Suggestions for not exploiting/abusing the game; Attention Firaxis

[MarshalN]

I think I completely disagree on the parts about diplomacy/trading. I think pop rushing is overpowered and I think the proper solution should be something like -- the shields from pop rushing is subject to equal corruption (or a portion of) that the city is getting. The rationale for corruption is that the local government is taking money into their own pocket.... so think of this as the governor making the citizens building his own palace instead of the temple you want.

About the trade part.... there are a few problems with your suggestion IMHO. First of all, the AI does have a confidence level, and if you have broken your word on the per turn trading more than two or three times, you will NEVER ever be able to trade on a per turn basis with the AI. So I think they should keep this here -- afterall, some sort of diplomatic backstab should be allowed, and the AI is smart enough so they won't fall for it again.

Also, I don't think paying the AI small sums of gold is wrong/flawed. Think of this as a tribute that you pay them regularly to keep them happy. It might not amount to much, but that's that. Human PLAYERS in the game might think you're a dolt, but in history, many more powerful kingdoms/empires have accepted tribute in return for peace and friendly relationship with smaller kingdoms. It's definitely something that should be allowed. Those were humans too who thought those silk robes these barbarians brought over were great gifts and just left them alone.

[Osprey]

What I seem to be hearing from most people is that they agree that pop rushing is not a good thing. On the other hand, there should be some way to rush build things. Perhaps, in an upcoming patch, they should do away with pop rushing all together and come up with some sort of multi-function unit (like the old camels) that, as one of their functions, could add to the production box. Of course, it would have to be available in the early game and be worth the cost of producing. Maybe even give the worker units this ability. Thoughts?
The Osprey

[gamma]

Originally posted by Osprey
What I seem to be hearing from most people is that they agree that pop rushing is not a good thing. On the other hand, there should be some way to rush build things. Perhaps, in an upcoming patch, they should do away with pop rushing all together and come up with some sort of multi-function unit (like the old camels) that, as one of their functions, could add to the production box. Of course, it would have to be available in the early game and be worth the cost of producing. Maybe even give the worker units this ability. Thoughts?
The Osprey

Allow a town to work on its neighbor's project. Philly helps Atlanta build a temple, etc.

Do this at a penalty, though. Philly can't devote all of its shields to Atlanta, because of the cost of moving stuff around, feeding the workers, etc. So only, say, a fourth of the shields actually make it to Atlanta. Furthermore, there's a delay, based on how far Philly is from Atlanta, whether there's roads or rails, etc.

The kicker to all this is that this is already possible, sorta. Have Philly build an archer. Send the archer to Atlanta. Now disband the archer. The shield cost of the archer is divided by 4, and that many shields go toward Atlanta's temple-building project. This almost solves the corruption problem, in fact; you can build anything you want in 200 towns, so long as your core cities can churn out units to disband elsewhere. Production is a constant 25%, with no waste. Works in any government, even anarchy (though of course the thing won't actually complete until anarchy is over).

The downside is that you can't hurry wonders this way. I'm inclined to say Civ3 ought to go ahead and allow this. If you like, make the disbanding yield only 1/8 shields for wonders and the normal 1/4 for everything else. The problem here is that you could then stockpile units to effectively rush-build a wonder. One solution would be to disallow disbanding units from helping along wonder production, as it is now, but allow a city to work on "help city X" as its production. A little pop-up lets you choose which city you want to help with its production. Then 1/8 of that city's shields are automatically given to the target city.

[jed]

Thanks for everybody's comments. I find the arguments that the diplomatic AI is not as poor as I make out reasonably convincing, so I admit my 1 for 1 rules, city selling rules, and gold gift rules may be not really necessary or excessively restrictive. Perhaps the better guideline is simply to try to play in a way that would honestly make sense if you were playing against other human players or other real-life human leaders, and not try to beat the game by taking advantage of the fact that they are AI's.

