Can someone explain the "chop-start" tactic?

[EternalSpark]

[SIZE=1] This is only allowed in Type I tournament IIRC.

Continuing the analogy, its as if my opponent did this at a Type 2 FNM, or an FNM where its not officially Type 2, but everyone else is playing Type 2.

You're doing something extremely fast that, by rights, your opponent isn't going to do any time soon, and doing it knowing that nobody will be able to catch up.

his deck might have weaknesses that you can exploit; he might have trouble follwing up his strong start with additional attacks before you can get your strategies rolling.

The part of the analogy you're missing is that, by virtue of the first turn, I'm already dead. He powers out a 10-point Tendrils swing. He's now at 30 life, and I'm at 10. No amount of skill will 'fix' that.

From what I understand, chopping is a major path to beating the higher levels of the game. To me, that shows chopping as a "do this and you're going to take the game."

Sure, there's some people who have had problems, but those are the same problems a Tendrils deck has: even if you completely botch it up, it isn't as if you can really fail that badly. Even your worse plays are twice as better as your opponents.

[MightyTiny]

Originally posted by EternalSpark
The part of the analogy you're missing is that, by virtue of the first turn, I'm already dead. He powers out a 10-point Tendrils swing. He's now at 30 life, and I'm at 10. No amount of skill will 'fix' that.

I do understand that, but I think that you're missing my critisism of the analogy a bit:

Sure, there's little you can do with skill at the point where the damage is done, but my point is that in Magic the Gathering, the skill to prevent such catastrophies, or at least to minimize the chance of such things, is applied BEFORE the game starts, in the construction of the deck. That you have little to do once the damage is done does not mean that there wasn't skill involved in your opponents attack; that skill was there in making the deck that made such an attack possible!

And surely there are ways of countering decks that heavily rely on a certain strategy, such as inflicting "big bangs" of direct damage (or any other strategy for that matter) - as I said, my experience of the game is only the computer game, and from several years ago, but what if, in that example of yours, you had a deck concentrated on anti-artifact enchantments, enchantments that did damage for tapping lands, counterspells, damage-reversal spells, healing spells, etc.?

In that case, the initial round damage would not necessarily be a big deal, as your opponent would be unlikely to get the killing blow in successfully. AND you could possibly even get lucky and get a damage reversal spell in and leave your damage-oriented friend with a depleted hand, many good cards wasted on actually increasing your health.

Isn't that the very point of the success of that game? That there is no single strategy that would work universally against all decks? And that the skill part of the game is largely applied BEFORE the game actually begins, in the careful construction of the deck?

This is dissimilar to what is happening in Civ4 - there the "before the game" strategic choise that differs from player to player is the choise of leader, and the chop rush tactic is available to ALL leaders. A high early damage "bang" at the start of a MtG game is ONLY available to those with a deck pre-constructed with such a bang in mind.

The critisism that I would agree with on the chop-rushing tactic is that the AI doesn't know how to use that strategy well. But then again, the AI does get "unfair" advantages specifically to make up for it's inferior use of available tactics.

Of course preferrable would be an AI that would be more competent in exploiting things like this the higher the difficulty level.

Also, I do understand and agree with the critisism that the chop rush seems to be THE strategy that stands out above others in giving an early advantage. It would be better if there'd be other, equally good, mutually incompatible strategies to use to gain advantage, without any single strategy rising clearly above others. Kind of like in Magic the Gathering.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MightyTiny
Isn't that the very point of the success of that game? That there is no single strategy that would work universally against all decks? And that the skill part of the game is largely applied BEFORE the game actually begins, in the careful construction of the deck?

A tournament match consist of multiple rounds, and you are allowed a sideboard of 15 cards (IIRC) to adjust your deck between the rounds.

Therefore, a game in Magic: the Gathering isn't quite like a game in Civ 4, afterall.

[EternalSpark]

That you have little to do once the damage is done does not mean that there wasn't skill involved in your opponents attack; that skill was there in making the deck that made such an attack possible!

You'd think that... but you're pretty much wrong. Slap the cards I mention into a deck, and bam, you've got a winner.

And surely there are ways of countering decks that heavily rely on a certain strategy, such as inflicting "big bangs" of direct damage (or any other strategy for that matter)

Not really. The deck example I used was popular because you either played it, or lost to it.

EDIT: In hindsight, I should have used an Affinity example, as it would make more sense to this discussion - like an Affinity deck, it seems that chop-starting produces improbably good results, fails little, and puts your opponents in an inevitably bad result. And like Affinity, chopping should be nerfed.

magic trivia: Affinity caused the banning of seven cards in Type 2 to save the format.

if, in that example of yours, you had a deck concentrated on anti-artifact enchantments, enchantments that did damage for tapping lands, counterspells, damage-reversal spells, healing spells, etc.?

You'd still lose, after a start like that.

[Rook]

A simple fix for this (If it is indeed considered an exploit) is to simply add X amount of hammers per turn till the forest is used up. Then only the last bit would go to the settler.

[Rancidlunchmeat]

I think Ohioastronomy explained the situation very well.

Simply using the chop-rush as defined by the very obvious rules and description of the tech, clearly is not exploitive.

