Is it a bug or a feature? (Part 42)

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by defrancoj
...maybe this belongs in a separate topic....


Is anyone else a little uncomfortable with incremental rush-buying?

Obviously it's hard to come up with a principled basis for evaluating the various 'exploits,' but this one rubs me the wrong way.

I have no problem with incremental rushing, although I accept that it's probably a bug. Why do I think it's a bug? Because it's not available for buildings. Why am I comfortable with it? Probably because the cost penalty for non-incremental rushing is so great. The solution in Civ 4 is not to allow any carry over of production when switching, so no possibility of incrementing.

RJM

[defrancoj]

let me see if i understand.

You're comfortable with IRB because it's really helpful?

While we're at it, what is the formula for the price of a rush-buy? (If I had the game or a regular internet connection at my disposal, I would track this answer down myself and post it. sorry for the poor forumettiquite!)

Thanks.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by defrancoj
let me see if i understand.

You're comfortable with IRB because it's really helpful?

While we're at it, what is the formula for the price of a rush-buy? (If I had the game or a regular internet connection at my disposal, I would track this answer down myself and post it. sorry for the poor forumettiquite!)

Thanks.

I'm probably comfortable with IRB because it doesn't seem to infringe any game principle, and there is nothing in the documentation that argues against it.

As far as the cost of IRB is concerned ...

The first 5 shields cost 2 gold per shield. The next 5 are 3 gold per shield - thus a full row costs 25 gold. A second complete row costs 35 (ie 5*3 +5*4 - thus 60 for two rows). Part buying on the third row costs 4 per shield for the first five and then 5 per shield. Thereafter (I think) it's 5 per shield or 50 per row. Double the cost if you have no shields already.

RJM

[defrancoj]

If I were savvy enough, I would link to Monk's recent post in the succession game thread which I quote extensively below.

A principled basis??...This is a game, not RL. In the game it can take 5 turns from completion to delivery of a camel, which at up to 20 yrs. per turn means 100years. How reasonable is that??

I acknowledged that it's hard to find a set of principles by which to evaluate the 'exploits,' as they've been termed. I certainly didn't suggest that we should try to evaluate them on the basis of being 'reasonable'--Monk brought that up.
(Oddly, Monk follows his repudiation of reasonableness with a demonstration of IRB's reasonableness.)

I bet that if there was a "one click" way to get it done, fewer folk would object to IRBuying. Not that micro-management is a bad thing.

This is the second principle Monk brought up after suggesting that we don't need principles to discern which exploits are accepted/acceptable. But let's talk about it. When I said it would be hard to flesh out a good set of principles about this issue, I wasn't kidding--which is exactly why I didn't put any forth. Now I get to be the gadfly and snipe at them as they come up. This one is trouble because there is a whole list of one-click actions players can take that are specifically listed under the 'cheat' menu. There's also a one-button way to rehome caravans...something I think has been pretty much taboo for a long time.

I'm probably comfortable with IRB because it doesn't seem to infringe any game principle, and there is nothing in the documentation that argues against it.

As far as game principles go, there is a principle, in this case a formula, for calculating the price of the rush-buy--which IRB seems to short-circuit. (Thanks for sharing the formula with me, RJM)

As regards a 'RL' concern:

[IRB] is allowed in [the succession game in progress], or at least not prohibited.

I see that steps have been taken to avoid acquiring gunpowder in order to preserve the first row. Suppose a player chooses not to IRB--should he then ignore considerations by previous leaders to take steps that preserve IRB?
(To say that a leader can do whatever he wants within the rules is really no answer at all; I'm asking what people think someone in his position should do.)

I hope people like to argue as much as I do!

[dunnm]

" Because it is not available for building"

Thought I knew most things ( just unable to effectively implement ) but this is new to me - the time I have spent IRB white goods.

PS How do I cut / paste others peoples dialog

[Tim_Augustus]

I think it depends on the context of the game - and the current succession game is (supposedly ) an early landing game - a game style that takes no prisoners as far as exploits are concerned.

And knowing how and, most critically, when to use the various exploits and 'inside knowledge' adds another level of strategy to the game, IMHO.

[q=dunnm]PS How do I cut / paste others peoples dialog
[/q]

You do this either by clicking "reply with quote" at the top right of the post you want to reply to, or simply selecting and copying text from another's post into your new post, and placing quote marks around them:

[q ]like this[ /q]

[quote ]like this[ /quote]

[q =UserHandle]like this[/q ]

remove all spaces between [] gives the following:

[q]like this[/q]

[quote]like this[/quote]

[q=UserHandle]like this[/q]

[DaveV]

I think incremental rushbuilding clearly circumvents the game's design. Buying, for example, a caravan with just a couple shields in the box is supposed to be much more expensive than buying a warrior, horse, diplo, settler, then caravan. Just because this works doesn't mean it's right or should be done (full disclosure: I used incremental rushbuilding constantly).

