Epic 13 - General Discussion

[VoiceOfUnreason]

This seemed to me to be a question of more general interest, so I've separated it from the other traffic.

Do the reports that we have from these games suggest that the 120 turn war throttle is effective? That is, does it meet its objective?


Likewise, did we discover elements in BTS that may call for new game controls?

[Qwack]

Do the reports that we have from these games suggest that the 120 turn war throttle is effective? That is, does it meet its objective?

On monarch level, I would not necesarrily say yes, because the AI stays somewhat weak militarily even after 1000 BC, but I think this restriction would work out very nicely on emperor +.

Likewise, did we discover elements in BTS that may call for new game controls?

Nobody really discovered this in this event, but I read about it in civfanatics strategy forums a few weeks ago and think this should be added to exploits list.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=218272

Basically, when you go above the max overflow of something, you will get a conversion rate of hammers to gold equal to 1-1, which is the same as building wealth. But when you go above the max overflow and apply modifiers (Protective walls, stone walls, aggressive barracks), the modifiers apply when counting how much gold you receive. So if your aggressive, and whip 1 person, along with chopping 3 forests right before a barracks is complete, you will not only get the 30 overflow from barracks, but 120 gold as well(at a 2-1 conversion rate).

I know most RB players probably wont use this anyways, but I have noticed alot of new players joining this community and think that stuff like this should be clearly posted on some sort of unaccepted tactics list.

[sooooo]

That gold overflow thing looks similar to the 1.61 whipping bug but not as useful. I didn't learn the whipping bug in vanilla so I doubt I can be bothered to learn how to get a few extra gold pieces.

Anyway, as far as BtS is concerned there are certainly things to iron out, but there is a patch around the corner apparently so we should wait for that. I hope epic 14 doesn't suffer the same fate as epic 2 .

[Sullla]

I'm sorry that I haven't been around to comment on any of these games. My computer is in the shop suffering from a major infection at the moment, and dealing with that has taken up most of my computing time the past couple days. I do hope to be able to read most of these reports in the near future, when I get a chance. Results for Epic Thirteen, however, will be delayed a bit until I can sort out my current situation.

Qwack, the bug you're mentioning seems pretty minor in scope - and very obviously not something that was intended. I think we can trust our community members not to exploit this one intentionally.

Epic Fourteen is not intended to be vaporware, believe me! I'll tap some of my contacts and see if I can find out when this patch is due to be released more specifically. If it isn't in the immediate future, I think the best thing to do is work in another fast game for 3.02/3.03. Atlas has a proposal on the table that would fit well, so one way or another we should see something else opening up in the near future.

[T-hawk]

Basically, when you go above the max overflow of something, you will get a conversion rate of hammers to gold equal to 1-1, which is the same as building wealth. But when you go above the max overflow and apply modifiers (Protective walls, stone walls, aggressive barracks), the modifiers apply when counting how much gold you receive.

This is essentially the same deal as intentionally getting a wonder refund, by partially building a wonder with a resource bonus but not completing it, and that's always been around. Only difference is that the new trick is not dependent on having availability of a suitable wonder - so it's vulnerable to systematic and consistent exploitation. I'm not sure if that's a difference in kind or just in degree.

I know most RB players probably wont use this anyways, but I have noticed alot of new players joining this community and think that stuff like this should be clearly posted on some sort of unaccepted tactics list.

There's a good point hidden in there, and it's this: perhaps RBCiv could use a list of tactics that are considered unsporting play although not outright forbidden? Another example would be the culture bomb where you get extra culture by assigning all artists in the city before bombing. Civ 4 has increasingly many trick moves like this, that are clearly exploitative artifacts of the game mechanics, but hardly rise to the level of game-breaking.

Much baggage associates with legislating gameplay moves to be forbidden; chiefly that accidental violators must be pushed into shadow-land. But if we had a common list of gray-area tactics, permissible but clearly noted as cheesy (a classic example would be the 3200 BC worker steal), experienced players would know to avoid them as a matter of course and we'd have a clear resource to direct new players to. Any thoughts?

[Atlas]

That gold overflow thing looks similar to the 1.61 whipping bug but not as useful. I didn't learn the whipping bug in vanilla so I doubt I can be bothered to learn how to get a few extra gold pieces.

In the MP community some players know about this, but use it in a less offensive form than Qwack describes (no one would delay chopping a forest for this benefit (and would probably put the overflow into units/buildings) resulting in less cash)).

However this bug is much easier to learn than the forge bug. The only times I have bothered with it (in MP exclusively) is to build walls (while protective w/ stone) and simply whip the walls on the last turn of production and the run the overflow to an archer. This can result in VERY nice cash bonuses, so it does not require the micro that the 1.61 bug did as far as counting hammers and adjusting tiles to maximize whips. In Ladder Cton (free for all) games you just do this for every city (on a standard map) the result is an extra 1000-1500 gold per game! This is an advantage that is hard to resist.

On a side note I see a BIG difference b/w taking advantage of bugs in MP play v. SP play. A human could micro his whips or abuse slavery and will certainly attack before 1000BC, in MP play the difference is in-depth knowledge of the game and the game mechanics that often provides both tactical and strategic advantages. In SP the AI could never do such things (deal with such things) so why bother, it just makes the game rote.

