What is an Exploit?

[Donegeal]

Alot of talk goes on about what can and can't be done in PBEM games. This is an exploit that is not. Its alot of hooting and hollering that doen't get anywhere until people get up set. Perhaps it is time to delve into the definitions of what is what. What can be done and what can't be done. I will begin by breaking down some of the known exploits into three distince categories.

Category I: Bugs.
I am not an expert on bugs so I won't get into this category much more than defining it and stating a couple of examples.

A bug is a programming flaw that does not directly deal with units, builds, tech or gold.

Examples: The infinate production bug (I am not familier with how its done other than that it can be done). Loading a PBEM in single player mode to view other civs (done by re-opening a PBEM from the quick menu when already playing). I am sure there are more, but I can't think of them at the moment.

Category II: Gameplay Exploits

These are exploits that are caused by playorder or other unexpected results steming from the fact that this is a single player game adjusted for multiplayer.

Examples: Artillery Exploit (Player 1 plays his turn by firing a catapult at player 3's unit. The turn get sent to player 2, who is allied with player 1. Player 2 then attacks player 1's undefended catapult, and then uses that catapult to fire on player 3's unit a second time in one turn. The catapult was just fired twice in one turn when it was designed to only be fired once per turn. Worker Exploit (Similar to the Artillery Exploit except player 1 moves his worker (using its movement point) then player 2 comes along, takes it over, and proceeds to use an additional movement point (one that was already used). Fortify All Exploit (If you have a stack of units that you right click on, you are given the option to "fortify all" even if you have units that have expended its movement point.). In all of these examples, units are allowed to use more than their programmed movement points. Continuing with the movement concept, there is the "Warp Units" exploit (You are fighting a two front war. You have just taken over one of player 3's cities that is far from your core and have lots of units in that city. Player 4 is closing in on your capital. If you gift the newly captured city to player 2, who you are allied with, all the units that were in the city you gifted are instantly transported to your capital, regardless of distance or water). You have just allowed your units to exceed the distance that they were designed to travel. Now if player 2 now gifts back the city you gave him, the cities citizens are automaticly switched to player 1's nationality, greatly reducing the chance for cultural flips and decreasing the unhappines. This is not how the game was designed to play.

Category III: Strategic Exploits

Strategic exploits are ones that are not do to bugs or gameplay, but deal directly with the strategy you choose to play.

Examples: Leader Farming. You send warrior after warrior to an allied civ on flat terrain and unfortified. That civ you sent the warrior to then has a superior unit go and kill the weak warrior in an attempt to get a promotion/GL. This just keeps getting done until all surviving troops are elites and at least one GL is made. Garunteed Golden Age. This is similar to the Leader Farming in that one civ who is allied to another, saves a single warrior to get killed by the second civ when it UU has already been made obsolete (ie: saving a warrior to go get killed by an allied War Chariot in the modern age, there by triggering Egypts GA in the modern age with an ancient age UU victory.


Please feel free to argue my category concepts (or anything I posted above). I am only doing this in an attempt to better clairify what is an "Exploit".

PS- I have tried to keep my personal opinions out of this post. Not to sure how successful I was, but I tried.

[Donegeal]

Ok, now for my personal opinions:

Categories I and II are complete and utter exploits that should never be used. Never, Never, Never!!! :doitnow:

Category III, however, I think is just smart playing. It does not violate any game rules (such as movement, production or spying). The only thing it might be considered to violate, is the "spirit" of the game. In the example I gave about the Egyptians getting a GA in the modern age with an ancient age UU victory, it would never happen in real life, but that does not argue the point that it is still very good forethought. Now some will say that it is unfair because if you have a Garunteed GA, you can better prepare for it when it comes. Hmm... seems to me that this is along the same lines as prebuilds for wonders or that all important early granery before you get Pottery. It is just preparedness and I see nothing wrong with it. Now the leader farming is a slightly different issue. Leader farming breaks no rules, but it does take advantage of them on a grand scale. You could theoreticly leader farm for the entire game (yes, I know that warriors eventually get replaced, but by the time they do, offensive units have more than compensated for the upgrade). Using this technique could land you hundreds of GL in a single game. This is not how they were meant to be. GL were meant to be a rare special thing. Useing this makes them common. Using the Leader farming exploit I think should be allowed, however, anyone using it, I feel, would quickly be ostrisized.