I pretty much quit playing Civ2 after playing Civ3, which I think was an inferior game overall, but didn't have a lot of the bugs and interface quirks of the older game. Now that I have Civ4, I'll probably never play Civ2 (or Civ3) again. The things that bother me most about Civ2 are not IRB, but city triangulation and black clicking, which also seem to be generally accepted in these forums. And let's not get started on the black-hat bug, which my whole strategy was built upon, or the appalling trade route interface...

[L.É.V.]

About the formula...
Building a unit, if X shields lack, the cost is C = 2*X + X*X/20 (doubled if the box is empty).

This formula is non-linear, and that's what IRB is all about. If you buy these shields in N steps, you pay 2*(X/N) + (X/N)*(X/N)/20 at each step. So for the N steps the cost is N times that, = 2*X + X*X/(20*N), which is smaller than C...

This doesn't work with white goods or WOWs, because for them the cost is linear : C=2*X for WGs, 4*X for WOWs. When you split in N steps and add up the N payments, you fall back on C.
Exception: if you buy from scratch, the *2 penalty applies only to the first step... in that case buy the smallest building, then the desired one (2-step rushbuying).

About the feature...
It existed in Civ 1, so why didn't they cure it in Civ 2 already?
And, if they wanted units to be more expensive than white goods, why didn't they use C=2.5*X or 3*X? Their use of a non-linear formula really puzzles me. Without IRB, it would prevent you from buying from scratch a shield-costly unit, but what's the point? edit: I mean, they allowed it for buildings, so why not for units?

[Bloody Monk]

defrancoj,

(Oddly, Monk follows his repudiation of reasonableness with a demonstration of IRB's reasonableness.)

On what planet does my statement equate to a "repudiation of reasonableness"?? Also, it must be very hard to operate by a set of principals that are not reasonable (which follows from your responces). And, btw, I don't think rationalizations are to be classed as "principals."


Sorry, it's just that I can't remember paying for time in the "arguement room."

Monk

[defrancoj]

Monk: I do like to argue, and I sincerely hope I've done so in a respectful way that nobody misinterprets.

In your first post in the other thread, you rightly point out the futility of talking about what's 'reasonable' in the game. That's what I was talking about as a repudiation of what's reasonable as a basis for evaluating exploits. But you then immediately undertake to illustrate that, in fact, IRB is reasonably based on a real concept: [Q=Monk]Think of it as the production version of division of labor. Five folk, each doing a small part of a big job, get it done cheaper and faster than one guy by himself.[/Q]Which suggests that you think what is 'reasonable' is in fact a meaningful criterion for accepting an exploit. So there's a contradiction there.

It must be very hard to operate by a set of principals that are not reasonable

This isn't quite fair: you've switched from using reasonable in the specific sense of comparing stuff in the game to 'RL' to using it in the more general sense that, of course, we would like all of the principles by which we evaluate things to be reasonable.

I don't think rationalizations are to be classed as "principals."[sic]

Fair enough. But in this case a principle is one generalization away from a rationalization, and the principles are more interesting. DaveV has tendered another principle: that the acceptablity of an exploit rests on whether it "clearly circumvents the game's design." And of course there have been plenty of principles and rationalizations tendered over the years for IRB, airbase usage, et cetera. As I said in my first post, it isn't easy to come up with robust ones. DaveV's sounds pretty good but it woudln't be hard to come up with strong objections to it. So that's why my first post was a fairly weak statement.

[dunnm]

[q=Tim_Augustus]You do this either by clicking "reply with quote" at the top right of the post you want to reply to, or simply selecting and copying text from another's post into your new post, and placing quote marks around them[/q]

Thank You

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by defrancoj
Monk: I do like to argue, and I sincerely hope I've done so in a respectful way that nobody misinterprets.

Bah, fugitaboutit. You showed respect for the game by continueing this in a separate thread. I enjoy a good arguement as well; most here do. But this is settled ground. Even the Master, DaveV, who finds IRB distasteful, used it in Succ Games and Contests to great (really Great) result--because the community decided long ago that IRB was kosher. The Game is now more than 10 years old and has had two "upgrades." At some point "received wisdom" is honored.

Less talk, more play....

Monk

[Bloody Monk]

@ dunm,

Expanding on what Tim_Augustus said, you can get your quote in a box by copying it into the "Quote" tab found above the text area on the "Reply" page.

When you want to quote something from a different thread, Right-Click on the "Reply with Quote" Icon and find an option to "Copy Link Location". You can then link to the other post, in addition to your quote, which allows those with an interest to see the whole context of the quoted material.

Monk

[Straybow]

The fact that they allow switching between units without penalty means any IRB manipulations are a feature. Any non-trivial penalty for switching units would likely eliminate IRB.

[Peaster]

Re: Is it a bug or a feature? (Part 42)

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers

Because it's not available for buildings.

You can IRB with buildings, though it doesn't help in the same way. Example:

1- City makes 5 shields per turn - it needs a granary soon.
2- After one turn, you rushbuy a barracks for 70g and switch to granary.
3- After 4 more turns you have the granary.
4- After another turn, you have 5 shields in the box.

For comparison, you could wait 5 turns, and then RB for 70g. But then you get the granary one turn later, so you lose the shields from step 4 above.