What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

[Be Quicker]

Have there actually been many computer strategy games where it does not boil down to using the same boring strategy to which there is no clear defense?

[GeorgeWang]

Originally posted by gachnar
Ask yourself: "Would the designers shake their heads at me if I told them about this?"

[art_vandelai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay...I'll bite.

So far, I've seen this term used to describe both IFE and Palace-Bouncing, so I've reached the early conclusion that the term means to describe any kind of game system exploit that, while not an outright cheat, certainly works in the human player's favor because it's not something that the AI does with regularity.

Having said that, are the following things ALSO considered "Munchkinish"?

* Tech Whoring (buying a tech from one AI and selling it to every other). Under the above definition, it *should* fall in the Munchkin category, because it gives the human player a heinous advantage that the AI seldom, if ever takes clear advantage of.

* Attacking any AI Civ anytime after the Ancient Era (because during the Ancient Era, the AI does reasonably well re: attack/defense, but when more versatile units become available, the AI either does not build them in sufficient quantity (preferring to continue building units from previous eras) and/or does not understand how to use them effectively).

* Making use of MPP's to lure a target civ into a disadvantageous position and engineer its destruction (I've never seen the AI do this at all).

* Using Pop-Rush techniques to rapidly overwhelm neighboring AI civs, regardless of difficulty level (the ai makes some use of conscription, but glancing at city sizes of AI civs makes it clear that they do not make much use of early game pop-rushing).

Essentially, pretty much every viable human-player strategy we've come up with on this board revolves around one or more exploits in the current game system. I'm just wondering what the difference is, out of a sense of genuine curiosity.

-=Vel=-

I think Vel raises some good points - some of these exploits (e.g. the leaving of cities undefended to coax the AI to attack there) don't fall within the spirit of the game, which is building and maintaining a civilization that spans the ages. And on most difficulty levels from Regent on up, they are almost necessary to
be successful - but they detract from the overall competitive level of the game.

The despot rush is easy for Firaxis to fix - just increase the unhappiness penalty for rushing so that there's more balance. The AI has obviously been instructed to use it sparingly, or not at all, so there should be some encuragement for either the AI to maximize its use, or for the player to reduce its use if it becomes too unbalancing.

Personally, I don't think that's at all outside the spirit of the game - despots did sacrifice and enslave large portions of their population to fight wars in the ancient era.

What about things like micro-managing hte tech slider to always maximize the gold production when on the last turn or two of a research project. If the AI does it, it will make the game that much more difficult for the player (who certainly can't micromanage that as effectively as a computer), and if the AI doesn't do it, it's considered an exploit, and the AI suffers. I think that it's best left to the advanced player to use the strategies that are most viable and fun, and play on whatever difficulty level reflects that. I've only played 1 game off of Regent (on Chieftan) but I've found the game to be infinitely fun and compelling, even after a month and a half of daily play. I use some of the lesser exploits (i.e. tech managing and selling) but not those I feel reach the point of abusing the AI's weaknesses. Maybe that's why I have only won the game a few of the many games I've started.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by David Weldon
Then, there are a number of creative strategies that work better than perhaps anyone intended or expected, but would still work vs. humans (IFE, pop-rush). In this category, it does not make any difference that the computer can't or doesn't use such tactics. The AI can't coordinate artillery in an offensive, but are we to never use them in such a manner? Of course not.

That logic doesn't work... the AI Civs cannot use the million dollar bug either... doesn't mean we can call it a strategy simply because they cannot use it.

In fact, at higher levels the AI is given "cheats" that it uses to make up for the well-known fact that it doesn't play a perfect game. We should play the game with whatever the rules are at the time.

Exactly, it is up to the player to determine what is within the rules... including using exploits. "I'm playing Deity, so I should be allowed to use these a, b & d exploits & reload twice to make up for the AI 'cheats'."

What if the creators of chess didn't expect the Queen would be the most powerful piece? They thought maybe the knights would dominate play. Over time, everyone started using the Queen "exploit" because clearly it was a "broken" piece. This lead to a game that the designers didn't really expect or intend,

1st, even a newbie can "exploit the Queen" for chess without going to a forum. The same cannot be said for the Despot Pop-Rush. 2nd, both the chess newbie & opponent have "the Queen"... the AI has no "Queen" (tech-whoring). "But the AI cheats on Diety, so I should be allowed a Queen. Fine - but that still doesn't change the fact that the AI has no "Queen". 1 unbalancing factor might help offset another, but you cannot deny that it is an unbalancing factor. Sure there are plenty of unbalancing factors - but don't you want to limit this as much as possible - hence multiplayer popularity?

Almost the exact same argument can be made about Cavalry in civIII,

If I was able to gain control of the AI's Cavalry for free just as I can gain control of the AI's tech profits with tech whoring - then that would be similar... otherwise it's not.

Yes, certain tactics are more powerful than others, and that's always the way it's going to be.

Unless Firaxis wants a smarter AI & better game balance. A smarter AI would take the tech profit that exists out there instead of letting a human player take the profit. But, like I said... some people obviously want a stupid AI. As far as certain tactics being more powerful - gee multiplayer games where newbies MUST know how to Despot Pop-Rush to have a chance of winning & that's all everyone will be doing over & over & over... how... predictable. Shouldn't multiple strategies be the goal, like chess has, rather than a few powerful ones?

