What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

[Pyrodrew]

Vel - I agree with Sophist. Taking the workers is not a "superior strategy" to IFE. 1st, you would most likely have NO idea where the workers were IFEing, unless you had a spy showing all units (which charge excessive fees & they only show military units I believe). 2nd, I doubt someone would bunch up all their IFE workers in 1 nice spot for you - more likely they would be spread throughout their territory & possibly in the center. 3rd, if you're on a hunt to find all these IFE workers... guess what that player gets to do with his military units - gain new cities. 4th, if your workers are not IFEing you're falling behind. 5th, even if you knew where they were you're falsely assuming you would be able to take them - failure is very possible.

DavidWeldon - It seems everyone will draw their lines in different places. MP Despot Pop-Rush only is too predictable, against the AI too big of an advantage, just like IFE & million-dollar "cheat" where it no longer becomes strategy with weaknesses.... for me anyways. Regarding your strategy - I've read posts here of people losing unguarding cities & the Chinese snuck a boat up & took 2 cities from me once too. Perhaps I didn't do it as well as you, but there seems to be some risk/cost. I didn't see any clear guidelines that would depict infinite invasion avoidance trick, reloading, milliondollar cheat, or IFE as a strategy vs. an exploit either, regardless of them being in the game or effective.

Back to beta-testing...

[Velociryx]

Regarding worker-kidnapping in bulk as a possible counter to IFE:

Admittedly, it was a spur of the moment idea, but I'd contend it would work because:

1) IFE (pre-patch, of course) was primarily a means of pumping up production in corruption-ridden towns far from the capitol. This implies that the workers would have to be on the fringes of the enemy's empire (since the ten shields of production goes to the closest town)

2) In order to build expensive facilities at such towns, the workers would have to be clumped, so that the chopping/replanting could happen relatively quickly (say 6-8 workers in a stack).

3) Likely (especially when considering stuff like hospitals and factories) several stacks would be in the neighborhood of the border towns (netting gains of 30-40 shields per rotation).

4) A single cav unit "attacking" a stack of workers captures them all right then and there.

So....you'd only need a relatively small force (3-4 cav) to walk away with 18-24+ workers. Given that it's a border town, and such a strategy (before mentioning it here at least) would be unexpected in the extreme, it would be easy enough to create a diversion someplace, draw the opponent's attention there, slip in with 3-4 cav, kidnap a whole slew of workers, sacrifice a few of them for re-capture by placing them "in the way" and individually stacked, and making off with the remainder.

Granted, it'd only work once, but it sure would put a surprised look on some poor fellow's face....

-=Vel=-

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by absimiliard
It would require the AI to treat the human differently from the other AIs however, and we have been told it will not do that.

Well, maybe it could still offer to sell it for an average of what the other Civs paid for it to the human player.

Second, in my experience the AI can't often deliver your 150 Gold on a tech.

Tech Selling is usually much more profitable I've found later in the game. Larger maps probably also results in more gold income (which leads to higher tech prices)... I usually play on huge maps. I'm usually buying Techs in the Ancient Age since IMO the AI Civs sell them very cheap. Later prices get so high it's better to sell rather than buy.

My observation is that though the AI often will sell it's soul to get a tech it even more often can't offer more than it's World Map plus 1 to 5 Gold. This means the profit that you percieve doesn't exist.

I wish that were true, but this isn't an untested strategy/exploit. Nor was it discovered by me. If you search older files other names this technique could be under is "TechBrokering". I didn't invent the "TechWhoring" name, but since a broker is a professional and a whore is a less favorable term, I perfer using the later term for this.

DavidWeldon - Your recent theories could very well be true. I will have to give them more thought... during dinner.

Vel - 1st, I believe IFE would be more effective to produce home-town factories rather than try to build up cities dangerously on the edge of a border which might still be producing on 1 shield centuries later. Against the AI IFE on borders might be fine, against humans it would be crazy. 2nd, stacks might be in the same neighborhood, but again that's not going to be on my borders when playing against humans unless they are heavily protected (which after IFEing some factories/hospitals in the center of my empire they would be). 3rd, Cavalry only can go 3 tiles... unprotected IFE is safe 4squares from my border. And sometimes one can IFE a border city & still be 4squares from the border. Putting a few workers on a border sure sounds like a good distraction/lure for a more devious plot. Your entire means to stop IFE depends on unprotected workers sitting on the border. 4th, and most importantly - you've just declared war on me by doing that... are you going to declare war on everyone using IFE? And I might not like that if I'm the only source of oil for you... my friends who use my oil might not like that either. What if you're involved in too many other wars already at the time?

