Acceptable exploits or 'cheats'

I'd like to start a discussion of which 'undocumented features' or exploits or cheats are commonly accepted. Here is a quote from Paul's OCC guide, sometimes called as the 'Paulicy':

quote: 1.4. TRICKS AND CHEATS Civilization II has some features that are not described in the manual. Some players consider the use of these features as cheating, others don't. We have had a vote among OCC players at Apolyton to decide how to deal with these features. This vote has resulted in the following results: 1.4.1. AIRBASES ON HILLS Besides their official effects airbases also work as farmland and railroads. This gives players extra food on mined hills. The majority of the voters decided that it should NOT be allowed to build airbases on hills in the city radius. 1.4.2. "SUPERSTACK" Bombers can only be attacked by (stealth) fighters. This means that if you let a bomber end its turn on the same square as one of your units that unit can't be attacked by other units except fighters. The majority of the voters decided that you may use this feature in OCC games. 1.4.3. MINING THE CITY SQUARE If you build your city on a hill you can't mine that hill. However, if you start mining the hill and build a city on that hill before the mine is finished you can get a mine on the city square. The majority of the voters decided that you are allowed to mine your city square. 1.4.4. INCREMENTAL RUSHBUYING Rushbuying a unit is cheaper if you first buy the cheapest unit you can build, then switch to the next cheapest, buy that and so on until you buy the unit that you wanted to build. This incremental rushbuying may be used in OCC games. 1.4.5. FOOD CARAVAN TRICK It has recently been discovered that a city can use food caravans to set up food trade routes with itself. Using this trick it is also possible to get your city to grow in population even if you have a food shortage. It is not known exactly in what circumstances this will work and it may be version specific. This use of food caravans is NOT allowed in OCC games. You are of course still allowed to use caravans to help build wonders or to disband them to contribute to whatever you are building.

Then there is ship chaining which seem to be generally accepted. What about settler/engineer preworking? I found a thread "Another little cheat -- that extra move" where preworking is being discussed and no one there (including Paul) seems to condemn the practise.

In Apolyton "Great Library" there can be found "Ming's big list of cheats". Quite many of those are obviously 'forbidden' like reloading if hut outcome/military operation etc isn't what you would have wanted. Some other things are not so apparent (IMHO), like clicking on black map to find out the continent number which tells whether there are sea or land to assist which direction you should move your trireme.

As I'm currently involved in several succession games I think we should have a general agreement what's allowed and what's not. Maybe this issue has already been addressed, but I'm not aware of it.

[Ming]

The black and white cheats, like reloading after a bad event are obvious.

However, there are a lot of gray area "design flaws" that will be difficult to get agreement on. In many cases, we really don't know the "intent" of the designers. Incremental buying is a classic example. There was a really long debate on this issue, with very "heated" discussions.

The ones discussed in Paul's guides are some of the major ones... but you are right, there has been no real discussion on subjects like clicking on unexplored squares.

But the real issue with OCC games is that it is a game of HONOR! Nobody will ever know if you "peaked" at the map, or reset an occasional hut.

I have no problem with people who do such things if they are playing for "fun"... However, if you are going to "post" your accomplishments...

[Boney]

Another 'cheat thing' that I have not seen mentioned. Following on this tack I notice that the use of bombers over ground units is allowed. So what I would like to know is if this tactic of mine would be 1) considered legit and 2) Does it actually wear down production of the AI.

The tactic this: we all know how the AI loves their cruise missiles, and we should also know how much they target Battleships. For some reason other kinds of ships are very rarely, if at all, targetted (except aircraft carriers, does anyone actually buy these expensive useless things). So my tactic is to place battleships near enough to the AI civ to become a target, but also in a position where my bombers can reach them. Then I would position a bomber over them. I would then just leave them there and wait for the missiles. On my next turn they would be totally surrounded by missiles. So my first move would be to activate the battleship and knock all those missiles out of the air, but one will always remain. Then send the bomber back and bring the new one out and once it is over the battleship knock out the remaining missile. If you leave a missile it just seems to hang in the air, so all must be knocked out. I am not sure whether this tactic can be used to drain the AIs production, but it does give an indication of their power. Once the flow of missiles lessens you know they are weakening.

