Announcement

**Bluefusion** · December 19, 2005, 22:51

Since this is an "exploit" singularly confined to single player with AIs, and can only be carried out by the human player, if you do not like the exploit, do not do it. Self-control, my fellow Civ4ers.

You would have a more legitimate gripe if the AI used the gift exploit among themselves.

An even more legitimate gripe that is beyond the control of the human player that does affect gameplay is when an AI across the entire globe declares war on you and then proceeds to take over a town. Basically the AI carried out the equivalent of a "gift exploit," and you have no means of stopping it (except to train a larger army).

Although we're not talking about causing favorable relations; we're talking about an AI causing its own demise by means of burdensome maintenance costs.

**Monsto** · December 19, 2005, 23:00

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
The only reason it might not be able to perform such a function is if it has not had either "return" or "cost" defined for it.

or somehow incomplete values for these factors... like not giving enuf weight to the maint cost of a city 3/4 of a continent away.

**TomVeil** · December 19, 2005, 23:35

I just hope that the fix is to allow the disbanding of cities, and not to restrict the free trade of cities. How can I run a Westphalian system without treating my subjects like barter goods?

**djpsychonaut** · December 19, 2005, 23:36

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
That's all the program is doing whenever it decides whether or not it will accept your trade. The only reason it might not be able to perform such a function is if it has not had either "return" or "cost" defined for it.

But the return is different depending on your situation. A city with a particular location can be identified as having military significance even if it's not an industrial or commercial powerhouse.

The strategic value of a military asset in that case doesn't really have a monetary value...

I'm not saying that every possible city that you would gift to the AI would even have military/strategic benefit, but it's something that can't be defined by simple math.

**Axxaer** · December 20, 2005, 00:36

Originally posted by TomVeil
I just hope that the fix is to allow the disbanding of cities, and not to restrict the free trade of cities. How can I run a Westphalian system without treating my subjects like barter goods?

I think it would be ideal to be able to trade cities, but for the AI to be able to identify the value of these cities and for all players to be able to disband cities.

That way, if the AI judges a city completely useless by all standards, it refuses the offer. If the AI is hostile and judges a city to be detrimental to itself but a benefit to you, then it could accept the gift then raze it. If the AI judges the city useful to itself it accepts, and the value of this trade is based of how useful it is to the AI and how useful/detrimental it was to the player, so that the AI doesn't love you for giving it a useful city that you didn't want anyway, but still appreciates it.

This would all only work, however, provided that all players are able to disband their cities. A feature many believe should have been in the game from the start.

**rjmatsleepers** · December 20, 2005, 02:07

I'm among those who are not (yet) convinced this is an "exploit". To use it effectively requires sophisticated understanding of the game. I can imagine a new player trying this "exploit" and giving away a city without achieving any benefit. BTW, there seems to be some XML code that deals with the AI refusing gifts, so they probably can turn down a city. It appears to come down to the question of how good the I in AI is. For the moment, I'm not surprised that human intelligence can out think a computer.

All that having been said, I agree with Bluefusion and others - if you think it's an unfair expoitation of the poor dumb AI, don't do it.

RJM at Sleeper's

**djpsychonaut** · December 20, 2005, 04:44

I've tried out this "exploit" on one of my games and gave a civ that was annoyed with me a pretty nice city that was already surrounded by that civ's cultural borders anyway. It was a conquered city that I didn't really have the enthusiasm to build up. It really could have been a nice city too. Well, that civ took it, but it they didn't like me much more after receiving it. I really think that this is such a minor "exploit" (as you all continually call it).

