World. Some countries can indeed be very paranoid and tend to see conspiracies everywhere. This would not be bad in a civ game, because I think false positives in this case would just add to the diplomacy, e.g. you are moving large amounts of troops against a third civ when suddenly the other ROP civ panics and orders you to get the hell out.
Well, let's pour some advice to the poor AI, then. If a human civ used the ROP sending troops via your lands when would YOU get frightened?
- Very large numbers of troops entering my territory, especially compared to my military strength. Again, the other party might be honest, but why take the chance? Heck, which real country would be insane enough to let a 3-1 overwhelming force enter its borders if it does not have to? It would amount to occupation even if not intended...
- Large numbers of troops being at "strike distance" to my cities and my defensive troops. Strike distance being here the movement possible in one turn.
- Foreign troops concentrating in "defenseless" areas, i.e. most of my troops are somewhere else.
And lastly, just to make things more interesting the ROP deal could include some modifiers, like:
- Being able to set the max allowed number of foreign troops at any one time inside my borders.
- Restricting the deal with "no-go" zones, like never going close to a city (e.g. 1 or 2 squares) or never enter the city radiuses of the cities X, Y, and Z.
. The key point would be that the AI can make effective use of it, though.OTOH the "ROP rape" is not really an issue in a purely human vs. AI game provided the player has an either-or attitude towards this. The AI does not use it ever, and if the player feels it to be "against the spirit of the ROP" then he can simply choose not to use it and the issue never arises. OTOH if the player does use it, then it is like any other "cheat". Your game, your fun. Just like cheating in solitaire: the only one whom it matters is yourself. Neither the computer nor the cards won't care.
However, this is not the whole issue, because then there are people like me
who think that a ROP based blitz ought to be a viable option at least to civs of certain character but that using it should then not be a "cheat" but an available strategical option with its pros and cons adjusted with suitable offerings to the dreaded deity of Game Balance. The historical accuracy is IMHO not as important in this case as playability, enjoyment and game balance.One way to try to solve this is to think about two human controlled civs playing against each other. If they have a ROP arrangement what would be the warning signs that a blitz is coming? If we can list very simple clues at what to watch perhaps the AI could be enhanced to notice the deceit? Of course, this would mean that you (and AI of course) should be able to cancel a ROP deal, and more to the point, I think you should be able to cancel it any time you like and without any diplomatic penalties to third parties.
This reacting to warning signs does not have to be perfect. Just compare the situation to the Real World. Some countries can indeed be very paranoid and tend to see conspiracies everywhere. This would not be bad in a civ game, because I think false positives in this case would just add to the diplomacy, e.g. you are moving large amounts of troops against a third civ when suddenly the other ROP civ panics and orders you to get the hell out.
Well, let's pour some advice to the poor AI, then. If a human civ used the ROP sending troops via your lands when would YOU get frightened?
- Very large numbers of troops entering my territory, especially compared to my military strength. Again, the other party might be honest, but why take the chance? Heck, which real country would be insane enough to let a 3-1 overwhelming force enter its borders if it does not have to? It would amount to occupation even if not intended...
- Large numbers of troops being at "strike distance" to my cities and my defensive troops. Strike distance being here the movement possible in one turn.
- Foreign troops concentrating in "defenseless" areas, i.e. most of my troops are somewhere else.
And lastly, just to make things more interesting the ROP deal could include some modifiers, like:
- Being able to set the max allowed number of foreign troops at any one time inside my borders.
- Restricting the deal with "no-go" zones, like never going close to a city (e.g. 1 or 2 squares) or never enter the city radiuses of the cities X, Y, and Z.
Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
Well, the pay for RoP can be done. Even a pay for MPP. It's just that no civilization will do it or agree to those terms.
The purpose in this game for an RoP is so that AI settler diarrhea can drop a settler in that one empty area in your territory before your cities expand. You end up having to pull military units (outdated ones will work great here) and make a unit wall protecting that area.
I can thank Persia for developing a size 12 city for me since they exploited this point. They built a marketplace and bank there and the thing finally flipped, as it probably would in RL. Imagine if the Syrians were to have built a city in the middle of California. The city would join the US at first opportunity.
RoPs should be restricted to sea tiles unless you have an MPP with the civilization. Over land they need a pay per turn. I don't like warring civs fighting inside my territory. If they use artillery, they destroy my improvements, and I'll boot one of them. But if I do, I ruin my reputation for the game.
And yes, you can go to the active screen and renegotiate, but you do take a diplomatic hit.
The purpose in this game for an RoP is so that AI settler diarrhea can drop a settler in that one empty area in your territory before your cities expand. You end up having to pull military units (outdated ones will work great here) and make a unit wall protecting that area.