This battleship base can be used as your 'Cuba', I have used this tactic to create a safety chain right up to the AI's land. In fact in one game I had 3 cargo ships full of tanks and howitzers hiding under a bomber with my battleship before my big invasion. They arrived there from my chain of battleship islands, protected from airbases built in unoccupied islands. Carriers are useless as they cannot get bomber protection. For some reason the AI never attacks the bomber with fighters, I have never been shot out of the air. Does this mean that a bomber over a ship or a ship under a bomber are both un attackable?

This was voted on as acceptable tactics, but I do not know if it works on multiplyer as I have never played a multiplayer game. Also I do not think people saw super stacking being used in this way.

I suppose there must be a thread about his somewhere.
[This message has been edited by Boney (edited March 29, 2001).]

[Scouse Gits]

My 3 ha'p'orth - the OCC rules were determined before I started playing OCC or posting on Apolyton. The airbase 'trick' seems quite legit to me particularly since the 'e' command is not available until very late in the game - my view is that this is essentially a late game 'engineer upgrade' allowing 'modern engineers' to fully upgrade a square very efficiently -- but the rules are (for the moment) the rules and I was terribly embarrassed in one of the early OCC fortnights when ?Tom deMille? pointed out that I had cheated by using an airbase on a hill

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[Xin Yu]

In the past I have proposed alternative ways to Paul's guide, like build granary first then sell it after reaching size 4. However no matter what you do, you can only make a couple of turns difference in landing year. Seems that Paul has already maximized the potential of building improvements/wonders and using AI help (ally with them and give/trade them techs while asking them for money).

Therefore, there is only one thing possible to vastly improve the game -- build caravans every turn and trade them for hundreds of golds+science each. In order to do that, your city must not run out of commodity to produce. I already know that sometimes you can produce hides every turn. Also I have some tests to do to see if some schemes work to give you refreshed commodities whenever you want. Until then, follow Paul's guide.

[Xin Yu]

And of course, the trick is -- send a food caravan to a foreign city followed by a commodity caravan. This way your commodity supply is refreshed and you don't suffer from a food route replaces one of your beneficial trade routes.

[Ming]

*TOTALLY OFF TOPIC*

Good to see you still checking in on the Civ forums Xin Yu. I hope that when CivIII comes out, you come back to Civ from ToT
Your special insights and talents will be needed with a new game to learn!

[Xin Yu]

* TOTALLY OFF TOPIC *

Hey Ming. I heard that you were downgraded from deity to settler so I came back for a look. Glad to see that you've back to immortal.

[Edward]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 03-29-2001 08:22 AM In many cases, we really don't know the "intent" of the designers. Incremental buying is a classic example.

IMHO the mere fact that there is an increasing penalty for buying more unit shields means the designers intended for there to be an increasing penalty for buying more unit shields. I don't think the designers said "We could just set a price for a unit shield but I think the players would really enjoy having to click on the change and buy buttons a bunch of times during the same turn and pretend to buy things they don't really want. Boy, I hope no one gets confused and just tries to rushbuy the unit all at once!"

Having said that, I'm a big exploiter of this "cheat".

[Edward]

I remember a very heated discussion about WLT*D being a cheat.

