 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
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=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
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.
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.
|
I'll bite too. It's a grey area. I mean, should be be limited by what Soren was able to make the AI do? Some things are clearly exploits, but none of the ones you listed are explicitly so (except maybe IFE). Tech whoring is something the AI should do. And they certainly do demand a lot of $$$ for their techs, so it's not like they don't do at least a little. I mean, consider... the AIs are pretty consistent. They'll use the same book of tactics on the higher levels because the goal is to make it hard for you to win. Naturally, given the AI's bonuses, if you try to compete with an identical strategy on any level above Regent, you'll get hosed because you're playing with a stacked deck (though it'll probably do well in lower levels  ). The only way to win is to out-think the AI. Seems pretty clear to me that this is a terrible metric of munchkinosity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xentropy
|
|
In my opinion, and since this word is sort of a slang term, its definition is definitely up to opinion, a munchkin strategy is any strategy that "feels too easy". A strategy which, even if PvP existed, people would say up front is not allowed (kinda like a lot of MOO2 games banned the overpowered Creative trait). A strategy which Firaxis is likely to patch out due to being extremely overpowered compared to other strategies (like they did in this patch the "let AI build cities for you" and "palace hopping" strats). Basically any strategy that uses an imbalance of the game, a clear DESIGN FLAW or BUG, to give you an advantage. Exploitation instead of superior strategy.
As someone said in the previous reply, it's a gray area, but I think most of us have an accurate gut feeling about what strats Firaxis did and did not intend to occur.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
karlmarx9001
|
|
Seattle, WA
Jun 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
On the normal difficulty levels, you can beat the AI at production and research through just playing well. However, on the higher levels the AI production and research bonuses are so large that the only way to beat them is to "exploit" the AI's limitations. That is, rush-build endlessly, or any of the MPP-style tricks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
* 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). |
So how am I supposed to win, build a f@cking spaceship??? The UN? Jeez...how are you supposed to conquer the world without attacking? I don't play Civ with the UN/Culture/Spaceship training wheels...
That said, yes, the AI SUCKS with it's armed forces, and I've said it in NUMEROUS threads, trying to counter some of the fawning over the new AI. The Civ2 AI would destroy the Civ3 AI at war. The only thing keeping me from rolling up 20 cities a turn is a) cannot use roads and b) fear that some citizens will "defect" over culture.
Please, PLEASE fix the AI and how it uses the military, it's horrific!!
To your other points - indeed, it seems easy to manipulate the Civ3 AI. I'll be curious how my modified CTP2 AI stacks up, but as of right now, I find the AI in Civ3 to be very unchallenging... the games mechanics are challeging, when the should be enabling, and the AI is enabling, when it should be challenging...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Hmmm....I think I"m getting a clearer picture then, but I must say that I find myself in disagreement that the Palace-Bouncing thing is Munchkinish in its nature. Here's why:
From a pure mineral standpoint (even with frequent early game pop-rushing), the player who's going to try and pull it off must spend HORDES more than the player who does not....that is to say, he must take care to keep his military strong enough to resist invasion and possibly launch a threatening attack while at the same time rapidly building cultural infrastructure to the point of running deficits, burn through two Great Leaders (one to speed build the palace where you want it for the bounce, and one to get it back to the center of your empire), PLUS deal with the potentially massive hit to overall cash and research levels due to corruption while the palace is off in some obscure corner of the realm.
And, even when you DO all of that, there's no guarantees it'll work, or how long it'll take (contrast that to a conventional attack, where you can fairly easily ballpark how long it'll take you to achieve your objectives.
That's pretty non-trivial stuff, and it requires a good deal of finesse and patience to pull off. I know....I"ve done it....sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but in terms of sheer *effort* I can tell you that it's certainly a lot tougher than bum-rushing the AI with 30-odd swordsmen you just pop-rushed out (brutally effective mind you, but something that cannot be classed as superior strategy).
Does it take advantage of a weakness in the system? Sure....in the sense that Culture, while an outstanding idea, was implemented in a way that has no real-world equivalent. But that takes no more or less advantage of the system than it is to "pop-rush" several military units to completion, IMO (while there is certainly a prescedent for sacrificing population to build a structure (pyramids, temples, you name it), I think it would prove somewhat difficult to find an example of killing off a few thousand civilians in order to properly train some new troops.