There is still one thing that bothers me though about the science broker strategy. When I sell my tech to AI #1, it doesn't seem right to me that I can then continue and sell it to AI's #2, #3, #4, #5, up to #7 or #15 or whatever on the same turn. Each AI is buying the tech at a reasonable price for it, but I am getting the best part of the deal by far. For example, if the tech is really "worth" 200 gold to every player, and each AI pays me 150, each one gets a good deal, but I've gotten the best deal by far.

The reason that this scenario isn't realistic or fair is that in a real game (or in real life) later opponents would look to buy the tech from the other opponents that already have it, rather than all buying it from me.

So here is another possible self-imposed rule to get rid of this problem, which I do view as an exploit of a problem in the diplomatic AI:

If you sell a tech to an AI, wait at least one turn before selling again to another AI.

This gives the other AI's a chance to buy from the first AI, and makes tech selling a more risky proposition. I've tested this, and in fact, you can usually *still* do pretty well at tech selling, but it is weakened, and certainly is psychologically more risky.

[smellymummy]

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

1. No rush building in despotism or communism unless you already have 20 shields.

I disagree. It takes time to build pop, unless you have major food, and we know that not ALL cities are like this. Besides doing this all the time reduces overall happiness and reduces total pop, which will affect your score. Okay you can restore happiness and pop but that still takes time. And using pop to rush build only goes so far. After a few rushes, your city is way down in pop and you then have to wait all over again - this directly affects your commerce/science too btw. And compared to how the AI produces at higher levels, it's a good tool to conteract the AI's unit pumping cities.

Maybe despot should have a minimum shield limit, but not with communism. Restricting this however would make the longevity GW pretty useless.

2. No trading gold/turn items for one-shot items with the AI. Only one-shots for one-shots, and continuing benefits for continuing benefits.

Again I disagree. Breaking treaties reflects on your rep, and the AI will notice. If you play with betrayal, you'll get betrayed back. True, science can go up real quick using smart trading, but it's not like it's ONLY the player going up, it's every civ due to all the trading. Also true is how stupid the AI is at lower levels, and how they will all pay big bucks for an advance. Harder levels you can see a definite drop in the offering price after the advance is known to 2 and + other AI civs.

The first few games I used this to make money but then soon realized that once you fall behind in research, your cash flow goes way down. Same thing if other civs don't want to trade with you. I think leading in science, all alone, is much better IMO.

3. No trading away your cities, unless you're trying to surrender to an AI (or trading back a city full of aliens to its original owners.)

Again disagree. I've done trading of cities and I've seen the AI being able to keep the cities. Selling a city in your territory is also okay, because like above, if you decide to attack right away your rep suffers. Also it doesnt take too long for the AI (production bonus remember) to produce units and culture improv quick enough to hang on to a city. Obviously if your culture is overwhelming, eventually the city might come back - but not always.

If I was playing MP, I would buy a city, just not any (and the AI won't buy any for insane amounts either unless its a good city) city. The trick can work both ways - for you or against you.

4. No rushing forest planting with more than one worker.

I personally don't do this... hitting the same hotkey over and over again just is no fun for me, considering I already have to do this with tons of other units already. I agree that it needs to be throttled down though. Plant one forest one turn, chop it down, one turn (with enough workers), but not multiple times in one turn, no way.

5. Diplomatic victory disabled. (EDIT: To be clear, I don't think Firaxis should change this in a patch--I just mean I won't use it personally.)

for SP it should stay in, but firaxis could improve on it... it's so bland as it is. For MP, well frankly, I don't see how anyone would start an MP game with that setting enabled - the vote would end up in a deadlock all the time, of course unless theres a player or more who willingly abdicate.

The AI is not peace loving though. On easier levels yes, but the higher you go it changes. I've been beaten by the AI at UN victory. I'm sure it will happen to others too.

6. No small gold gifts.

You need to define small.. personally I don't think the AI cares much for small gifts of cash. I've tried it often, and at best I've seen is one grade of mood going up. In MP, well I wouldnt mind getting cash. I'll probably refuse small gifts unless I'm really strapped. Think about it though, if you need to protect yourself, pay the other player who needs the cash, that way they (the other player you're paying) won't attack you - they need the cash afterall.

