Incremental Buying...

[Ming]

Gee, so much to respond too

mindseye:
In your comments on the two criteria for whether something is in the spirit of the game, I just had to laugh
(1) was it clearly intended as acceptable practice by the designers?" ... but all the manuals offer reloading up as a helpful tip

Yes, I agree that you shouldn't do it, but that just means we all agree, but disagree with the intent of the designers...
So this can't be a valid criteria

"(2) does it make any sense at all within the context of the game?" Well, you then say that unlimited movement makes sense and that railroad travel is legitimate. Yet you then say that you would limit it to maybe 15 squares. HUH. It is not realistic, even in an abstract way. There are many things that arent' realistic or make sense, even in the context of the game.

So both your criteria don't work

OzzyKP
I agree with Rah... Your holy than thou attitude that anybody that doesn't agree with you is wrong is just damn insulting. I believe that I stay within the spirit of the game... Heck, people can't agree on what the spirit of the game is. So get off you high horse and just admit that their are many perspectives to each issue.

iadkins
You say we shouldn't use bugs. And how the heck do you know what is a bug, or what was intended by the designers. We can only guess what the designers intended, so what some might think is a bug, may actually be what they intended. Again, even the manual states you should save before going into a hut, so by your own words, it's legal

So I come to the same conclusion... Know who you play with. If there are concerns with somebody new, discuss them up front. There will never be a general agreement on what is right or wrong... as seen by this thread.
Neither side is right, neither side is wrong.
Don't look down your nose at people that disagree, and just be prepared that people might have a different point of view... because they will

[wonderdog4]

I will occasionally utilize incremental buying agains the AI in an extreme emergency -- such as building a unit to defend my capital. However, I never use it in an MP game because I am really anal about time. I won't do anything that forces my opponents to wait even a few seconds longer than they have to. And would hope that my opponents are equally courteous.

[Eyes Of Night]

It's sad that you guys feel the need to nit pick this game to death. It's just a game, get a life. I sometimes think you people get so involved in this that you forget it's a game. Come on! Now we have a name for this thing? Incremental buying? What's next? Maybe we should ban every level of play, every style, everything except for Diety, 1x1x, and raging hordes. Oh, and you're only allowed to use Republic or Democracy. No Monarchy is allowed. Also Knights are now outlawed. You may only use Crusaders until you get Dragoons. Phalanx are strictly prohibited and you can only use one pikeman per city. If someone says what you're doing is a cheat, immediately post it here and we'll flame him to death and outlaw what he does. THen we'll go ahead and sit on our thrown knowing we are truly honest civ players.

I'm done babbling now.

[Ming]

Eyes of Night... ROTFLMAO

Good attitude to have. It is just a game.

[Carolus Rex]

JUST A GAME?!

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH...

BLASPHEMY! HERETICS! SAVAGES! BARBARIANS! RE-LOADERS!

Carolus

[Bird]

I can't believe this issue is even debatable, so I won't debate it.

[mindseye]

WHAT? Re-loading is in the manual??! <slapping forehead>
Ming you have it backwards, that doesn't invalidate my criteria, it invalidates my conclusion! If the designers actually suggest it in the manual, well, I suppose it's a legit practice (at least in SP). I'm surprised!!

As for criteria 2, you are right - there are many things in the game which don't make much sense. BUT they satisfy the first criteria (they are clearly intended to work that way)! The murky areas, where you should reach agreement with your opponents in advance, are the things that satisfy neither criteria - does not appear intended, and makes little sense.

Essentially we are all agreeing that you need to establish the borderline tactics in advance, we just have different notions of how to define them. Let the games begin!

[CapTVK]

That comic relief came just on time. This thread was becoming a little too serious.

But seriously, Civ2 is a game that's easy to learn but hard to master, you'll learn from experience. We've had incremental buying (and ship chaing for that matter) back in Civ1 but then you could do it with everything (units, improvements, WoW's). Which was taking things a bit too far. Civ2 toned this incremental buying down by limiting it to units only, as explained in the manual.