[Velociryx]

Valid points, all. And certainly there are more things to consider than simply who-is-IFEing.....

However, IFE is simply more effective for border towns riddled with corruption than for cities on the interior. That was the whole reason the exploit was discussed to begin with (because cities in your interior, close to your capitol/fp are already producing enough shields to build stuff quickly....IFE was initially a means to get around the 1-shield production of distant towns).

In any case, post-patch, IFE is a dead horse, but given the environment that existed prior to that patch, I would contend that the majority of players would be inclined to use IFE where it would net them the biggest benefit (ie - towns that could not produce well on their own). All the discussions I participated in here regarding IFE pre-patch centered around that very theme.

Now, it's certainly true that a human player would not simply leave his workers undefended.....they'd no doubt have a guard or perhaps two with each stack.

When considering counters to IFE though, I'd also contend that it wouldn't ultimately matter whether you captured the workers or no (and, if I caught them and did not feel I could escape with them, rather that risk re-capture, I'd be inclined to simply disband them). What matters is that if I can stop you from doing what you're doingn for even one turn while you relocate your workers (and mine are, presumedly still chopping away), then I've gained turn advantage over you....even more if my attack succeeds of course, but even if it fails and forces you to relocate, that's still one turns' worth of chopping that I'm getting and you're not.

Will it matter, ultimately?

Maybe....

-=Vel=-

[justjake73]

One example is moving galleys across 'forbidden' sea squares; that is - ones the human cannot cross.

This has of course been carried over all the way from CivI. I watched today as an Egyptian galley headed straight into the open ocean.

[absimiliard]

I think you're right about the profit available in the late game Pyro. It is quite substantial. But the AI can't get any of it.

By that time the game is already functionally over, the AI never gets the chance to sell a tech past the Middle Ages. By the Industrial age I'm the only one getting tech first. The odd tech may slip by, but nothing meaningful.

[gachnar]

Originally posted by justjake73
This has of course been carried over all the way from CivI. I watched today as an Egyptian galley headed straight into the open ocean.

I'd be interested to see proof of this, since I have set up several shallow water blockades (basically an L-shape of 3 Galleys against a straight shore) that prevent Galleys from getting to my continent.

They dont get past. They build up. They get frustrated. I've watched several Galleys do this: Run into blockade, offload troops, leave, show up, pick up troops take them somewhere else, return 10 turns later.

You sure the egyptians didnt have the Lighthouse? If so, a savegame would be nice.

[justjake73]

Oh! That may explain it! They DID just complete the Lighthouse! I didn't realize it had that ability - I have never built that wonder.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Ironwood

Oh wait. Historical example appearing in my mind. Remember Charles the Great, aka Charles Magnus, aka Charl le Mange, aka Charlemange? That guy didn't sit tight for one minuite (yes, this is an exaggeration). He, and his entourage (sp?), pretty much spent a lot of their time touring the empire, making sure the local lords didn't forget for one minute who was king.

Alexander the Great moved his capitol to Western India as soon as he was done conquering it.

It's an excellent and effective real-world tactic. I say teach the AI to do it too.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Velociryx
IFE is simply more effective for border towns riddled with corruption than for cities on the interior. That was the whole reason the exploit was discussed to begin with (because cities in your interior, close to your capitol/fp are already producing enough shields to build stuff quickly....IFE was initially a means to get around the 1-shield production of distant towns).

Simply because IFE is more effective on new cities, assuming they won't be strangled with 1shield corruption forever, doesn't mean IFE is useless when used 4 squares or more away from the border or even at the center of an empire.

I would contend that the majority of players would be inclined to use IFE where it would net them the biggest benefit (ie - towns that could not produce well on their own). All the discussions I participated in here regarding IFE pre-patch centered around that very theme.