What is cheating? Civ2 is set up very equitably so (apart from starting positions, or the AI vs. the human) the rules affect everyone equally. "Cheats" are open to all players so it's more a matter of feeling something's "unfair" than one player actually having an advantage over another. (Of course in a multiplayer game, doing something all the players have agreed is a cheat WOULD be an unfair advantage.) I think there are three categories that proposed cheats fall under:

1. Something the game designers didn't intend. Because the designers didn't intend for it to happen, it is a cheat. (e.g. You can't rehome a caravan, but you can "support from this city" it; Fighters crash at the end of their turn if not in a city, but they can stay in the air if you "wait" them; There's a price per shield penalty when buying a bunch of unit shields at once, but incremental rush-buying avoids the penalty, ...) There's a fine line between "the AI doesn't do it, so it wasn't intended (a cheat)" and "the AI would do it if it were smarter (not a cheat)". Cheat #1 arguments are generally countered with "I think the designers DID intend to have this feature"; "It's not a cheat, it's a clever use of the rules"; "If the game lets me do it, it's legal"; or sometimes "The AI cheats so much it's only fair I get some advantages too." When the proposer says "Yah, the designers intended for you to be able to do it, but they didn't expect you to do it so much or they didn't see the impact," then you get a cheat #3 instead.

2. Something unrealistic. Whether or not this feature was intended, it just wouldn't happen in the real world. (e.g. Bombers shouldn't be able to stop my troops from marching in. Is it realistic for settlers to "bring work with them" (by pre-working)? Can whole cities be bribed?) Usually these arguments are followed with real world situations supporting or disproving the claim. Of course a little reality-bending should be expected when reducing human history to a turn-based game, so these complaints are usually centered around things that could have been programmed to work more "realistically". Also, as with most games, there's a certain suspension of disbelief when you enter the Civ world (e.g. I've never heard anyone complain that it's unrealistic for Leonardo's Workshop magically upgrade a ship deep in the arctic circle).

3. Something that alters the game play so radically that it's use almost turns Civ into a different (and in your opinion worse) game. (e.g. It becomes a game of bribing & bribing back cities; It becomes a race for a certain wonder with winner take all; There is no longer any development of cities; ...) These are generally "legal" or "intended" options but you feel that the designers shouldn't have added them - or at least they should be significantly modified. "Such-n-such is too powerful" arguments are generally cheat #3's. It doesn't unbalance the game in favor of anyone - you just feel it's a different and less enjoyable game when you exploit this feature. You can usually get around these unfortunate features by voluntarily not using them.

[Scouse Gits]

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu on 03-29-2001 02:28 PM Also I have some tests to do to see if some schemes work to give you refreshed commodities whenever you want. Until then, follow Paul's guide.

I am running some tests on refreshed commodities. The thing I didn't realise until recently is the random element at work

For instance if City A is out of supply commodities:
Supplies: (Salt)(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides

You run in a freight from City B. After arrival the supply of commodites does not alter. Re-load try again - try many times with the same freight to the same city - sometimes you can free up one commodity to get say:
Supplies: (Salt) (Dye) Silver - so there is some luck in this process. Having said this there is an underlying system at work which is hard to fathom.

--------

SG(2)

[Xin Yu]

Here's my theory. I have only played a couple of games so I'm not sure if it works.

Part I, using one food caravan and one commodity caravan
Suppose you have established 3 trade routes, and your city screen looks like:

-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt)(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides

London Salt: +7$
London Dye: +7$
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------

If you send a food caravan to London, you get to supply Salt again:

-----------------------------
Supplies: Salt(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides

London food: -1f
London Dye: +7$
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------

Then you send a salt caravan to London you get back to

-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt)(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides

London Salt: +7$
London Dye: +7$
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------

Here's how it works: A new trade route always replaces the first existing trade route if there are 3 routes already existed. For the source city, IF THE OLD FIRST TRADE ROUTE HAD THE SAME COMMODITY AS ONE OF THE SUPPLIES IN PARENTHESIS (example, salt in the above case), then the supply will come back. In the above case, you can keep on sending a food caravan to London then get to build a salt caravan, until the trade route no longer shows Salt as commodity:

-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt)(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides

London Beeds: +7$
London Dye: +7$
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------

You will not likely to get salt back now so you should try your luck in another city. Remember you will much less likely to get Dye or Silver (the 2nd and 3rd trade routes) back by using the above technique.