[Snotty]

Im not sure I agree with you on the fortifying stack exploit. I consider it the bonus for moving units in groups of at least 2, and making single unsupported units more vunerable. If the community thinks its something bad, then I will stop doing it in pbem (nothings going to stop me in the tourney though )

[GhengisFarb™]

I don't see catagory III as an exploit, I mean Sadam gassed and used Kurds as targets to perfect his soldiers' warfighting skills so it does happen. If you as El Dictatore want to march off your poorly equipped peasants for someone to practice on, thats your moral call as El Dictatore.

[Harovan]

Neither of them should be used. This includes category III. It has nothing to do with smart gameplay. It's very close to cheating. This concerns all situations where consenting (or allied) partners declare war on each other to gain a certain benefit without a risk, which was designed to occur only in a real war (i.e. with risk).

[Shogun Gunner]

I'll cast my lot in being against all three categories.

I think it's important to preserve the spirit of the game. However, GhengisFarb makes an interesting point. I don't think there is anything wrong with "category 3" strategies if everyone agrees to type of playing up front -- before the game gets started.

The fortifying issue in category 2 seems to be exactly how the game is designed. Am I missing something here? I wouldn't think there would be anything wrong with that...

On a similiar note, I checked the Civ2 PBEM forum and found they maintain a "cheaters registry". However, this is not done in the Civ3 PBEM forum. Do we not have a cheating problem in Civ3 (i'm new to PBEM/MP, so this is not a leading question)?

I have limited time to do PBEM/MP so I want to make the most of my time. Cheating literally would cheat me out of my limited "civ time".

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
On a similiar note, I checked the Civ2 PBEM forum and found they maintain a "cheaters registry". However, this is not done in the Civ3 PBEM forum. Do we not have a cheating problem in Civ3 (i'm new to PBEM/MP, so this is not a leading question)?

I would think that because Conquests is still relatively new, all of the cheats or back doors, if you will, haven't been discovered yet...

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
On a similiar note, I checked the Civ2 PBEM forum and found they maintain a "cheaters registry". However, this is not done in the Civ3 PBEM forum. Do we not have a cheating problem in Civ3 (i'm new to PBEM/MP, so this is not a leading question)?

I haven't experienced it myself, but Dominae listed and gave all kinds of horrendous examples of "cheating" and exploits I had never even conceived of. If we started a list I would like for the transgression to be listed also as I would have no problem playing with a Leader Farmer but certainly have no desire to play with a Tech Scammer (one who founds a size one city, names it "Republic" and offers it in trade as if it was the tech advance).

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I have limited time to do PBEM/MP so I want to make the most of my time. Cheating literally would cheat me out of my limited "civ time".

Same here, I am in way too many games to worry about breaking into files and the what not.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Snotty
Im not sure I agree with you on the fortifying stack exploit. I consider it the bonus for moving units in groups of at least 2, and making single unsupported units more vunerable. If the community thinks its something bad, then I will stop doing it in pbem (nothings going to stop me in the tourney though )

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
The fortifying issue in category 2 seems to be exactly how the game is designed. Am I missing something here? I wouldn't think there would be anything wrong with that...

The problem is that you can use and benefit from the fortify all trick only if you go AFTER your opponent in the turnplay order. If you go BEFORE, you can move your units in nice, tidy stacks and 'fortify all' all day long - and you will never really be fortified, since the fortification happens "between" the turns - after the last player plays, before the first player plays.

This means that if you are after someone in the turnplay order and fight him, you can move your stack permanently fortified, while he cannot (since you can attack his units before the end of the turn, when the fortification happens, while he cannot). That is a HUGE advantage.

EDIT: what Snotty mentions needs a comment: in regular, non-PBEM MP, it's usually simultaneous turns, or at least that's what I was told (I'm into PBEMs only) - the issue is effectively not present there at all, since the end of turn happens... well... simultaneously for everybody. Not so in PBEM.

