Announcement

**Fitz** · November 29, 2001, 22:25

Re: Suggestions for not exploiting/abusing the game; Attention Firaxis

Originally posted by jed
1. No rush building in despotism or communism unless you already have 20 shields.

Explanation: The rush-pop in despotism or communism seems overpowered. Lots of threads are popping up talking about how powerful the despot rush is. The food/shield tradeoff is just too good. This restriction is also "realistic," because no despot would be able to whip his corrupt and wasteful and unhappy population to such feats of productivity in any case. You can still rush things, but just don't expect to have tons of little population factories.

Personally, I like Vel's fix more, and possibly a way to make the drones stick, with a caveat of my own:

1) Diminishing returns. Initial rush returns 40 shields. -10 shields per rush after that. Once you get to zero, no more rushes at that city. When the unhappy "point" from the rush goes away (20 turns?) you get those 10 shields back.

2) Reintroduce super-drones ala SMAX. In Alpha Centari, certain unhappiness had the capability to create double effect unhappy citizens, that required 2 "happy points" to negate instead of one. If despotic rushes could create double strength unhappy citizens, it would be a start towards cutting down the power of the rush.

5. Diplomatic victory disabled.

Explanation: This might be controversial, but I just find diplomatic victory too wierd. You're playing a game, and then your opponents vote that you're the winner because they like you?? I thought they were trying to win! It also eliminates stupid diplomatic victories where you give them all your cities, etc. What a bunch of saps. You give them stuff, and they vote you the winner. Who wants to win that way? By the way, I seriously wonder if the AI is more aggressive with diplomatic victory disabled, because it doesn't have to worry about its reputation. Anybody have any info on that? Personally, I find the AI too peace-loving.

If you are finding the AI peaceloving, you're probably buying them off with small gifts and trading them nice trades (on their end). Or else you're dominating the game and they are running scared of you.

I disagree about it being wierd. If everone submits to your rule, who cares if they are doing it because you forced them to or not. I haven't tried to keep the AI constantly happy yet, but if it takes a sufficient portion of your resources to do so, then I think it is a valid way of winning. After all, you are sacrificing resources that could be used for a military victory, or posibly even defending yourself.

Now, if it is too easy to placate the AI (or easy to buy votes from), then that's where the problem, not the fact that a diplomatic victory is included.

**jed** · November 29, 2001, 22:36

Fitz: about #1, maybe Vel's fix is better in principle, I won't argue about the details (except 40 shields for the first pop? that's way too much). The point is that I can't implement his fix with the current game. From Vel's thread, I just saw that you can use the editor to decrease the shields per pop point and unhappiness turns per whip. I would try something like 10 and 30 instead of 20 and 20. That might work. But my solution is trivial for anybody to implement.

**jed** · November 29, 2001, 22:42

Fitz, about point #5, I should have made it clear that I think diplomatic victory should of course continue to be included in the game for those who enjoy it--I just personally will turn it off for the reasons stated. It obviously does no harm in MP because it will never be used anyways.

**War4ever** · November 29, 2001, 23:07

the IFE is not a bug...forest planting is a part of the game...its documented stuff....i do agree that its being exploited more so than suggested in the manual....but they also say that using MORE than one worker speeds up any worker function....

that is the key phrase......its not a cheat if its documented....just because you use five workers to cut the forest down and another five to replant the same turn isn't firaxis's problem

**jed** · November 30, 2001, 00:52

Originally posted by War4ever
the IFE is not a bug...forest planting is a part of the game...its documented stuff....i do agree that its being exploited more so than suggested in the manual....but they also say that using MORE than one worker speeds up any worker function....

that is the key phrase......its not a cheat if its documented....just because you use five workers to cut the forest down and another five to replant the same turn isn't firaxis's problem

I didn't say it was a bug. But it's arguably an exploitation of the game system if you get a big production payoff by having 5 workers plant and then 5 workers chop each turn. It's not completely clear to me that IFE is that great a tactic, but if it is as powerful as its proponents say, it should probably be eliminated as an important possibility, by the very simple expediant of not allowing the speed-up of forest planting. Otherwise MP games would be determined by who could better micromanage his horde of IFE workers, which IMO would be ridiculous. In the meantime, I'm just saying I'm not going to use it in my SP games regardless. I won't speed up forest planting by having more than one worker do it at a time. As always, others should feel free to play however they want.

**War4ever** · November 30, 2001, 00:58

however .....with corruption being so brutal..IFE is all you can do to build at a normal pace....

but one shield or ten...it makes no difference when you sacrificing citizens...... not literally but for the most part....i don't build things...i rush through money or population..... its probably the most efficient way to conduct business in civ

**absimiliard** · November 30, 2001, 01:21

I prefer complex games with many options and strategies to simple games with few ways to play them.

Your style works, be happy. Please do not restrict the options for the rest of us. Much of what you describe is strategy, not exploit nor bug. It feels to me as if you want to dumb the game down.

So I think I disagree with you. Though I might be convinced that some modification of pop-rushing is desirable.