::shrug:: Just my two cents as I continue to ponder exactly what that phrase means....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
docken
|
|
Sydney, Australia
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Never heard the term munchkin used before? The easiest comparison is with RPG's- for instance a power gamer would be called a munchkin, or someone who constantly camps in the same spot for hours trying to get the best weapons in games like evercrack.
ICS is definately a munchkin strategy. Unfortunately it is my opinion that it works EVEN BETTER in Civ 3 then it did in Civ 2. With Civ 3 ICS you combine both Despot/Communist Rush with Culture ratings to become a city eating monster than makes the AI just crumble. This is because of the huge bonuses a Civ gets as it expands city-wise. The amount of cultural buildings seems vastly less important when compared to the amount of actual cities a civ has. In Civ 2 you could still build up a strong Empire without having to many actual cities, but in Civ 3 it is now almost mandatory.
The rest of the stuff mentioned doesn't really qualify IMO
BTW I do like Civ 3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xentropy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Hmmm....I think I"m getting a clearer picture then, but I must say that I find myself in disagreement that the Palace-Bouncing thing is Munchkinish in its nature. Here's why:
From a pure mineral standpoint (even with frequent early game pop-rushing), the player who's going to try and pull it off must spend HORDES more than the player who does not....that is to say, he must take care to keep his military strong enough to resist invasion and possibly launch a threatening attack while at the same time rapidly building cultural infrastructure to the point of running deficits, burn through two Great Leaders (one to speed build the palace where you want it for the bounce, and one to get it back to the center of your empire), PLUS deal with the potentially massive hit to overall cash and research levels due to corruption while the palace is off in some obscure corner of the realm. |
As you describe burning Great Leaders to do this, YES, post-patch, this is no longer Munchkinish. Before the patch, when a Palace could be built in 4 or 5 turns WITHOUT a Great Leader, however, this was VERY Munchkin. EASY to pull off with rediculously large payoff.
That's why they patched it out. Now its costs are in line with its benefits. You DO have to burn Great Leaders to do it, which could give you two Wonders instead. A few cities, or two Wonders. Tougher choice than a few cities for no cost at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MartyParty1
|
|
Generally the first impressions I saw of Civ3 was that it was very hard, probably too hard for the "average folk". Now that better strategiests have found some chinks in the AI's armor, people think it may be too easy. It's almost as if the Civ3 AI has been given advantages requiring unusual approaches to beat. And of course as soon as you start being unusual, people think you're a cheat, munchkin, whatever.
If it's overpowering just to attack the AI after the ancient era, then you should be worrying about fixing the AI before trying to fix the player.
What happened to the balance in SMAC? Civ3 is practically an overly streamlined, cut down, version of Civ2, but instead of being more solid and just as hard, it's now full of holes but harder (if you don't find/use the holes).
Oh and as one befitting the description, I'm surprised I've never heard this munchkin term before. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
IFE - was Munchkin, patch now prevents it.
Palace-Bouncing - was Munchkin, patch now makes it very costly.
Tech Whoring - Munchkin, until the AI is programmed to tech whore or tech hoard. "Demanding alot of money for techs" is NOT Tech Whoring even "a little bit". Tech whoring is buying a tech from a Civ than selling it to the other 14 Civs. Big difference. I can make a fortune alone off selling only techs I research since the AI Civs will give their soul (treasury & future income for the next 20turns) simply to have the latest tech today. And you don't need to sell your "best military techs" or "unfinished wonder techs"... you can sell dead-end wonder techs that have already been built, empty techs or old military techs that the superpowers already have!
Attacking the AI after Ancient - Not Munchkin, since the AI can attack you after Ancient. However, I firmly agree the AI must be patched to not build obsolete units. To outlaw war all together is... silly. And I've heard many say the easiest time to defeat the AI is in the Ancient Age.
Creative MPPs - Not Munchkin. The Aztecs made a MPP with the weaker Chinese which forced me to kill off the nearby Chinese before punishing the Aztecs... giving them more time. Did the AI "know" to do this? Probably not, but it did work. Also by letting other AI Civs destroy a Civ that means they get those cities & territory, not you. The AI also ALWAYS uses governors, does that mean human players must ALWAYS use governors?
