AU mod: The Javelin Thrower

[Kuciwalker]

I think in this case the problem isn't really that the AI doesn't do it. Rather, IMHO it is that the strategy is simply much more powerful than intended. Of course, the best solution would be for Firaxis to make enslave not work on barbs.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman
I don't like house rules of that sort. Just because the AI doesn't do something, it doesn't mean that it's automatically an exploit if the player does.

To me, an "exploit" has to be something not deliberately factored into the design that creates significant balance problems when players take advantage of rules in unexpected ways. Two classic exploits from the early days of Civ 3 were selling an AI a city and then taking it right back, and extorting small towns from AIs in peace treaty renegotiations without even having to fight. In contrast, the ability to take a chance sending galleys into sea and ocean in the hope that they can find something useful was deliberately incorporated into the rules, and thus is impossible to label an "exploit" no matter how much advantage it gives humans. (Whether it is a balance issue that needs to be addressed is, of course, another matter.) As for the free palace jump, it should probably be technically considered an exploit, but I view it as a benign one that ultimately helps the game by providing a way to deal with badly placed initial starting positions. (Of course if Firaxis hadn't made normal palace moves so insanely expensive, it wouldn't be needed!)

I'm not sure exactly how using the Javelin Thrower for barb farming fits into that picture. I suspect that it's not something the designers had in mind when they decided how to balance the unit, but I'm not sure of that. I'm also not sure how unbalancing it is in practice since (1) building early Javelin Throwers tends to cost REXing potential and (2) if you leave a camp around, AIs will swarm toward it sooner or later (even if they have to move through your territory to do it, if I recall correctly).

Probably, before we make any kind of a decision regarding a possible house rule, we need for people who have tried the trick and regard it as too powerful to make their case that it is in fact too powerful. Then we can listen and see whether they get an unacceptably large net advantage or whether it just feels like an exploit to them because they aren't noticing the price they pay in missed opportunities (for example, the fact that building their Javelin Throwers cost them granaries, settlers, and native workers in their REX).

On the other hand, if the use of Javelin Throwers for barb farming is not a good enough reason to adopt a house rule, I certainly don't view it as a good enough reason to justify changing the unit! A house rule seems like a much smaller change to me; indeed, players who don't regard barb farming as an unacceptable exploit would be free to ignore the house rule entirely in non-AU games played with the Mod.

Nathan

[Risa]

Well, if we don't regard enslaving to workers as overpowered, the change will definitely not be needed. That is to say, my suggestion is totally based on the assumption that it is overpowered. And I believe so. Not only by barb-farming, but also in conventional wars, gaining pop-points by combat in ancient times is too much.

As regards to helping AI to gain enough workers, we should try the "build often" list first, not here. And AI do upgrade their warriors..

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Risa
Well, if we don't regard enslaving to workers as overpowered, the change will definitely not be needed. That is to say, my suggestion is totally based on the assumption that it is overpowered. And I believe so. Not only by barb-farming, but also in conventional wars, gaining pop-points by combat in ancient times is too much.

The one other time besides barb farming where I'd be concerned would be the use of big stacks of catapults and javelin throwers. In normal combat with AIs, the ability to get free workers is balanced by the fact that when a javelin thrower dies, it costs 30 shields instead of 20. But if cats can reduce the defenders to a single hit point, the cost in terms of dead javelin throwers is a lot lower.

[ducki]

Well, if we don't regard enslaving to workers as overpowered, the change will definitely not be needed. That is to say, my suggestion is totally based on the assumption that it is overpowered. And I believe so. Not only by barb-farming, but also in conventional wars, gaining pop-points by combat in ancient times is too much.

I don't regard enslaving workers in the "normal" course of play as overpowered. I do regard barb "farming" for slaves as overpowered, just as I view using barb camps as Elite training grounds for more than 2 or 3 units as semi-exploitative. Personally I'd rather have the 25 gold and be done with it. If I get promoted or get a slave in the course of clearing out the camp, woohoo! If not, no worries. I'm 25 gold richer.

It's personal playstyle choices that make things like this either balanced or overpowered. As such, an AU Mod change is out of line, IMO. The mod isn't supposed to balance out individual gameplay decisions and strategies short of those that are the de facto standard - ToE-Hoover is one, and below Emperor, Philosophy beeline is another.

If we ban barb farming, then we should also ban ...
suicide galleys

This is a moddable feature that doesn't hamper those that don't exploit it along with those that do. I don't think it should be fixed as I don't see throwing shields to the bottom of the ocean as an exploit.

, palace jumping,

If you want to do the micromanagement required to put your palace where you want it, be my guest. I've got wonders and units to build and my individual gameplay decision is that it's not worth it. If enough people don't think we should do it, though, we could try to mod it so that the jump is less effective than a straight build or just do a house rule.

offensive ground unit bombardment,

Even in Nathan's extreme example, I don't see that as an exploit so much as the player a)playing smart in one sense and b)giving up an awful lot of offensive power for a dice roll. I wouldn't do it, but it's a valid strategy, just as Artillery+Infantry is a valid strat opposed to hordes of MechInf. That's strategy, IMO.

building scouts and explorers,

Now you're just being silly. Besides, I doubt banning explorers would change anyone's game.

the use of the luxury slider,

Didn't we do or propose this for an AU game once upon a time?

leaving a city without garrison, et cetera.

I've seen the AI do this very early on, but aside from that, it's a personal playstyle choice again. There's plenty of players not comfortable without 2 of the latest defenders in every town - at the least. Then there's those of us that figure we can defend 6 towns with 3 central defenders if need be. It's risky, but often effective. Strategy.

The more of those I reread, the more I think you were kidding. I really don't think this needs changing, and as I've said before, I think there should be more civs with ancient enslavement. Even better, if we could expire enslavement with the discovery of Democracy, but I think that's not doable.

There's one specific strategic decision where I think Enslavement can be exploited, and unless we're playing AS the Maya in an AU course, it doesn't need addressing. If we do play as the Maya, I see no point in messing with a balanced UU just to ensure everyone is playing from the same deck. A house rule would suffice, but even then, it would be interesting to see the difference in outcome and level of success between the farmers and the non-farmers.

[alexman]

Time to vote.

Mine:
No change.

[lockstep]

NO: Change enslaved unit to Warrior

I like barb workers.

[ZargonX]

Change enslaved unit to warrior: No

[Theseus]

N

[Stuie]

I'm voting YES even though it seals the No vote. Oh well.