The "stasis rush"

[The Rook]

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.

I perfectly understand what you are saying, but you seem to have great difficulty being able to distinguish between the objective and subjective. For every subjective definition you give me, I can counter with an equally valid and subjective one.

No, there is a clear reasoning behind the "branding", as I have previously explained. It's just like any other matter of definition.

There can never be clarity where the subjective is concerned. The "greyzones", and "borderlines" you mentioned, are all in your mind. For what it is worth, I would consider an exploit to be when a player manipulates a coding error, or bug to their advantage. For example, if gifting the AI 42 gold led to the character disbanding their armies, due to some programming error, I would consider that to be an exploit. My definition is no less valid than yours, because we are dealing with a subjective term. However, I would argue that limiting talk of exploits to bugs would leave less of those nebulous greyzones.

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.

On the one hand you advocate adapting to how your opponent plays, but on the other you won't accept exploiting what you consider to be a "game-altering flaw". The AI always plays the same, adapting to how it plays, and exploiting game-altering flaws are in essence the same thing. I may accept your argument if your example of "game-altering flaw" referred to some buggy gameplay, but it doesn't, it refers to limitations of the AI's intelligence. The AI's limited ability to adapt to situations can be seen in virtually everything it does. To rigidly apply your logic would render many commonplace strategies exploits, unless they fail to meet some "subjective" criteria. See the problem?

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.

So where does the boundary of a human's stupidity lie? Can it be objectively defined, or are we in the realm of opinions again? I would say that your example, and Aftershafter's strategy could both succeed against an extremely weak player, however neither would be likely to work, and both would be foolhardy to try. Generally it makes sense not to underestimate your opponent, so in my opinion both examples represent poor strategies to use against humans. Like the patzer chess player who plays a weak, anti-positional move, to set up a fork, and just "hopes" that their opponent misses the tactic.

Would it be an exploit for "me" to use your decoy tactic against the computer, considering I would always credit a human with too much sense to fall for it? Is the legitimate approach against a human determined by the actual limit of their stupidity, or the assumed limit. Who makes the assumption? You? Me?

This is beginning to feel rather vague...

 

[7Fang]

It is pretty cheap seeing that he won't even move his work boats out.

 

[Asjo]

I perfectly understand what you are saying, but you seem to have great difficulty being able to distinguish between the objective and subjective. For every subjective definition you give me, I can counter with an equally valid and subjective one.

I was not talking about having different definitions, but simply about you misunderstanding mine.

There can never be clarity where the subjective is concerned. The "greyzones", and "borderlines" you mentioned, are all in your mind. For what it is worth, I would consider an exploit to be when a player manipulates a coding error, or bug to their advantage. For example, if gifting the AI 42 gold led to the character disbanding their armies, due to some programming error, I would consider that to be an exploit. My definition is no less valid than yours, because we are dealing with a subjective term. However, I would argue that limiting talk of exploits to bugs would leave less of those nebulous greyzones.

As everything else we know, our definitions are formed by the perceptions of human beings. In that perspective, everything is subjective. Still, as long as we communicate well, we can set clear lines for something without linguistic boundaries. Therefore, as long as something is common or has clear logical reasoning that can enter with other human beings, it's not just in my mind. Therefore, it's important that you understand what I mean what I try to outline the delimitations for you, but seeing as you don't, I feel that we're dragging this on a bit more than necessary.

On the one hand you advocate adapting to how your opponent plays, but on the other you won't accept exploiting what you consider to be a "game-altering flaw". The AI always plays the same, adapting to how it plays, and exploiting game-altering flaws are in essence the same thing. I may accept your argument if your example of "game-altering flaw" referred to some buggy gameplay, but it doesn't, it refers to limitations of the AI's intelligence. The AI's limited ability to adapt to situations can be seen in virtually everything it does. To rigidly apply your logic would render many commonplace strategies exploits, unless they fail to meet some "subjective" criteria. See the problem?

Sure, you cannot call this "stasis rush" exploit a bug, since it's not something that isn't working - it something that just isn't that. The reason I tried to underline that we are talking about adjusting to the AI on a "strategical and tactical level" is exactly to show you what makes one situation different from another. The "stasis rush" exploit has nothing to do with how the AI strategizes in the game, it's an undeniable flaw, something the programmers haven't had the time to look into.