Firaxis has all the right in the world to change any rules that didn't work out according to their intention (just as they nerfed IFE), but I don't really think that we, the players, have those same rights. I think that we should generally accept the game that's given to us and play it as well as we can.

So if your new chess set came with an extra black pawn instead of a black queen, you would play it with the extra pawn as an extra pawn?

Have there actually been many computer strategy games where it does not boil down to using the same boring strategy to which there is no clear defense?

Famous Quote: "Even the fool knows all the sky's stars cannot be reached, but it is the wise man who tries."

[sophist]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

Selling techs is tech-trading. There is a difference between tech-whoring & tech-trading. The AI does NOT tech whore (buying a tech & then selling it to ALL other possible Civs, thus making $ that the Civ who originally sold the tech should have made).

The AI doesn't do a good job of knowing what techs they want to keep exclusively and what they can afford to sell. I think if the AI was better programmed to evaluate techs based on their utility, the behavior to properly tech-whore or tech-hoard (haha) would naturally follow. Sure, share Free Artistry and get all you can for it. But keep Military Tradition to yourself as long as possible.

[David Weldon]

With regards to ignoring the AI capabilities...

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
That logic doesn't work... the AI Civs cannot use the million dollar bug either... doesn't mean we can call it a strategy simply because they cannot use it.

Please read the whole post, not just the sentence you would like to critique. I feel there are multiple categories of activity, and that the AI ability or non-ability is NOT a determinant of what should/shouldn't be done. It should not be considered either way.

1st, even a newbie can "exploit the Queen" for chess without going to a forum. The same cannot be said for the Despot Pop-Rush.

So now the relative complexity or difficulty of the strategy should be a factor in determining if it is an exploit? I'm afraid I don't agree with that concept.

2nd, both the chess newbie & opponent have "the Queen"... the AI has no "Queen" (tech-whoring). "But the AI cheats on Diety, so I should be allowed a Queen. Fine - but that still doesn't change the fact that the AI has no "Queen". 1 unbalancing factor might help offset another, but you cannot deny that it is an unbalancing factor.

Unbalancing in what way? Against the AI? I've already asserted that that doesn't matter. Against a human? Not possible. If it works, then it's available to all human players.

Sure there are plenty of unbalancing factors - but don't you want to limit this as much as possible - hence multiplayer popularity?

Here I agree with you, balance and variety would be nice. I just don't think we're the people who are "in charge" of ensuring that the game is balanced, and I don't think it's possible in any case. Whatever we allow or don't allow there will always be a single strongest strategy for a given situation. How can we possibly draw a line in the middle of a vast gray pool of sameness? I say the line must be drawn at the edge of that pool, and it should be drawn wherever the game makers drew it, whether they did everything perfectly or not.

If I was able to gain control of the AI's Cavalry for free just as I can gain control of the AI's tech profits with tech whoring - then that would be similar... otherwise it's not.

As I understand your definition, tech whoring can't be done against a human, so it's out according to my concept of "exploitation". The Cavalry argument was with respect to using a Queen more effectively than an old computer could.

As far as certain tactics being more powerful - gee multiplayer games where newbies MUST know how to Despot Pop-Rush to have a chance of winning & that's all everyone will be doing over & over & over... how... predictable. Shouldn't multiple strategies be the goal, like chess has, rather than a few powerful ones?

First, an experienced chess player could easily play the same tactic against newbie players over and over and over. As could an experienced CivIII player pop-rush against newbies over and over and over. This leads me back to the second point in this post, that "Newbies" should also not be a determining factor in what is an exploit and what isn't.

As for the goal of multiple strategies and balance amongst quality players, again I agree that it is a great goal (see a few lines above).

So if your new chess set came with an extra black pawn instead of a black queen, you would play it with the extra pawn as an extra pawn?

No, because that wouldn't work against another human. I didn't think it was a difficult concept...

[absimiliard]

Originally posted by carioca

<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>

The word Munchkin (coming from Frank L. Baum's Oz books) was applied to new young gamers in the late '70s, because we looked (and often acted) like...Munckins.

I've heard the term used that way as well. It's just a case of multiple meanings. When I was young I used to be called a munchkin, and a rug-rat, myself.

*Gaahhhhh* I'm in cross-posting hell.


Pyro: I've seen the AI tech-whore, just a bit of trivia for you. To whit, I have the Great Library due to some serious foresight and a lot of luck. The AI calls me up to say "Hey, wanna pay this outrageous price for this tech you want". Predictably I tell it to go #@$%! itself, after all I have the GL. Moments later I find I've acquired the tech from it and another civilization. I then try to tech-whore it to all other civs only to find that two others have it and the researcher has a load of new gold.

So the AI definitely sells tech to each other. It's true they don't sell it to everyone, not everyone can meet the price they're asking. But it will sell to everyone it can on it's turn.

If I sell at a lower price that doesn't make it an exploit. It just means I'm a cheap son-of-a-#@$%*!

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by art_vandelai The despot rush is easy for Firaxis to fix - just increase the unhappiness penalty for rushing so that there's more balance.

Good idea!

Originally posted by David Weldon
I feel there are multiple categories of activity, and that the AI ability or non-ability is NOT a determinant of what should/shouldn't be done. It should not be considered either way.

These 'categories of activity' differences should attempted to be minimized for a more balanced game, therefore, the AI should be patched to protect itself from TechWhoring. Sophist gave a good suggestion.

