The "Don't exploit the AI using Cheap Tactics" challenge

[Pembleton]

I decided to write this after reading about the Wombat strategy in a different thread. What it does is exploit the AI into doing something no reasonable person would do.

Now many people complain about the weakness of the AI. And people go out of their way to "challenge" themselves such as OCC. I'm proposing a different challenge. How about setting yourselves a set of rules where you can't exploit the AI?

For example, you can't do this in Civ3, but let's say in Civ2 you told yourself you couldn't have several cities building the same wonder so you can switch to another if another civ completed it.

One of the many problems of the AI is that it doesn't think like a human in the sense that it doesn't understand long-term strategy or consequences. So you exploit this with "strategies" which I consider almost like cheating, like the Wombat strategy, in order to defeat the higher difficulty levels.

When I hear of such exploits in any game, I never use them, because many times they just make the game too easy and no longer fun to play. It's like using a cheat code.

Now there will be some who will say, hey, it's legal and part of the rules, so I should be allowed to do these things. But I'm not proposing this challenge to these people. I'm proposing this to those who may want more enjoyment out of the game by having an AI provide more of a reasonable challenge. Of course you will still have an advantage if the AI does not know how to employ a long-term military campaign (for example, the constant waves of suicide units of Civ2). But by make the playfield more even with the comp, the AI may have more lasting value to those who want more of a challenge.

Save your cheap tricks for MP if your opponent doesn't mind. And besides, many of those tricks couldn't be used against a good player.

[Steve Clark]

It becomes a very fine line between "playing" and "exploitation". There are alot of things that we do to play that the AI wouldn't/couldn't do. One subtle example would be the way we move military units and attack. Are you suggesting that we stoop down to the tactical level of the AI in order to make the game more challenging/real/fun? Besides, there are many definitions of what one considers "fun" in playing a civ game.

[Faboba]

I like cheat codes........

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Are you suggesting that we stoop down to the tactical level of the AI in order to make the game more challenging/real/fun? Besides, there are many definitions of what one considers "fun" in playing a civ game.

No, I already pointed this advantage out in terms of tactics in my post.

And I already stated this would not be for everyone. I already said that everyone has different definitions of fun. There are those who play on chieftain every time and use cheats so they can smash the AI with hardly any resistance. Obviously this is not intended for those people.

I am suggesting this to those who think that Deity or whatever is too easy. The highest level I ever tried in Civ was Emperor in CTP and I won easily but that's after I started employing ICS. I never used ICS in Civ2, and I never played past Prince in Civ2, but that was long ago when I wasn't even aware that you should "ugly" up the map with railroads everywhere in order to increase trade. I never understood why the AI did it but now I know.

I believe in order to defeat the higher levels, you must employ all the cheap tactics at your disposal, although ICS is generally enough against the weak AIs of the earlier civs. If this were Civ2, I may even suggest some restriction of ICS in order to make the game more challenging for those who don't want to go to the extreme of playing OCC like myself, which is the ultimate in AI exploitation.

As a side note, I'm disappointed that there are still roads everywhere in the screenshots because it's ugly, as I assume they have the same trade benefit besides connecting to resources, but I can live with it.

Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps there are those that have defeated the higher levels without employing such tactics as ICS, and I would like to hear from those who have, and how they went about doing it.

[Howling Chip]

Depending on my demeanor, sometimes I play CIV to win, other times I am in essence role playing.

When playing CIV to win, its usually at the higher levels, and both the AI and myself are "cheating". Can my human strategy "cheats", like concurrent Wonder builds beat the AI's instantaneous unit type cheats.

When I role play, its usually at the prince level. In this case I am emulating a civilization. Winning is still the objective, but it is within the confines of the civilization I am playing. In these games, if my invasion fleet that took dozens of turns to assemble is sunk enroute, I do not restore a save game. I go on, even if it is to the dust heap of history.

I look forward to CIV IIIs attempt to model civilizations with unique cultures and attitudes. It'll make playing my civ within the confines of its culture against the AI more enjoyable. Especially at the level where the AI does not cheat.

AND there will be times when I will play at higher levels, playing to WIN, pushing myself via any means available to beat the AI, both of us "cheating".

[Oldenbarnevelt]

Steve makes some good points, but I like the general idea, and I support the compiling of a list of cheap tricks to be avoided in Civ3. Only for those who also think it's a good idea, of course.

