RAH rules VI: No Spamming!

[Ljube]

Diplo guiding I use a lot. Still, it doesn't make it more realistic. I was not discussing what you are used to. I was trying to point your attention to the fact that diploguiding distorts the game in that it negates the defensive value of forts and zone of control and forces you to build cities on mountains. It was surely not something that was intended.

And let me tell you why I think it was not intended. Have you ever seen AI diploguiding his troops?

On the other hand, AI is building forts around its cities in a pattern to prevent approach of enemy troops using zone of control of the units inside forts. From this I conclude diploguiding is just an unfortunate error in programming and should not be allowed in games which are not one night stand.

[Ljube]

Having said that, I would also like to point out I can play any settings, so I don't mind having diplo guiding allowed. I am simply against the argument that it's a feature that was initially intended.

[Ming]

I'm not sure anybody can say for sure what was or was not intended. I do know that they had a chance to fix it with the updates, and didn't

As far as the AI not doing it... that's not proof of anything. Based on that theory, Aircraft carriers are meant for attacking other ships and cities, and should never actually have any aircraft on them

[rah]

Originally posted by Ming
As far as the AI not doing it... that's not proof of anything. Based on that theory, Aircraft carriers are meant for attacking other ships and cities, and should never actually have any aircraft on them

Good point.

[Deity Dude]

I don't buy the AI doesn't do it argument either. We could probably have a thread with over 1000 posts of stupid things the AI does or doesn't do.

I just always thought of it in this fashion; If a unit was being excorted by a diplomat it was under the same veil of diplomatic immunity as the diplomat. However, I can see the counter point that in "real-life" a tank probably couldn't claim diplomatic immunity and stroll past a guarded fort.

Like so many of these things in civ, what it really comes down to is, do you and the group you play in like the feature. If so, it was intended. If not its an unrealistic obvious exploit.

[rah]

But even if you use it, the opposing fort gets a chance to fire on you, so I don't see it as unrealistic. The whole concept of ZOC is slightly unrealistic. So much so that civ III eliminated it and incorporated the free turn of fire, which makes much more sense.

Of course, after saying that, I prefer having ZOC and the diplo guiding.

[Deity Dude]

Yeah, again its probably just what I am used to, but that is one of the things i dont like about civIII. The elimination of ZOC.

[Ming]

I agree... while ZOC's aren't perfect, it beats the alternative as proven in Civ III

[rah]

They just wanted to be able to make the AI look smarter.

[rah]

Over a month since the last post.
Shameless bump.

[rah]

I asked someone if they had read this thread, and they asked "what thread" so I guess it's time for another shameless bump.

[rah]

Bumped for BlindArbalest

[deity]

Bump!

[rah]

Bump

[War4ever]

I never had a problem with diploguiding.... for the amount of times its actually used in a game......

Besides, as everyone knows, NO fort is impregnable nor is it impossible to bypass if you want to take the time and resources to do so.

That being said, one could argue that a diplomat would never lead troops into battle during an invasion

But that is a totally different arguement