Despot Pop-Rush - Munchkin. Unless the AI learns to do it, the early benefit to rush build is outrageously HUGE.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sevorak
|
|
In an RPG sense, munchkin has always applied to power-gaming players - especially those who max out statistics with no regard to the role they are playing.
In that sense, palace-bouncing is munchkin because it is powerful, but doesn't fit the role - palace bouncing is not only unrealistic, but kind of silly when you think about it. I mean, the first thing I thought about when I heard of palace bouncing was that yes, it works, but it shouldn't - it doesn't add to the empire building experience at all, detracts from it by giving you odd hoops to jump through to get advantages.
-Sev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dravin
|
|
North Pole, Alaska
Nov 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smiley
The heck is IFE? Could you people not use abbreviations so soon? |
Infinite Forest Exploitation? Anyway, it has to do with getting a bunch of workers together and having them plant and then cut, plant then cut, plant then cut forests in an endless cycle, and because piling more workers on gets a job done faster (the cutting and the planting) you get 10 shields a turn per group, which if you have a crap load of workers can be a lot of resources and bypass corruption IIRC.
I know I don’t have the finer points down, but I think that is the general idea.
P.S. Turing the world on your enemy is fun, Russia demeaned one to many concessions from me so I sold my treasury, my tech, and my soul to get every other Civ on the planet (13 of them at the time) to gang bang them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gachnar
|
 |
Arlington, VA
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
I remember making a comment sometime about palace jumping and IFE being munchkinish.
Did I give Vel an idea?
If so, cool.
However, I'll clarify for everyone:
munchkinish: adj. - in a style which relies upon unrealistic use of game rules or excessive exploitation of minor game imbalances.
Examples:
ICS: Exploits the 1-settler-farms-2-squares discrepancy in Civ2. Slightly unbalancing, used to excess.
IFE: : Exploits a non-trivial difference in the production from group harvesting of forests over the time it takes to rebuild them.
Palace Jumping: Exploits the expectation that the palace will represent the heart of an empire (Usually this strategy involves moving the capital to a much less opportune location than any country would select)
Infinite Invasion Avoidance: (aka: How to keep ships moving without attacking) Exploits a known behavior in the AI that let the user know that the ships will never attack.
Now, some things to think about : The ship bouncing trick. This is sort of boarderline. Once I have rails, I normally keep a large defensive force on the rails somewhere. The rush to any invasion. I know now that doing this may cause the AI to pick another location. If you do this intending to make them bounce their attacks constantly, you are a munchkin (IMO). I, on the other hand, rail the defenders to the new location, and counterattack.
Tech brokering: IMO, not munchkinish, in most cases. Should the AI be less willing to take "per turn" deals? I think so. But trading techs to make money is a valid strategy. The scientific one. You really could race through the tree, turn off the spigot at the end, pop out a spaceship, and win (unless you are Venger).
MPPs: Valid. I set up very powerful peaceful civs like this. I dont like long wars. So I want some help. I try to ally with my rivals neighbors. Keeps me out of wars I dont want. This is what MPPs were for: War deterrents. I mean, its not like we know of any groups of powerful nations that banded together for mutual protection? Or at least if there were any, they would never get very big.
I'm sorry if people got offended by me calling their tactics munchkinish. There is a long history of these tactics and the millions of people who've used them:
Bonewall farming in Diablo II
Zergling rush in Starcraft
Worm farming in Angband (Zang, Nethack, Moria)
These arent about being unfair, they are about exploiting implications of game design that were not intended by the designers. Yay for initended aspects of games, but I think we can guarantee that Firaxis did not see IFE as a part of the game they intended. Ditto for palace jumping.
There is a simple test that will usually tell you whether a strategy is munchkinish or not: Ask yourself: "Would the designers shake their heads at me if I told them about this?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironwood
|
|
Fresno, CA
Oct 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
Well, it appears IFE and Palace Bouncing has been blocked by the patch. I take it the devs agree that these are imbalances in the game. I agree as well. Forest harvesting shouldn't be so profitable (this has been fixed), and Palace Bouncing is just plain...
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.
Then again, the recent fix (treating Palaces like Wonders) doesn't change this a bit. It's still possible, just really expensive.
I disagree that Tech Trading is "munchkinish." Perhaps the AI's percieved value of technology should be adjusted (or perhaps simply adjusted more radically based upon their attitude toward the player). But playing the part of "acquisition and distribution" (merchant) has always been profitable, throughout history. This was my favorite role when playing the Pirates in SMAX, after all. This is just an example of the simple fact that a human can always out-think a computer.
