What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

[Pyrodrew]

Their Hands Are Tied

I disagree that Tech Trading is "munchkinish." Perhaps the AI's percieved value of technology should be adjusted (or perhaps simply adjusted more radically based upon their attitude toward the player). But playing the part of "acquisition and distribution" (merchant) has always been profitable, throughout history.

But trading techs to make money is a valid strategy.

"Racing through the Tech Tree" & trading techs to make money is fine. I agree. Exploiting the AI Civ's flawed programming by selling their techs so you can make the $$ it should have made is "munchkinsh"... not a strategy. You can make TONS of money by simply Tech Trading your techs you've researched, without being a Tech Whore.

[hanZ]

NOTHING a human player can do in CIV2 reaches the ai benefits from programmergiven AI-only Exploits. espacially after the patch CIV3 is definitely the most-cheating-strategy-game ever. playing on deity is no fun, cause i jump around my appartment throwing things at the walls (winning on deity is not the point, its the way the ai tries to make it not happen) and all levels under deity are way too easy. so you have no fun or its boring. i hope the next patch presents some imporvements to this. playing chess against the computer is way more fun (even if winning IS the point here .-) .... cant wait for civ3 multiplayer ....

[MartyParty1]

It's kind of amusing to see the two camps not seeing eye to eye.

On the one hand you have people who are interested in strategy games because they like to find the curvy path around the AI, and on the other you have people who like to stay on the straight and narrow. Why do they play strategy games? if you're playing with exactly the same strategies as other people then what exactly is the point?

For me personally I don't think of it as going to the designer as a player being ashamed of rorting the design, since I don't have an overly inflated opinion of designers to begin with. Rather I think of it as being a tester going to the development team pointing out weaknesses that need to be fixed.

As far as I'm concerned if you found a strategy yourself then it's yours and is part of how you play. People who learn about a strategy from others can go about their usual judgement routine since they have no ownership of the idea anyway. They can try to judge and judge till the cows come home but if they can't come up with anything new themselves to compare and contrast, then maybe they aren't really unqualified.

[Venger]

Originally posted by MartyParty1
It's kind of amusing to see the two camps not seeing eye to eye.

On the one hand you have people who are interested in strategy games because they like to find the curvy path around the AI, and on the other you have people who like to stay on the straight and narrow. Why do they play strategy games? if you're playing with exactly the same strategies as other people then what exactly is the point?

First - what you call curvy path around the AI, I call gameplay system exploitation. In such a closed system, there is no way for the system to adapt to your exploit - it simply overpowers the system. Finding chinks in the AI programming isn't fun, it's a bug hunt.

Second - the straight and narrow isn't the same strategy as other people - none of us has ever played the same Civ game. We may take similar approaches, but the individual choices that we make set every game apart. I chose to build Pyramids, and finished them. You chose to build city walls first and couldn't complete the Pyramids. But, you were able to hold off an attack, whereas my city was taken. Or there was no attack at all. Each and every gameplay choice is different, at a micro level, making us have quite different games. We may follow the same strategies, but we will never truly make the same choices, and that sets us, and our games and strategies, apart from each other.

Venger

[absimiliard]

Okay, let's look at this a bit historically.

Munchkins don't actually come from the RPG environment, though it's a common term there, instead it's from board-games. Initially I encountered it in Battletech, there a Munchkin is someone who designs legal but overpowered custom Battlemechs. This was the fundamental idea, exploit the rules but don't break them.

This was translated into role-playing games and reinterpreted there. An RPG Munchkin is typically someone who builds characters for pure power and ignores any role-playing concerns in their character design.

The reason Munchkins are/were despised in these environs was that they were multi-player endeavors. A Battletech Munchkin was actually less annoying than admirable, he/she/it knew way more about BT than you and was thus better at it. RPG Munchkins were more annoying in that they would unbalance the game you were in, to gear challenges to them the DM would have to make the rest of you be in much more danger, they were also annoying in that your character could feel quite useless in comparison.

None of which applies to Civ III.