But I'm pretty sure you would cripple the AI, since I'm certain that's how it gets it production done.

**jed** · November 30, 2001, 01:36

Originally posted by War4ever
however .....with corruption being so brutal..IFE is all you can do to build at a normal pace....

but one shield or ten...it makes no difference when you sacrificing citizens...... not literally but for the most part....i don't build things...i rush through money or population..... its probably the most efficient way to conduct business in civ

Well, I'm one of those who really like the "brutal" corruption. I really hope they don't tone it down or at least make it an option to keep it "brutal." First of all, I really don't find it so hard to deal with. I get plenty of (say 15) good producing cities even with non-commercial civs, especially once the Forbidden Palace is built. I'll have a few outliers that hit the corruption wall, but they'll be there for resources--it's no big deal. I think lots of people are getting a handle on the corruption now. What I like about "brutal" corruption is it keeps you from building a huge micromanagement-nightmare empire. IMO, it's great game design when the best strategy is also the one that is the most fun to play. It annoys me if the best way to win the game is to run an empire of 30+ cities. Anything above 20 and I start to bog down. That's why I personally haven't bothered with huge maps, although I must admit I'm curious.

**Aeson** · November 30, 2001, 01:58

First of all, making it so that more workers planting forest takes less time won't effect IFE all that much. Instead of having 5 workers plant trees on the same spot, it will be 5 workers planting trees in 5 different spots. The payoffs will be longer in coming, but will keep the same # of shields per turn coming into the players Civ. In multiplayer I don't know that IFE will be all that powerful, as first you have to build/capture enough workers to make it viable, and if you're building all those workers, your military will suffer (you build the workers, someone else will capture them). If you are gaining them in military fashion, that means you're winning anyways.

Also, IFE is a complete waste when compared to despotic pop rushing, so anyone IFE'ing will be run over by someone just pop rushing. A quick comparison, if one person has 5 workers providing 10 shields a turn through IFE, how does that compare against someone with 0 workers providing 20 shields a turn by pop rushing? Give the pop rusher those 5 workers, and that translates into a 200 shield population bonus even. I really don't think IFE is an exploit, though I would never use it except in very restricted cases (surrounded by tundra perhaps). The other thing about IFE is that you would have to defend those workers as well, leaving your cities less defended, or your offensive force without as many units. A pop rusher who takes 50 undefended workers with a few Horsemen or Chariots just netted themselves 1000 sheilds!

The per turn for per turn and one time for one time trades I completely agree with. Paying for anything on a per turn basis and then not having to pay could also be countered by some sort of "trust" counter. You start out without enough trust to be able to offer per turn agreements, but as you honor your peace treaties, ROP's, and other agreements, you gradually gain the trust of AI civs. Of course breaking any treaty or agreement lowers that trust, and consistantly doing it will cause the AI to not deal with you at all. Backstabbing one AI would lead to lower trust with all the others, but not as much as with the one you backstabbed. The same for any increases of trust.

Selling cities should be based on distance to the capitol of the AI that you sell to. Also, size of the city, status of the improvements in the city should be factors determining the value. Offering city of pop one with no improvements on the other side of the world should only be deserving of a lowering of that Civ's opinion of you. If a city IS sold, all units of yours would be moved out of the city radius. If you retake a city that you gifted to the AI, it should cause them to never deal with you again (huge breach of trust). The biggest problem with the AI, on all accounts, is its willingness to deal with obviously honorless Civs.

**jed** · November 30, 2001, 02:06

Originally posted by absimiliard
I prefer complex games with many options and strategies to simple games with few ways to play them.

Your style works, be happy. Please do not restrict the options for the rest of us. Much of what you describe is strategy, not exploit nor bug. It feels to me as if you want to dumb the game down.

So I think I disagree with you. Though I might be convinced that some modification of pop-rushing is desirable.

But I'm pretty sure you would cripple the AI, since I'm certain that's how it gets it production done.

Actually, I also prefer complex games with many options and strategies. I am concerned that in Civ3, it will be clear that optimal strategy is the Despot Rush. It will make for a very ugly MP game more akin to an RTS game than to a civilization building game with all its complexity. You will also be forced to exploit the AI's diplomatic foolishness to keep up. I really don't see how the game is more "simple" when you can't win with cheesy exploits but have to win with a balanced empire. I'm not sure what you classify as strategy rather than exploits--the rush-popping, the diplomatic exploitation, the IFE, the little gifts? Maybe the little gifts can be considered strategy, but IMO, these are all abuses of a slightly imperfect game system or an AI that is close, but not quite human-quality. They can all be easily fixed, and geez there's plenty of tough strategy left to figuring out how to win without exploits. I would argue there's much more strategy to be explored when one eliminates exploits.

(I do wonder myself about one thing that has been "dumbed down" from Civ2/SMAC. Why are the scientists/taxmen so lame?)

Now of course, none of this really matters very much for SP--everybody can play like they want. But for MP to shine, these things do need to be fixed.