So now the relative complexity or difficulty of the strategy should be a factor in determining if it is an exploit? I'm afraid I don't agree with that concept.

I didn't say that. There is a BIG difference between a Queen (a standard, obvious & common piece) and obtaining profit from a weakness in a stupid AI that it should have obtained instead. Using an analogy to compare the 2 is comparing apples and oranges. Comparing Cavalry Speed & Queen Movement would have been valid. Not patching TechWhoring is keeping a stupid AI - which is obviously what some want/need. A better comparision for Tech Whoring (taking profit the AI obviously should have made instead) would be being able to move the AI's Queen. The fact you are gaining control of something the AI should have instead is an exploit of a severe weakness in the programming.

Unbalancing in what way? Against the AI? I've already asserted that that doesn't matter.

If balance is irrelevant against the AI then the million dollar "cheat" would be valid as well.

Here I agree with you, balance and variety would be nice. I just don't think we're the people who are "in charge" of ensuring that the game is balanced, and I don't think it's possible in any case. Whatever we allow or don't allow there will always be a single strongest strategy for a given situation.

Umm yeah... just like chess. I don't think anyone has declared themselves "in charge" here... simply giving their opinions.

How can we possibly draw a line in the middle of a vast gray pool of sameness? I say the line must be drawn at the edge of that pool, and it should be drawn wherever the game makers drew it, whether they did everything perfectly or not.

We draw a line as we do in society - vote with our opinions, except with Firaxis as the final judge. This is a Civ3 game society & we are the game players (or beta testers as some say). If we stayed with tradition, IFE would still be ok... not to mention what society would be like. The "game makers" are not perfect, hence bugs, patches & patches with bugs.

First, an experienced chess player could easily play the same tactic against newbie players over and over and over. As could an experienced CivIII player pop-rush against newbies over and over and over. This leads me back to the second point in this post, that "Newbies" should also not be a determining factor in what is an exploit and what isn't.

1st, you overlook that the experienced players will still be doing Despot Pop-Rushes against each other as well... it would be like everyone moving a knight 1st in chess simply because it turns it into a queen by doing so. Suddenly everyone's 1st move is predictable & there are no alternatives to the Despot Pop-Rush. I'm glad chess isn't like that. 2nd, "Newbies" is where the future of this game is. Additionally, someone telling them "oh by the way you always have to Despot Pop-Rush to stand a chance" seems strategically limiting.

No, because that wouldn't work against another human. I didn't think it was a difficult concept...

The million dollar bug isn't a difficult concept either. Take a guess how many learned that & the Despot Pop-Rush here compared to learning it on their own.

As for the goal of multiple strategies and balance amongst quality players, again I agree that it is a great goal

Despot Pop-Rush provides such a huge benefit that it makes all other early strategies void. I'm not suggestion Pop-Rush be removed, but as of now it's too cheap/easy which many seem to agree (see prior link to Pop-Rush)... it's like a flying Queen in chess... don't remove her, fix her. Until then it's an exploit.

Originally posted by absimiliard I have the Great Library due to some serious foresight and a lot of luck. The AI calls me up to say "Hey, wanna pay this outrageous price for this tech you want". Predictably I tell it to go #@$%! itself, after all I have the GL. Moments later I find I've acquired the tech from it and another civilization. I then try to tech-whore it to all other civs only to find that two others have it and the researcher has a load of new gold. So the AI definitely sells tech to each other.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but... that is called Tech Trading/Selling... that's not Tech Whoring. A Tech Whore is player who specifically seeks to buy techs from other Civs, then immediately sells those techs to all the other AI Civs who don't have it. Result = the player gains a substantial profit... a profit which the AI Civ who originally sold the tech to the player should have made instead by selling it to the player & all other AI Civs during it's turn initially... IF it wanted to sell it at all. Or it should ask for a higher price (thus obtain most of that TechWhore profit) for the tech the player wants to buy.

[absimiliard]

But Pyro, by your definition of tech-whoring it's impossible to make a profit.

Taking Monotheism from my example. If I had bought it from the AI I would have paid an outrageous price for it. If I then turned around and sold it at any price to all the other AIs I would have lost money on the transaction. Lots of money.

There must, MUST, always be a price-point below which the AI won't sell a tech. If there wasn't I'd buy the tech from the AI for 1 Gold every time. If there is a lower-limit then there must, again MUST, exist the possibility for me to sell below it. It may be unprofitable, but profit may not be my goal, I might want Nationalism in a weaker AI's hands for geopolitical reasons.

Certainly you're right that the AI could capture that extra gold if it was willing to sell every tech for any price. But that would be a remarkably more dumb AI than the one we've got right now.

You can take issue with where the AI stops selling tech. But I don't understand how you take issue with the very existance of that price-point. Nor do I understand how I spending 600 Gold to get the tech and getting back 150 from the other AIs is bad, much less an exploit.

How would you program the AI selling algorithm? (no need to write code mind you, just a general logic path would do) I venture that you can't improve on what currently exists even if you differ as to how valuable a tech should be. There must after all be a point at which the gold is not worth the advantage you gain from the other players (AI or human) not having the tech.

It's just basic economics. I'm sorry if you don't like economics, but you should take that up with the universe, not even programmers can change those laws. (A real world example would be our drug-laws, not even lawmakers, our programmers, can change the laws of economics regarding prohibition or it's effects.)