So where does the boundary of a human's stupidity lie? Can it be objectively defined, or are we in the realm of opinions again? I would say that your example, and Aftershafter's strategy could both succeed against an extremely weak player, however neither would be likely to work, and both would be foolhardy to try. Generally it makes sense not to underestimate your opponent, so in my opinion both examples represent poor strategies to use against humans. Like the patzer chess player who plays a weak, anti-positional move, to set up a fork, and just "hopes" that their opponent misses the tactic.

Would it be an exploit for "me" to use your decoy tactic against the computer, considering I would always credit a human with too much sense to fall for it? Is the legitimate approach against a human determined by the actual limit of their stupidity, or the assumed limit. Who makes the assumption? You? Me?

This is beginning to feel rather vague...

I used human players as an example to make the game standard I was talking about more clear to you, but once again you seem to read into it with every intention of misunderstanding me. It's a really strange way of arguing.

Let me boil it down to this: there is human logic in attack a unit, easy to pick off. There is no defendable human logic is stopping all development permanently because some units are parked outside your capital.

Yes, you might feel it's vague, whereas I'm starting to feel a bit guilty that we're high-jacking this topic, even if it's just about a silly exploit that some kid feels proud about. However, I think this is an important discussion since things like these are what create value when you play Civilization. Not that it's important that people feel like me, I just feel it's important to help them realize that they are talking about an exploit, not a strategy.

 

[Asjo]

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.

The last paragraph of my post above probably explains it, but to avoid you being neglected:

No one is saying "don't use it". Whether you use it or not is up to you. People just need to realize that the might be fooling themselves when they call exploits strategies. It's also fun to fool the AI and I think we all know the thrills of making use of shortcomings that we discover along the way. However, Civilization is a very complete game that doesn't initially lead to people indulging in this. The most important thing is single player games is the challenge you feel from the AI, and as this is already very weak, it's unfortunate to go beyond the usual boundaries of the game to use tricks based on AI flaws you discovered along the way. Such things can often be repetitive and boring, and in the end the only person you're fooling by not getting a "clean win" is yourself.

Definitions are created in the minds of human beings, and the only way of making these clear is to talk about them. The fact that I and The Rook seem to have different definitions has no relevance as to whether we discuss or not.

 

[Aeravel]

I think of it as a choice between letting your enemy build up their empire leading to a long and difficult war, or preventing that from happening and holding them down while you expand until you can crush them instead. So it's not really a 'cheap' strategy.

Edit: After reading through this more I notice it can be viewed as an exploit or strategy. The thing that annoys me is they don't move the workboats out which sort of makes it an exploit.

 

[Balderstrom]

It's an unrelieved perpetual threat-assessment.
Like the warning you get when an enemy enters your borders.

Except in this case, your unit just sits there causing the AI to get looped into a perpetual threat assessment. So it builds units for a threat that is implied and never acted upon.
The other key problem, beyond it not moving out workboats (as noted), is if the AI moved it's settler in ANY direction except towards the threat (warrior/archer), then the settler would be safe. The warrior/archer would never be able to catch up with the settler - even if the settler only moved 1 square per turn, and was escorted by a couple archers.

So the AI logic is basically missing an exit clause out of a threat assessment - that is never increased. Basically 1-2 lines of code.

 

[The Rook]

I was not talking about having different definitions, but simply about you misunderstanding mine.

Therefore, it's important that you understand what I mean what I try to outline the delimitations for you, but seeing as you don't, I feel that we're dragging this on a bit more than necessary.

Perhaps you are not a very good communicator?

Sure, you cannot call this "stasis rush" exploit a bug, since it's not something that isn't working - it something that just isn't that. The reason I tried to underline that we are talking about adjusting to the AI on a "strategical and tactical level" is exactly to show you what makes one situation different from another. The "stasis rush" exploit has nothing to do with how the AI strategizes in the game, it's an undeniable flaw, something the programmers haven't had the time to look into.

Its one of literally thousands of flaws, the AI just isn't very good. As I mentioned before, if the "stasis rush" deserves exploit status, then it is in the company of many commonplace strategies, including your "defense bait decoy" example.

I used human players as an example to make the game standard I was talking about more clear to you, but once again you seem to read into it with every intention of misunderstanding me. It's a really strange way of arguing.