Back on topic, I tend to agree with Qwack at emperor + 1000BC is fine, on Monarch and below the AI is not ready. Maybe we should experiment with the Aggresive AI setting this could make the 1000BC date for Monarch more viable.

[Atlas]

This is essentially the same deal as intentionally getting a wonder refund, by partially building a wonder with a resource bonus but not completing it, and that's always been around. Only difference is that the new trick is not dependent on having availability of a suitable wonder - so it's vulnerable to systematic and consistent exploitation. I'm not sure if that's a difference in kind or just in degree.

Good point, there are some quick and lucrative refunds out there if you industrious and have a modifier. Just put 5 turn of production into a wonder you don't want but have the modifier for and wait for the cash to roll in (the unknown timing of the pay off somewhat mitigates this)

There's a good point hidden in there, and it's this: perhaps RBCiv could use a list of tactics that are considered unsporting play although not outright forbidden? Another example would be the culture bomb where you get extra culture by assigning all artists in the city before bombing. Civ 4 has increasingly many trick moves like this, that are clearly exploitative artifacts of the game mechanics, but hardly rise to the level of game-breaking.

The Gray area is huge in this regard, I personally consider this artist trick more of a micromanagement issue than a bug, while I think the 1.61 whip bug and this walls thing are more buggy. For example I almost always move my GP to my biggest city before lightbulbing a tech is that exploitative or micro? I think the latter but others may not agree.

Much baggage associates with legislating gameplay moves to be forbidden; chiefly that accidental violators must be pushed into shadow-land. But if we had a common list of gray-area tactics, permissible but clearly noted as cheesy (a classic example would be the 3200 BC worker steal), experienced players would know to avoid them as a matter of course and we'd have a clear resource to direct new players to. Any thoughts?

The worker steal is clearly exploitative as is rushing the ai with 4 axes in 2000BC, the game just was not designed to deal with that behavior and were it it would harm game play in other ways.

As for making lists of exploitative and lesser offenses it is a terribly slippery slope and would no doubt cause much debate. God, who remembers the CS slingshot debates ? They went on forever with little general consensus on a game mechanic that was clearly beyond the scope of what the game was designed for .

Also I think CIV and the RB community is VERY well served by the kind of behavior that results in exploit/bug finding- that is a desire to understand the underlying mechanics of the game and not just accept the civilopedia version of the way things work. For example I am really looking at inflation now as a result of Sullla's report, while I had always known that (now with colonies in the game) there are VERY quickly diminishing returns to founding off your landmass (how artificial is that mechanic ?

For the moment I think experimenting with Aggresive AI and keeping the no war before 1000BC is suitable. You hate to have you game report pushed into shadow-land post-facto because you did not know what was going on (especially as a new member here). Instead I think we would all benefit more from people using such tactics as the walls bug and documenting them in-report to make comparisons with those that didn't so we can decide how game changing such things are.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

For example I almost always move my GP to my biggest city before lightbulbing a tech is that exploitative or micro? I think the latter but others may not agree.

It's a bloody waste of time, is what it is.

Cracking the whip after lightbulbing, rather than before, is micro.

[Atlas]

It's a bloody waste of time, is what it is.

Cracking the whip after lightbulbing, rather than before, is micro.

Yeah, it is like only 30 beakers a pretty small dividend

[Blake]

Whether an AI is "too weak" against a rush or not depends on a lot of things.

If the AI is an aggressively personality, it'll be generally less weak.
If the AI has an easy source of metal, it'll be much less weak.

Human strategy works well because humans have single-minded focus, they think "I want Axemen" and they lock down that source of metal wherever it may be, however bad the city site may be. AI's simply don't have that focus which "harms their game" (founding a horrible city towards the ends of a 1-dimensional strategy), so if you want a particular AI to be hard to rush, give them easy copper.

Fighting metal without metal is bloody hard, this is true for both humans and AI, but humans are better at recognizing the excessive value of metal

AI's with early UU's also tend to train more units. Resourceless UU's can be particularly good, at least if the unit itself is useful. Bowmen and Skirmishers, for instance, those leaders don't necessarily need metal in order to feel comfortable spamming out junk. Mind you some leaders (Incans) can spam out their UU without it really helping them...

Some leaders are simply rush-fodder due to their personality. The English (excepting Churchill), Indians and Americans are notorious for just folding over. If you want the AI to be hard to rush, don't make one of these AI's the humans neighbor! Their personality demands that they blow at fighting, still, with Metal, they'll put up a respectable defense once they've been provoked (if they are intact enough), without metal, don't expect them to put up any kind of real resistance, they'll make a good faith effort to make things difficult for the invader ONCE the war is started, but they're kind of naive so are highly vulnerable to punishing first strikes.

Metal is important, it's more important in BTS due to nerfing of siege and since Elephants take more tech to get. An AI can put up a defense with Horses alone, especially once it's producing HA's from stables (it'll shock promote them and kill off the melee stacks), but it needs more time and space to prepare.

That's my advice in general - to create a more level playing field, make the metal more accessible to the AI than it is to the human. I wouldn't condone something contrived like putting the copper under their capital every game, but for the odd game that would be a decent way to cause a surprisingly rabid early military buildup from an AI like Alexander or a surprisingly effective defense from Asoka... so I mean there's potential to engineer things such that the game is harder or easier as desired.

And this metal-engineering can be mixed up with other ways of partially thwarting aggression, by all means keep things interesting and not too predictable.