Dirty tricks

[Arrian]

It would seem there is some difference of opinion on worker buying.

I think we can agree that this tactic is most powerful when done very early in the game. For the sake of discussion, let's define "very early" as pre-2000BC.

After that, though it can still be powerful, I do not believe it can possibly be described as "game breaking" or "unbalancing."

I see potential merit in the "no trading workers until there is a viable trade connection" idea, Dominae. On the other hand, I am loathe to surrender an effective tactic until I'm sure it's an exploit. And I am still not sure about it.

I think each of us has a sense of where the line between "effective strategy" and "exploit" lies. All effective strategy comes from our human ability to out-think the AI. There are many tactics which the AI cannot deal with, but not all are commonly considered "exploits." For one thing, the AI is not very good at protecting key cities and/or resources from a determined human invasion. It will defend the resources lightly or not at all, and it will defend the cities as it does all others (dependent on size, I think). A human would rush everything he/she has available to the defense of a strategically important city. Yet no one advocates that we stop targetting the AI's weaknesses when at war.

Another example of this is the AI inability use bombard units properly. Yet we still use bombard units (granted, they were weakened considerably several patches ago).

This is not to say that early worker buying is not an exploit, but I do want to point out the fact that if we decide any human tactic which routinely fouls up the AI is an "exploit" we reduce ourselves to playing the game like the AI. Where do we draw the line between using our strengths against the AI's weaknesses?

-Arrian

[alexman]

Think of it this way. When the AI sells its worker at the beginning of the game, it has to build another one. That means:
1) A city wastes turns of production building a worker instead of something else.
2) There are no tiles being improved until a new worker is produced.
3) Assuming no unhappiness problems (not an issue for the AI that plays on Regent and usually has a good garrison), that city remains at one less population until it reaches its growth potential. Assuming that the tile that would have been worked is a 2 food, 1 shield, 1 commerce tile, that's one less shield and one less commerce from that city until it reaches size 6, which usually happens after the REX phase is over (late ancient age).
4) REX is delayed because that city is not large enough to make a settler.

Now what player in his right mind would sell a worker for only 30 gold in the beginning of the game? Would it be an exploit if you could steal workers without losing your own? For sure. Well this is damn close. The AI values workers too low. That's why it's an exploit.

[jshelr]

I guess I'm thinking of producing workers for sale as a legitimate business for an AI civ to be in. An AI civ with, say, ten cities and a despot income of, maybe, 100 gold per turn could probably devote two cities to worker production and sell a worker, what, every two turns or so for an income of 14 per turn. Not bad. About a third of Wall Street's return without the up front $1000 gold investment. If they also use other cities to build an optimum domestic worker force, the question is whether this is a good way to get gold to buy tech. Maybe it's not that bad a method.

[Theseus]

True, but we're talking about when the AI civ has maybe 1-3 towns.

Look, anyway, I agree with Arrian... does the AI do stupid things that we don't? Uhhh, can you say "irrigation?"

Eddie Izzard has a funny lines about lies. He says there should be a scale for lies like there is for crim (e.g., Murder One, Murder Two). Lying One would be saying you ****ged someone when you didn't and Lying Nine would be saying the Holocaust never happened.

Worker buying is pretty far down on my scale, compared to say, ROP Rape.

[Catt]

The "early worker buy" tactic feels like an exploit to me for the same reason as alexman gave - an early worker is worth far more than 30 gold IMHO, and I suspect the vast majority of experienced human players would almost never sell an early worker (of course, an early worker limited to the AI worker task list and prioritization may be worth a lot less than 30 gold ). OTOH, I definitely agree with Arrian that eliminating all aspects of human play that the AI is incapable of employing just reduces us (limits us) to the AI tactics

The real decision factor for me in whether or not to use the "early worker buy" tactic is wholly distinct from "exploit or not" however: I am far too lazy to ever consider opening diplo relations with every civ on every turn. Perhaps the benefits of the "early worker buy" tactic are justified by the time / frustration of making the moves? "I'll give you 27 gold and 52 mouse clicks for that worker?"

Catt

[jshelr]

I'm sold. I'd never sell an "early" worker. And I hardly ever am smart enough to search for one to buy early either, although I occasionally stumble on the chance.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Arrian
I see potential merit in the "no trading workers until there is a viable trade connection" idea, Dominae. On the other hand, I am loathe to surrender an effective tactic until I'm sure it's an exploit. And I am still not sure about it.

Me neither (about Worker trading being an exploit). But I think a good compromise would be to raise the cost to
at least the cost of techs at that stage of the game.

Originally posted by Arrian
I think each of us has a sense of where the line between "effective strategy" and "exploit" lies. All effective strategy comes from our human ability to out-think the AI. There are many tactics which the AI cannot deal with, but not all are commonly considered "exploits." For one thing, the AI is not very good at protecting key cities and/or resources from a determined human invasion. It will defend the resources lightly or not at all, and it will defend the cities as it does all others (dependent on size, I think). A human would rush everything he/she has available to the defense of a strategically important city. Yet no one advocates that we stop targetting the AI's weaknesses when at war.