[Snotty]

I was always curious when the fortification occoured, but did it out of habit anyway. In my islands pbem SirOsis posted a picture of my fortified landing party despite coming after me in the turn order. This led me to believe they fortified correctly, but I've got nothing solid to base that on other than the graphics.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by vondrack:
since the fortification happens "between" the turns - after the last player plays, before the first player plays.

How was this determined? As far as I've ever seen, the graphics are drawn for all fortified units immediately after the command. Does this only apply to the stacked units that have exhausted their movement points, so they act like automated units?

[Donegeal]

Good. This thread has turned into what I intended it to be.

There is a very strong distinction between cat III and the other two cats. That is why I wanted to do this. Shogun Gunner pointed out that if we can categorize all known "exploits" we can better determin what will/should/could be allowed when we set up a new PBEM.

When you start up a new PBEM, let it be known ahead of time, if any of the category "Exploits" are allowed. If we know what is expect before hand, we will be better at monitoring it later on.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
How was this determined? As far as I've ever seen, the graphics are drawn for all fortified units immediately after the command. Does this only apply to the stacked units that have exhausted their movement points, so they act like automated units?

It was determined through lengthy tests that I believe originated because of situations in the ISDG. It has been talked about and studied extensively. The "Fortify All" exploit is only advantagous to people who play later in the game.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
How was this determined? As far as I've ever seen, the graphics are drawn for all fortified units immediately after the command. Does this only apply to the stacked units that have exhausted their movement points, so they act like automated units?

For anyone interested, here is an edited post I made in the non-public ISDG forum:

Here is the test for those that wish to see themselves:

1. load the attached save*; French turn (the game preserves the seed)
2. move Jean NW-S-NW (7-2-7)
3. move Serge NW-S-NW (7-2-7)
4. 'fortify all' Jean & Serge
5. move Simon SW-SW (1-1) and fortify him
6. move Lucien SW (1) and skip the rest of his turn (space)

7. end the turn and save the game as Test2.SAV

Now, test three variants:

A8. load Test2.SAV
A9. move Chris E (6) and attack fortified Simon SE (3); this is only to use up some RNG values...
A10. let Craig attack unfortified Lucien - the result is DADAA (D for a round won by defender, A for attacker)
A11. end turn, not saving (Esc)

B8. load Test2.SAV again
B9. move Chris E (6) and attack fortified Simon SE (3); this is only to use up some RNG values...
B10. let Craig attack the 'fortified all' stack of Jean & Serge - the result is DDD (D for a round won by defender, A for attacker)
B11. end turn, not saving (Esc)

C8. load Test2.SAV again
C9. move Chris E (6) and attack fortified Simon SE (3); this is only to use up some RNG values...
C10. let Craig attack fortified Simon - the result is DDD (D for a round won by defender, A for attacker)

As the results clearly show, Jean/Serge enjoy the same defensive bonus as Simon, unlike unfortified Lucien. A bonus bestowed upon them by the 'fortify all' trick.

Note: the first move that is "using up some RNG values only" is there to arrange a situation where the combat result is actually affected by the fortification bonus (many times, there is no difference).

The other part of the test, which proves that the player coming earlier in the turn order does not enjoy the defense bonus, would be carried out the same way - I did not include that in my post, but anyone should be able to verify it easily using the staged PBEM save. Just do nothing with the French on their turn, apply their moves to the Carthaginians, and vice versa.

*EDIT: the "attached save" bit is clickable and will allow you to download the save - it just does not show up well in the quoted text

[Rommel2D]

I didn't mean to question the accuracy(edit: thanks for the research tho, vondrack), so much as to clarify if this was only for those 'moved' units in a stack. I guess it would have to be for this to be an exploit. Now Snotty's post is confusing me- how could you use the 'fortify all' order for a landing party? Does unloading outside a city still ends a unit's turn, or is this another undocumented rule change? Or were they a 'landed party'? ;-)

IMO, we should lobby Firaxis to design Civ4 around a client-server structure or something that would make PBEM feel less like a hack.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
I didn't mean to question the accuracy, so much as to clarify if this was only for those 'moved' units in a stack. I guess it would have to be for this to be an exploit. Now Snotty's post is confusing me- how could you use the 'fortify all' order for a landing party? Does unloading outside a city still ends a unit's turn, or is this another undocumented rule change? Or were they a 'landed party'? ;-)

Hope my previous post gives the idea of the test in an understandable way... it actually took me well over three hours to sort all the possibilities out - you first need to stage a PBEM, then you have to look for a situation where fortification matters...

