What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

[Velociryx]

Okay...I'll bite.

So far, I've seen this term used to describe both IFE and Palace-Bouncing, so I've reached the early conclusion that the term means to describe any kind of game system exploit that, while not an outright cheat, certainly works in the human player's favor because it's not something that the AI does with regularity.

Having said that, are the following things ALSO considered "Munchkinish"?

* Tech Whoring (buying a tech from one AI and selling it to every other). Under the above definition, it *should* fall in the Munchkin category, because it gives the human player a heinous advantage that the AI seldom, if ever takes clear advantage of.

* Attacking any AI Civ anytime after the Ancient Era (because during the Ancient Era, the AI does reasonably well re: attack/defense, but when more versatile units become available, the AI either does not build them in sufficient quantity (preferring to continue building units from previous eras) and/or does not understand how to use them effectively).

* Making use of MPP's to lure a target civ into a disadvantageous position and engineer its destruction (I've never seen the AI do this at all).

* Using Pop-Rush techniques to rapidly overwhelm neighboring AI civs, regardless of difficulty level (the ai makes some use of conscription, but glancing at city sizes of AI civs makes it clear that they do not make much use of early game pop-rushing).

Essentially, pretty much every viable human-player strategy we've come up with on this board revolves around one or more exploits in the current game system. I'm just wondering what the difference is, out of a sense of genuine curiosity.

-=Vel=-

[sophist]

Re: What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay...I'll bite.

So far, I've seen this term used to describe both IFE and Palace-Bouncing, so I've reached the early conclusion that the term means to describe any kind of game system exploit that, while not an outright cheat, certainly works in the human player's favor because it's not something that the AI does with regularity.

Essentially, pretty much every viable human-player strategy we've come up with on this board revolves around one or more exploits in the current game system. I'm just wondering what the difference is, out of a sense of genuine curiosity.

I'll bite too. It's a grey area. I mean, should be be limited by what Soren was able to make the AI do? Some things are clearly exploits, but none of the ones you listed are explicitly so (except maybe IFE). Tech whoring is something the AI should do. And they certainly do demand a lot of $$$ for their techs, so it's not like they don't do at least a little. I mean, consider... the AIs are pretty consistent. They'll use the same book of tactics on the higher levels because the goal is to make it hard for you to win. Naturally, given the AI's bonuses, if you try to compete with an identical strategy on any level above Regent, you'll get hosed because you're playing with a stacked deck (though it'll probably do well in lower levels ). The only way to win is to out-think the AI. Seems pretty clear to me that this is a terrible metric of munchkinosity.

[Elowan]

Vel ...

Don't get too worked up about it -- the AI cheats like crazy even at lower levels (warlord and up).

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

I have the screen-shots and game to prove it if you're interested.

[Xentropy]

In my opinion, and since this word is sort of a slang term, its definition is definitely up to opinion, a munchkin strategy is any strategy that "feels too easy". A strategy which, even if PvP existed, people would say up front is not allowed (kinda like a lot of MOO2 games banned the overpowered Creative trait). A strategy which Firaxis is likely to patch out due to being extremely overpowered compared to other strategies (like they did in this patch the "let AI build cities for you" and "palace hopping" strats). Basically any strategy that uses an imbalance of the game, a clear DESIGN FLAW or BUG, to give you an advantage. Exploitation instead of superior strategy.

As someone said in the previous reply, it's a gray area, but I think most of us have an accurate gut feeling about what strats Firaxis did and did not intend to occur.

[karlmarx9001]

On the normal difficulty levels, you can beat the AI at production and research through just playing well. However, on the higher levels the AI production and research bonuses are so large that the only way to beat them is to "exploit" the AI's limitations. That is, rush-build endlessly, or any of the MPP-style tricks.

[HalfLotus]

IFE is definitely munchkin.

I dont think tech whoring is. Although I dont do it. I dont like giving away techs. Dont want to give miltitary techs, cause I'll lose my advantage. Usually have many short term wars over the course of the game...trying to take advantage of as many tech opportunities as possible. And I dont want to give away wonder techs for fear that another civ will build it first. I will trade tech for tech if the situation is right, but I'd rather buy them.

Pop. rush is powerful, but not munchkin imo.

And any MPP strategy would be fun enough (and not possible in civ2!) that I wouldn't worry about munchkinness.

[Venger]

Re: What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

Originally posted by Velociryx

* Attacking any AI Civ anytime after the Ancient Era (because during the Ancient Era, the AI does reasonably well re: attack/defense, but when more versatile units become available, the AI either does not build them in sufficient quantity (preferring to continue building units from previous eras) and/or does not understand how to use them effectively).

So how am I supposed to win, build a f@cking spaceship??? The UN? Jeez...how are you supposed to conquer the world without attacking? I don't play Civ with the UN/Culture/Spaceship training wheels...

That said, yes, the AI SUCKS with it's armed forces, and I've said it in NUMEROUS threads, trying to counter some of the fawning over the new AI. The Civ2 AI would destroy the Civ3 AI at war. The only thing keeping me from rolling up 20 cities a turn is a) cannot use roads and b) fear that some citizens will "defect" over culture.

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

To your other points - indeed, it seems easy to manipulate the Civ3 AI. I'll be curious how my modified CTP2 AI stacks up, but as of right now, I find the AI in Civ3 to be very unchallenging... the games mechanics are challeging, when the should be enabling, and the AI is enabling, when it should be challenging...

