Is this cheating?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Is this cheating?

Originally posted by Daz
The AI knows the whole map, right? If it send a Settler into the black, it knows the best spot to place that city.

Would it be cheating for me to know the whole map, too (you know the ways to do it.... )?

What I used to do is save and retire to see where the AI placed me and my neighbours. After that I reloaded and knew in what direction to expand first...

Here's an easier solution: edit the FoW graphics to be just purple. You'll see everything on the map except units, terrain imps and IIRC cities.

[Skanky Burns]

Its cheating if you use it in any multiplayer context (even down to comparing win results for a certain map for instance - thats multiplayer in parallel).
The knowledge does give you an advantage though, but whether you care or not in single-player is the issue.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Re: Re: Is this cheating?

Originally posted by skywalker


Here's an easier solution: edit the FoW graphics to be just purple. You'll see everything on the map except units, terrain imps and IIRC cities.

Well not so much easier as potentially less unfair to the AI, and more interesting.

[bvoncranium]

Originally posted by Xorbon
In multi-player mode, this would be cheating, of course.

Being a naive idealist, I approached each PBEM MP game I've been in with a view to playing it 'clean'; I also figured that if anyone else was cheating and I still won, that the victory would be better still.
As it happened, it did not take long to discover and/or infer numerous examples of my Civ colleagues using a variety of cheats, including:
looking at the map with the editor; using the PTW Load bug to run through everyone's turns and 'play-ahead', re-run battles (adjusting the sequence if Preserve Random Seed is set), etc.

Though I was disappointed by this behaviour, I eventually accepted that when people are motivated to win in a competitive environment wherein there is no-one monitoring your play, the temptation to cheat-to-do-better must be stronger than the principle of winning-by-the-rules for many players. It seems to be a component of human nature.

I came away with the view that you either have to set up the games to enforce the prevention of cheating, or alternatively just accept that people will cheat, and invite everyone to do so. The worst deviance from the 'level playing field' would appear to be when some players are playing within the rules and others are using every cheat that they can.

The real world's tough on the naive.
Sigh - bvc

BTW, I won all of those PBEM games anyway, and strangely enough it wasn't very satisfying winning knowing that some of the players were cheating. It did play a part in my loss of interest in the PBEM MP type of Civ game.

[Dain]

Originally posted by bvoncranium

looking at the map with the editor; using the PTW Load bug to run through everyone's turns and 'play-ahead', re-run battles (adjusting the sequence if Preserve Random Seed is set), etc.

I would never play a PBEM game with anyone I did not trust because there is no way to know if people cheat or not.

They could make a few adjustments which would make the PBEM games more secure.

Firstly, prevent the loading of a PBEM game as a single or multiplayer game. Change the structure of the save game for PBEM games so it can not be loaded.

Seondly, use an encrypted system of monitoring the access of PBEM games so that the result of every action update the savegame (to prevent reloading) and unique encryption patterns which are written to both the save game and appended to a system file and compared prior to processing the turn which will show if the game has been copied, processed, deleted and re-processed.

Would be interesting to see a box show up noting which players had tampered with the savegame, how often and what they tried to do. Would be very ammusing.

[bvoncranium]

Originally posted by Dain
Would be interesting to see a box show up noting which players had tampered with the savegame, how often and what they tried to do. Would be very ammusing.

I used to play a non-Civ MP PBEM game that recorded how many times each player loaded and saved the game. It was quite striking how many reloads/resaves there were on the first couple of turns, that is until people understood that their actions were being recorded. After that there were no reloads and the game ran quickly and smoothly.

Pragmatically, as Civ doesn't work that way, it seems that one has to either accept that some nonsense is going to take place, or live in denial.

Note that Firaxis did address the PBEM reLoad/reSave issue in the 1.27f patch. For various reasons it has generated quite a backlash.

- bvc

[Dain]

Yeah, I am not sure if they have chosen not to make PBEM games secure because they thought most would not use it or if those that played them would more than likely play with honest opponents.

I am sure the backlash was from those who liked to cheat in their games. They should be more interested in protecting the few that do not cheat rather than satisfying the horde of cheaters who do not want their dirty tactics prevented or revealed.

I do not know why people bother to cheat, what is the satisfaction in winning unfairly? You only cheat yourself in that you do not learn how to play better, play smarter and learn new things if you do not accept defeat when you make errors of judgement.

PBEM games are too slow for my liking, the people I normally play with wouldn't cheat. It would be as challenging and entertaining as playing brick-out with a paddle the size of the screen.

[bvoncranium]

Originally posted by Dain
I do not know why people bother to cheat, what is the satisfaction in winning unfairly? You only cheat yourself in that you do not learn how to play better, play smarter and learn new things if you do not accept defeat when you make errors of judgement.

Well said!

The PBEM experience also made me wonder which direction the players who cheated and lost would go:
(1) Decide that cheating wasn't the answer, and go learn to play more effectively (i.e. learn the game mechanics, gain experience with it, read 'Poly, etc.); or
(2) Cheat some more; or
(3) Both
I know of one case of (2) and one of (3).

Building on your statement, the lack of real development can set up a vicious cycle of:
lose=>feel stronger need to win=>cheat as an easy way to gain advantage (rather than learn to play better)=>lose again=>etc.