**Enigma_Nova** · December 20, 2005, 06:42

The AI gets bonuses to upkeep. Chances are, it's actually using the city to good effect.
The issue comes in when AI diplomacy is dumb as a brick, and founding cities near enemy lands then gifting them to mis-matched Civs creates diplomatic hillarity.
Add in a couple of different religions, and we got ourselves a war! =D

**Monsto** · December 20, 2005, 10:42

Originally posted by djpsychonaut
I've tried out this "exploit" on one of my games and gave a civ that was annoyed with me a pretty nice city that was already surrounded by that civ's cultural borders anyway. It was a conquered city that I didn't really have the enthusiasm to build up. It really could have been a nice city too. Well, that civ took it, but it they didn't like me much more after receiving it. I really think that this is such a minor "exploit" (as you all continually call it).

the biggest factor that you missed is the distance. it's not supposed to make them happier with you, it's supposed to be a drain on their resources.

next time give them a city that you just created on the far side of your empire from them. if you don't have open borders and there's no clear land path to the city it'll cost them a LOT in mantenance... like 20+/turn

this is what i did to Spain in my game the other night. can you imagine being suddenly saddled with 20/turn costs in the classic era? something would have to give, and for most of us it'd be a 20% hit to research.

**Cort Haus** · December 20, 2005, 11:04

Originally posted by Monsto

IOW the game itself cheats SPECIFICALLY to make it harder on the human (i.e. skill levels) which is the way the game was designed. Personally, I find strategies like this a rather tasty irony.

We'll see whether this exploit lasts or not. These kinds of things got coded out of Civ 3 quite quickly once they came to light, ISTR.

Meanwhile, one way the human can get back on the nasty AI is being allowed to spend as long as they like on their move, whereas we currently only allow the computer a few seconds to make ALL the AI civs moves.

Perhaps one day there'll be the option for a long tree-search AI where we can exchange bonus/cheat rules for slower turns. I wonder if many folks would go for that.

**Monsto** · December 20, 2005, 11:37

hey i remember that with Atari 2600 chess. as you bumped up the skill level, it strung out the depth of the 'condition tree' that it used to search for moves. if it was taking too long you could pull the Reset switch and it'd force it into hurry up mode for the rest of the turn. of course it would be nonplussed about the entire thing and do something stupid. of course, today, that would be a li'l faster and more accurate.

With civ tho, every turn would have potentially as many moves, and maybe even considerations, as an entire chess match. doing a tree out from there could be pretty tedius.

Personally i like the idea. I have no problems giving the computer a few minutes to do it's turn. I'd much rather play against a system that considers the impact of decisions (as tree thinking does) and picks the best one as opposed to the current snickering cheat method.

right now, player tactic doesn't mean a whole lot as you advance in skill levels cuz no amount of skill and understanding of the rules can surpass cheating. with your described tree ai, the player can learn and actually get better.

**Cort Haus** · December 20, 2005, 11:56

Originally posted by Monsto
right now, player tactic doesn't mean a whole lot as you advance in skill levels cuz no amount of skill and understanding of the rules can surpass cheating. with your described tree ai, the player can learn and actually get better.

Ah, but it does though. Scheming humans are coming up with ways of overcoming the AI's advantages. If the AI didn't cheat, we wouldn't want to play against it because it can never compete with a human. This is a $50 game not Science Fiction, so we must except that the AI will need some help. It's actually unfair on the AI to demand a 'level' playing field, when we have so many unquantifiable advantages on our side.

**Monsto** · December 20, 2005, 12:09

Ah, but it does though. Scheming humans are coming up with ways of overcoming the AI's advantages. If the AI didn't cheat, we wouldn't want to play against it because it can never compete with a human. This is a $50 game not Science Fiction, so we must except that the AI will need some help. It's actually unfair on the AI to demand a 'level' playing field, when we have so many unquantifiable advantages on our side.

yeah? so? (= i like that part heh

and also, i guarantee that 'computer turn time' was a huge factor in game development. keeping that down to what players would consider 'acceptible delay'

bottom line is i think the hardcore players would enjoy a system that took longer turns but was a better player. I know i would. maybe then i would actually lose a game (=

**TheArsenal** · December 20, 2005, 13:03

This is a $50 game not Science Fiction, so we must except that the AI will need some help.

Easily one of the best quotes I’ve read on this board.

**djpsychonaut** · December 20, 2005, 13:10

Originally posted by TheArsenal

Easily one of the best quotes I’ve read on this board.

Definitely...

Announcement

The gift exploit

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment