The Right of Passage Exploit--Can it be fixed?

[Gastric ReFlux]

People often complain about AI cheats. This however is a complaint about a cheat used by human players. I used it myself once to see it in operation, and find it to be horribly unbalancing to the game, as well as personally distasteful.

With a Right-of-Passage, you and the partner civ can move units freely through one another's territory. With this, it is possible for one to move your military to surround the other civ's cities, and then in one turn, effectively destroy that civ. The computer AI will never do that to the human player, plus it has no means of effectively preventing the human opponent of surrounding the cities. This is an exploit of the AI limitations, as well as the negotiated terms of ROP.

So I would suggest a change in the bargain itself. There should be a toll collected on units entering the ROP's partner's terrritory. If you want to use someone else's roads and railways, you should be charged for the privilege. While this wouldn't completely close the exploit if the human player has sufficient funds, at least it would increase cost of doing so. Although the money collected from the tolls would have to be earmarked so it couldn't be regained if the human player uses the ROP rape.

In addition to this, another method of toll collecting could be implemented. If a civ's units go into another civ's lands, and there is no ROP, the civ whose lands are being violated should have a diplomatic option saying "If you want to remain, you must pay a toll, or declare war." That toll would be twice the cost of the tolls in ROP.

I suspect that the implementation of tolls could provide counterweight to what's been called the Settler Diarreha problem, where the AI civ keeps trying to send settlers across another civ's land. With a more effective penalty, the AI might be less likely to do so.

 

[dunk]

A simpler way would be to expel any units you have in enemy's terrotory when war is declared.

You would one cheap shot in, but the rest of your units would get the boot.

Or, no units can stay stationary in another civ's territory. They must move through within some kind of time frame. Lingerers are autmatically expelled.

 

[zeeter]

I like the idea of imposing tolls. Another thing, the exploit you speak of may only be used once since after doing so, nobody will sign an ROP with you. I agree that the AI could be a little bit more wary that the player is mobilizing against him. Perhaps treaties could somehow be tied to a civ's happiness. So that if you have an agreement with someone your citizens go into revolt if you turn on them.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

True, that would work. But in a sense my main thrust is really about the nature of Right-of-Passage: no nation would ever want the other nation to move all its military inside the borders. Its intention is to allow some units through for purposes of necessity. As the ROP is implemented in Civ3, that is not effetively expressed in the treaty.

 

[zeeter]

Gastric - now that you mention it, I cannot think of a country that ever granted an ROP to another country unless both countries were allied against another country. You could say that the many US bases around the world constitute an ROP, though. On the other hand, the nations that allow this usually do so for their own protection. Japan must be happy. They haven't needed a military for almost sixty years because we're there. They could spend all of their money on infrastructure.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by zeeter
Gastric - now that you mention it, I cannot think of a country that ever granted an ROP to another country unless both countries were allied against another country. You could say that the many US bases around the world constitute an ROP, though. On the other hand, the nations that allow this usually do so for their own protection. Japan must be happy. They haven't needed a military for almost sixty years because we're there. They could spend all of their money on infrastructure.

I'm not sure, but doesn't the US have to pay on many of those bases? If that is the case, and I believe it is so, that would be a real-life toll of sorts.

 

[zeeter]

They have to pay to lease the land from the host nation in most cases. The only exception being Cuba. I'm not real clear on the deal there. I can't imagine that we have a trade restriction with them, yet lease land from them. I think this was a case of - we were there before they went communist, and we're not leaving.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

I think there was some sort of deal that the US would have Hollywood make a movie using Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise, and Demi Moore.


But thanks for bringing up the real-life representation. It further confirms my suspicions the ROP as represented in Civ3 is flawed and needs mending.

 

[zeeter]

Don't forget Kevin Bacon. This is a major movie for use in Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Significant movies for Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon:
Diner
A Few Good Men
Apollo 13
JFK
That one where they go into dreams
Animal House

 

[BCLG100]

back on subject

you can only do that ROP rape a few times because eventually the other civs wont sign ROP's with you

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by BCLG100
back on subject

you can only do that ROP rape a few times because eventually the other civs wont sign ROP's with you

Yes, that is known. What I'm trying to get discussed here is how to prevent it from happening in the first place.

 

[BCLG100]

oh sorry
but here is an idea then you could be able to change the lenght of ROP lenght of time for how long your territory is or what could happen is is that the ROP could last for 20 turns and then say you have 5 turns to clear all the units or you have to start paying 2 gold per turn for however long you are in there or another idea is that you are not allowed to declare war for however long you have a ROP or firaxis could make the AI more intelligent to get them 2 try it

 

[Bamspeedy]

I like the idea of all your units getting booted out when war is declared. Yeah, the very first unit will get to attack, but usually one unit can't take a city, so the AI would have more response time to counter your other units.