Try to address the issues at hand, and avoid getting personal. When I have disagreed with your points I've coherently presented what I consider to be contradictions in your reasoning. If you feel that my reasoning is flawed, then respond to my words. If you think that something you said previously was poorly communicated, rephrase it. Baseless, emotive statements like "you seem to read into it with every intention of misunderstanding me" or "It's a really strange way of arguing" do nothing to further debate.

Let me boil it down to this: there is human logic in attack a unit, easy to pick off. There is no defendable human logic is stopping all development permanently because some units are parked outside your capital.

The problem with your "defense bait decoy" example (I assume that's what you are referring to), is that it would only work on a fool. If you concede that human logic extends to fools, then it could include practically anything, and so becomes meaningless. If you apply such, loose, subjective criteria to your reasoning, you can hardly present your opinions as derived from facts. You may feel that the "stasis rush" is an exploit, and that's fine. You may feel that the "defense bait decoy" is a legit tactic, fair enough. Other people will feel and think differently.

Not that it's important that people feel like me, I just feel it's important to help them realize that they are talking about an exploit, not a strategy.

I think this is extremely patronising to the people reading this thread, particularly the OP, who is a more learned and experienced player than most, probably including yourself. I would be very surprised if anyone needs your subjective wisdom to help them determine whether they are using an exploit or not.

 

[Asjo]

Perhaps you are not a very good communicator?

I wouldn't think so. This is the first time I've had a talk with someone who insists on misunderstanding me. I am an excellent communicator.

Try to address the issues at hand, and avoid getting personal. When I have disagreed with your points I've coherently presented what I consider to be contradictions in your reasoning. If you feel that my reasoning is flawed, then respond to my words. If you think that something you said previously was poorly communicated, rephrase it. Baseless, emotive statements like "you seem to read into it with every intention of misunderstanding me" or "It's a really strange way of arguing" do nothing to further debate.

I'm not getting personal and I'm not making baseless statements. I'm simply observing your behaviour, wondering about it, and my statements are based in that. I think, in fact, the core of the discussion is to be found in those statements since we now end up repeating ourselves, so mentioning it would only serve to further the debate.

The problem with your "defense bait decoy" example (I assume that's what you are referring to), is that it would only work on a fool. If you concede that human logic extends to fools, then it could include practically anything, and so becomes meaningless. If you apply such, loose, subjective criteria to your reasoning, you can hardly present your opinions as derived from facts. You may feel that the "stasis rush" is an exploit, and that's fine. You may feel that the "defense bait decoy" is a legit tactic, fair enough. Other people will feel and think differently.

No, not at all. Even a clever player like me could be lured into attacking without thinking about the repercusssions. Good players don't always make clever decisions. Bottom line is that it's not a completely illogical thing to do, whereas stopping all development permanently stopping your development due to some units parked outside your capital is. There is a difference. As I have already stated, everything is subjective, but definitions are formed in the state of men. I'm just trying to explain those definitions to you. It would be naive to call it "loose, subjective criteria" as everything would then be meaningless.

I think this is extremely patronising to the people reading this thread, particularly the OP, who is a more learned and experienced player than most, probably including yourself. I would be very surprised if anyone needs your subjective wisdom to help them determine whether they are using an exploit or not.

No, it's not patronising. Actually, I find it's rather helpful, since some people might not want to exploit the AI and aren't thinking much about it. The reason exploits become so commonplace that you start incoporating them into or thinking of them as tactics, is that games such as Civilization IV often become a race to reach the highest level. This, getting further is the only thing that matters, so people often don't think about what they're doing, they just grab onto everything they can.

Once against you are calling a definition a "subjective wisdom". I'm simply trying to explain to you what would fall inside the category of "exploit" given common human coomunication and classic delimitation. From what you're saying, you wouldn't be able to define anything as an exploit. In fact, either everything would be an exploit or nothing would. Not being able to differentiate between the finer details is really useless as far as communication goes.

 

[The Rook]

I wouldn't think so. This is the first time I've had a talk with someone who insists on misunderstanding me. I am an excellent communicator.
.

