Resource preservation exploit

[One_Brow]

I don't recall seeing this one before:

You have a small supply of a resource that often disappears (1 iron, two oil, etc.). Station a military unit and a few workers on top of the resource, and do not road it until you need it. When you need the resource to build something, create the road, set your city(ies) build queue, and pillage the road. It shoudl never disappear.

[Dominae]

Yeah, that works. But there are a few "complications".

First, you need to time the production of all your cities to take maximum effect of the window where you've connected your Iron. If city A is almost finished a Swordsman and city B is ready to build another one, you're going to need to build a road twice to get them both to produce another Swordsman. Multiply this by the number of cities you have (or the number of Iron-requiring units you want to build) and you've got some micromanagement to do.

Second, you need quite a few Workers to build a road in one turn, especially before Democracy and Replaceable Parts. I don't remember off-hand how many it is (forget Industrious civs or "difficult" terrain for now), but it's definitely more than I can usually afford at the time in the game when I'm using Iron.

Third, the exploit (although possible) isn't really needed. If you really want to mass-produce units requiring a strategic resource, chances are you're going to do some conquering with them, meaning you'll find yourself another source of that resource. This may seem like a weak argument, but practically it makes a lot of sense.

However, I do see the advantage of this "exploit" for Modern-era resources (Uranium and Aluminum) where the problems I discussed above are easily worked around.


Dominae

[Catt]

Warning: I do not know that the following is true -- I have never seen the Firaxian comment -- but it so often repeated here (with reference to Firaxian comment) that I have taken it to be true (partly becuase whether true or false it doesn't affect my gameplay in the least ).

Suppossedly, resources won't disappear unless connected to a trade route (i.e., roaded). But, if ever roaded, even for one turn, then the chance for depletion and disappearance exists. Pillaging your one roads may very well do nothing in terms of preserving the resource but may simply deny your civ the presence of the resource.

Catt

[punkbass2000]

I think this is useful, if taken past this application and to its logical conclusion. It has been said before, but simply don't connect any of your extra resources.

[ducki]

Also, once a unit is under construction, I don't think you need the resource.

Example: My first Regent game, I got lucky enough to have Iron and Coal in the same city radius.

I started the Ironworks, which requires both in the radius. 5 turns before completion, the source of Coal depleted. But the Ironworks didn't change out, like GWs do when someone else builds them.

So I let it ride, and sure enough, it finished, even without the coal.

I would venture to guess that requirements for producing a unit or improvement or Small Wonder are only checked at the beginning of construction, so for many resource needs, just don't connect it until you are ready to _start_ using it.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Catt
Warning: I do not know that the following is true -- I have never seen the Firaxian comment -- but it so often repeated here (with reference to Firaxian comment) that I have taken it to be true (partly becuase whether true or false it doesn't affect my gameplay in the least ).

Suppossedly, resources won't disappear unless connected to a trade route (i.e., roaded). But, if ever roaded, even for one turn, then the chance for depletion and disappearance exists. Pillaging your one roads may very well do nothing in terms of preserving the resource but may simply deny your civ the presence of the resource.

Catt

I see what you're saying, but your argument against his proposal falls apart under probability. Although it does not matter how long your resource is hooked up, each turn that it is hooked up is one more turn that it's possible for it to be lost. In theory, if you followed One_Brow's idea and it resulted that, on average, every other turn your resource was disconnected, you would be half as likely, in the long run, to lose that resource. I hope that ddn't sound condescending, or anything, but I've recentlyt discovered how difficult it is to determine probabilities. Here's an (IMO) interesting and tough one:

If you know there are two people walking down a hall, and you know that one of them is male, what are the odds they are both male?

The answer wil either be posted today by 5ET or sometime after the weekend. (Bonus marks if anyone can accurately determine the probability of it being posted today )

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by ducki
Also, once a unit is under construction, I don't think you need the resource.

Yes, that was the point. You can connect, change your build chouice, and disconnect within a single turn, and your build queue remains.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Catt
Warning: I do not know that the following is true -- I have never seen the Firaxian comment -- but it so often repeated here (with reference to Firaxian comment) that I have taken it to be true (partly becuase whether true or false it doesn't affect my gameplay in the least ).

Suppossedly, resources won't disappear unless connected to a trade route (i.e., roaded). But, if ever roaded, even for one turn, then the chance for depletion and disappearance exists. Pillaging your one roads may very well do nothing in terms of preserving the resource but may simply deny your civ the presence of the resource.