This is not a multi-player game, not yet at least. All the stuff that isn't a bug-exploit is just a strategy. Whether the AI uses it or not isn't really relevant, after all I don't get free units on founding my new city but you don't hear my whining for them either. The AI has some advantages and we hold the rest, and the most important ones in my opinion. The quote from Ender's Game really sums it up well. Unless you cripple your strategy you ARE smarter than the AI, why is that a bad thing?

Personally I don't use rules-exploits but any other STRATEGY or TACTIC is valid as far as I'm concerned. Any other play-style is essentially just handicapping yourself, and while I've played and enjoyed the OCC-type games in SMAC I'm just not there yet in Civ III. Seems to me a lot of folks are getting pretty hot-under-the-collar about how other people handicap themselves in a single-player game. To me that's pretty dim.

As for multi-player, when we get it, I'm still inclined to use anything that's not a rules-exploit. After all, skill-level should be a factor. Someone who knows more, and better, strategies SHOULD win the game. Asking them not to use those strategies is like handicapping in golf. You're trying to make the playing-field even for enjoyment's sake. But I submit that multi-player Civ III is less like a friendly game of golf and more like Chess, or a professional golf tournament. No one handicaps in that environment, after all the point is to prove that you're the better player.

I guess that it boils down to this for me. Doing things to exploit bugs seems bad to me, but in single-player I'm not going to condemn anyone else's behaviour, I just won't do it myself. Anything else is valid in single or multi-player, it's all about skill levels.

Oh, and I kinda resent people who try to make me "dumb my game down to their level" by telling me to not use strategies because they think they're too effective. I don't mind someone pointing out an exploit, and then I won't use it, but to say "this strategy works too well, don't use it" seems petty to me. I'm not interested in equalizing us all, if I'm smart enough to learn and implement a good tactic or strategy I deserve the benefits of it.

After all, why would I play Chess with someone who said "Oh, and you can't pin a piece since that's a more effective strategy than any I've been able to use?" And that feels a lot like what I'm hearing from a lot of people here.

[sophist]

Maybe a solution to the multiplayer handicapping would be to translate the AI's advantages to one of the players. So if two players decide that one is clearly better, that one could be given Emperor-like advantages re: production and free units and such, with the other playing it straight. Or with disadvantages like the AI has on the lower levels. Then you avoid the whole issue of which strategies are acceptable.

[Akka]

Re: Hey Vel. Did I start this?

Originally posted by gachnar

munchkinish: adj. - in a style which relies upon unrealistic use of game rules or excessive exploitation of minor game imbalances.[/B]

So, if I understand well, the whole battle system is muchkinish ?

[Heliodorus]

Originally posted by hanZ
NOTHING a human player can do in CIV2 reaches the ai benefits from programmergiven AI-only Exploits. espacially after the patch CIV3 is definitely the most-cheating-strategy-game ever. playing on deity is no fun, cause i jump around my appartment throwing things at the walls (winning on deity is not the point, its the way the ai tries to make it not happen) and all levels under deity are way too easy. so you have no fun or its boring. i hope the next patch presents some imporvements to this. playing chess against the computer is way more fun (even if winning IS the point here .-) .... cant wait for civ3 multiplayer ....

Since this thread uses football analogies:
I hate watching the St. Louis Rams play football. They have this overpowering, dominant o-line that does one of two things: It either protect the q-back and he then zips a ball to one of his gazelle-like receivers outrunning the defense; or, they knock people silly on the d-line and this huge rhino of a RB runs through the hole. I don't watch Rams games...

If you bought any of these games expecting the AI to use other methods than the cheating in research and production, you were not thinking. I admit that it's frustrating that the AI gets things cheaper, but I knew what to expect. I hated SMAC and CTP1/2 because the diplomacy was FUBAR. There was no point in being nice to it. In Civ3, you can make a decent empire at peace.

[Heliodorus]

First off, I think one has to be complimentary of the design of Civ3 AIs because most of the strategies here seem pretty new. New game, new strategies - justification for new release. I'm still unimpressed with the crowd who thinks this game isn't better than the previous versions and evolutions.

Second - how many posts do I need before I graduate from Settler?

Third - I haven't yet read Ender's Game, but it's on my bookshelf behind 12 other books I haven't read because I game too much. But there's a better quote than that about equal battles... "If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you planned it wrong." That, as I understand it, is a Special Forces motto.