Venger

[Smash]

in civ2 the munchkin strategy was just another name for ICS.Like it has been renamed REX for civ3.
other names
bunny strategy
checkerboard

over here..I have no idea.Could mean anything.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....I think I"m getting a clearer picture then, but I must say that I find myself in disagreement that the Palace-Bouncing thing is Munchkinish in its nature. Here's why:

From a pure mineral standpoint (even with frequent early game pop-rushing), the player who's going to try and pull it off must spend HORDES more than the player who does not....that is to say, he must take care to keep his military strong enough to resist invasion and possibly launch a threatening attack while at the same time rapidly building cultural infrastructure to the point of running deficits, burn through two Great Leaders (one to speed build the palace where you want it for the bounce, and one to get it back to the center of your empire), PLUS deal with the potentially massive hit to overall cash and research levels due to corruption while the palace is off in some obscure corner of the realm.

And, even when you DO all of that, there's no guarantees it'll work, or how long it'll take (contrast that to a conventional attack, where you can fairly easily ballpark how long it'll take you to achieve your objectives.

That's pretty non-trivial stuff, and it requires a good deal of finesse and patience to pull off. I know....I"ve done it....sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but in terms of sheer *effort* I can tell you that it's certainly a lot tougher than bum-rushing the AI with 30-odd swordsmen you just pop-rushed out (brutally effective mind you, but something that cannot be classed as superior strategy).

Does it take advantage of a weakness in the system? Sure....in the sense that Culture, while an outstanding idea, was implemented in a way that has no real-world equivalent. But that takes no more or less advantage of the system than it is to "pop-rush" several military units to completion, IMO (while there is certainly a prescedent for sacrificing population to build a structure (pyramids, temples, you name it), I think it would prove somewhat difficult to find an example of killing off a few thousand civilians in order to properly train some new troops.

::shrug:: Just my two cents as I continue to ponder exactly what that phrase means....

-=Vel=-

[docken]

Never heard the term munchkin used before? The easiest comparison is with RPG's- for instance a power gamer would be called a munchkin, or someone who constantly camps in the same spot for hours trying to get the best weapons in games like evercrack.

ICS is definately a munchkin strategy. Unfortunately it is my opinion that it works EVEN BETTER in Civ 3 then it did in Civ 2. With Civ 3 ICS you combine both Despot/Communist Rush with Culture ratings to become a city eating monster than makes the AI just crumble. This is because of the huge bonuses a Civ gets as it expands city-wise. The amount of cultural buildings seems vastly less important when compared to the amount of actual cities a civ has. In Civ 2 you could still build up a strong Empire without having to many actual cities, but in Civ 3 it is now almost mandatory.

The rest of the stuff mentioned doesn't really qualify IMO

BTW I do like Civ 3.

[Nadexander]

Reminds me of a quote from Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game":
"Ender if you're on one side of the battle, it won't be equal no matter what the conditions are."
Its kind of the same with a human of moderate intelligence who understands the game mechanics against the AI. There is absolutely no comparison; the AI cannot compete. Any strategy used by the human is by definition unfair. I have no doubt that anyone who seriously applied themselves could beat diety within a week. Once this point has been achieved then the fun part becomes the self challenges that one can invent. This is why I recommended several possible changes in the game [ http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=36909 ]that rather than just make the game harder (only delay the inevitable domination of the game) instead provide some kind of open ended challenge for the user. People dont often complain that simcity is "too easy" because there is not such thing. One can always strive to have a city that is larger, wealthier, more estetically pleasing, etc etc. I think that civ players should have this option too. Something to show off their power. Even if it was just building giant monuments of useless crap to show off (Shakespeare's theater? ).

[Velociryx]

Great quote from one of my all-time favorite books! I didn't care much for those that followed in the series, but Ender was just tops!

And I'll be heading to your thread next....be interested to see what sorts of discussions are there!

-=Vel=-

[Adam Wallock]

Wow, glad to see some fellow OSC fans in the Civ community. Tho' I have to agree Vel that the ones that followed "Ender's Game" were not quite as good, I am now about halfway thru "Shadow of the Hegemon" the sequel to "Ender's Shadow" which are a parallel telling of the same events and then in the former, the telling of Peter's rise to the station of Hegemon. (No I don't work for TOR )

I bring this up mostly because in "Shadow of the Hegemon" he gets into some major discussion of warfare and politics. India and Pakistan sign a non-aggresion pact so that Pakistan may conquer westward and India may conquer eastward leaving their mutual boundary ungarrisoned. The book is great reading, and it is really feeding my Civ3 play with a whole lot of neat ideas.

Check it out!

[Xentropy]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hmmm....I think I"m getting a clearer picture then, but I must say that I find myself in disagreement that the Palace-Bouncing thing is Munchkinish in its nature. Here's why:

From a pure mineral standpoint (even with frequent early game pop-rushing), the player who's going to try and pull it off must spend HORDES more than the player who does not....that is to say, he must take care to keep his military strong enough to resist invasion and possibly launch a threatening attack while at the same time rapidly building cultural infrastructure to the point of running deficits, burn through two Great Leaders (one to speed build the palace where you want it for the bounce, and one to get it back to the center of your empire), PLUS deal with the potentially massive hit to overall cash and research levels due to corruption while the palace is off in some obscure corner of the realm.

As you describe burning Great Leaders to do this, YES, post-patch, this is no longer Munchkinish. Before the patch, when a Palace could be built in 4 or 5 turns WITHOUT a Great Leader, however, this was VERY Munchkin. EASY to pull off with rediculously large payoff.

That's why they patched it out. Now its costs are in line with its benefits. You DO have to burn Great Leaders to do it, which could give you two Wonders instead. A few cities, or two Wonders. Tougher choice than a few cities for no cost at all.

[Sinapus]

Re: What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay...I'll bite.

So far, I've seen this term used to describe both IFE and Palace-Bouncing, so I've reached the early conclusion that the term means to describe any kind of game system exploit that, while not an outright cheat, certainly works in the human player's favor because it's not something that the AI does with regularity.

Having said that, are the following things ALSO considered "Munchkinish"?

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.)