By the way, I doubt very much the AI is using very much or any pop-rushing to keep up. I personally don't have any trouble expanding as fast as it does in the early game on regent level, where it doesn't get production bonuses. I'm not doing anything very sophisticated and I'm not pop-rushing, so I presume its expansion is using normal methods. If the human pop-rushes, he can easily out-produce the AI early on.

In fact, I was very frustrated with Civ 2 and SMAC (where there was a cheat mode so you could see what the AI was doing) with how stupidly slowly the AI expanded in the early game. Soren Johnson said somewhere that it was the AI's most noticeable weakness in the earlier games.

**Aeson** · November 30, 2001, 02:09

Originally posted by jed

What I like about "brutal" corruption is it keeps you from building a huge micromanagement-nightmare empire. IMO, it's great game design when the best strategy is also the one that is the most fun to play. It annoys me if the best way to win the game is to run an empire of 30+ cities. Anything above 20 and I start to bog down. That's why I personally haven't bothered with huge maps, although I must admit I'm curious.

I agree with you that curruption shouldn't be toned down much. The problem is that the "best" strategy is the exact opposite of what you seem to think it is. Because food isn't effected by corruption (it should be), pop rushing is still 100% productive even if you have 50+ cities spread across the globe, the more the merrier. Going through every city every turn to see who's just reached pop two and needs to be whiped isnt a lot of fun IMO. I only do it when I'm looking for a good score (tournements). A good way to tone it down would be that excess food would also be effected by corruption. Obviously people aren't going to "steal" food and starve, but they won't produce more than they need to live their corrupt little lives

**jed** · November 30, 2001, 02:19

Originally posted by Aeson

I agree with you that curruption shouldn't be toned down much. The problem is that the "best" strategy is the exact opposite of what you seem to think it is. Because food isn't effected by corruption (it should be), pop rushing is still 100% productive even if you have 50+ cities spread across the globe, the more the merrier. Going through every city every turn to see who's just reached pop two and needs to be whiped isnt a lot of fun IMO. I only do it when I'm looking for a good score (tournements). A good way to tone it down would be that excess food would also be effected by corruption. Obviously people aren't going to "steal" food and starve, but they won't produce more than they need to live their corrupt little lives

I agree with you 100%. I only mean that a smallish empire strategy is best if you implement something like my anti-pop-rush self control rule #1 listed at the top (no pop-rushing unless you already have 20 shields). Otherwise, pop-rushing is the best strategy for precisely the reasons that you state. That's a problem with the game design, and IMO it needs to be fixed for MP (and for tournaments). In the meantime, I refuse to exploit it for SP, and won't participate in meaningless tournaments. By the way, your anti-pop-rush solution (like others) sounds fine. The only problem is that I can't implement it myself, while my solution is trivial to implement voluntarily.

**Gamer at heart** · November 30, 2001, 12:31

Jed, I think you bring some very interesting points in this tread. But I also think you are a little too restrictive in the mesures you apply to counter the so-called exploits.

Example, the don't sell cities thing: I totally agree with you 'bout the taking 'em back right after, but why do it? Simply sell cities in realistic situations when you know you won't exploit it.

About the trade thing, I have 2 comments. First, I find it a good thing that the tech leader can be financed in his research by the AI. It's fair because it actually encourages new research. Indeed, since the deal only lasts for so long, you have to keep selling your techs in order to maintain your income. But by selling them you also bring the other civs closer to your tech level, and thus increase the chance of losing the lead. Such a lead is quite hard to keep at the higher levels, so if you find you are always too far ahead technologically, just go up a level or two

! The second point is about the "giving huge cash per turn and declaring war right after" thing. I think I heard Soren say that the AI deals with some kind of confidence level, dependant on how often you break your word and what kind of treaty you broke before. This is why a rival civ will almost never attack you if they have turns remaining in a good/turn agreement.

Still, all of that remains in the ethical departement, and if some players feel all right abusing the AI's flaws, what can you or me do about it? I enjoy playing a game I'm proud of, and don't really care if others don't...

glad to know there ARE other people like me tho!!

GaH

**Blaupanzer** · November 30, 2001, 13:37

Jed, I agree with all your points with one minor caveat.

I think the player should have more ways to counteract corruption than just the courthouse, Forbidden Palace, and WLT_Ds.

The pop rush (as opposed to the draft) and the more workers make trees go faster are both silly as options, not easily associated with real-world events. The old despots and new dictators probably got away with sacrificing foreign workers/slaves for some notable events. Still, most historical examples are of several hundreds of individuals rather than whole population points. Secondly, if pop-rush is to be permitted, then each action should make corruption worse for that city for the 20 turns. Sort of the reverse of the WLT_D. Compound that enough and you get a city with NEGATIVE production and income. This preserves the choice but reduces the incentive, a trick Sid used in previous games. Truth is, that in real life, working workers to death resulted in lots of dead workers, but not much increased output.

Announcement

Suggestions for not exploiting/abusing the game; Attention Firaxis

Suggestions for not exploiting/abusing the game; Attention Firaxis

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment