What I don't get is how you can call an exploit like this a strategy. You're not improving on your own gameplay but simply making use of an AI weakness. Personally, I find that doing so ruins game enjoyment. If all you want to do is win, of course, then I suppose you might like it. However, it seems like a boring thing to do, so instead you could drop the difficulty down a level and stop abusing - same result, less boredom.
The "stasis rush"
- Thread starter AfterShafter
- Start date
Balderstrom
Emperor
Bhuric has been touching on AI weaknesses as time goes on, perhaps this should be his next target 
I can't see where I'd ever want to try this, I'd rather delve into the dll and fix it!
I can't see where I'd ever want to try this, I'd rather delve into the dll and fix it!
It's not any more boring than quechua/axe rushing every time. I play on prince so I don't really need such a strategy, but I assume those on higher levels do not share your view that going down a level would have the same result. It seems more a strategy to gain some breathing space early on, but you still have have the rest of the game to play on emperor, for instance. In fact, it might be just what I needed to really enjoy monarch games. I dislike early wars for a number of reasons (unless Izzy needs to be obliterated 
) and even on prince it takes some work to cope with the crazy AI expansion without them.
On the other hand, if the AI were to be improved, perhaps difficulty levels could be designed in more interesting ways, rather than the current enormous bonuses. Just a better city placement algorithm would do wonders for the AI.
) and even on prince it takes some work to cope with the crazy AI expansion without them. On the other hand, if the AI were to be improved, perhaps difficulty levels could be designed in more interesting ways, rather than the current enormous bonuses. Just a better city placement algorithm would do wonders for the AI.
Balderstrom
Emperor
I play on Monarch w/o taking any advantage of AI logic faults.
AfterShafter
Deity
Really? So when you see Gandhi beside you while playing Rome, you won't build a big stack of Praetorians you KNOW he won't adequately defend against in order to take him out and get his lands? You don't Immortal/War Chariot rush, Quecha rush, Dog Soldier Rush, or even Axemen rush in situations where you know the AI won't be prepared? Sorry to say, when a human player sees the Romans beside them, they build tons of axemen in anticipation of the upcoming rush. An AI won't. This is a "logic fault," and a tremendous number of the ways we get up on the AI are 'logic faults' which it is extremely unlikely you don't use to your advantage every game you play.
Most people play this game, and win at this game, by exploiting the weakness of the AI... And they don't even realize it in many cases. When put into a situation where you know the AI either won't, or is very unlikely, to be prepared to have unit Y crammed down their throat en-masse, I'm sorry to say, you're exploiting the weakness of the AI. Half of this game is coming to recognize when the AI isn't programmed to deal with what you're sending it it. With the AI's technical advantage on higher difficulties (and I'm talking about higher than Monarch - the first BIG leap is Monarch to Emperor, in my opinion) you're not likely to ever beat it without pulling tricks to exploit its tactical weaknesses - whether it is temp-switching to a demanded civic on spiritual or forest rushing a dozen war chariots for an early rush... Or doing exactly what I've outlined here.
I would ask to anyone else who wants to come to this thread and say "Oh, it's an exploit - I play without cheating! Just drop a difficulty."... Please don't. Or, at least, before you do, and ask yourself seriously... How much of my playing isn't simply recognizing that "See that AI will not be prepared to deal with X and won't react in a way that would prevent X, and then send X at the AI until it submits?" And then, when you've decided this is a cheap exploit, go to Immortal, do exactly this, and tell me how easy the game is for you.
The Rook
King
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 788
I completely agree, and would add that most peaceful diplomacy revolves around exploiting AI logic too.
You know that you can refrain from building any military at all if the AIs are too busy fighting someone else, or have an attitude that offers 100% peace probability.
You can manipulate AIs into hating each other so that they won't declare on you.
You can force 10 turn peace treaties by demanding/begging for insignificant sums of gold from massively stronger rivals.
You can declare on distant civs with enough on their hands in the knowledge that by the time they arrive, peace negotiations will be available.
You can trade strategic resources to the AI for a fortune, even when the AI lacks the techs to utilise them.
Just a few examples, but the possibilities are endless. I believe it is virtually impossible for a player with experience to play cIV without exploiting weaknesses in the AI, simply because the patterns become so predictable. You would either need to play very deliberately badly, or have a VERY loose definition on what should be considered an exploit.
Balderstrom
Emperor
@ The Rook, almost everything you are talking about takes extensive planning and preparing. It's a far cry from sending a warrior out to leisurely camp at an AI's city.
The Rook
King
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 788
I don't agree. Once you know how the AI behaves in a given situation it is easy to adapt in a way that is overwhelmingly favorable to you. I don't see how camping a warrior outside a city is more exploitative than begging for gold from a rival with "enough on their hands" and a stack on your border. Both tactics require a knowledge of how the AI works, and would seem intuitively weak against a more intelligent rival.