In other words, techs must have a value. If you remove that the consequences are dire. If you leave it and I lose money buying and selling tech I don't see the problem.

I guess I'm confused as to what you think is wrong with the AI regarding tech-whoring. Maybe you could explain why you think it is bad again? (I'm a little slow sometimes)

[David Weldon]

Pyro:
Mixed and confusing analogies not withstanding, I think we are coming pretty close to agreeing.

I agree tech whoring (as you narrowly define it) is an exploit.

I agree the million dollar bug is a cheat.

I agree pop-rushing will dominate any MP game, and that this is undesirable.

I agree the AI should play better.

I agree we should continue to beta-test Firaxis' game for them, and suggest changes that will help balance the game and make it better.

I guess perhaps what we disagree on is whether playing the game we have now while hoping to fix pop-rushing (as one example) is an exploit or not. I don't think it's an exploit, I just think it's a poor design. This means CivIII isn't as good as it should be, but I still think that if MP tournaments were to be magically held tomorrow that everyone would use the most effective strategy they could (pop-rushing), and it couldn't possibly be considered an exploit. As you have already said, it would just be a boring game. Too bad Firaxis didn't do a better job, huh?

Here's an in-game comparison that may help shed light on where I stand: I play with an extremely small military because I know that I can quickly react to anything the AI will attempt. I don't garrison any of my cities at all. This would get me slaughtered in any MP game. According to the "AI can't/doesn't do it so it's an exploit" theory, it's an exploit. It seems quite obvious that we couldn't actually term this an exploit, when it's just a strategy that takes advantage of the game I'm currently playing (that is, a game against the AI). I feel pop-rushing is arguably a very similar strategy, employing the same concept of relative advantage over the AI by doing something that the AI doesn't do. The only real difference is that pop-rushing is much more effective.

This is what I mean by variations of gray and the inability to differentiate between them. If anyone started a tournament and tried to say "you can't have a small military", people would laugh. If someone started a tourny and said "you can't pop-rush", fewer people would laugh but some still would.

It's in the game. It's not a clear cheat, and it would be effective against any opponent (human or AI). It's not an exploit. It's a poorly balanced feature that I hope will be patched, but until it is then I think it's fair game.

Ruling things out shouldn't be ad-hoc, it should follow clear guidelines and I don't see any clear guideline that would rule out pop-rushing without affecting other quite obviously legitimate strategies.

[sophist]

Quoting from Vel in another thread:

I agree with the general consensus that AI border fortification would solve much of the problem, and I steadfastly hold to the conviction that every strategy can be beaten.

That is the nub of Munchkin strategies. Every acceptable strategy can be beaten. Every acceptable strategy has its counter-strategy. Every acceptable strategy works in some instances but not others. IFE cannot be beaten; the best you can do is to do it yourself. Combined arms can be beaten by taking advantage of the slow movement of infantry and artillery to pick off HP as the stack advances. And so forth.


Note: that's beyond your basic play, of course. I don't call building a temple to make people happy a strategy

[Velociryx]

::sheepish grin::

I've never stumbled into a situation where I found myself quoted before....that was....kinna cool...lol...thank you....

And I'd have to....agree with myself? LOL...yes, every strategy can be beaten (including IFE, I would say!), though sometimes in order to beat the strat, you have to do something even dirtier (find out where the IFE-ing is happening and punch through there, suddenly kidnapping a few hundred workers), and/or resort to the exact strategy, only do it better (IE - If I'm an industrious civ, just let a non-industrious civ try to out ife me...lol).

And some strategies (Jaguar rush), are theoretically beatable, but I've not quite figured out how .....



-=Vel=-
(allow myself to introduce.....myself)

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by absimiliard
But Pyro, by your definition of tech-whoring it's impossible to make a profit.

I can make TONS of money by simply selling techs I research alone.

Taking Monotheism from my example. If I had bought it from the AI I would have paid an outrageous price for it. If I then turned around and sold it at any price to all the other AIs I would have lost money on the transaction.

Some specific AI Civs charge more for certain techs than others. Militaristic Civs charge/pay more for military techs. These extreme differences increases the potential $ to be made when TechSelling & TechWhoring. Tech value also seems to vary on the number of Civs who currently know that tech.

There must, MUST, always be a price-point below which the AI won't sell a tech. If there wasn't I'd buy the tech from the AI for 1 Gold every time. If there is a lower-limit then there must, again MUST, exist the possibility for me to sell below it. It may be unprofitable, but profit may not be my goal, I might want Nationalism in a weaker AI's hands for geopolitical reasons.

As I explained earlier tech whoring could be patched by an AI Civ simply asking more for a tech a player wanted to buy during it's turn. Or if the AI Civ found it could earn x gold (the minimum) total from selling it to ALL other Civs then it could sell it during it's turn. If it couldn't then it shouldn't sell that tech.

Certainly you're right that the AI could capture that extra gold if it was willing to sell every tech for any price. But that would be a remarkably more dumb AI than the one we've got right now.

I disagree. The current AI allows the human player to make a substantial profit not from 1 AI Civ, but up to 15... that's A LOT of gold. 2nd, I never suggested the AI Civs should mass sell all their techs all the time.

You can take issue with where the AI stops selling tech. But I don't understand how you take issue with the very existance of that price-point.

It's not about a price-point, it's about total profit (see below).

Nor do I understand how I spending 600 Gold to get the tech and getting back 150 from the other AIs is bad, much less an exploit.