Could be a good thesis topic for a Psych major.

-bvc

[vmxa1]

I believe that Gramphos tool can tell how many times a save has been reloaded. It was use to prove that fane7 was reloading for his GL run.

[Theseus]

Mad Monk, you are a funny guy!

Daz, do whatever you like, but exploration is a big part of the fun of the game, for me at least.

[Kuciwalker]

For MP games though I really think that C3 should use an UNmodifiable shroud graphic...

[Elias]

In my opinion its ok to cheat in single player the objective of single player is to have fun if you really feel you have been shorte changed then go ahead but do not do it to other people on multipler games!!! I sometimes start myself with a couple of extra workers and an extra city but I turn up the diffuculty to compensate for the good start.

[Mr. President]

How do you compensate for reaching Iron Working and the @%$!* computer not giving you any iron in your territory?

[Dain]

Originally posted by Crimson Sunrise
How do you compensate for reaching Iron Working and the @%$!* computer not giving you any iron in your territory?

By bludgeoning the computer to death with spearmen and archers!

Iron is too critical a resource. You can live without swordsmen but once you have to compete with pikeman and knights when you are using cruddy spearmen and archers then it makes life very difficult.

In a multiplayer game I will assume that I am not going to find any iron and will pick a civ accordingly. You either want a good meaty unit or one you can mass produce in ridiculous numbers to compensate for casualties.

In a single player game i just the Iron off the computer, a player on the other hand is not so stupid or so willing to give you his iron.

Carthage is one of my favorite multiplayer civs. You often get someone who will build 3 towns, build as many military units and try and take you out early or harass your expansion whilst he expands.

The Numidian Mercenary is a brick. 2/3/1 for 30 makes them on the expensive side of early units but a few of these behind a wall and its hard for the fast-assault player to do any real damage. Even on the counter-attack they are as good as archers. The all-in-one unit is one of the best defensive units and really only start to struggle in the middle age.

The Greek Hoplite which is a 1/3/1 is only 20 and is a great defender you can more easily mass-produce it as its the same cost as a spearman. As Greece gets bronze working to begin with they can spit these out from the start. Nothing worse than trying to get rid of these annoying pests fortified wthin your territory early on as they like to sit around on mountains or hills and look to pick off workers, settlers, destroy improvements, etc. Its a lot of fun when you are doing it though.

Another good sacrifice for quality is speed. What can't catch you can't kill you, or close enough to that theory.

The Zulu Impi is very good at that role, only 1/2/2 but its speed lets it avoid being killed off easily. Same cost as spearman so they can move around quickly over roads and you can find it very difficult to bowl over a well defended Zulu homeland that is played well. They are very pesky invaders requiring you to sacrifice alot of units to hunt them down.

Pound for pound one of the nastiest units is the Sumerian Enkidu Warrior. Its only a 1/2/1 but you can shut down any enemy civ as its only 10 to build. Just flooding them with sheer quantity means you can slow them down to a crawl forcing them to guard any unit of value and protecting their infrastructure from swamrs of cheap rabble that are not so easy to get rid of when fortified.

Another favorite of mine is the Babylonian Bowman. It is a 2/2/1 with a zero range bombard for only 20. Work great in numbers. A fortified Bowman has a good chance of taking out an attacking swordsman so they are good value for money.

There are also many very good horse-dependant units that ofter speed and punch, although most lack defensive qualities. Combine horsemen with a good defensive unit and not having swordsmen isnt too bad.

There is life after iron, you just need to choose other options if you are normally heavily dependant on Iron. My immediate neighbours are normally dead or as good as dead during the period where Iron comes into play so its not a major resource for me. I just prefer to choose a civ with a very cheap unit, go into golden age early on and just whomp them through superior production and military advantage.

Good value for money Civs that you can get away without having iron early on are as follows:
Mayan Javelin Thrower 2/2/1 +Enslave for 30.
Sumerian Enkidu Warrior 1/2/1 for 10.
Hittie 3 Man Chariot 2/2/2 for 30 (needs horses)
Carthage Numidian Mercenary 2/3/1 for 30
Iroquois Mounted Warrior 3/1/2 for 30 (needs horses)
Zulu Impi 1/2/2/ for 20
Greek Hoplite 1/3/1 for 20
Babylon Bowman 2/2/1 +Bombard for 20
Egypt War Chariot 2/1/2 for 20 (needs horses)
Inca Chasqui Scout 1/1/2 for 20

The incan Chasqui Scout is the worst of the group, its speed in mountains and hills is great, getting bogged down in any other terrain is not so good.

If your nearby enemies are strong around the iron period then you need to cripple them before the iron-age. If they are rebuilding or dead from a pre-iron war then their advantage is not a factor.

Its why I do not like playing civs with an advanced special unit, the window of opportunity to utilise it is extremely small compared to early age units.

[bongo]

Originally posted by bvoncranium I used to play a non-Civ MP PBEM game that recorded how many times each player loaded and saved the game. It was quite striking how many reloads/resaves there were on the first couple of turns, that is until people understood that their actions were being recorded. After that there were no reloads and the game ran quickly and smoothly.

People may also have learned how to cirumvent the security mechanics.