I also think the warrior tactic has limitations. At Deity the AI has two settlers, so you won't be able to effectively scupper development in the same way as lower levels. Also if you aren't able to reinforce the warrior's grip very quickly, a more aggressive civ will attack it. As I have mentioned earlier, I suspect this tactic works better at slower speed settings, where units effectively have more time available to make their way to the target, before the victim can very easily break the blockade.
Balderstrom
Emperor
I'm suprised Firaxis doesn't have a SaveGame submission program of sorts. And a saveGame parser/Reader. By analyzing/parsing human tactics/plays they would be able to improve the AI brain far beyond manually scripting AI behavioural code.
The Rook
King
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 788
If Firaxis could generate AI smart enough to intelligently analyse human tactics from former saves, their talents would be wasted on cIV.
AngryZealot
King
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 770
I've never tried this, but I have parked stacks next to enemy cities, and I've seen the AI escort settlers out with a horseman. Perhaps it will only escort with a 2-move unit?
AfterShafter
Deity
In order to do this... Go to the "What to build at the start" thread. You'll see that 75% of people + build a worker first. This build requires you build a warrior, then a warrior, then an archer more or less. In said thread about "What to build first," it has been pointed out the marginal gains in waiting until you build your first worker. On higher difficulties, such small things matter - big time. In other words, when you make the conscious decision to go for this, you make significant sacrifices early on. Yes, it is a planned action... Yes it has sacrifices. Yes, if you start building a warrior right off the bat and don't find anyone, you stand to lose a good chunk of time. If you think this is not a risk and a sacrifice, you don't understand it, or you're playing on difficulties where the commitment doesn't matter.
AfterShafter
Deity
I think that is actually the case. It's just very rare that they get horses in this situation.
AfterShafter and The Rook, I think you mix things up. One thing is that the AI has several strategic areas where it's simply a lot worse than the human players. Getting advantage through that is simply playing the game. And then the AI has some problems with the programmers have failed - the AI has some situations where it simply locks down or harms itself if you do things outside normal gameplay to trigger this. Getting advantage this way is known as "using exploits". And it's an exploit no matter whether you "make sacrifices" to incorporate it into your play.
It's a given that it's a bit hard to define. Whereas the AI might not realize that it given you a 10 turn peace treaty by signing a deal, this tactic could be viable against even a human player. So, maybe only when used it excess would it be likely to be classed as an exploit. Using the AI's likeliness to attack whenever the odds a good to force a strong defender out of a fortified city, is simply you being smarter than the AI within normal gameplay. Another good example would be players offering open borders along with resources to assure a good trade. A fault in the AI means that it cannot differentiate, and since it wants open borders, it will accept. Cutting a good deal with the AI without breaking normal gameplay, just using it's lack of knowledge of the game, is another. Again, one thing that is a bit borderline is using the AIs increased willingness to trade for something that you have started researching. So, if it takes 20 turns to research, you research it for five turns and get a good deal from the AI. It makes sense, but purposefully using the wrongly coded AI, which miscalculates the values involved in the trade, seems a bit abusive.
I dare say that the reason that you go to higher difficulty levels is that you have learned to play better, not that you have discovered how to abuse the AI shortcomings. So, how do you beat someone who has double everything you have? You play a lot better. Sadly, the AI is still terrible stupid, so you don't have to use exploits to beat it to the ground at higher difficulty levels, you just have to be a good player.
It's a given that it's a bit hard to define. Whereas the AI might not realize that it given you a 10 turn peace treaty by signing a deal, this tactic could be viable against even a human player. So, maybe only when used it excess would it be likely to be classed as an exploit. Using the AI's likeliness to attack whenever the odds a good to force a strong defender out of a fortified city, is simply you being smarter than the AI within normal gameplay. Another good example would be players offering open borders along with resources to assure a good trade. A fault in the AI means that it cannot differentiate, and since it wants open borders, it will accept. Cutting a good deal with the AI without breaking normal gameplay, just using it's lack of knowledge of the game, is another. Again, one thing that is a bit borderline is using the AIs increased willingness to trade for something that you have started researching. So, if it takes 20 turns to research, you research it for five turns and get a good deal from the AI. It makes sense, but purposefully using the wrongly coded AI, which miscalculates the values involved in the trade, seems a bit abusive.
I dare say that the reason that you go to higher difficulty levels is that you have learned to play better, not that you have discovered how to abuse the AI shortcomings. So, how do you beat someone who has double everything you have? You play a lot better. Sadly, the AI is still terrible stupid, so you don't have to use exploits to beat it to the ground at higher difficulty levels, you just have to be a good player.
The Rook
King
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 788
So can we have a definitive list of which strategies fall outside "normal gameplay", and the areas programmers have failed to make the AI play intelligently? I'm sure that we will all universally agree when such a list has been compiled, and our play can nicely conform to an exploit free specification.
You have hit the nail on the head. The problem that the no-exploiters camp have always had is usefully defining the line where intelligent play becomes an exploit. You ask for suggestions on where the nebulous boundary lies, and you will receive many different opinions. The reason is that the notion of an exploit is subjective, it cannot be objectively defined.