150 total (10 gold per Civ for a 600 gold tech???) hasn't been my experience. $150 each yes. The AI can gain $2100 ($150*14Civs) by mass selling a tech or only $600 from the human player (who can later earn the $2100 through TechWhoring) then obviously the 1st choice is superior. The AI always does the 2nd.

How would you program the AI selling algorithm?

I wouldn't necessarily "reprogram the AI selling algorithm", but I would add to it if I knew how...

Whatever the current pricing they use for Tech... let it be = x
Total Gold if AI sold a Tech to all other possible Civs = y
Amount of Gold for Player to buy Tech during human player's turn = the greater of y or x
If AI ever needs to sell a tech for gold (pick a low priority tech) & mass sell it during it's turn.

I venture that you can't improve on what currently exists even if you differ as to how valuable a tech should be. There must after all be a point at which the gold is not worth the advantage you gain from the other players (AI or human) not having the tech.

I'm not a programmer, but any AI can be improved upon. Any programmer will tell you that.

It's just basic economics. I'm sorry if you don't like economics, but you should take that up with the universe, not even programmers can change those laws.(A real world example would be our drug-laws, not even lawmakers, our programmers, can change the laws of economics regarding prohibition or it's effects.)

?

In other words, techs must have a value. If you remove that the consequences are dire. If you leave it and I lose money buying and selling tech I don't see the problem.

I never said techs should have no value.

I guess I'm confused as to what you think is wrong with the AI regarding tech-whoring. Maybe you could explain why you think it is bad again?

Hopefully the math calculations above will illustrate better where the AI Civs are losing profit that they should obtain instead of the player. In your scenario that 1 AI Civ lost $1500 ($2100-$600) of it's hard earned tech research/knowledge. 15 AI Civs... over 6000 years... that adds up.

In general, AI Civs are willing to give their soul (current treasury & future income for the next 20turns) for a tech (any tech)... atleast pre-patch they were. Recently, I made over 10000 gold (from 14 AI Civs) for Medicine alone in the Industrial Age on a Regent game. Could the AI Tech Selling/Buying for gold be improved? Definitely Yes. Do I have all the answers? Alas, no.

[absimiliard]

pyro: That's a pretty slick formula, I like it. If you are that concerned about the profit from the AIs that the AI doesn't sell too then your way would work. It would require the AI to treat the human differently from the other AIs however, and we have been told it will not do that.

I think I also see two points where we differ at a fundamental level. First, I play with 7 AI not 15. Second, in my experience the AI can't often deliver your 150 Gold on a tech.

The first results in a larger pool of AI players that you can sell to than my games provide. This should increase the amount of money you make. Except for my second belief.

My observation is that though the AI often will sell it's soul to get a tech it even more often can't offer more than it's World Map plus 1 to 5 Gold. This means the profit that you percieve doesn't exist.

I think the AI percieves this by simply not selling below a certain point. This means it is throwing some profit away, but not much given what the others can pay to it.

[David Weldon]

Hey guys, I just had a thought about this particular issue. It's possible that the problem isn't really one of inadequate diplomacy or poor pricing, it could be a greater problem of game balance.

1 gold = 1 beaker (before factoring in improvements), but 1 gold = 1/4 shield (assuming this only becomes dramatically exploitable after economics).

Tech prices that are too high require a very large tax base that can be converted to units, improvements, or luxuries far too effectively.

Who would care about tech whoring/selling if it took 6000 gold to rush a single modern armor? Or if each tech only cost 100 beakers, so that it was only possible to raise a few hundred gold per tech? This would certainly ease the burden on the AI's ability to assess value correctly.

The fact that a 4 turn limit was introduced leads me to believe that most empires create too large of a tax base in the late game. Couldn't we just turn down the trade rates and re-balance the tech costs so that the advantage gained by trading them is less?

I did some research a while ago that showed approximately a 3.5% per turn economic growth, given certain assumptions and using the tech tree as a measuring tool. I haven't measured it, but I'm sure unit costs escalate at a substantially slower rate. This could lead to a skew in the relative advantage of science vs. military late in the game.

At first glance, giving more value to the science approach would balance it against a purely military approach, but in reality the situation is reversed. Since techs cost so much, they can be converted into military at an alarming rate (either by trading them, or by simply turning down the science slider), which leads to almost purely military strategies in the late game.

I know this is a huge task which we probably can't accomplish ourselves, but the point is that we may be arguing about symptoms, not root causes.

[Pyrodrew]

Vel - I agree with Sophist. Taking the workers is not a "superior strategy" to IFE. 1st, you would most likely have NO idea where the workers were IFEing, unless you had a spy showing all units (which charge excessive fees & they only show military units I believe). 2nd, I doubt someone would bunch up all their IFE workers in 1 nice spot for you - more likely they would be spread throughout their territory & possibly in the center. 3rd, if you're on a hunt to find all these IFE workers... guess what that player gets to do with his military units - gain new cities. 4th, if your workers are not IFEing you're falling behind. 5th, even if you knew where they were you're falsely assuming you would be able to take them - failure is very possible.

DavidWeldon - It seems everyone will draw their lines in different places. MP Despot Pop-Rush only is too predictable, against the AI too big of an advantage, just like IFE & million-dollar "cheat" where it no longer becomes strategy with weaknesses.... for me anyways. Regarding your strategy - I've read posts here of people losing unguarding cities & the Chinese snuck a boat up & took 2 cities from me once too. Perhaps I didn't do it as well as you, but there seems to be some risk/cost. I didn't see any clear guidelines that would depict infinite invasion avoidance trick, reloading, milliondollar cheat, or IFE as a strategy vs. an exploit either, regardless of them being in the game or effective.

