What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

[paulmagusnet]

Re: Clarification

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
IFE - was Munchkin, patch now prevents it.


Creative MPPs - Not Munchkin. The Aztecs made a MPP with the weaker Chinese which forced me to kill off the nearby Chinese before punishing the Aztecs... giving them more time. Did the AI "know" to do this? Probably not, but it did work. Also by letting other AI Civs destroy a Civ that means they get those cities & territory, not you. The AI also ALWAYS uses governors, does that mean human players must ALWAYS use governors?

Despot Pop-Rush - Munchkin. Unless the AI learns to do it, the early benefit to rush build is outrageously HUGE.

I give up, what is IFE and MPP? What is Pop Rush?

[Velociryx]

IFE - Infinite Forest Exploitation (chop, 10 shields, replant, repeat)

MPP - Mutual Protection Pact

Pop-Rush - Under Despotism, sacrificing population to speed build units/infrastructure. If you keep a city small (3 or less) in this manner, you suffer no ill effects.



-=Vel=-

[absimiliard]

Hey Pyro, et al.

I'll try to take a stab at more precision for you in terms of what I consider an exploit vs. what I consider merely an incredibly effective strategy.

Pop-rushing I don't view as a bug, it's a deliberately included piece of the game. Not an exploit. (also less useful than my early math seemed to indicate, I'm rapidly deciding it's not worth rushing much beyond a Temple & Granary)

The same goes for tech-whoring, especially since I've seen the AI sell tech to each other.

IFE I think was a bit more blurry, clearly it was intended, yet equally clearly the developers didn't really think it through. I think I'd say exploit, but only because their changing it in the patch shows they thought it was bad. Neither of the other "exploits" got patched into non-existance, thus I say they're not exploits.

ICE isn't really an exploit either, being merely a city-placement strategy, but I dislike it intensely from an esthetic point of view. In SMAC it was flawed, and perhaps exploitive, because of the free "unit of pop" you got working your Base square. In Civ III you are spending two pop to build that settler so the free square of city production does actually cost a unit of pop up-front. Thus my judgement of non-exploit.

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.

Valid point. But I'm not really here to start a flame-war so I think I'll decline to name anyone, not to mention that I don't really care enough to go back and look up whom it was, or even which thread it was on since it's an attitude I've seen in a few threads. But I stand by my rather vague feeling of being insulted, and my being irked at it. Perhaps I did misinterpret, if so, my apologies.

Okay, on to the Chess analogy. We have been told the AI and the player can do the same things. That means the pin, or a fork, really is a good analogy, not a flying piece. It's not that the AI couldn't IFE, it's that it doesn't. That's a lack of knowledge. Thus I feel that us saying "don't do ICE" is directly analogous to a Chess-judge saying "You're playing an amateur who doesn't know how to fork with a Knight, so you can't fork either."

As for tech-whoring, the AI does it. It just won't sell a tech for less than a certain amount. I will. Different strategy, not incapacity. It is powerful, but changing it would be powerfully in favor of the player as well since then instead of tech-whoring I'd go 100% gold and buy every tech on the cheap. It's really just basic economics, use it to your advantage.

Just because the AI Civs cannot do something does not mean it is a valid human strategy.

Certainly true. But neither does it mean it shouldn't be a valid human strategy. I'm not playing the game looking for an even field, I'm playing each game to trounce the game as best as I can. So long as I do it within the rules of the game I'm playing fair. I'm not required to be nice after all, just to abide by the rules. (Technically of course I'm not required to do anything, I could do save-restart cheats all day long if that was my thing. I just prefer to play games withing the rules.)

I guess it boils down to a feeling, for me, that an exploit is a breaking of the game's rules. Anything within the rules is instead a strategy. And I don't like being told that using strategy is wrong, I have a brain and using it to win in a brutal or vicious manner is using it appropriately. Why bother thinking at all if you don't use your thoughts? (That's rhetorical, please don't follow it up.)

Lastly, my apologies, we've now gotten solidly away from "Munchkinism". Let me, before departing, return to it.