7. No asking for 99999999 gold.

That one is a no brainer

BTW, I mention levels of diff. The highest I've played is only monarch, and that's very hard. I play without exploiting the AI, and I love loading my galleons with city conquering armies, and trading them off afterwards.

[wisecat]

[QUOTE]2. No trading gold/turn items for one-shot items with the AI. Only one-shots for one-shots, and continuing benefits for continuing benefits. [QUOTE]

Personally I do not agree with this one. History knows many examples when blueprints/technologies were either sold or given free to allies. For example USSR gave many its allies blueprints/technology for production of many weapons - Kalashnikovs, planes etc. Even Chinese nuclear program was kick-started with USSR assistance. Thus it will be unrealistic to deny trading/giving techs. How else could you assist your allies without direct military involvment? Also I would advocate possibility to sell/give units - remember land-lease programs during WW2, how Americans supplied England and USSR with every possible strategic item - from aluminium and tinned meat to tanks and fighters?

[wisecat]

Now about not selling cities.
There are many historical examples in Europe when wars were ended after cities being surrendered during negotiations, not captured.
Also remember Alaska, sold to USA by Russian, and New York, sold to the States by Holland, etc.,etc.
So I believe it IS realistic and NOT cheating to sell cities - especially far-away, burdensome colonies which you can not protect and get no profit from them

[Travathian]

Ah, but Russia didn't turn around and invade Alaska the next year did they? That's the point that was made.

[Sze]

Great topic, I was just about to start something similar myself. There are 'gray' areas to a lot of these strategies. Jed is advocating playing a 'white' game and I agree with him on every point.

Black: Outright cheating. For example, returning to a previous saved game and fighting battles in a different order to acheive more favorable results. Using the editor to give yourself an advantage.

Dark Gray: Using expoits that are clearly not supposed to be available. Like #7 on jed's list.

Light Gray: Using strategies that go against the intent of the developers, but yet are perfectly legitimate within the rules of the game. Most of jed's points address these strategies (extreme pop-rushing, forest rushing, etc...). I'm sure most of the pro-players will disagree with me. It is possible to play this game as if you're role-playing a leader instead of trying to win at all costs and maximize your score.

White: Playing the way the developers intended you to play.

One of the problems I have is that the game structure actually encourages some of these gray strategies. So it's like they're sending a mixed message. I'm sure they want us to play the right way, but yet you almost have to delve into the gray areas to keep up with the AI. For example with the current corruption model, your fringe cities can't produce anything without some sort of rushing.
The intent of rushing all along (i.e. since Civ I) was to build something in CASE OF EMERGENCY, not as a means to convert food or commerce into shields. Paying gold to rush things I consider a 'white' strategy in that it makes sense within the context of the game. It's something I do, but mostly for cities that can't make their own city improvements due to corruption.

[Dog of Justice]

Thoughts on pop-rushing.

I've commented elsewhere that simply reducing the number of shields per population unit should do the trick. 10 per population unit, and the first one doesn't generate any extra. (The "extra" part actually seems to be result of an oddly-coded integer division. To see this, note that the first population unit gives you up to 39, not 40, shields at present.) The alternative would be to apply corruption to the food surplus, but I suspect that isn't as great of an idea.

Two side issues. (i) How important is the following unhappiness interval? The hard pop-rushers don't really care about it, so I don't think there's a problem with reducing the length from 20 turns to 10, as gratuitous compensation for the reduced output of forced labor. (ii) Perhaps Communism pop-rushing can be more efficient, since it doesn't arrive until late game? 20 shields per pop point isn't broken in the late game, especially if corruption is more sensible; it's just broken in the early game.

[Just My 2 Cents]

Jed, while you make some good points and many here have made some interesting counterpoints, I have to agree with absimiliard. Just my 2 cents, blah blah blah...