I'm not getting personal and I'm not making baseless statements. I'm simply observing your behaviour, wondering about it, and my statements are based in that. I think, in fact, the core of the discussion is to be found in those statements since we now end up repeating ourselves, so mentioning it would only serve to further the debate.
.

This is the first time that I have ever been accused of deliberately misunderstanding someone. I consider it to be a pretty cheap ploy, as it neatly evades the need to address points made, and lowers debate to focus on the integrity of the target. Fortunately, it's a pretty obvious ploy too.

No, not at all. Even a clever player like me could be lured into attacking without thinking about the repercusssions. Good players don't always make clever decisions. Bottom line is that it's not a completely illogical thing to do, whereas stopping all development permanently stopping your development due to some units parked outside your capital is.

Clearly your definition of clever player differs from mine, which further underlines how the notion of human logic is open to individual interpretation. I could conceive of an intelligent novice falling for your bait ONCE, and feeling very stupid after they realise their elementary error. The AI will fall for it all the time, without fail. A comparable human would have to a fool, and if gross stupidity is an eligible candidate for human logic, then it could be extended to include anything, hence the criteria becomes meaningless. I'm feeling deja vu.

As I have already stated, everything is subjective, but definitions are formed in the state of men. I'm just trying to explain those definitions to you. It would be naive to call it "loose, subjective criteria" as everything would then be meaningless.

Since when did your definitions represent those "formed in the state of men"? They certainly don't represent mine, and there has never been a universal consensus of what represents an exploit on these forums. That is clear, as the topic of exploit has arisen many times before. Just because you strongly feel that your opinions ought to carry more weight, doesn't make them anymore true, particularly, when your reasoning doesn't bear scrutiny. Since when were you appointed the authority on cIV ethics?

No, it's not patronising. Actually, I find it's rather helpful, since some people might not want to exploit the AI and aren't thinking much about it.

How is branding a potentially large percentage of the people on these boards "exploiters" helpful? I'm not an advocate of the "stasis rush", but I find your methods for determining exploits so vague and subjective, I wouldn't know whether I am an exploiter or not.

Once against you are calling a definition a "subjective wisdom". I'm simply trying to explain to you what would fall inside the category of "exploit" given common human coomunication and classic delimitation.

I'm sure that everyone on this board could explain to me "what would fall inside the category of "exploit" given common human communication<sic> and classic delimitation.". The problem is that I would receive a different answer every time.

From what you're saying, you wouldn't be able to define anything as an exploit. In fact, either everything would be an exploit or nothing would. Not being able to differentiate between the finer details is really useless as far as communication goes.

Communication? There has been very little communication of your ideas, on these boards, and this is partly what renders your position so weak. If your position rests on subjective criterion, then there would need to be overwhelmingly popular consensus before your opinions even begin to carry weight. The notion of exploit has been debated to death over many threads, no common consensus has ever been reached. Proclaiming yourself an authority on a controversial matter in advance only makes you seem arrogant and patronising.

 

[Asjo]

This is the first time that I have ever been accused of deliberately misunderstanding someone. I consider it to be a pretty cheap ploy, as it neatly evades the need to address points made, and lowers debate to focus on the integrity of the target. Fortunately, it's a pretty obvious ploy too.

The fact that you consider it obvious, doesn't mean that you don't do it. I'll take your word for it, but mind you, it might be subconscious.

Clearly your definition of clever player differs from mine, which further underlines how the notion of human logic is open to individual interpretation. I could conceive of an intelligent novice falling for your bait ONCE, and feeling very stupid after they realise their elementary error. The AI will fall for it all the time, without fail. A comparable human would have to a fool, and if gross stupidity is an eligible candidate for human logic, then it could be extended to include anything, hence the criteria becomes meaningless. I'm feeling deja vu.

How many times the AI falls for it, is completely irrelevant. That's how the AI is built - it always does that same. Yes, we are repeating ourself, but now you have clearly stated that even an intelligent human being can do it.

Since when did your definitions represent those "formed in the state of men"? They certainly don't represent mine, and there has never been a universal consensus of what represents an exploit on these forums. That is clear, as the topic of exploit has arisen many times before. Just because you strongly feel that your opinions ought to carry more weight, doesn't make them anymore true, particularly, when your reasoning doesn't bear scrutiny. Since when were you appointed the authority on cIV ethics?