I can thank Persia for developing a size 12 city for me since they exploited this point. They built a marketplace and bank there and the thing finally flipped, as it probably would in RL. Imagine if the Syrians were to have built a city in the middle of California. The city would join the US at first opportunity.
RoPs should be restricted to sea tiles unless you have an MPP with the civilization. Over land they need a pay per turn. I don't like warring civs fighting inside my territory. If they use artillery, they destroy my improvements, and I'll boot one of them. But if I do, I ruin my reputation for the game.
And yes, you can go to the active screen and renegotiate, but you do take a diplomatic hit.
Gastric ReFlux
Dispatch our Tech Staff
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Messages
- 717
Killer--Thanks for the thoughts. You're probably right but I have some slim hopes that a discussion like this may yield some fruit, somewhere, sometime. Too often it seems that people who complain do nothing but that; they don't bother to offer an improvement, or try to understand what it is they want to improve. It was with this thread that I finally began to understand that an ROP rape wasn't really bothering me; what troubled me was the fundamental nature of the ROP and in fact I believe it to be a broken element in the game.
As far as a Succession game, I could have some interest. Interest would be raised by it being at least Monarch level with some sort of variant theme that the RBDers do.
As far as a Succession game, I could have some interest. Interest would be raised by it being at least Monarch level with some sort of variant theme that the RBDers do.
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
Gastric: the last two were with my mod, Regent to get used to it, now we'll try out monarch (probably) and special units... Check the DS2 thread, I think you'd be very welcome!
Gastric ReFlux
Dispatch our Tech Staff
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Messages
- 717
Yes, I've seen the thread, seen the discussion of the next one. A large map might make me a bit hesitant--I don't always enjoy the time it takes to keep moving a large number of units, especially if it's movement to mop-up and put the finishing touches on a victory.
I'll see what's going on when the DS3 thread is opened.
I'll see what's going on when the DS3 thread is opened.
Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
I beg to differ regarding ROP Rape. The police were out last night looking for that SOB Caesar for a while. I determined it was a bad data read because there was no way in hell it could have happened legit. So I reloaded the game. I just say don't say never and see this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=358788#post358788
Gastric ReFlux
Dispatch our Tech Staff
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Messages
- 717
I would hesitate to qualify that as the AI performing an ROP rape. At least as I define it, the ROP rape is where one moves with intent to use ROP to take over a large number of cities. In this case, if it is as it seems, that your city had somehow got undefended (through human error or bad data read), then the AI was responding to an unforseen opportunity.
candidgamera
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 15
EU handles this by: you cant move through someones land without declaring war. Kind of liked that, borders meant something.
Wouldn't go that far for civ maybe, but shorten up the agreement and make it for a specific number of units, and code the AI to ask for a lot to do it.
We have a wheeled flag now that disallows units from moving onto mountains without roads, why not a diplomatic flag on units in similar fashion.
Can think of one historical case of a belligerent unit moving through a neutral without war: German 168th(?) Infantry Division moved through Sweden to Finland during first part of Barbarossa.
Wouldn't go that far for civ maybe, but shorten up the agreement and make it for a specific number of units, and code the AI to ask for a lot to do it.
We have a wheeled flag now that disallows units from moving onto mountains without roads, why not a diplomatic flag on units in similar fashion.
Can think of one historical case of a belligerent unit moving through a neutral without war: German 168th(?) Infantry Division moved through Sweden to Finland during first part of Barbarossa.
Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
An unforseen opportunity with absolutely no physical means of getting there.
Can units move through other units? No. Stealth airdrops? No. Rome doesn't have flight.
That is unless there were 25th century Roman Units orbiting the planet who violated the temporal prime directive and used the matter transporters.
Conclusion? Bad data read. Error.
Gastric ReFlux
Dispatch our Tech Staff
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Messages
- 717
Well if they had no means of crossing the digital physical geography, then they couldn't have used the RoP. At least that's what I think you mean.
Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
I tried to figure this one out. Yes they did have an RoP with Greece and with me. But the way units were arranged on the map, they would have had to pass through two sets of infantry just to get there. (and why didn't the Persians take advantage of it -- they would have had plenty of opportunity)
So I guess when it comes to AI shenanigans we just have to use common sense, and save at the end of every turn.
It looked like RoP rape to me at the time. I felt raped. What you describe as RoP rape is RoP murder. The first on is punishable by getting pounded conventionally. Your definitition is worth a full nuclear first-strike retaliation.
(( hey, I want matter transporters, too! What tech gives me that?))
Similar threads