So experienced Civ2 players know these tricks/tactics and you don't, is that fair? Sure, it doesn't seem fair when you get creamed in every match at the start. But with time you'll learn, by playing the game and browsing threads, all the tricks (and the rules for decent gameplay!)in the book.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by CapTVK (edited April 13, 2000).]</font>

[Ming]

Yeah... it is in the manual... simply mind boggeling...

Like any game, there will be a disagreement on how the rules are interpreted. It happened in the old days with board games, and computer games haven't cleared up the problem.

And yes, we are all making the same point. It is impossible for everybody to agree on the same side of any issue here. The trick is to make sure that everybody playing in the game is on the same page. Keep on civin'

[Matthew]

First of all, Re. ship chaining being unrealistic and not fitting into the context of the game:

We all agree that it would never take 60 years to sail a settler or a caravan 3000 miles or so.(If you do, you are an idiot).
However, that is the time scale the game seems to indicate. Realistically 60 years should be enough time to circumnavigate the globe several times in a rowboat with a broken oar. However that's not what the game is trying to depict in allowing you to sail the boat and it's contents only 3 squares in 20 years. Rather the time it takes to get to the destination more realistically represents the time spent by many ships makin various round trip voyages to get the whole cargo to it's destination. You have more ships, you need less trips per ship, and the process of shipping all of those goods or people is much quicker. Granted, something truely equivalent to ship chaining does not exist on land until the railroad, but this is hardly surprising, since anciently transport over land always presented much greater logistical problems than did transportation by sea. Te Carthagenians at their height controlled almost the entire Medditerranian coast of Africa up to Egypt, yet when transporting goods between distant places on the coastline they did so by boat, not land. This was because it was a much easier and faster way to transport goods than by land, even with roads.

[KhanMan]

Ozzy-As far as chivalry goes, anyone who has played me knows that I play, whether win, lose, or tie, fairly.

My whole point in this is that nothing is set in stone, and there are no establish rules, beyond consensus, on what is acceptable, therefore, it should be decided by all players in a game, at the start of the game.

(which means that I now agree with the later opinions)

Eyes-LOL! It's music in my ears to hear you say that...

-KhanMan of the Sayen

[iadkins]

Cap, Ming and others.. you are still missing the point. The manual talks about rush buying on P59, not 'incremental' rush buying. I've bought all copies of civ and can't see incremental rush buying addressed in any manual. (If I've missed it, can someone please scan it in and post it!! I might even save you all from my ramblings by shutting upthen!!)
But for the moment it appears to me that it was CLEARLY INTENDED there be a penalty for disbanding units so why would there be an advantage in rush buying them?

Of course it's just a game Cap, but it's a better game if we do get serious about it sometimes! It's a bit of a cop out to just laugh things off and say it's just a game though. And Cap, who were you referring to when you said people were getting wiped out early on cos they didn't use undocumented 'features' like this Huh?

The best and toughest civ players are those that don't become reliant on using these tricks. I can understand that there is a group of players who get off on this sort of thing but come on, you guys are pros! Don't you want the toughest challenge by playing by the book. And Ming, don't confuse this with the need for beginners to 'cheat' a little when learning the game. I'm shocked that you guys actually use or rely on these tricks at all WIMPS!!

Any logical fair minded person would have to have a starting point wherby use of these things was not legitimate UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AGREED at the beginning of a game - and not the other way round.
I thank Matt for bringing it up in the Diplo VI game

And I challenge you all to let go of your little crutches and play THE GAME with real skill... he he.... a few wipouts coming along here

Long live THE DEITIANS, the chivalrous, the ethical and fair

Long live the cheaters too, for it's no good not to have an adversary

Good v. Evil!

------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

[Eyes Of Night]

You guys talk as if this were your lives. You even have names for this ****. ICS strategy, Incremental buying, etc. Maybe you should get out more Iadkins? I feel like I'm surrounded by computer nerds with the exception of a few of you.

[iadkins]

Hey, Eyes.. you almost sound serious
LOL


------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

[Ming]

That's why I do it between turns.

I'm with you, anything that slows down play during your turn, that can be done between turns, should wait. Maybe there is something we can ALL agree on