What??? If someone asked me for some cash when I have a stack on their border, ready to raid, the answer would always be "no way" irrespective of whether the requester was human or AI. Personally I think there is a stronger case to argue that this is an exploit, as I believe the developers probably considered the peace as a benefit for the gifter, but forgot that the gifter could be the aggressor. Really it would make more sense to make the gifter immune from attack, but not both ways.
Well you are causing the AI to harm itself based on your knowledge of its weakness understanding a given situation. I think you will have to do some careful dancing around a pin to brand Aftershafter's strategy as an exploit, and give this the all clear. I notice the term "normal gameplay" again. Could you elaborate on why this exploit/smart play is normal, and Aftershafter's isn't?
You would have to play very naively to avoid abusing the AI's shortcomings, as there are so many. I don't believe I have read a single Deity/Immortal walkthru/succession game where the players didn't manipulate AI stupidity to their advantage. Manipulating (exploiting) the weak AI is central to being a good player, but I doubt that there is any single exploit that will net a weak player an easy win on Deity (assuming default settings).
What you're saying is just that it's hard to define. As you can see, I mention that some things are borderline and probably depend on the situation. Those things are borderline because they fit within functions of "normal gameplay". What is normal gameplay? That is how you would play the game without using obvious faults in the AI - in other words, how you would play against a human player. A human player could be lured to make a bad deal or attack a weak unit outside his city, but he wouldn't stop developing because you place some units outside his city and you wouldn't do that as you wouldn't expect him doing it.
So, while some areas are more of a greyzone, you cannot in any way argue that this silly "trick" is not an exploit.
So, while some areas are more of a greyzone, you cannot in any way argue that this silly "trick" is not an exploit.
Balderstrom
Emperor
Where's Supr49er when ya need 'im. He'd just call ya'll cheats and have a beer!
The Rook
King
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 788
No, what I am saying is that if you begin branding some ways of manipulating AI as exploits, and others as legit, you will inevitably end up contradicting your reasoning. The AI behaves about as smart in the stasis rush as it does against many strategies. Brand it an exploit, and other strategies become equally legitimate targets to be tarred with the same brush, no borderline about it.
Well if "normal play" represents how one would play versus a human, an equal presumably, then I think you can forget beating levels higher than Monarch. After all, you would be constantly wasting resources preventing scenarios that were never going to happen anyway, as you would surely be crediting your opponent with as much sense as you. The moment you begin treating your opponent with less intelligence than yourself, then you are firmly in the domain of "silly tricks".
A human player wouldn't sacrifice a strong defender on some obvious decoy unless they were either a fool or complete newbie. and I would not expect them to do that. Just as I don't expect camping a warrior on a hill forest outside the capital would yield results against a human.
I would put your decoy example clearly in the realm of silly tricks, a human wouldn't respond the same way as the AI, no greyzone about that. Not that I don't see it as a legit tactic, but then I also see Aftershafter's strategy as legit, even though it isn't a strategy I favour.
The Rook, you seem to insist on not understanding what I'm saying 
Unfortunately, none of your comments relate to the reasoning behind my claims, but simply to your misunderstanding regarding my definitions.
No, there is a clear reasoning behind the "branding", as I have previously explained. It's just like any other matter of definition.
I don't think you a getting me right. Adapting to how your opponent plays on a tactical and strategical level isn't something that falls out of the categary "normal gameplay". So, you don't have to waste your resources - you don't have to fool yourself. However, when you do a specific move to trigger a game-altering flaw for the AI, that does.
A human player would. I think we agree that it wouldn't be the wisest human player, but it is not unseeming, depending on the circumstances. However, no human player would stop developing and stay inside his city for the entire game because you place few units beside his capital.
See above.
Unfortunately, none of your comments relate to the reasoning behind my claims, but simply to your misunderstanding regarding my definitions.The Rook said:
No, there is a clear reasoning behind the "branding", as I have previously explained. It's just like any other matter of definition.
The Rook said:
I don't think you a getting me right. Adapting to how your opponent plays on a tactical and strategical level isn't something that falls out of the categary "normal gameplay". So, you don't have to waste your resources - you don't have to fool yourself. However, when you do a specific move to trigger a game-altering flaw for the AI, that does.
The Rook said:
A human player would. I think we agree that it wouldn't be the wisest human player, but it is not unseeming, depending on the circumstances. However, no human player would stop developing and stay inside his city for the entire game because you place few units beside his capital.
The Rook said:
See above.
And here is what The Rook meant by "if you begin branding some ways of manipulating AI as exploits, and others as legit, you will inevitably end up contradicting your reasoning". Not the wisest human player is quite an understatement, it would have to be a very stupid human player, quite comparable in the intelligence department to the AI.
What's up with the cheats and exploits vigilantes anyway? Why bother entering a discussions if all your arguments boil down to don't use because it's an exploit. It's not going to influence the people discussing (and/or using) it and you don't have to use it if you don't like it. For me, it's comparable to finding settler players discussing something and then turning the thread into discussion why play the level where you get some huge bonuses over the AI. Anything you might label an exploit you can easily counter in MP and SPs are by definition played by single person.
Similar threads