Fourth, and finally, the AI and the human are forced to play by different rules. The AI gets things for reduced cost compared to me. I, however, am able to adapt to very subtle circumstances in an instant. The computer is ruthlessly efficient with a variety of things that I sometimes make mistakes with. We have completely different tools, and mine will always be flexible, the AI's will not.

Fifth, and really finally, some things were overlooked, like the power of pop-rushing (I think) and the rediculousness of the AI's paying for techs (or not trading them like we do). There are still some things that need afixin', but I'm really enjoying the game.

[Pyrodrew]

Doing things to exploit bugs seems bad to me, but in single-player I'm not going to condemn anyone else's behaviour, I just won't do it myself. Oh, and I kinda resent people who try to make me "dumb my game down to their level" by telling me to not use strategies because they think they're too effective. I don't mind someone pointing out an exploit, and then I won't use it, but to say "this strategy works too well, don't use it" seems petty to me.

I believe many were simply detailing which would be considered a strategy & which were an exploit. Who was "condemning"? IFE, Pop-Rush & Tech Whoring are/were bugs to me. You also didn't detail which things you considered a valid strategy vs. an exploit. It seemed more like preaching.

After all, why would I play Chess with someone who said "Oh, and you can't pin a piece since that's a more effective strategy than any I've been able to use?" And that feels a lot like what I'm hearing from a lot of people here.

Your post was vague as to whom & you may have misinterpreted some posts. I know I am not judging or dictating anything, only giving my opinion on what is considered a strategy vs. an exploitation of the programming. If someone wants to use exploits, I don't care. Your chess analogy is flawed since it is possible for either player to have the opportunity exist for them to "pin a piece". A better analogy would be my pieces being allowed to fly over other pieces where yours could not. Likewise the AI Civs cannot be TechWhores (making $ from the Civ you bought the tech from should have made instead).

Just because the AI Civs cannot do something does not mean it is a valid human strategy. Otherwise, reloading after you lose a battle could be considered a valid strategy. If someone wants to do that in single-player - no problem... but it is not a "strategy". Likewise, just because my pieces could fly over other pieces doesn't mean I should do it & call it a valid strategy, when it is just an exploit of a flaw in the program.

First - what you call curvy path around the AI, I call gameplay system exploitation.

Exactly.

some things were overlooked, like the power of pop-rushing (I think) and the rediculousness of the AI's paying for techs

Agreed.

[MartyParty1]

That's a good answer Venger, thanks.

I like Helodorus' football analogy. Many football tactics have the intent of having a 110kg forward make impact with a 85kg back. Some people using the line of thinking shown here would say that is fundamentally unfair and too unbalancing, LOL.

[Thunderfire]

Re: Re: What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

Originally posted by Venger

Please, PLEASE fix the AI and how it uses the military, it's horrific!!

Hmm the AI isn't that bad before the industrial age. The AI in
Civ 3 attacks with a lot of unit something the Civ2 AI never did.
It even bypasses entrenched troops to hit my reinforcements
not so well protected cities behind the front cities. It will put up a
good fight if you have only one front.

[Badtz Maru]

Here's one 'strategy' that I have been known to use which I feel a bit guilty about.

If another civilization beats me to the Great Library, I will research as fast as I can towards Education, trading none of my advances to anyone but the civilization that has the GL, and then as soon as I get Education I will sell it to the civilization that has the GL to make it obsolete.

It's not a true exploit, but it's a strategy based on understanding the mechanics of the way wonders are made obsolete and it is definitely not 'role-playing a leader', which is what I usually try to do.

[Thunderfire]

Originally posted by hanZ
cant wait for civ3 multiplayer ....

I don't think that the civs are very balanced for multiplayer.
Civs with a speed 2-3 ancient or medival UU will have a
serious advantage over others. Any civ who starts next
to them will be doomed most of the time.

[hanZ]

jepp, special units are not very balanced - in multiplayer games the fight will start before the game "I want the Iroques" "NO, I (!) want them" and so on ....

but i think you can disable the civ-specific-stuff not on only in single player.

on the other hand: will multiplayer be released within the next two years? .......