In board-games & RPGs munchkins are those who use the rules to their extreme advantage. In board-games I'd say it's admirable, they're smart and knowledgeable and deserve every advantage they get. In RPGs it's still admirable, it's just also annoying since it down-grades everyone else's enjoyment of the game. It is that aspect which gives Munchkinism it's bad odor around here, but we need to remember that Civ III isn't an RPG. Instead it is a board-game. Admire the Munchkin, don't despise him. If he is brutally effective without breaking the rules of the game he deserves every advantage he can take. After all, knowledge, intelligence, and the willingness to use them are what set the Transcendant Ironmen apart from the rest, and that's just as true here in Civ III as it was in SMAC.

[BanastreTa]

In defining a "Munchkin" strategy, I think we may be barking up the wrong tree in attempting to establish an absolute definition in this manner.

In my opinion, the "Munchkin" strategy only exists in a multi-player game. Even there, it is difficult if not impossible to come up with an absolute definition. I'd argue that a Munchkinish strategy is simply one that fits under the very broad banner of "any strategy which, by taking advantage of unintended/unusual loopholes in gameplay or rules, unbalances the game and makes it less enjoyable for other participants."

Obviously, this works for not just a straight-up multiplayer game, but also some sort of indirect tournament (racing to the highest score). If somebody uses such a strategy, it will force other players to use it, too, or be at a disadvantage. It lowers the fun factor of the tourney, and also lowers the level of sheer skill necessary to win, since these types of rule exploitations are often mechanical and repetitive in nature.

As for the "Munchkinish" strategy in a single player game, I'll submit to you that it doesn't exist, or at least not to a relevant degree. If ICE or tech-whoring makes your game enjoyable, then it is a valid strategy. For me, sometimes I'll sacrifice a measure of successfulness in favor of fun or realism. Case in point: in Civ 2, combined arms were more or less meaningless. Still, I would often make balanced armies of bombers, howitzers, tanks, and marines, just because it was more fun to me staging an invasion that way--despite the fact that just rolling over the opposition with armor was probably the most efficient strategy.

It's like the 10000000000 gold pre-patch strategy--people whined and complained that allowing this obvious exploitation of the rules imbalanced the game, but its not as if anybody was forcing you to demand that gold, and you were at no disadvantage in not doing it, because the AI would not either. In summary, I think that no rule exploitation in a single player game is truly "munchkinish", so long as it floats your boat.

Sure, using a strategy like this may somehow diminish the level of boasting you can level about your game, but if you had fun and you aren't involved in a tournament/competitive situation, who the heck cares?

So, for a briefer summary--I think what or what is not a "Munchkinish" strategy is determined on a game by game basis, and even then is only a relevant description in a multiplayer game.

BT

[David Weldon]

Vel,

I'd just like to more clearly define "munchkin". This may not be interesting to some people, but it is for me. It is worth noting that English is a living language, especially in terms of slang, so the original meaning can easily be co-opted if enough people use the term differently. (in other words, don't bi*ch to me if you've heard it used differently, it's _slang_ after all)

As absimiliard pointed out, 'munchkin' didn't originate from RPG's. It actually didn't originate from Battletech either, but he has a version of the correct original meaning of the term, and it's quite easy to see why he first encountered it in that game.

First, it's a noun, not an adjective.

Second, it refers to a single, ultra-powerful unit. e.g. Conan the Barbarian is a munchkin.

I first encountered it, and I believe this was it's first use in this manner, in table-top war gaming. Games like Chainmail, Battlesystem for D&D, Warhammer, etc. (of course, Battletech applies).

A subtle point is that the idea comes out of using legitimate rules in an unanticipated way. Warhammer is a great example for those of you who play it. Each player is given a number of 'points' that can be used to create an army, different units cost different amounts, and then extra powers can be 'bought' for the units as well. The expectation of the makers of the game was that people would actually build armies (i.e. multiple units) because that's what they thought was fun. If one built a munchkin by putting all resources into a single unit, however, the result was often a completely unbeatable unit even though it was equal in point value to an opponent's cleverly constructed army. In many game systems it is possible to get the munchkin enough armor and/or combination of powers so as to make it completely invulnerable to anything but another munchkin, and even then it is often a stalemate.

I don't think a munchkin is illegal, nor even illegitimate, it's just not any fun to play against.

In D&D, munchkins can often be built if you start a "high level" party, and the DM simply says "buy 20000 XP worth of magic items". You can choose reasonable stuff, as would have been collected in random adventures, or you can make all your items synergistic, ending up with a nearly invulnerable munchkin.