I don't advocate denying myself any of the strategies mentioned in this thread. The reason why I used the term 'dirty trick' and not 'exploit' is that people believe exploits ruin the game and should be changed in future patches. I don't think any of the dirty tricks mentioned here should be fixed, (primarily because they would require a major overhaul of the AI system) apart from maybe early Worker buying.

What I am getting at is that none of these strategies/exploits/tricks will work against a relatively competent human player. I would never sell Workers in the early-game for under 250-300 Gold (if that). Nor would I chase after useless enemy Workers when mounting an assault. And I definitely would never ever let myself get caught in a "infinite loop" whereby I shuffle my units back and forth between two targets.

Figuring these things out brings you one step closer to beating the AI (hence the point of this thread), but gives you no advantage in multiplayer (unless bots are used). When Play the World comes out, I know I will have to unlearn many of my best "strategies".


Dominae

[Theseus]

Actually, I'll feel really bad for the noob players, getting nailed by "Fool's Mate" moves.

Can;t you see it: noob plays Egypt, maxes research to get The Wheel ("oh boy, oh boy, gonna have an early GA!!"), never has more than a few gold, gets an offer for his Worker, looks around and realized his speedy little guy has gotten ahead of needed tile improvements... "oh boy, oh boy, 30 GOLD!!"

[Jaybe]

Re: Declaration of War Timing

Originally posted by Jaybe
When sharing a border with your potential enemy, declare war at THE END of your turn!

This applies when you are superior in strength. Deploy in such a way as to leave an open passageway towards, but not all the way to, a weakly defended city fairly close to the front. Especially if the enemy has rails and any substantial "offensive" troops, he will march into your land with a "Stack of Doom" (SOD, 30 to 90+ units in one stack). This will trigger any MPPs that you have (better they be allied with you than with him). Surround this stack with strong defensive units and entrench. Now use your pre-deployed land and sea invasion forces.

His SOD is isolated where you can leave them to rot or slowly whittle them down while you take over his country.

Really Stupid Question:
Has nobody yet commented on this because it was so good, so worthless, or so rarely applicable (or other)??

[Catt]

Re: Re: Declaration of War Timing

Originally posted by Jaybe

Really Stupid Question:
Has nobody yet commented on this because it was so good, so worthless, or so rarely applicable (or other)??

Other. I can think of no witty comments to your fine "dirty trick."

Catt

[punkbass2000]

I feel dumb harping on the subject of war, but I am kinda thinking that, in some ways, war in and of itself is exploitative, depending on how far down Arrians sliding scale you want to go. I mean, it's quite clear that, ultimately, the best way to win civ is an all out war machine. This has been shown time and time again, through all the incarnations of civ. The computer simply canlt manage a war too well. Though war per se may not be exploitative, I really think the early oscillating wars may be. The computer simply can't conceive of that kind of strategy. Can you imagine starting up a deity game and having a neighbour fighting oscillating wars? It wouldn't even kill you off, it would play with you for a while, essentially until you quit the game. More often than not, war is the best solution to a problem. You take what you want and that's that. You lose nothing but expendable units, typically. Despite the historical accuracy, for me the power of war is a game breaker, which is why I've been going about peaceful deity strategies as of late.

[Chemical Ollie]

Re: Re: Declaration of War Timing

Originally posted by Jaybe

Really Stupid Question:
Has nobody yet commented on this because it was so good, so worthless, or so rarely applicable (or other)??

I have done it in a few games. Artillery is useful here.

[Bella Hella]

last night, shaka sent a ship to my territory completely at random and deployed and impi and a longbowman. it was obvious that he was about to declare one of those utterly random, pointless, futile AI wars. i just didn't feel like dealing with it, so i signed an MPP with my neighbors, called shaka, told him to get the F out, and he declared war. now my nice neighbors are at war with him, and will hopefully send units over to the zulu island... and when the MPPs run out, maybe they'll stlil have some units over there and i can take over their territory which is "rightfully" mine.

[jshelr]

punkbass2000

Your comment above is appreciated. However, the game is relatively historically accurate when you do history on the 6000 year time scale. The fighting civs won. (Maybe the Iriquois shouldn't be in the mix since the Americans killed most of them and settled thier land. Ditto the Aztecs. But, OTOH, the game gives these civs a chance to reverse the real results. They didn't reseach in the Americas fast enough in real life before first contact. So, they got killed by superior tech. Sounds familar to a civ player.)

I'd like to see your attitude apply more in the post-industrial era. Unprovoked attacking past 2000 should be impossible for a democracy (somebody call George Bush, quickly) and cause big negative effects for other government types, IMO.

[vmxa1]

Historically Democracys to not attack democracys. Modern era wars do lead to collapse of the government, even those that did not lose. Germany/Japan, LBJ.