And as Ohioastronomy pointed out, even the 'switching to a settler' on the last chop isn't ncessarily all that beneficial over the long run.

Furthermore, lumbermills are outright fantastic when you combine them with railroads and their health value.

I think the people who believe chop rushing to be over powered are likely the same ones who believe lumbermills come 'too late' in the game to be really useful.

That means they're playing quick domination or conquest games, and they don't worry about the mid or end game and the production or health benefit of actually having kept those forrests around.

The drawback to choprushing is HUGE if you are planning on playing a lengthy game.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rancidlunchmeat
Simply using the chop-rush as defined by the very obvious rules and description of the tech, clearly is not exploitive.

And as Ohioastronomy pointed out, even the 'switching to a settler' on the last chop isn't ncessarily all that beneficial over the long run.

Furthermore, lumbermills are outright fantastic when you combine them with railroads and their health value.

This is a matter of present value vesus future value. Are the 30 hammers you get by chopping a forest worth more in the long run? Sure, it's just a few turns' worth of lumber mill + railroad, yet the values at the early stages of the game cascade and amplify throughout the game, so it is very hard to determine. This is even harder to figure out if the chop-rush is used to complete a World Wonder.

[Thedrin]

What's the general consensus on population rushing in CivIV then? I've been using it as my main way of getting an early expansion (a technique I never used in CivIII) and wonder if anyone has any thoughts on how I go about using or suggestions on how to improve it.

Since marathon mode was introduced it has been my main way of building quick cities - everything is scaled up by three except the cost of units which is scaled up by two and a half. A settler then costs 200. Killing two citizens with a population rush gives 180.

To take advantage of this the early worker is used to boost the food output of the town. Every time the town hits size four production is switched to a settler. On average it'll then take 3 turns to get 20 production units so the settler is available on the fourth turn after switching over.

I'd usually have the settler factory working on units in between settlers - building about 1 archer in between settlers and have all remaining cities concentrating on money and research.

I don't expand farther than having to drop research down below 80% (70% on a bad day) using the early cities (about four of them) to define my future borders. A bee line to code of laws (via the oracle or currency) before filling up the remaining space.

I'd view this tactic as allowing to rapidly expand in the early game while preserving future production (lumbermills are great) but taking a hit to early research since one town will have stunted growth initially and to ensure the desired borders are gotten I avoid open border agreements until I'm about half way into my second wave of city production (produced using normal tactics).

Frequently I will have 9 or 10 cities on a huge continents map with 18 civs at prince level using this tactic. I'm never the tech leader but I usually make it into second or third place by the late game (when only about 10 - 12 other civilizations have survived) with tech trading turned off.

[Rancidlunchmeat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


This is a matter of present value vesus future value. Are the 30 hammers you get by chopping a forest worth more in the long run? Sure, it's just a few turns' worth of lumber mill + railroad, yet the values at the early stages of the game cascade and amplify throughout the game, so it is very hard to determine. This is even harder to figure out if the chop-rush is used to complete a World Wonder.

Very True. I agree with all of that, which is why I take the position that it isn't exploitive.

If it's very hard to determine, then it's not clear. And anything that isn't clear because you are balancing values means there are recognizable tradeoffs. As long as that's the case, it's not exploitive IMO.

If there were no future costs for chop-rushing early, then we'd have a serious problem. But there are. So the only time chop-rushing has no downside is in games that won't ever reach the point of future costs.

[Rancidlunchmeat]

Frequently I will have 9 or 10 cities on a huge continents map with 18 civs at prince level using this tactic. I'm never the tech leader but I usually make it into second or third place by the late game (when only about 10 - 12 other civilizations have survived) with tech trading turned off.

You're playing on huge maps with 18 civs all the way to 2050? What kind of setup are you running?

As far as an exploit, I don't see it..the only real factor here is the marathon setting and changing the game speed necessarily comes with some quirks.

[EscapedGoat]

You have 3 forest, which give you +1.5 health wether you use them or not. These forests also have the potential to become acceptable tiles somewhere near the end game.

To me, it's a no-brainer to cash in those 3 forest for a settler. That settler will generate more shields, food and territory control than those lumber mills in the future will. That new city will also get something like +9, +10 health from the food bonuses you will have in your kingdom anyway, and more happiness cap. To me, this is so obvious it's hard to argue against.

In multiplayer it's even worse because people will be building 2 cities and some workers to chop out a devastating early army of axemen or chariots, and quite frankly, you will not stand a chance to defend it if you don't chop rush.

Conclusion: Chop rush is too simple, too obvious and too good. Especially with India and it's fast workers.

[Yaga]

I'm not so much against chop rushing, whether its settlers or Wonders. Yes, you get your settler very quickly but you lose that forest for ever. That is a pretty high opportunity cost, especially when you probably only have 4 or 5 forests at most within your radius.

Rather than kill the chop rush I would like to see the AI do it too, making the first couple hundred turns of the game that much more interesting.

[Lord Avalon]

I didn't play Civ 3, so I can't speak to that, but I miss the caravans/freight from Civ 2 for Wonder production. Also disbanding to get something back (was it half the cost of the unit?).