When did I say anything about representation? You simply said that such definitions were pointless, I'm explaining to you how they work. This has nothing to do with "ethics" and is a simple matter of definition.

How is branding a potentially large percentage of the people on these boards "exploiters" helpful? I'm not an advocate of the "stasis rush", but I find your methods for determining exploits so vague and subjective, I wouldn't know whether I am an exploiter or not.

You cannot really brand anyone "exploiters". In most games, pretty much any player has, from time to time, used exploits. It's a part of the gaming culture. So, regardless of our little "battle of definitions", they are still just gamers.

I have clearly indicated what defines the difference between play against a bad AI and exploiting a faulty AI, yes you keep saying it's vague. If there are any more specifics you want defines, please do tell.

I'm sure that everyone on this board could explain to me "what would fall inside the category of "exploit" given common human communication<sic> and classic delimitation.". The problem is that I would receive a different answer every time.

That's a matter of communication, not a matter of definitions. While people might disagree, there is still a common ground to relate to.

Communication? There has been very little communication of your ideas, on these boards, and this is partly what renders your position so weak. If your position rests on subjective criterion, then there would need to be overwhelmingly popular consensus before your opinions even begin to carry weight. The notion of exploit has been debated to death over many threads, no common consensus has ever been reached. Proclaiming yourself an authority on a controversial matter in advance only makes you seem arrogant and patronising.

Anything about definition rests of "subjective criterion", so that's not really relevant. I don't claim myself "an authority", I simply say that I'm not in doubt about what defines an exploit, while you are. That's why I'm trying to explain to you the differences that cause the definition.

 

[oranges]

Anything about definition rests of "subjective criterion", so that's not really relevant. I don't claim myself "an authority", I simply say that I'm not in doubt about what defines an exploit, while you are. That's why I'm trying to explain to you the differences that cause the definition.

Not true, in the realm of logic, which defines definitions, subjective elements would disqualify something as a definition and move it into a descriptive area. As to certainty, most people are very sure what qualifies as an exploit for them, they just differ in their "definitions". It is my understanding that is the entire point of the argument between you and the Rook.

I am also certain people are aware what they are doing when using something that plays on AI weakness, whether they name it an exploit, a strategy or something else. Assuming anything else is an insult to the intelligence of the player. Does it seem to you Aftershafter was unaware of it? Does it seem it was somehow unclear to anyone reading the OP and subsequents posts? Labeling it an exploit is purely judgmental and contributes nothing to the discussion. There are no players on the board who cannot decide for themselves whether it's a strategy they would employ or not.

 

[AfterShafter]

Orange and Rook, thanks for sticking up for my case. I have not had much time to post recently, as I'm on vacation with a friend of mine, and I think branding a strategy like this negatively wouldn't be consistent with the esteems many stategies are held in. People do have a propensity to hop into a thread like this (as is evidenced) and declare something an exploit - which, whether they will admit it or not, is an extremely judgemental thing to do, and carries with it an implication of "Well, if you need to play like that, fine, but I don't cheat." In fact, I think Balderstorm said more or less just that...

As for whether this is an exploit or not, this is how I choose to look at it. If you come to learn that the CPU will consistently react to you doing Y in way X, when X is not at all how a human would act and X is pretty dumb, then performing Y does have some grounds to be considered an exploit of the AI's stupidity. The problem is, so many things we do frequently fall into this category.

Some excellent examples have been given... Making a garbage trade with an AI when you see their SOD on your border to buy you ten turns of peace. No human player would accept that trade, and it is essentially trading the TREMENDOUS tactical advantage of surprise for a banana or something. But the AI will accept this trade and do it consistently. It is not branded an exploit, and in fact, most people consider it good strategy - but it IS exploiting the AI's quirky programming in order to get them to do things that a human wouldn't, and is ultimately terrible strategy on the AI's part. Or, take the "Gandhi beside the Romans" part. A human player when sitting beside a Roman opponent will build axemen because they know what's coming, and good stategy - necessary strategy - is to prepare for the incoming rush properly. The AI does not do this, the human knows it, and because the human knows it, many players jump to exploit this stupid AI intelligence quirk and tout the victory horns upon doing so... Or, another case. It is quite popular to pick a creative Civ and, when circumstances allow, block off a landbridge or something from the AI with your borders and then freely expand into your backfield, when the AI stupidly won't kill you if you don't let them through. Human reaction to this? A bit fat stack of axemen that will wipe your border-blocking smirk off. The AI reaction? To just not expand there, and try and carve an empire out of whatever shoebox they've been forced into... Maybe build up one of their half-arsed forces over time to launch an impotent attack - but again, the AI will NOT do intelligent action X that a human would... And as humans, we often exploit the AI's stupidity.

In the case of the stasis rush, when your city is under siege by a small stack of archers, human intelligence tells you to run out the back door. Human intelligence may not tell you to kill those archers right away, because you're on similar resource footing to the opponent - and a few archers in a forested hill is very tough to dethrone. Human intelligence would likely suggest you start building improvements under escorted workers, or camp some archers outside of your opponent's city. Human intelligence suggests several things that the AI doesn't do... But again, this is the AI - the AI which will trade their element of surprise in a potential game ending attack for a banana, and will sit there with a smile on its face building two archers when they should know you're going to come knocking with 10 Praets in a few turns. Mince words how you will, the AI's intelligence - or lack thereof - is exploited frequently in this game, for many strategies. People are trying to paint stasis rushing as a particularly evil exploit that is tantamount to cheating because this is a situation where you know the AI won't perform proper action X when a human player would... Well, wake up and smell the roses people - as Rook has pointed out, if you start to limit yourself to that type of situation, you're going to find yourself parsing your Civ playbook all over the place.

For Asjo, Rook said it... "Not that it's important that people feel like me, I just feel it's important to help them realize that they are talking about an exploit, not a strategy" is pretty damned patronizing. I don't particularly need your help in coming to an epiphany about whether I'm exploiting the stupidity of the AI or not, nor should anyone here. As I think I've made clear, I KNOW that I'm exploiting the stupidity of the AI - but what I also hope is quite clear is that it seems pretty obvious to me that many very widely accepted strategies fit snugly into that category and get off without the looming judgement of "You're a cheater!" on it. Your position that your decoy tactic isn't just a case of you knowing that the AI won't do X when X is the smart thing a human would do, and therefore you're not just exploiting the AI's non-human stupidity, is pretty unconvincing. Also, you'll have to go a long way to convince me that many Civ strategies don't fit into this category of "exploiting the stupidity of the AI" because, so many times playing this game, action X is performed with the reasoning that you know the AI won't perform effective action Y to counter it - they're just not programmed that way, you know it, and you exploit it. Learning the ropes of all of these AI loopholes, and effectively making use of them, IS a tremendous portion of Civ strategy. Picking on one such strategy because the AI isn't properly programmed to counteract it is pretty inconsistent.

Now, for everyone, don't let the nay-sayers deter you if you want to give this a try. First and foremost this game is about fun, and if you're like me, then you're blowing through a certain difficulty (emperor) without any fancy tricks like this, which is getting boring, but are having a heck of a time on the difficulty up because the AI just chokes you out a bit early on... Well, that's why I started experimenting like this. When I discovered this, all of the sudden I had enough cities to get my feet on the ground without a military rush every bloody time, and then the difficulty of managing an Immortal level economy, diplomacy, and warfare on a huge map loaded with AI's with plenty of room to expand made for a long, challenging, and entertaining game. This just helps you nab a few more city locations early on without true and pitched warfare, and if you're like me, that's just the shot in the arm you needed.

Oh, and about Firaxis potentially fixing this... Eh, if it happens, we adapt. Heck, I wouldn't be upset if someone from Firaxis sees this thread and adds a few lines of code to the coming patch of legend and lore to prevent it in the future... It's happened before. But, for now, I like this, and I'll do it. Call me an exploiter if you will, but be careful not to look too closely in the mirror as you do so - you might not like what you see about your own Civ playbook

 

[The Rook]

Thanks Oranges and Aftershafter, I'm glad that what I said wasn't lost on everyone.

 

[Asjo]

AfterShafter, I'm sorry if it seemed that way to you. There was no judgement implied in my original post. I was just confused that this was presented as a strategy and therefore simply mentioned the fact that, as per standard definition, is was simply an exploit. It's the first such "strategy" I have seen on there great forums, and though I haven't looked around for it, I have seen plenty of strategies simply related to how you play the game, to a large degree independant of the AI.