Back to beta-testing...

[Velociryx]

Regarding worker-kidnapping in bulk as a possible counter to IFE:

Admittedly, it was a spur of the moment idea, but I'd contend it would work because:

1) IFE (pre-patch, of course) was primarily a means of pumping up production in corruption-ridden towns far from the capitol. This implies that the workers would have to be on the fringes of the enemy's empire (since the ten shields of production goes to the closest town)

2) In order to build expensive facilities at such towns, the workers would have to be clumped, so that the chopping/replanting could happen relatively quickly (say 6-8 workers in a stack).

3) Likely (especially when considering stuff like hospitals and factories) several stacks would be in the neighborhood of the border towns (netting gains of 30-40 shields per rotation).

4) A single cav unit "attacking" a stack of workers captures them all right then and there.

So....you'd only need a relatively small force (3-4 cav) to walk away with 18-24+ workers. Given that it's a border town, and such a strategy (before mentioning it here at least) would be unexpected in the extreme, it would be easy enough to create a diversion someplace, draw the opponent's attention there, slip in with 3-4 cav, kidnap a whole slew of workers, sacrifice a few of them for re-capture by placing them "in the way" and individually stacked, and making off with the remainder.

Granted, it'd only work once, but it sure would put a surprised look on some poor fellow's face....

-=Vel=-

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by absimiliard
It would require the AI to treat the human differently from the other AIs however, and we have been told it will not do that.

Well, maybe it could still offer to sell it for an average of what the other Civs paid for it to the human player.

Second, in my experience the AI can't often deliver your 150 Gold on a tech.

Tech Selling is usually much more profitable I've found later in the game. Larger maps probably also results in more gold income (which leads to higher tech prices)... I usually play on huge maps. I'm usually buying Techs in the Ancient Age since IMO the AI Civs sell them very cheap. Later prices get so high it's better to sell rather than buy.

My observation is that though the AI often will sell it's soul to get a tech it even more often can't offer more than it's World Map plus 1 to 5 Gold. This means the profit that you percieve doesn't exist.

I wish that were true, but this isn't an untested strategy/exploit. Nor was it discovered by me. If you search older files other names this technique could be under is "TechBrokering". I didn't invent the "TechWhoring" name, but since a broker is a professional and a whore is a less favorable term, I perfer using the later term for this.

DavidWeldon - Your recent theories could very well be true. I will have to give them more thought... during dinner.

Vel - 1st, I believe IFE would be more effective to produce home-town factories rather than try to build up cities dangerously on the edge of a border which might still be producing on 1 shield centuries later. Against the AI IFE on borders might be fine, against humans it would be crazy. 2nd, stacks might be in the same neighborhood, but again that's not going to be on my borders when playing against humans unless they are heavily protected (which after IFEing some factories/hospitals in the center of my empire they would be). 3rd, Cavalry only can go 3 tiles... unprotected IFE is safe 4squares from my border. And sometimes one can IFE a border city & still be 4squares from the border. Putting a few workers on a border sure sounds like a good distraction/lure for a more devious plot. Your entire means to stop IFE depends on unprotected workers sitting on the border. 4th, and most importantly - you've just declared war on me by doing that... are you going to declare war on everyone using IFE? And I might not like that if I'm the only source of oil for you... my friends who use my oil might not like that either. What if you're involved in too many other wars already at the time?

[Velociryx]

Valid points, all. And certainly there are more things to consider than simply who-is-IFEing.....

However, IFE is simply more effective for border towns riddled with corruption than for cities on the interior. That was the whole reason the exploit was discussed to begin with (because cities in your interior, close to your capitol/fp are already producing enough shields to build stuff quickly....IFE was initially a means to get around the 1-shield production of distant towns).

In any case, post-patch, IFE is a dead horse, but given the environment that existed prior to that patch, I would contend that the majority of players would be inclined to use IFE where it would net them the biggest benefit (ie - towns that could not produce well on their own). All the discussions I participated in here regarding IFE pre-patch centered around that very theme.

Now, it's certainly true that a human player would not simply leave his workers undefended.....they'd no doubt have a guard or perhaps two with each stack.

When considering counters to IFE though, I'd also contend that it wouldn't ultimately matter whether you captured the workers or no (and, if I caught them and did not feel I could escape with them, rather that risk re-capture, I'd be inclined to simply disband them). What matters is that if I can stop you from doing what you're doingn for even one turn while you relocate your workers (and mine are, presumedly still chopping away), then I've gained turn advantage over you....even more if my attack succeeds of course, but even if it fails and forces you to relocate, that's still one turns' worth of chopping that I'm getting and you're not.

Will it matter, ultimately?

Maybe....

-=Vel=-

[justjake73]

One example is moving galleys across 'forbidden' sea squares; that is - ones the human cannot cross.

This has of course been carried over all the way from CivI. I watched today as an Egyptian galley headed straight into the open ocean.

[absimiliard]

I think you're right about the profit available in the late game Pyro. It is quite substantial. But the AI can't get any of it.

By that time the game is already functionally over, the AI never gets the chance to sell a tech past the Middle Ages. By the Industrial age I'm the only one getting tech first. The odd tech may slip by, but nothing meaningful.