Part II, using two commodity caravans

Suppose, before establishing your 2nd trade route, you first send a food caravan to your trade partner city, you will make the food trade route be the 2nd trade route so it will never be replaced (unless you go to another city). After establishing your 2nd commodity route your city screen looks like:

-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt) Dye (Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides

London Salt: +7$
London food: -1f
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------

If you send a dye caravan to London, you get to supply Salt again:

-----------------------------
Supplies: Salt(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides

London Dye: +7$
London food: -1f
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------

Then you send a salt caravan to London you get back to

-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt) Dye (Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides

London Salt: +7$
London food: -1f
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------

Compared to the technique in part I, You lose the benefit of one trade route each turn, but you get to produce more commodity caravans. Should be a good deal.

Note: In both games I played Salt and Dye were not demanded by the trade partner city. The technique might fail to work if the commodities were demanded.

[Ming]

And Xin... that is a perfect example of why we need you to help disect CivIII when it comes out.

Brilliant work... AGAIN

[Scouse Gits]

Sometime next year when I have digested this I shall return and say WOW! Thanks Xin.

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[Scouse Gits]

For those interested in discussing Xin's trade theory I have started a new thread.
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum3/HTML/001778.html

-------------

SG(2)

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Thoth in Civil disorder questions
You may rush build improvements and wonders when a city is in disorder, but you may not rush a military unit.

If you change production, and there are enough shields accumulated from previous turns, you can complete a cheaper military unit.

Do you think it is a cheat?

If it is not a cheat, then we could ignore the disorder practically

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Do you think it is a cheat?
If it is not a cheat, then we could ignore the disorder practically

You are paying more for your units using this method. If you need a quick Rifleman (assuming no shields in the box) you start with a rush build of a Temple/Barracks for 160g. Then change to City Walls for an extra 80g. Then convert to the unit for 40 shields.

----------------

SG(2)

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits


You are paying more for your units using this method. If you need a quick Rifleman (assuming no shields in the box) you start with a rush build of a Temple/Barracks for 160g. Then change to City Walls for an extra 80g. Then convert to the unit for 40 shields.

----------------

SG(2)

Even with shields in the box, it's still a very expensive way of buying units (4g per shield assuming a 50% production loss for switching production types). (1)

If you are already building a unit, you can switch to a cheaper one, and if you have a number of shields in the box equal to or greater than the shield cost of the cheaper unit, it will be completed. I don't think this is a cheat. You've lost at least one turn of production by letting your city go into revolt, and you've been forced to settle for a unit other than the one you originally desired.


(1) This is the standard value, some secenarios change this percentage. Note that if this percentage is set to 0 it is cheaper to rushbuy an improvement and then switch to a military unit of the same cost.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Edward
What is cheating?
1. Something the game designers didn't intend.
2. Something unrealistic.
3. Something that alters the game play so radically that it's use almost turns Civ into a different (and in your opinion worse) game.

I agree with Edward well enough, and I would add
4. Something that is laborious for example rushbuying, putting workers to trade producing squares in the domestic city before you deliver a caravan...

[Howitzer Al]

I agree, SlowThinker, but I would imagine that that would also fall under #3 since all the micromanaging would radically alter gameplay (assuming that you're doing enough of it to actually make a difference! )

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Howitzer Al
I agree, SlowThinker, but I would imagine that that would also fall under #3 since all the micromanaging would radically alter gameplay (assuming that you're doing enough of it to actually make a difference! )

I hope you're not saying that there is a certain level of micromanaging that is acceptable and anything above that is "cheating." You say all the micromanaging would radically alter the game. To me, EVERY aspect of the game involves micromanaging.

[SlowwHand]

I'll be glad when III goes on Sale.

[fittstim]

I would say that micromanaging to an extreme is perhaps the only way to win when you play deity level.

[Howitzer Al]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I hope you're not saying that there is a certain level of micromanaging that is acceptable and anything above that is "cheating." You say all the micromanaging would radically alter the game. To me, EVERY aspect of the game involves micromanaging.