The rest of my posts have simply been to clear up the definition of "exploit". And that's exactly because of what you mention: it is important to differentiate between using your knowledge of a stupid AI and exploiting big flaws in the AI.

Mind you, no one is a cheater for using exploits. You are only a cheater if you break whatever rules are set. No one is pointing any fingers.

Just to conclude: no, there is nothing wrong with using this exploit. This exploit, along with many others, most likely won't ruin your game. It's a conscious choice about how you want to play. If Firafix fixes it, let's rejoice, until then, let's laugh at the AI.

 

[Balderstrom]

@ Aftershafter, I said it feels wrong (to me) and that I doubt I would (want) to utilize this strategy. I also said it seems like an easily fixable AI logic fault. I am a programmer after all, and I view things from that perspective.
I certainly haven't posted ad-nauseum about trying to make you or others "think/feel" like I do.

It's like claiming a desert that doesn't turn into a Flood Plains if a river passes thru it - is a Bug. No one knows that is how it is supposed to be. Claiming so is just reiterating what has been stated by someone else previously.

I don't get involved in threads to lay accusations - I find the threads where ppl bicker about cheating amusing at best. Rook & Asjo have point/counterpointed to a point where its not even interesting to read anymore (sorry guys!).
"You think this, No I don't - You think that/No I don't I think this. No you don't understand I think this/ Oh you don't communicate well, So you really mean that/ No I mean this."

 

[The Rook]

I don't get involved in threads to lay accusations - I find the threads where ppl bicker about cheating amusing at best. Rook & Asjo have point/counterpointed to a point where its not even interesting to read anymore (sorry guys!).
"You think this, No I don't - You think that/No I don't I think this. No you don't understand I think this/ Oh you don't communicate well, So you really mean that/ No I mean this."

Let me assure you that it is far less interesting to participate in these exchanges. I never imagined that it would take so long to labor such a simple point about subjective opinions versus objective facts. If I knew in advance, I never would have got involved, but once you are in, it can be difficult to get out. I'm confident that if I responded to Asjo's last reply to me, the dialog would still be going on now.

Take care, next time it could be you.

 

[Asjo]

Yeah, I haven't found it interesting for a while either, but I think that it's good that we both care to do it

 

[IronCrown]

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 important part is that you give yourself an advantage at the start, because you can settle more land - but for the rest of the game, against the other AIs, the game is just as tough as without this strategy (or exploit, if you prefer). So dropping a level isn't quite the same - that's much more of a difference.

I have used the strategy a couple of times and it worked well most of the time. I don't make a habit of it, but in some cases it is virtually your only chance. If you have a very close neighbor on a high difficulty level, you MUST rush him, especially if it's a warmonger or a crazy expansion freak like Sitting Bull or Boudica. Sure, a conventional rush might also work, but then it might not. So why wait?

AIs more often than not have great stretches of empty land to expand into, and they can actually do it quickly, unlike the human. Choking/taking one AI early with a cheap trick is only fair to counter that

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sometimes they break free w/o attacking you, running off to settle another city. Usually you can prevent this however.

It works, and IMO works well, if you're isolated with 1 rival civ or something. I do NOT recommend this when there are several neighbor AIs. If you choke one, the others will expand like normal, and with their bonuses fill the land on you. Since you put extra hammers into archers and not other units, you have a handicap on top of the built-in emperor handicap when it comes to settling land.

So the answer is:

Very yes if you can do it without other AIs taking the land instead and growing huge.

No otherwise. Just settle your land quickly then smack the target AI off the map for more total land and a better early economy.

 

[brianb1974]

Is Blake still working on the AI? I play BTS with the most current HOF mod, and I agree with the consensus opinion here that the AI's anti-choke tactics are awful. A single woodsman 2 warrior is enough to keep an AI city choked for a very, very long time. The AI will keep making workers and letting you steal them. At a minimum, I wish the AI would understand woodsman 2, and also be more aggressive about taking out the choke. If he has 5 archers in a city, that should be enough to take out my woodsman 2 warrior camped on a forest hill. But the AI won't do it. By the time he throws off the single-warrior choke, I usually am ready to bring an axeman. And then the choke is permanent until I choose to take the city. He might as well tap out.