Incremental Buying...

[mindseye]

Um, Ming!!!

When you wrote:
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>...but all the manuals offer reloading up as a helpful tip
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I didn't realize this was in the context of the tutorial! Ahem! I retract my earlier statement conceding that this must be a legitimate practice!

- mindseye

[Ming]

Just think if that concept was applied to MP.

"Uhhh... mister host... I just entered a goody hut and got barbarians... could you please do a restart so I can try again."

HA HA HA HA!

As I said, using their documentation might not be the best guideline
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ming (edited April 18, 2000).]</font>

[CapTVK]

After seriously playing FreeCiv for awhile I can safely state:

There's no incremental buying possible in FreeCiv!

You can rushbuild of course but you can't change your buildscreen once done so. It's simple now, ONE BUY - ONE UNIT - NO SWITCHING .
That means the incremental buying trick no longer works.

You've got your wish Iadkins!

[Venger]

Well, I'm coming mighty late to this thread, but here's my two cents anyways...

Incremental buying clearly circumvents the pricing algorithm used to calculate the cost of a rush-buy. If you'd like to allow this in your MP games, so be it, as the rule affects everyone more or less evenly.

However, let's not try to sell incremental buying as "legitimate strategy". Many posts have thoughtfully touched on this, including Mindseye, iadkins, and Rasputin00. Incremental buying is outside the ruleset.

Curiously, for those who advocate it as perfectly legitimate or within the legal rule structure: if this is the case, why have a difference there at all? Why not default to the incremental build price? Did they leave it in to punish lazy people who don't feel like buy-switch, buy-switch, buy-switch, buy? That makes very little sense, and is a waste of programming time...

Venger

[Venger]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by mindseye on 04-12-2000 11:22 PM</font>
I strongly disagree with those who argue that incremental buying is legitimate just because "you can do it" or because it appears the programmers may have known about it.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Hear Hear!!!

Venger
P.S. Or is it here here? Methinks the former...oooh...MP3 player just kicked off some Stevie Wonder - That Girl. Mmmmmmm....

[finbar]

Methinks you're right. In that context, it's definitely "Hear! Hear!".

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

[Alexander's Horse]

Does inc buying work for improvements?

[Jedi518]

FreeCiv?

[Rasputin00]

its a pity old Syd never reads these posts and lets us know what the designers really intended....

[Ming]

On that we can agree Rasputin00. There are so many rule discussions that come down to arguing about what the designers intended. In some cases, it seems more clear cut, but in situations like this... who really knows.

In this case, they were indeed aware of it.
The changes made from Civ I to Civ II is proof enough that they were at least "aware" of it because of all the changes they made in this area so you couldn't switch between categories to gain anything.

Now, was it something they intended us to do.
Who really knows. My opinion is that they did, because they did change so much, and left that area alone. Others have argued the exact opposite. Who is right? Well, unless they post here and tell us their intent, we will never really know.
So again, it leaves us with ANOTHER rule that has to be discussed before the start of an MP game. And there already too many of the those. sigh...

[Graag]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>So again, it leaves us with ANOTHER rule that has to be discussed before the start of an MP game. And there already too many of the those. sigh...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I have never seen a player who objects to incremental buying, so it isn't really and issue or a problem really.

Graag

------------------
"Fumer provoque le cancer - Roken veroorzaakt kanker - Rauchen verursach krebs"

[Ming]

Graag... then read through this thread. You would think that people who used incrimental buying were evil incarnate

I agree with you. Just about everybody I play with knew about it and used it. But as usual, there seems to be a difference of opinion on this subject (no surprise).

So, to not be accused of cheating, I always now mention it when a game starts.

[Smash]

it used to work with improvements but that was "fixed" in one of the patches.It costs the same to rush an improvement outright or to do it incrementally.

And yet they did not "fix" it for units.This is why I believe it to be intentional

[Sten Sture]

MP forum... I must be lost.

Having played a bunch of Captain Nemo's Red Front scenario lately, I can honestly say that I now hate incremental rush buying.

I don't think it is a cheat, but it certainly is draining and I wish it couldn't be done. In fact I wish there was no rush building option. Think how much faster the game would go if there was no rush building - incremental or straight out.

[Rasputin00]

Again Ming, you state the designers wanted it left in and yet dont mention it in the rules, how are new comers supposed to learn of this if it isnt in manual ???

Seems to me that too many people who hav epalyed Civ sionce its beginnings assume everyone has too, or if they havnet then thats their bad luck, well not all are old enough to remember Civ 1 or if they are (like me) maybe couldnt afford computers back then, so not all have played Civ 1 or Civ Net so are unaware of Incremental buying there. It is an undocumented feeature that should not be used IMHO