Everything has a risk & reward element to it & putting IFE workers on the border with someone you're at war with is stupid. You're ignoring the risk element completely. Instead have the IFE workers build your other cities when you're at war... after you take other cities & extend your borders then you can move the IFE workers to the "once border" cities.

Now, it's certainly true that a human player would not simply leave his workers undefended.....they'd no doubt have a guard or perhaps two with each stack.

A guard or 2? If I'm at war with you I'm not going to stick 1 guard on a pile of IFE workers on my border. Furthermore, if we're at war it's a WAR... not a little scuffle. If you declare war, I'm not going to say, "oh you silly... darn now you ruined my IFEing." More like, "you drew 1st blood... now you're going to DIE! Take his capital, raze his cities!" Next CENTURIES of war in blood.

When considering counters to IFE though, I'd also contend that it wouldn't ultimately matter whether you captured the workers or no (and, if I caught them and did not feel I could escape with them, rather that risk re-capture, I'd be inclined to simply disband them). What matters is that if I can stop you from doing what you're doingn for even one turn while you relocate your workers (and mine are, presumedly still chopping away), then I've gained turn advantage over you....even more if my attack succeeds of course, but even if it fails and forces you to relocate, that's still one turns' worth of chopping that I'm getting and you're not.

Again I'm not sticking my IFE workers on your border when we're at war, no more then I would be building improvements on cities I just conquered of yours. Regardless if a mined grassland would really help that city the risk is too high.

Anyways, more importantly if I'm IFEing at the center of my empire building my universities, banks, hospitals, & factories MUCH MUCH faster... you cannot stop it... there is NO counter-strategy to it.

[Velociryx]

Small point: I'd not try a worker grab when we're at war tho....but as an opening shot, it'd sure make for a good one....

-=Vel=-

[Black Sunrise]

Originally posted by Adam Wallock
India and Pakistan sign a non-aggresion pact so that Pakistan may conquer westward and India may conquer eastward leaving their mutual boundary ungarrisoned.

Interesting. I wonder how he gets around the fact that they hate each other, and deperately want to wipe each other off the face of the planet?

Originally posted by Sinapus


Well, you always could modify the civ3mod.bic so that a civ has all six bonuses, plus four starting techs. Then always play that civ.

(No, I did *not* do that. Just noticed it was doable.)

You could also tape a piece of paper with the words "You win" on your computer monitor, yet somehow I feel it would be less satisfying than actually trying to win.

Originally posted by xane
I play my games as I take them, last time as the Germans I lost miserably because I was the _only_ civilization not to have either oil or rubber

You played a historically accurate game then. Congratulations on recreating world war II!



The term munchkinism comes from the 70's, btw. It does indeed have a history, but I'd have to go spend hours looking through old Dragon Magazines to find it's historical roots (there was an article).

Originally posted by gachnar
munchkinish: adj. - in a style which relies upon unrealistic use of game rules or excessive exploitation of minor game imbalances.

Thats the best, and if I recall correctly, the official, definition.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

Er, no offence, but Stalin did this, historically speaking. So I don't think it's a true munchkin strategy, unless you consider Real World leaders to be munchkins. (actually, I could make a good case that every great leader in history has been a munchkin, ruthlessly learning and exploiting the changing rules of history to the expense of the less adaptable).

David Weldon:
Great examples of munchkinism. Interesting is also the fact that many of them are actually very effective (1 big mech with a sighting mech is close to a variant I used to win a couple of tourneys)

Originally posted by absimiliard

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.

Ah, another fan of WWII! That is refered to as a blitzkrieg. A "lightening war" in which enemy strongpoints and forces are bypassed, and enemy supply bases threatened, parylizing a military in the field. The military is unable to strike, left at the old "front", now not knowing which direction to move. Used with incredible skill in bypassing the French defences in WWII.
The AI is stupider than a typical human, but the confusion induced by having no clear front is not a purely silicon stupidity.
(no offence, btw. I see your point, but this is a strategy that has worked, historically, against humans. The results spelt the end of trench/positional warfare and the dawn of mobility warfare)

Originally posted by sophist

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.

Not bad, I can accept that as a workable rule for valid strategy, as opposed to just screwing around.