Catt

If that is true, there is also this question: does the computer notice that the resource has been connected within a turn, or only that it was connected during the between-turn period. If the latter, then you might not ever be oficially connected tot he resource you're using, so it still won't expire.

BTW, I've never tried this, as I don't use exploits. I would be interested in hearing from someone who has tired it, though.

[Dominae]

punkbass2000, I think you misunderstood Catt's comment. Basically the claim is that if ever you connect up a Resource, a flag fires in the game that gives a probability that the resource will be depleted sometime in the future, regardless of whether it's connected to a road at that point or not. In my experience I've never seen a Resource disappear unless it was connected to my trade network, but then again I've rarely connected a resource, then disconnected it on purpose.

As for the answer to your question (assuming I'm reading it correctly), the chances that both people are men is the same as the chances that the other person is a man, which is 50% (I presume).


Dominae

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Dominae
punkbass2000, I think you misunderstood Catt's comment. Basically the claim is that if ever you connect up a Resource, a flag fires in the game that gives a probability that the resource will be depleted sometime in the future, regardless of whether it's connected to a road at that point or not. In my experience I've never seen a Resource disappear unless it was connected to my trade network, but then again I've rarely connected a resource, then disconnected it on purpose.

Hmm, upon rereading Catt's post, I can see it being interpreted in either way. If your interpretation is correct, I withdraw my objection.

As for the answer to your question (assuming I'm reading it correctly), the chances that both people are men is the same as the chances that the other person is a man, which is 50% (I presume).


Dominae

Given your answer, I think you are reading it correctly. Unfortunately, it is not the right answer. It is, however, the 'obvious' answer that virtually everyone would give the first time they hear it, which is why I posted it to demonstrate the difficulty of probability. It's what I answered

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by punkbass2000

I've recentlyt discovered how difficult it is to determine probabilities. Here's an (IMO) interesting and tough one:

If you know there are two people walking down a hall, and you know that one of them is male, what are the odds they are both male?

The answer wil either be posted today by 5ET or sometime after the weekend. (Bonus marks if anyone can accurately determine the probability of it being posted today )

"If you know there are two people walking down a hall..."
There are 4 possible permutations of 2 people:

Person1:male Person2:male
Person1:male Person2:female
Person1:female Person2:male
Person1:female Person2:female

"...and you know that one of them is male..."
This narrows down our set to only 3:

Person1:male Person2:male
Person1:male Person2:female
Person1:female Person2:male

"...what are the odds they are both male?"

1 in 3, or 33%

-DaveMcW

[punkbass2000]

BTW, the answer is not based upon the fact that there are technically more women in the world than men or any other tricks like that. For the purposes of this question, if there was one person walking down the hall, the odds of them being male would be one in two.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by DaveMcW


"If you know there are two people walking down a hall..."
There are 4 possible permutations of 2 people:

Person1:male Person2:male
Person1:male Person2:female
Person1:female Person2:male
Person1:female Person2:female

"...and you know that one of them is male..."
This narrows down our set to only 3:

Person1:male Person2:male
Person1:male Person2:female
Person1:female Person2:male

"...what are the odds they are both male?"

1 in 3, or 33%

-DaveMcW

Correct! I'm going to guess that this is not first question of this nature that you have dealt with. If it is, then I am simply shocked. I think this illustrates how probability is not as straightforward as it can seem. This example shows how you can't assign positions to the objects in the probability question (ie. Person1 is male, and there is a 50% chance of Person2 being male, so there is a 50% chance of them both being male).

[Catt]

Originally posted by punkbass2000


I see what you're saying, but your argument against his proposal falls apart under probability.

Even though my comments were less than crystal clear, I think that your interpretation of them was somewhat strained.

But Dominae is correct in that I intended to share a widespread and oft-repeated belief on the forums that resources won't disappear unless connected to a trade route, but that once roaded, a resource has a chance of depleting every turn thereafter, regardless of whether or not the road is subsequently pillaged.

I knew the answer to the "two men in a hall" paradox, but only becuase I've seen similar mathematical riddles before (most people will immediately say 1/2).

Catt

[Dominae]

I figured there was something tricky going on. But I still maintain (stubbornly, I know) that the question is not well-posed: by saying "you know one of them is male", in ordinary language, this means "that this or that one is male", and not "either A is male or B is male". The problem, however, is still a good one, it just doesn't have much to do with probability, but with how we represent and label things.

Anyone know the "3 prisoners dilemma"?


Dominae