As for using 'fortify all' on a landing party - you can do that, that's the problem. ANY stack, even a stack of units that have no movement points left (like a stack of units just landing), allows the 'fortify all' command on them.

[Rommel2D]

So the graphics definitely appear before the modifier is available? A category I/II hybrid?

[Donegeal]

I still listed it as a cat II because it is a cat I in graphical terms only. Graphics really don't make much of a difference, they are just astetic. I considered it a Cat II because it would allow a unit to move (unsing all its movement points) and then fortify (which would require some movements points left to do) and it is dependant on the play order.

Can any one think of other "exploits so we can categorize them?

[vondrack]

The graphics may appear before the modifier is actually present. IIRC, I have seen it both ways. It's like that you (using 'fortify all' on your stack) will see the stack as not fortified, but the players after you in the turn order will see it as fortified (even though it will actually NOT be fortified until the end of the turn).

[Snotty]

I imagine a lot of work has gone into this but I seem to be missing something Vondrack. In the save you only used small numbers of warriors, so surely the results could be put down to the RNG doing its funny thing. I thought, say, 2 stacks of 100 warriors would be needed to produce a number of results that averaged out. I will maybe have a poke around with it myself.

You learn something new everyday, and it looks like I will stop using fort all as it is actually of detriment to me because I have confidence I have forted when I havent.

Do defensive units with bombard ability still fire if attacked and unforted?

[Donegeal]

yes

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Snotty
I imagine a lot of work has gone into this but I seem to be missing something Vondrack. In the save you only used small numbers of warriors, so surely the results could be put down to the RNG doing its funny thing. I thought, say, 2 stacks of 100 warriors would be needed to produce a number of results that averaged out. I will maybe have a poke around with it myself.

Nope, a single case is all you need to prove the theory.

If you play a game with the RNG seed preserved (all PBEMs are played that way), then every time you open a given save, the same sequence of RNG values is generated and used to resolve whatever asks for dice rolls in the game. If you apply this (all the time the same) sequence to a series of "same" combats, you can tell, under appropriate circumstances, whether there is "something" affecting the results.

In the test scenario, you perform a series of warrior vs. warrior engagements - the only thing they differ in is that some of them are fortified and some of them not.

If you leave all the Frenchies unfortified, you can verify what I say is true - leave the French warriors unfortified (or properly fortified, it does not matter, just they all need to be the same way), save/"forward" the game, load the save as Carthage, attack one of the French warriors. Then reload and attack another one. As long as both the targetted warriors are unfortified, on the same terrain, the combat progress & result will be precisely the same as in the first case (you can attack all three warriors in a sequence and you will see that the combats will be exactly the same way, no matter what warriors you attack). That's because of the way RNG values are used. The game simply takes them one by one and uses them for the combat resolution - does not matter which units are engaged.

Another test you can try... create a similar scenario, but use a bunch of swords to attack a mix of swords and spears. Swords & spears have the same defense value, no retreat ability, so as long as they will all be un/fortified and on the same type of terrain, you will get exactly the same progress/result for whatever series of engagements you chose (no matter whether you attack spears or swords), because RNG values will be used to resolve the very same series of A=3 against D=modified(2) combat rounds.

The "funniness" of the RNG is in that it can generate streaks. But with the random seed preserved, the RNG sequence is the same every time you open a given save (even if it is streaky). The only thing you have to be careful about is that there are certain non-combat actions that use RNG values up, too (some you would not suspect) - that may screw your results (that's actually why I used an extremely simple scenario/situation with nothing but the combat happening).

Sorry if I seem confusing... I am scratching this in a hurry (lacking time to do it properly). If it's not understandable, ask for clarification - I should have more time tomorrow to put together a better illustrated example.

[Snotty]

Thanks Vondrack, I get it now.