[gachnar]

Originally posted by justjake73
This has of course been carried over all the way from CivI. I watched today as an Egyptian galley headed straight into the open ocean.

I'd be interested to see proof of this, since I have set up several shallow water blockades (basically an L-shape of 3 Galleys against a straight shore) that prevent Galleys from getting to my continent.

They dont get past. They build up. They get frustrated. I've watched several Galleys do this: Run into blockade, offload troops, leave, show up, pick up troops take them somewhere else, return 10 turns later.

You sure the egyptians didnt have the Lighthouse? If so, a savegame would be nice.

[justjake73]

Oh! That may explain it! They DID just complete the Lighthouse! I didn't realize it had that ability - I have never built that wonder.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Ironwood

Oh wait. Historical example appearing in my mind. Remember Charles the Great, aka Charles Magnus, aka Charl le Mange, aka Charlemange? That guy didn't sit tight for one minuite (yes, this is an exaggeration). He, and his entourage (sp?), pretty much spent a lot of their time touring the empire, making sure the local lords didn't forget for one minute who was king.

Alexander the Great moved his capitol to Western India as soon as he was done conquering it.

It's an excellent and effective real-world tactic. I say teach the AI to do it too.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Velociryx
IFE is simply more effective for border towns riddled with corruption than for cities on the interior. That was the whole reason the exploit was discussed to begin with (because cities in your interior, close to your capitol/fp are already producing enough shields to build stuff quickly....IFE was initially a means to get around the 1-shield production of distant towns).

Simply because IFE is more effective on new cities, assuming they won't be strangled with 1shield corruption forever, doesn't mean IFE is useless when used 4 squares or more away from the border or even at the center of an empire.

I would contend that the majority of players would be inclined to use IFE where it would net them the biggest benefit (ie - towns that could not produce well on their own). All the discussions I participated in here regarding IFE pre-patch centered around that very theme.

Everything has a risk & reward element to it & putting IFE workers on the border with someone you're at war with is stupid. You're ignoring the risk element completely. Instead have the IFE workers build your other cities when you're at war... after you take other cities & extend your borders then you can move the IFE workers to the "once border" cities.

Now, it's certainly true that a human player would not simply leave his workers undefended.....they'd no doubt have a guard or perhaps two with each stack.

A guard or 2? If I'm at war with you I'm not going to stick 1 guard on a pile of IFE workers on my border. Furthermore, if we're at war it's a WAR... not a little scuffle. If you declare war, I'm not going to say, "oh you silly... darn now you ruined my IFEing." More like, "you drew 1st blood... now you're going to DIE! Take his capital, raze his cities!" Next CENTURIES of war in blood.

When considering counters to IFE though, I'd also contend that it wouldn't ultimately matter whether you captured the workers or no (and, if I caught them and did not feel I could escape with them, rather that risk re-capture, I'd be inclined to simply disband them). What matters is that if I can stop you from doing what you're doingn for even one turn while you relocate your workers (and mine are, presumedly still chopping away), then I've gained turn advantage over you....even more if my attack succeeds of course, but even if it fails and forces you to relocate, that's still one turns' worth of chopping that I'm getting and you're not.

Again I'm not sticking my IFE workers on your border when we're at war, no more then I would be building improvements on cities I just conquered of yours. Regardless if a mined grassland would really help that city the risk is too high.

Anyways, more importantly if I'm IFEing at the center of my empire building my universities, banks, hospitals, & factories MUCH MUCH faster... you cannot stop it... there is NO counter-strategy to it.

[Velociryx]

Small point: I'd not try a worker grab when we're at war tho....but as an opening shot, it'd sure make for a good one....

-=Vel=-

[Black Sunrise]

Originally posted by Adam Wallock
India and Pakistan sign a non-aggresion pact so that Pakistan may conquer westward and India may conquer eastward leaving their mutual boundary ungarrisoned.

Interesting. I wonder how he gets around the fact that they hate each other, and deperately want to wipe each other off the face of the planet?

Originally posted by Sinapus


Well, you always could modify the civ3mod.bic so that a civ has all six bonuses, plus four starting techs. Then always play that civ.

(No, I did *not* do that. Just noticed it was doable.)

You could also tape a piece of paper with the words "You win" on your computer monitor, yet somehow I feel it would be less satisfying than actually trying to win.

Originally posted by xane
I play my games as I take them, last time as the Germans I lost miserably because I was the _only_ civilization not to have either oil or rubber

You played a historically accurate game then. Congratulations on recreating world war II!



The term munchkinism comes from the 70's, btw. It does indeed have a history, but I'd have to go spend hours looking through old Dragon Magazines to find it's historical roots (there was an article).

Originally posted by gachnar
munchkinish: adj. - in a style which relies upon unrealistic use of game rules or excessive exploitation of minor game imbalances.

Thats the best, and if I recall correctly, the official, definition.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Pop-Rush - Under Despotism, sacrificing population to speed build units/infrastructure. If you keep a city small (3 or less) in this manner, you suffer no ill effects.

Er, no offence, but Stalin did this, historically speaking. So I don't think it's a true munchkin strategy, unless you consider Real World leaders to be munchkins. (actually, I could make a good case that every great leader in history has been a munchkin, ruthlessly learning and exploiting the changing rules of history to the expense of the less adaptable).