We will hear screams of it not being realistic that units get teleported like that, but at least it would be fair for game balance.

As far as a rep hit with the current system, it is possible to use it multiple times, especially early in the game and on island maps. If I sneak attack the Aztecs, for example, as long as I finish off the Aztecs before they make contact with anyone else, no one finds out about it, and I can pull this off with other civs.

 

[Padma]

I don't know if this exploit needs "fixed", per se. Ethical players simply don't use it. Check out the Succession Games. Most explicitly prohibit it, and other exploits.

Still, the idea of charging for the RoP is not bad. Right now they are mutual, so I suppose you could say that each side is paying the other an identical amount, so they cancel each other out. Maybe an addition of adding gpt to the RoP?

BTW, the US pays something like $1 per year to Cuba for the use of Guantanamo Bay. Our lease is for "perpetuity". But Cuba has refused the payments since Castro took over.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I like it as it is, but you are right it is too easy to expliot. The toll would help, but would also make sneak attacks by weaker partner less hard to deal with. I rather think the toll should beused as i suggested a few weeks ago: if there is no ROP!

The one change we need is an AI able to see 'ununsual' troop concentrations...... and capable of doing it, too!

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

I've seen the Succession game threads. Read them because it is possible to learn a lot about how to play the game.

I agree that it is something that doesn't "need" to be fixed, but still have a feeling that it is just not a properly implemented game option. A deal should work with getting something for giving something--in the Civ3 ROP once the deal has been struck, it allows almost completely free access. I believe a correct implementation would model an agreement that says the more you access the resource, the access to tiles, the more you have to pay.

Killer, I missed your earlier suggestion of a toll in the case of no ROP. Good thinking on that; I arrived at it from a different perspective.

Let's say, though, that the AI could be programmed to perform an ROP rape. Would that be a good answer? Or would it perhaps lead to no one ever be willing to negotiate an ROP? So I don't think the answer is to teach the AI, if we even could. The fundamental nature of the agreement needs adjustment.

 

[zeeter]

Here's a possible change. Perhaps we can only have ROP's with civs who we have an Alliance with, or who we have a MPP with. This way, if someone took advantage of the ROP exploit they would be breaking a far more serious treaty than just an ROP.

The more I think about it, the more ROP's just don't make sense. In the early days if you want to attack a civ on the other side of another civ, you have to go through the middle civ. If the war is that important to you, you're going to either attack the middle civ, make an alliance or MPP with them, or get your galleys together. No competing civ, in real life, is ever going to let you run amok through his territory.
For example; we want to bomb Libya. We ask France for an ROP, and they decline. We now have to go around France to get to Libya.
On the other hand:
We want to bomb Iraq. Jordan says we cannot have an ROP. Jordan says that Iraq may have an ROP to bomb Israel.

 

[zeeter]

A problem here is that the ROP rape is not necessarily a bug or an exploit. There are consequences to these actions. The hit in reputation is significant, as nobody will sign an ROP with you anymore. I agree that it is unrealistic, however I don't think that it is in the spirit of the game to fix it.

 

[Trinity]

One of the biggest problems with the RoP is that no matter what, once you have it you can't end it without any diplomatic fallout. It should automatically come up for renewal at the end of 20 turns.

For example, I ended up in a long standing RoP with a nation that was using it to wage war against my friend. I didn't want to declare war, so I ended the RoP. The warring parties got annoyed, probably because they couldn't kill each other in my territory. It was messing up my unit movements.

They kept it up, and I asked both to leave, and both declared war on me. So I upgraded all tanks to modern armor in one turn and pounded them into the dirt.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Gastric, zeeter: I arrived at the notion of toll from seeing the allies in Germany after WWII. Why not have 'victor's ROP' after a war? And then i started thinkin'..........

I do think it is OK that trust can be exploited - after all I'm thinking MP and I'm a mean son of a *****, I tell you that!

But I do feel the need for a change here, and some ideas are 'in the air' as we say in Germany - as we just prooved

But I still believe a change in the Ai would serve us best - see history. Who cares that Japan planned to declare war 'in time' before Pearl Harbor? And what would 'in time' have meant?

On the other hand, AI to AI deals never care for reputation - and thi9s is one of the HUGE bugs in Civ3 - but again, the Ai is so poor (and I do feel sympathiy for the programmers here, no unfair criticism intended) that it will not be able to deal with the same rules that apply for the human. Pity, but I do not think I could afford the PC that ould do the calculations in the time I would spend.......

So Gastric: great thinking, but I feel it will come to nothing...

Would you join in a Sucession Game????