In battletech, it could be applied if players were expected to build a scout lance with 120 total tons, and instead the player built a 100 ton, 3 gauss rifle monster and a 20 ton blindingly fast 'sighting mech' with targeting computer so that the munckin was always firing at short range. I don't personally consider excellent design among equal weight classes a munchkin, but ymmv.

In magic the gathering, using cards together in unexpected ways to achieve an ultra-powerful deck isn't building a munchkin, it's either just clever deck design or it's prohibited in the next tournament.

It's easy to see how it has morphed into it's usage in this thread to mean exploitation of game systems in an unintended manner to gain extra advantage over the AI, but again, I personally don't believe that the term applies at all to civIII.

Whatever term is used, however, I definitely believe there are illegitimate strategies (a.k.a. exploits) that should not be used if you intend to discuss the game with others. Since this is already quite long, and I already contributed my ideas on this in another thread, I'll leave the rest of the argument to others.

[Velociryx]

Hiya David! And I agree....it's been most enlightening, this thread and the various definitions we've seen here so far have all been....at least in the same vein....pretty interesting reading though, even if there has, ulitmately been no absolute consensus!

Ahhhh, Magic: The Gathering....those were the days....Gaia's Leige/Force of Nature, Channel/Fireball, Howling Mines + Stormbind....yes....

-=Vel=-

[Espejo]

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?

A good strategie game should allow a lot of different strategies you should adjust to different game situations. Chess has been used many times as an example. If you are playing the same sequence of moves or even the same basic strategie allways over without adapting to the other players moves. YOu will loose against anohter skilled player. This is why chess is fun.

The sign of an exploit in the game is that is so powerful that you only carrie out the same thing over and over again without any adaptation and you will win because there are no as effiktive counters.
It is boring because it actually limits your playing style in the future when there will be MP.

[absimiliard]

I was also thinking about the difference between exploit and strategy.

I'm starting to think the sign of an exploit is that it wouldn't work versus a human player.

It's not whether or not the AI does something. That's not germaine in my rarely humble opinion. Rather it's whether or not your tactic would work versus a human. Allow me to present two tactics that illustrate my thoughts.

First, Tech-whoring: A definition is in order. Tech-whoring is when you get a tech, bought or researched, and then go out and sell it for whatever anyone offers, you go all the way around and get lots of gold for selling it to everyone. This tactic would work against humans, it's basic economics, so I classify it as non-exploit.

Second, AI paralyzation: In some cases you can paralyze an AI's invasion force by moving your own forces around. As the AI always moves towards a weak-point you can cause it to continuously move it's armies back and forth as you use your armies to close each weak point. The effect is that you have paralyzed the AIs armies. This tactic will not work versus a human. You are using the AI's algorithms against itself, humans are smarter than that. They would change their strategy. Thus I think this IS an exploit, since you couldn't use it against a human.

The other "exploits" can also be evaluated on this criteria. ICE, non-exploit, can be used against anyone. IFE (now gone) not-exploit since it could be used against anyone, but it seems to have been a bug since the patch did address it. Pop-rush and creative use of MPPs also non-exploitive since they would work fine against a human.

So what do you all think? Is "would it work against a human" a valid criteria for judging the "exploitiveness" of a tactic?

[Ozymandous]

Re: Their Hands Are Tied

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

"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.

Umm, excuse me, but what kept the AI from selling their tech's to make that money themselves in the first place? Just because maybe I offered them more than anyone else and then profited by giving big does *not* make this a "exploitative" strategy.

If the AI had been coded so as to hardly EVER trade/sell tech's amongst themselves then fine, but if I spend big to get a prime tech and then sell it to everyone and their brother to make a profit, or maybe just to give other Civ's a chance to build that nice wonder I know the selling civ is building that I know I won't build in time, then it should be up to me.

This is not exploitative unless Soren or someone at Firaxis says it is. Besides, if you failed to notice this was tweaked in the patch but not made so prohibitive as to be useless, so it MUSE be a VALID strategy.

Heh, be the first to discover monarchy in the ancient age and you may be lucky enough to go from 9th in Literacy (science race) to first just because everyone gives you everything else you didn't research until then and BAM you're the first civ into the Middle Ages.

[sophist]

I think the point made about Munchkin strategies only being so in the context of other players is the right determination. How you play in the privacy of your own home should be of no concern to me. Once you get into a tournament game or a multiplayer game is when it gets to be a problem.

Based on the various things people have been saying, I think one could partially define a munchkin strategy as being one that is relatively easy and mindless to employ (IFE, for example) and makes a significant difference. To use combined arms (granted, I picked an obviously non-Munchkin one) in your wars makes a significant difference, but it involves a bit more to actually do it; it's not like you're just sitting there hitting N, then Shift-C, then N, and so forth. I think one way to determine whether a strategy is munchkin is how easy it is for a player previously ignorant of said strategy to learn it and use it. IFE is so easy to describe and doesn't require any thought to use. Combined arms, on the other hand, is readily described, but each player needs to play with it for a while to determine what works best for them in which context (map size, type, civ count, their aggressiveness, etc.), indicating there's a bit more meat on the strategy. Plus the player is, in a sense, making the strategy their own rather than mindlessly following a list of instructions that work in every situation. The player is forced to think on his/her feet (er... butt?) in order to adapt the strategy to a given situation. It's also possible that a strategy might not apply in all situations, and the player has to learn those as well. IFE (pre-patch) always was useful and always worked. Combined arms might be effective, sometimes it isn't the best way of achieving your goals.

So, in sum: if it's easy and mindless but still grants a significant benefit, it's Munchkin. If it grants significant benefit but requires some degree of thought and adaptation to make it work effectively in a given circumstance, then it's a valid strategy.

[carioca]

Originally posted by absimiliard

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.

LOL

Now that is just funny.


I was a munchkin before battletech was produced.

The word Munchkin (coming from Frank L. Baum's Oz books) was applied to new young gamers in the late '70s, because we looked (and often acted) like...Munckins.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by absimiliard
Pop-rushing I don't view as a bug, it's a deliberately included piece of the game. Not an exploit. (also less useful than my early math seemed to indicate, I'm rapidly deciding it's not worth rushing much beyond a Temple & Granary)

Early Pop-rushing a Temple & Granary alone is HUGE, which the AI never does, as it gives a massive long-term edge over the AI. And many others feel there is more benefit beyond the temple & granary...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37857

The same goes for tech-whoring, especially since I've seen the AI sell tech to each other. As for tech-whoring, the AI does it. It just won't sell a tech for less than a certain amount. I will.

Selling techs is tech-trading. There is a difference between tech-whoring & tech-trading. The AI does NOT tech whore (buying a tech & then selling it to ALL other possible Civs, thus making $ that the Civ who originally sold the tech should have made).

It is powerful, but changing it would be powerfully in favor of the player as well since then instead of tech-whoring I'd go 100% gold and buy every tech on the cheap. It's really just basic economics, use it to your advantage.

That assumes the change would go you imagine. If they programmed the AI to only sell the techs it wanted to sell for gold, during its turns (like the player does) to ALL other Civs, then you couldn't "buy every tech on the cheap". If you offered gold during your turn for a tech, the AI should ask for a higher price expecting you to sell it to all the other AI Civs. Whoever has the current turn during a tech trade has an advantage... an advantage the AI never uses nor calculates in. Or perhaps they could simply make it more expensive to buy a tech from an AI Civ (thus simply calculating in the "your turn" advantage you have of selling that tech to others during "your turn"). Or who knows?

IFE I think was a bit more blurry,... I think I'd say exploit

IFE was a gold mine for Industrious Civs.

Neither of the other "exploits" got patched into non-existance, thus I say they're not exploits.

Not yet.... Somehow I don't necessarily deem Firaxis as the almightly judge to say what 'exploits' are either, especially since they might not of had the knowledge/time to best patch the exploit (like tech-whoring), aside from making the cure worse than disease (removing tech trading all together).

It's not that the AI couldn't IFE, it's that it doesn't.

If the AI you're using does not know how to abuse IFE, it cannot use/learn IFE until it is programmed to do so - at which point it is a new AI.

I'm not playing the game looking for an even field, I'm playing each game to trounce the game as best as I can. So long as I do it within the rules of the game I'm playing fair. I guess it boils down to a feeling, for me, that an exploit is a breaking of the game's rules.

The rules are in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps reloading if one accidently clicks next turn is unacceptable to some, but others feel reloading is fair anytime regardless as the fun of the game is more important. A player can even feel clear exploits are within the rules (since Diety is so hard) if they want. I hope I never gave the impression that I felt exploits were "against the rules"... rather simply what were the exploits.

Regarding whether the term Munchkin is the best term - this is a minor issue to me. I started using 'exploit' for less confusion.

[Pyrodrew]

Re: Re: Their Hands Are Tied

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Umm, excuse me, but what kept the AI from selling their tech's to make that money themselves in the first place?

Because it's not programmed to... yet.

Just because maybe I offered them more than anyone else and then profited by giving big does *not* make this a "exploitative" strategy.

Yes it does, because the Civ you bought the tech from should have made that "profit" if it existed... if it doesn't it is a stupid AI... which obviously some people want.

If the AI had been coded so as to hardly EVER trade/sell tech's amongst themselves then fine, but if I spend big to get a prime tech and then sell it to everyone and their brother to make a profit, or maybe just to give other Civ's a chance to build that nice wonder I know the selling civ is building that I know I won't build in time, then it should be up to me.

Fact is you are not "spending big" for that tech you're buying cheap given the potential profit... the AI should expect you to sell that tech during your turn to all the other Civs & adjust the price accordingly (upwards). Those buying the tech from you would keep their offers the same. You can make TONS of $ from simply selling techs you've researched, you don't need to be a tech whore.

This is not exploitative unless Soren or someone at Firaxis says it is.

Soren & Firaxis have never declared anything an exploit, including reloading endlessly.

this was tweaked in the patch but not made so prohibitive as to be useless, so it MUSE be a VALID strategy.

This falsely assumes that Firaxis knew how/could fix the tech whoring within that short time of when this was discovered & when the patch was released.

[David Weldon]

Geez, I'm starting to get worried that absimiliard and I are going to have to live together pretty soon...

I completely agree that an "exploit" is in the eye of a human opponent. Even when talking about things that work vs. AI civs, the point is that a comparison with another human is going to be made, or a game with some human/some AI players is going to be played.

I would say there are a few "cheats" (like the million dollar bug) that should never be used if you want to play anything like the game everyone else is playing.

Then, there are a number of "exploits" that would never work vs. humans (privateer escorted by BB, for example).

Then, there are a number of creative strategies that work better than perhaps anyone intended or expected, but would still work vs. humans (IFE, pop-rush). In this category, it does not make any difference that the computer can't or doesn't use such tactics. The AI can't coordinate artillery in an offensive, but are we to never use them in such a manner? Of course not. In fact, at higher levels the AI is given "cheats" that it uses to make up for the well-known fact that it doesn't play a perfect game. We should play the game with whatever the rules are at the time.

A hypothetical example:
What if the creators of chess didn't expect the Queen would be the most powerful piece? They thought maybe the knights would dominate play. Over time, everyone started using the Queen "exploit" because clearly it was a "broken" piece. This lead to a game that the designers didn't really expect or intend, but everyone was playing the same game, and the Queen is just as effective for everyone who plays. Even though early computers didn't use the Queen very effectively, and even though it was an unexpetedly powerful piece, it was and is absolutely not any kind of exploit to use it as often as desired.

Almost the exact same argument can be made about Cavalry in civIII, or the Industrious advantage becoming more important if IFE is used. Yes, certain tactics are more powerful than others, and that's always the way it's going to be.

Firaxis has all the right in the world to change any rules that didn't work out according to their intention (just as they nerfed IFE), but I don't really think that we, the players, have those same rights. I think that we should generally accept the game that's given to us and play it as well as we can.

[Be Quicker]

Originally posted by Espejo


A good strategie game should allow a lot of different strategies you should adjust to different game situations. Chess has been used many times as an example. If you are playing the same sequence of moves or even the same basic strategie allways over without adapting to the other players moves. YOu will loose against anohter skilled player. This is why chess is fun.

The sign of an exploit in the game is that is so powerful that you only carrie out the same thing over and over again without any adaptation and you will win because there are no as effiktive counters.
It is boring because it actually limits your playing style in the future when there will be MP.

I just want allert people in this thread to this message already posted in this thread that I think outlines the IMHO best definition of exploits quite well. Especially emphasizing that in chess you cannot get away with always using the same boring strategy to which there is no clear defense.