Originally posted by Be Quicker
Have there actually been many computer strategy games where it does not boil down to using the same boring strategy to which there is no clear defense?

Well, killing the opponent works pretty well for me, most times.

And SMACX had a lot of variants to that. Getting everyone else to like you and vote you into the winning position, winning by technology, winning through economic dominance, winning through world conquest, winning by yourself, winning with allies, spelling your name out in roads, etc.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but... that is called Tech Trading/Selling... that's not Tech Whoring. A Tech Whore is player who specifically seeks to buy techs from other Civs, then immediately sells those techs to all the other AI Civs who don't have it. Result = the player gains a substantial profit... a profit which the AI Civ who originally sold the tech to the player should have made instead by selling it to the player & all other AI Civs during it's turn initially... IF it wanted to sell it at all. Or it should ask for a higher price (thus obtain most of that TechWhore profit) for the tech the player wants to buy.

I believe this is referred to as industrial espionage. Japan did it to the USA, buying technology to make submarines quieter, then selling it to the Soviet Union (at a substantial profit, I might add). Valid strategy, historically. Too bad the AI doesn't use it on us (yet), that'd be a nasty one!



Regards,
Indra

[Fredric Drum]

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

Originally posted by art_vandelai



difficulty level reflects that. I've only played 1 game off of Regent (on Chieftan) but I've found the game to be infinitely fun and compelling, even after a month and a half of daily play. I use some of the lesser exploits (i.e. tech managing and selling) but not those I feel reach the point of abusing the AI's weaknesses. Maybe that's why I have only won the game a few of the many games I've started.

The AI cheats, so why not you? AI players know which of your cities are completely undefended, but the AI really shouldn't know this. Heck, AI knows where ALL units are ALL the time (and makes use of it, too). So it's not that the AI is paying gold to investigate all your cities every turn. It's annoyning that it automatically sends unit to the least defended cities.. so I don't feel bad about using it to my advantage. That said, I haven't used the undefended city tactics, but I don't see why not. If the AI played a fair game, then don't use "exploits", but it doesn't.
Maybe it's not an empire-building game after all, but a competition to exploit as much as possible? Playing on deity, the AIs get settlers and units whenever it needs them.. and compared to that, tech whoring is peanuts. Again, I have not used tech whoring, but I think I will... that'll teach that bastard AI a lesson!

Fred

[squeeze truck]

Great 18th Century American Pop-Rush

I'm a bit confused by the concept of pop-rush and why it is considered to be unfair.

Let me see if I understand the idea. I have the heart of my empire where the palace is, and where 5-6 of my oldest most populous cities are. Then I have a frontier that I am expanding into. I mass-produce workers, send them to the frontier and have the workers rejoin the 1-2 pop cities that are there. Thus I build up the frontier more quickly.

Is that accurate?

If so, let me offer some real-world cases where this has been done effectively.

*18th Century America (The Homestead Act) The US offered free land and many incentives for "workers" in the Eastern cities to move West (into land recently acquired from France, and inhabited by small groups "Iroqouis") and build/join existing settlements.

*18th Century Russia:
Same deal. Many people left the West to fill up the empty Russian Far East.

*20th Century Russia:
Again, Russia sent people East in an attempt to move its industrial base behind the Ural mountains where Hitler couldn't get them.

[Pyrodrew]

Realistic vs. Game Balance

BlackSunrise/SqueezeTruck - Whether it is "realistic" or not is irrelevant. It's about game balance. If Pop-Rushing didn't cause a population drop thru "the whip" & created no unhappy citizens (afterall one could argue Homestead made people happy with all those incentives & free land) it would be even more unbalanced. Again I'm not saying Pop-Rushing should be removed, only better balanced, especially since the AI Civs cannot use this HUGE benefit. If the AI Civs couldn't build any Industrial Age & Modern units would you still build them just because they were "realistic" or would you prefer better game balance?

Originally posted by Fredric DrumAI players know which of your cities are completely undefended

Firaxis claims they fixed this in the patch... unless they have lied/failed.

Again, I have not used tech whoring, but I think I will...

And that's your choice, you can use as many exploits as you want. It's your single-player game.