However, what exactly is a cheap trick? I think that in Civ2, building the same Wonder in different places, or continuing building a Wonder that has already been built, are examples of a cheap trick. But how about stacking Caravans/Freights?
Working out the trade route equations was not a cheap trick IMO, because it was just a quantification of general principles that can be found in the manual and the Civilopedia. The computation of revolution years however, though maybe as brilliant as the work on trade routes, was a way to gain advantages that were never meant to be gained. (Why? Because IRL revolution years are unpredictable, and don't come in a regular pattern. The programmers should have used a random function producing equal chances for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 years.)

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Oldenbarnevelt
However, what exactly is a cheap trick? I think that in Civ2, building the same Wonder in different places, or continuing building a Wonder that has already been built, are examples of a cheap trick. But how about stacking Caravans/Freights?

Well one thing I've noticed, is that a lot of the old cheap tricks can't be used anymore or are significantly weakened in Civ3. People still think ICS can still be used even though settlers now take away 2 pop instead of 1, but it will be far less effective. The wonder trick can no longer be used since you must switch production after a foreign wonder is completed (I believe it must be something other than a wonder but I'm not certain). There are no longer any caravans so there will no longer be that exploitation. Also only a GL can rush a wonder.

[FrostyBoy]

Pembleton is right, doing ridiculous things just because the programmers didn't program the game correctly, doesn't mean you should do it.

[cyril25376]

Originally posted by Sn00py:
Pembleton is right, doing ridiculous things just because the programmers didn't program the game correctly, doesn't mean you should do it.

I agree, selfdiscipline is important. IIRC, I often reload huts in Civ1 and Civ2 because of getting barbarians ...... . I try to do better in Civ3

[Comrade Tribune]

Hey, you actually have some constructive ideas, Pembleton, and I thought all you ever did was yin-bashing!

I actually went farther than what you propose in my civII games: I organize my games around a 'theme', and avoid even perfectly legitimate tactics if they don´t fit my theme. Example: In the game I am currently playing I assume my civ has an aversion against colosseums -waste of time- and banks -moneylending immoral-, so I am not going to build a single colosseum or bank throughout the game. Also they want to build all the religious wonders -such as King Richard´s-, regardless if useful or not. Of course I don´t use any cheapo tactics like ICS, I am playing the game on Deity, AND trying to win -there are always interesting challenges out there!

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Hey, you actually have some constructive ideas, Pembleton, and I thought all you ever did was yin-bashing!

Well this illusion is created because so many people read his threads and my constructive posts are usually in ones that hardly anyone reads.

I tend not to read the threads that have a lot of pages because most of them seem to go off on tangents and off-topic, as well as having long stretches of one-line posts and even 1 or 2 word posts.

Also, I once had a relatively long, *rational* debate with him in the Korean thread in Civs before I got turned off by him. But let's not dwell on this issue. I think I can hold out on bashing him until the game is out, and I regret having said anything about him yesterday, but I was really bored and there wasn't else interesting on this forum last night. Once the game's out I'll be too interested in the game to care.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

decided to write this after reading about the Wombat strategy in a different thread. What it does is exploit the AI into doing something no reasonable person would do.

That would be the Wombat Maneuver. Its a legitimate strat. In Deity, will the AI attack my AEGIS cruiser with 20 cruise missiles? Of course. Will it make tons of tanks to attack my fortified mec. inf? of course. So its legitimate to use this Maneuver.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
That would be the Wombat Maneuver. Its a legitimate strat. In Deity, will the AI attack my AEGIS cruiser with 20 cruise missiles? Of course. Will it make tons of tanks to attack my fortified mec. inf? of course. So its legitimate to use this Maneuver.

I had thought I made myself clear that I wasn't talking about legitimacy. It's called setting a different set of rules for yourself. It's legitimate to make more than one city in Civ, but that isn't what people are doing when they are playing OCC.

You either didn't read the whole post or thread, or did not understand it.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Pembleton is right, doing ridiculous things just because the programmers didn't program the game correctly, doesn't mean you should do it.

The programmers didn't program the game incorrectly. There are limitations to how good an AI can be with current (or 5 year old) technology. And the ideas for Civ are still evolving, it's fixed now.

But I agree, I don't think much of players who beat the AI on Deity by ICSing or number crunching. When I play Civ, I try to act like it's real and that I'm not competing with a dumb computer.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
That would be the Wombat Maneuver. Its a legitimate strat. In Deity, will the AI attack my AEGIS cruiser with 20 cruise missiles? Of course. Will it make tons of tanks to attack my fortified mec. inf? of course. So its legitimate to use this Maneuver.

Would that be *my* Wombat manouever? If so, WOW That was just a Succession Game joke if not, oops

Resume: I'll exchange this size 20 city of mine for thaat size 3 city of yours. oh yeah, and mine is surrounded by troops, so I can take it back straight away You agree? Good good