I find the game fairly easy on Monarch level. I can usually win, but I'm not the shiznit. My friends find the game hard on warlord level and I've taught them every trick in the book but they're still newbies. The point is if you want to change the game because it's too easy to exploit the AI and you couldn't do it to a human, don't sweat it. When MP is released 90% of the players will have to change their strategies anyway, myself included.

But we both have our opinions, yours is just as valuable/useless as mine, my thoughts on this are Firaxis please fix corruption, air superiority, bombard and the other little bugs that are blemishing an otherwise amazing game.

[Risky]

This is all sensible. I had a bad tendency towards micromanaging in previous games (Civ2, SMAC, others) but I've taken to automating all the workers mid way through the game as you seem to need so many of them. Have given it up, I feel a lot better and have even started to get used to their pointless 'churning of improvements between forest/irrigate/mine.

I suppose my attiude to some of these matter is down to having played a llot of SMAC where there was an eliment of leader role-play. So if I'm playing a democracy/cuture/science type game I'm not inclined to raze whole continents of cities and gratuitiously invade after selling. I however you want to play at being a monster, that would be the correct approach.

I new topic would be how one treats the practice of sticking a unit inside the opponents teritory so he gets the blame for starting war. I have used this so far, but it seems a bit unfair on them when you are really the agressor. Any suggestions for a 'best practice' on this.

(Really this needs to be patched to differentiate between 'defensive' millitary action (attacking units on you own teritory that refuse to move) and offensive actions (where you attack outside your teritory). I don't know if we will see this however as it would require more war statuses).

[Kc7mxo]

Why do people care how other people play? I'm confused by this. If someone wants to sell the ai's all their tech, why do you CARE? all your complaints are about things that . . . don't have to happen. if you don't want to do this, don't.

but why do you care if other people do?

There is still one thing that bothers me though about the science broker strategy. When I sell my tech to AI #1, it doesn't seem right to me that I can then continue and sell it to AI's #2, #3, #4, #5, up to #7 or #15 or whatever on the same turn. Each AI is buying the tech at a reasonable price for it, but I am getting the best part of the deal by far. For example, if the tech is really "worth" 200 gold to every player, and each AI pays me 150, each one gets a good deal, but I've gotten the best deal by far.

what? thats kinda the point isn't it? does microsoft only sell their products to one person at a time so netscape doesn't go out of business? whatever.

if they are all getting a good deal, and you are getting a good deal, then EVERYONE is happy, and there is no logical reason for the ai to not trade.

And how exactly will you know (supposing mp is ever released) that i just traded nationilism to everyone else on my turn? there isn't any diplomatic report that i've found that could give you this information.

[Osprey]

I never really used the pop-rushing techinique much before I read this thread and other pop-rush strategy articles so I decided to try it out. Maybe it was just my circumstances but I believe the resulting population drop and the unhappiness that results from pop-rushing is a good enough balance in itself to keep one from wanting to employ this strategy to a great degree. Both of those things contributed to my civ getting brutally beaten by a surprise attack by the Greeks who immediately formed a military alliance with India, both of whom were my border neighbors. I simply didn't have the resources I needed to produce enough units to fight them off. This was a direct result of low population cities and too many entertainers amongst what population was there. I say if you want to pop-rush, do it at your own risk. The computer seems to do it.
The Osprey

[MarshalN]

Jed, I think you really underestimate the AI (I dont' know if difficulty has anything to do with this). The AI actually knows how many people have the tech you're trying to sell them, and they will be willing to pay more only if you're the only guy they can buy it from. If 4 or 5 other civs already know that tech, they're willing to pay usually a very small amount, whatever the tech is. You can't just sell it to all the civs for the equal amount like you think you can. I've tried this in the game before.... by the time I get to the 4th civ that I'm trying to sell my tech to, the price has dropped significantly.

Besides, if I developed the tech myself and nobody has it, and I want to sell it to everyone for a good price -- what's wrong with that? Afterall, I developed it.