David Weldon:
Great examples of munchkinism. Interesting is also the fact that many of them are actually very effective (1 big mech with a sighting mech is close to a variant I used to win a couple of tourneys)

Originally posted by absimiliard

Second, AI paralyzation: In some cases you can paralyze an AI's invasion force by moving your own forces around. As the AI always moves towards a weak-point you can cause it to continuously move it's armies back and forth as you use your armies to close each weak point. The effect is that you have paralyzed the AIs armies. This tactic will not work versus a human.

Ah, another fan of WWII! That is refered to as a blitzkrieg. A "lightening war" in which enemy strongpoints and forces are bypassed, and enemy supply bases threatened, parylizing a military in the field. The military is unable to strike, left at the old "front", now not knowing which direction to move. Used with incredible skill in bypassing the French defences in WWII.
The AI is stupider than a typical human, but the confusion induced by having no clear front is not a purely silicon stupidity.
(no offence, btw. I see your point, but this is a strategy that has worked, historically, against humans. The results spelt the end of trench/positional warfare and the dawn of mobility warfare)

Originally posted by sophist

So, in sum: if it's easy and mindless but still grants a significant benefit, it's Munchkin. If it grants significant benefit but requires some degree of thought and adaptation to make it work effectively in a given circumstance, then it's a valid strategy.

Not bad, I can accept that as a workable rule for valid strategy, as opposed to just screwing around.

Originally posted by Be Quicker
Have there actually been many computer strategy games where it does not boil down to using the same boring strategy to which there is no clear defense?

Well, killing the opponent works pretty well for me, most times.

And SMACX had a lot of variants to that. Getting everyone else to like you and vote you into the winning position, winning by technology, winning through economic dominance, winning through world conquest, winning by yourself, winning with allies, spelling your name out in roads, etc.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but... that is called Tech Trading/Selling... that's not Tech Whoring. A Tech Whore is player who specifically seeks to buy techs from other Civs, then immediately sells those techs to all the other AI Civs who don't have it. Result = the player gains a substantial profit... a profit which the AI Civ who originally sold the tech to the player should have made instead by selling it to the player & all other AI Civs during it's turn initially... IF it wanted to sell it at all. Or it should ask for a higher price (thus obtain most of that TechWhore profit) for the tech the player wants to buy.

I believe this is referred to as industrial espionage. Japan did it to the USA, buying technology to make submarines quieter, then selling it to the Soviet Union (at a substantial profit, I might add). Valid strategy, historically. Too bad the AI doesn't use it on us (yet), that'd be a nasty one!



Regards,
Indra

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by art_vandelai



difficulty level reflects that. I've only played 1 game off of Regent (on Chieftan) but I've found the game to be infinitely fun and compelling, even after a month and a half of daily play. I use some of the lesser exploits (i.e. tech managing and selling) but not those I feel reach the point of abusing the AI's weaknesses. Maybe that's why I have only won the game a few of the many games I've started.

The AI cheats, so why not you? AI players know which of your cities are completely undefended, but the AI really shouldn't know this. Heck, AI knows where ALL units are ALL the time (and makes use of it, too). So it's not that the AI is paying gold to investigate all your cities every turn. It's annoyning that it automatically sends unit to the least defended cities.. so I don't feel bad about using it to my advantage. That said, I haven't used the undefended city tactics, but I don't see why not. If the AI played a fair game, then don't use "exploits", but it doesn't.
Maybe it's not an empire-building game after all, but a competition to exploit as much as possible? Playing on deity, the AIs get settlers and units whenever it needs them.. and compared to that, tech whoring is peanuts. Again, I have not used tech whoring, but I think I will... that'll teach that bastard AI a lesson!

Fred

[squeeze truck]

I'm a bit confused by the concept of pop-rush and why it is considered to be unfair.

Let me see if I understand the idea. I have the heart of my empire where the palace is, and where 5-6 of my oldest most populous cities are. Then I have a frontier that I am expanding into. I mass-produce workers, send them to the frontier and have the workers rejoin the 1-2 pop cities that are there. Thus I build up the frontier more quickly.

Is that accurate?

If so, let me offer some real-world cases where this has been done effectively.

*18th Century America (The Homestead Act) The US offered free land and many incentives for "workers" in the Eastern cities to move West (into land recently acquired from France, and inhabited by small groups "Iroqouis") and build/join existing settlements.

*18th Century Russia:
Same deal. Many people left the West to fill up the empty Russian Far East.

*20th Century Russia:
Again, Russia sent people East in an attempt to move its industrial base behind the Ural mountains where Hitler couldn't get them.

[Pyrodrew]

BlackSunrise/SqueezeTruck - Whether it is "realistic" or not is irrelevant. It's about game balance. If Pop-Rushing didn't cause a population drop thru "the whip" & created no unhappy citizens (afterall one could argue Homestead made people happy with all those incentives & free land) it would be even more unbalanced. Again I'm not saying Pop-Rushing should be removed, only better balanced, especially since the AI Civs cannot use this HUGE benefit. If the AI Civs couldn't build any Industrial Age & Modern units would you still build them just because they were "realistic" or would you prefer better game balance?

Originally posted by Fredric DrumAI players know which of your cities are completely undefended

Firaxis claims they fixed this in the patch... unless they have lied/failed.

Again, I have not used tech whoring, but I think I will...

And that's your choice, you can use as many exploits as you want. It's your single-player game.