No I'm not intending to say that micromanaging is cheating. I think that it's a perfectly valid way to play the game. I'm just saying that if you do a LOT of micromanaging throughout the entire game, the game has a much different feel to it. Personally, I do a little bit of it, but I get bored if I do too much.

Fittstim, I gotta disagree with you. I play only at Diety and do very little micromanaging. I make sure my cities are harvesting the right resources (until the endgame when that usually takes forever for all the cities) and I occasionally max out trade in cities that are about to get a caravan, but that's it.
I'm not trying to toot my own horn or anything. I'm just saying that the more experienced you get and the more strategies you learn, the easier Deity will become.
There's a Winning at Diety guide in the Great Library, I think, that can help if you're getting totally creamed at Diety.

My secret--lots of Howitzers
Well, that's not much of a secret

[Edward]

Yes, micromanagement is important and should be legal in and of itself. Why else allow players to change squares worked, etc.? A certain degree of micromanagement always exists in strategy games which is why some people like them and some don't. As Howitzer Al alludes to, extensive play will allow you to play more sloppily, rely on less micromanagement, and still win. Also, after you play the game a lot (perhaps too much) some of what you previously considered micromanagement becomes instinctive and less noticeable as micromanagement.

I promised myself I'd drop this topic but I just can't help it....
As for SlowThinker's #4 cheat, in some instances I think that something being laborious and difficult implies that the designers didn't intend it (#1 cheat) and that you're bending the rules.

Change your worked squares in the source city to arrow-rich ones before delivering a caravan and then switch back. This will always result in the best outcome, one should always do it this way, and therefore there is no strategic or interesting choice being made here. Why didn't the designers just make caravan bonuses based on the most arrows the source & destination cities could produce rather than making bonuses based on actual squares worked and forcing players to temporarily change the squares themselves? Incremental rushbuying will reduce the price of rushbuilt units. This will always result in the best price - again no strategy or choice here. Why didn't the designers just make the cost to rush a unit based on the incremental buying price rather than forcing you to go through all those laborious steps?

Are these examples of loopholes and/or cheating? Off hand, I'd say yes. I think my pointed questions strongly imply that the designers did not want players to do these things and that players are circumventing intended principles in using them. One could argue that they are design flaws that could be improved or fixed with a better game engine and interface. However, in making this claim I think one would be admitting that either 1) the fixes should make the above advantages automatic and players currently using them flatout disagree with, IMHO, explicit Civ2 rules (such as unit shields varying in cost, etc.); or much more likely 2) the fixes should prevent the above advantages and players are currently circumventing intended rules, not based on strategy or realism, but merely because it's to their advantage and they can.

[reds4ever]

personally i think micomanaging is fime if thats how you want to play, but when i've done it i feel i miss out on the 'buzz' of running a developing civilization and it becomes a painstaking excercise in number crunching, your so intent on the specfics you miss out on the thrill of the grand picture.

any no one will ever convince me that incremental buying was an intended feature, IMHO it's a dubious tactic at best, (lights touch paper and retires to a safe distance)

[Deity Dude]

I mostly play MP. I agree u can easily get away without micromanaging in SP and win at any level. I dare u too try it against any decent MP player (except maybe some 2x2x small map duels)

[reds4ever]

i did it against you and did well enough that you wouldn't continue the game despite my many requests, remember?

[Laszlo]

As a simple test of the original intention for airbases I saw if a unit would favor roads over airbases with the Go To command.

When I told an Engineer to go to a point, it could have used the railroad abilities of airbases to get there without wasting movement points, but instead it took the road and ran out of them. This demonstrates that the Go To command doesn't know to look for the airbases when calculating its course, though I guess final confirmation will come with Civ 3's release.

[Laszlo]

Though another test to try and trick Civ 2 into not noticing the airfields doesn't work. In the city window, if you click on the city in the resource map, it automatically distributes your worked squares to its liking. But instead of ignoring the airbases, it switches to them from unimproved terrain of the same type.

I don't think that this proves anything about intent though, because the resource manager is probably just looking at all the food/shields/trade given off by each square.