I'm not sure I understand the "Infinate Invasion Avoidance" concept. What it looks like, to me, is that if one keeps a lot of units on a particular border, the AI simply won't attack there. Well, that makes sense to me. The question is, will the AI *always* avoid a large force (even if it's likely to win)? Because after all, if you hit the main force and lose, you gain nothing, and lose much. But, if you hit the main force and *win*, you pretty well have the run of the empire, until the defender manages to put together a new army.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
Since there isn't another thread on Palace Bouncing specifically I just wanted to add this...
Yes, it is historical, but also done infrequently and for compelling reasons. Capital changes that I can think of include:
Rome - Rome to Byzantium
Turkey - Constantinople to Ankara
U.S. - Philidelphia to Washington
Russia - St. Petersburg to Moscow
So yes, it happens, but often when the nation is in upheaval. I think that it should have extreme costs associated with it and perhaps should only be allowed under a gov't change. I don't like to seet the AI moving their capital all around either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gachnar
|
|
Arlington, VA
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
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? |
Personally, I've always referred to him as Big Chuck, but the historians dont seem to like the idea...
quote:
That guy didn't sit tight for one minuite (yes, this is an exaggeration). He, and his entourage (sp?)... |
Entourage is good, but minute doesn't have that second 'i'. Not nitpicking really, just thought it was ironic.
quote:
...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..
|
I was thinking of a situation more like this:
The US. Nineteeth Century. We're doing the expansion/oppressing-the-world thing. We got DC all set up with the wacky greek architecture, cuz the Greeks got incense and you know how us USians like inhaling burning strange stuff and they like us using their designs. So, Texas starts looking good, so what do we do? Move all those wacky greek buildings to Arkansas. Mexico says cool, we get Texas. Next up, we move it out to Nevada so we can coax California to jump on the train.
Fastforward to current day. We move the Capital to Fargo, cuz god knows we need more frigid grassland, but its easy taking and nobody wants Quebec. I figure the next move is moving it out to Fairbanks, Alaska and see if we can grab some Russian land, since they might have some oil. From there we can work our way down to China.
That's what capital jumping is. I dont think its very realistic. Its even unrealistic compared to the level of unrealism currently in Civ.
quote:
Originally posted by Ironwood
I'm not sure I understand the "Infinate Invasion Avoidance" concept. |
Basically, you leave one city completely unguarded. AI will move units (best if you use this with boats) toward that city. When they get close, you rail defensive units there, leaving a city on the other side of the world/continent/island completely unguarded. AI takes off for that city. Rinse. Repeat.
(NOTE: I'm just happy that I gave Vel ideas. Seems most people have decided that I'm obviously dumb because I actually enjoy playing this game. At least I added some ideas to the boards)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UncleBeef
So why don't you go back to playing Civ 2 already?? |
Because I've been playing it for 5 years now... I have purchased SMAC and CTP2 however, seeing as Civ3 isn't going to cut the mustard.
quote:
Culture is part of the bicycle now- not training wheels, the front wheel. (or at least the back one) The designers created it to be just as important as warfare. You can't sit there pouting and stubbornly decide that half the game sucks and try to play the half that's left- well, you can, but the end result is that don't have much fun and end up sounding like a crybaby. |
I can back up every criticism I have with this game, from cutlure to combat. The game is the sum of a number of bad parts.
And yes, I won't be playing more games of Civ3 until they extensively work on it. Happy?
quote:
As far as I'm concerned, your post is like saying "I love football, but I don't need the training wheels of passing" and then complaining at endless length about how boring the game is.  |
Nice unintelligent analogy. If you want a football analogy, think of culture as free agency - nice idea that badly impacts the game.
Culture adds:
Culture victory  (so so, it's too easy, but it can be turned off)
Borders  (good to have borders, borders based on culture are stupid)
City defection (if they allowed you to remove it with a game check box, it'd be a :b
City reversion (ruins the game in my opinion)
What is so great about culture? That you can pick off enemy cities with it? Woohoo, wonderful...it isn't already easy enough to take the AI...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-12-2001 01:28
).
)
I still enjoyed the game and managed to get the entire world to gank France without firing a shot 
|