Avoiding shield waste in production

[Alexander's Horse]

Go away Eyes, the adults are talking

What's your problem? We're having some pleasant idle speculation about maximising production. we're not harming anyone.

One thing on inc buying I have been thinking about is partial inc buying - where you buy part lines - might be even cheaper.

[Smash]

Its a marginal savings.A new row of 10 is 25 gold or 2.5 per.Half a row is 11 for 2.2 per.9 costs 22 for 2.44 per sheild.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Edward
Rasputin,

Such micromanagement (checking worked squares in every city) is too much for me in the later game years. I too find such micromanagement distracting

I have never mentioned ahving a problem with micromanagement i do that often. it is well documented in manual.

Like you, I avoided incremental buying for a long time because it looked complicated. As Smash notes, it's surprisingly easy once you try it. You don't have to go to every city. Just whenever you would normally rush-buy a unit, instead rush-buy the cheapest unit. Now rush-buy the next cheapest unit. Now rush buy the next cheapest unit, etc. until you buy what you wanted. No math at all! Barely any thinking. After half a game it becomes instinctive. Very easy, very powerful.

that is a process that still appears to be time consuming.

Like you, I hope they close this loophole in Civ3. ('Though please still let us change our production! I often legitimately change my mind halfway through my turn.

hopefully they will put the same penalty for changing tpyes of production (50% loss of shields) when changing the tpyes of units being produced.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Edward - You make a good case for playing an "honest" game. However, your statement that -

"This being said, I'll agree with you that incremental buying is a cheat. Not because it's not in the manual, but because it was clearly not intended by the creators."

If you are being honest ... how do you know that? Or have I missed a vital point ....?

------------------

SG(2)

SG{2} he goes on to explain why he belives this with some very good points re the designers attempts to make it cost more to buy more shields !!!!!

[War4ever]

Look, against the ai its fine to not micromanage to death. You don't suffer unless your going for a record. That said, its real important to micromanage and to increment rush buy especially in the early game against good players.

as for whats a cheat and whats not, as long as EVERYONE knows the rules straight up and no rules.txt have been altered without EVERYONE knowing, anything is in.

This is why people agree to terms before a game

[Alexander's Horse]

waste waste waste

There must be an awful lot of shields wasted in a game.

[Eyes_Of_Night]

Fine, I'll leave you morons to continue pondering the complexities of incremental buying. My only hope is that you'll find your answer before the end of your miserable little life.

[Alexander's Horse]

HA!

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Fine, I'll leave you morons to continue pondering the complexities of incremental buying. My only hope is that you'll find your answer before the end of your miserable little life.

I've done things in my life that you can only dream of. In fact, if there was more to your life maybe you'd be a bit more mellow about civ playing

[Edward]

I'll preface this by saying:

1) No, I do not know any of the programmers so anything I say about their intent is purely speculative.

2) If you're playing single player (and not posting records), or if all players agree to any rule; then it's fine to use that rule.

As noted it doesn't work for improvements.You can save turns but not gold.Why?

Because improvements always cost 2 gold per shield no matter how many improvement shields you're buying. Buying a bank outright is just as cheap as buying a library then quickly buying a bank the same turn. Unit shields, however, increase in price the more you buy at one time. If you already have 5 shields in your box, buying a warrior and then quickly switching and buying a phalanx on the same turn will cost less than buying a phalanx outright.

Phalanx outright: The program says "Whoa, this guy's trying to by 15 shields (one and a half rows) all at once. Stick him with the one and a half row price (3 per shield? I don't know the exact number)."

Warrior: "Just five shields? Ok, make him pay 2.5 (or is it 2.2?) coins per shield."
Then Phalanx: "Just 10 shields? That's a row or less. Charge him 2.5 coins per shield."
You save 7 or so coins. Clever micromanagement or loophole?

Not being able to change would be disastrous.

Agreed. They certainly intended for you to be able to switch production- even multiple times a turn if you're that wishy-washy. Otherwise, why would they have an explicit 50% penalty when changing production types? The question is, did they intend for you to evade the higher per shield cost of unit shields by changing production types many times a turn?

I think it was meant as a finer point or undocumented feature to be used mainly against deity level.

A stadium has security guards at the entrance to check your ticket or collect money. During your repeated visits to the stadium, you notice that they never lock one of the windows. I'm willing to bet that waiting until no one's looking to climb in the window to see a concert or sporting event was not intended by the stadium owners; even though it is possible to do so, and even though the owners (with more knowledge, "playtesting", foresight, and money) could have made it very difficult or impossible. Is climbing in the window cheating, or merely good use of resources? I don't think that climbing in the window is a "fine point" that the owners know about and intentionally leave available but don't feel like "documenting" in their ads. I don't think that climbing in the window was left as a legitimate option to be used by experts tackling difficult economic problems. I don't think the owners would congratulate you on using the stadium's aspects to your advantage ('though others having a difficult time successfully seeing the show might thank you for the tip). I say this because the owners set up a very obvious and intuitive way of getting into the stadium - one with an obvious created cost; while in contrast, the window is closed (but unlocked) and has no stairs leading up to it and is awkward to fit through. I don't think the stadium owners purposely leave the window open to reward physically fit and creative fans. I think the mere fact that the stadium collects money at the door shows they intended for you to use the door. And I say all this without consulting or knowing any stadium owners!

(Note: I'm not saying you're a thieving low-life scum if you use incremental buying. I'm just saying that it's pretty obvious that the programmers didn't intend it. I don't mind if anyone uses it as they see fit, but I can't swallow someone stating that incremental buying was an intended feature.)

I think there is a fine line between cheating and using the game's aspects to your advantage.

Agreed.

If that is a cheat - is forcing a city to celebrate in Monarchy dubious by manipulating the workers around the city tiles? (First you put all the workers out to sea and gain arrows at the expense of food/production to celebrate. After gaining the double arrows you place some of the workers back on food/production squares but manage to sustain the double trade benefits)

I didn't realize you could do this. Yes, I'd call that a cheat too. Pretend the programmers intended for you to be able to switch worker squares to celebrate, then quickly switch them back the same turn so as to get celebration benefits without losing out on food/production. Why would the programmers force you to run around to each of your cities every turn, try and max arrows to see if you can celebrate, the switch back to the squares you really want to work? Why not just program cities to celebrate whenever any possible arrangement of worked squares would let you celebrate - whether or not you choose to work those squares? Remember, in this scenario the programmers fully intend for you to get the celebration benefit without ultimately working the squares that turn. Are the programmers sadistic and want to make things as hard as possible when there's an easier interface they could have used? Are they stupid and couldn't figure out how to check for possible celebration without the human rearranging worked squares? Or (hold on here, this'll sound crazy) did they actually not intend for you to get the celebration benefit without working the arrow squares and overlooked the fact that the code let players switch from one to the other the same turn and keep the celebration advantage (thus defeating the need to work the arrows).

I'd again like to say that if you want to use these strategies and everyone in your game agrees to it, that's fine. One might even be able to debate whether or not they're cheats (on the grounds of wide acceptance or game balance). But I'm surprised anyone actually thinks they were intended by the creators. In addition to not being intended, I don't think that either incremental buying or free celebrations are "smart" strategies that the creators would have made the AI use if they'd only thought of it and it was easy to program, nor do they coincidentally mirror some real-world situation and therefore make sense and enhance the game, nor do I think they're in the spirit of the rules of the game seeing as how they avoid explicit costs for given actions. They're just loopholes to be exploited (or not).

In the words of the infallible EyesOfNight:

It's nothing more than a flaw in the equation they use for buying something...Lets face it, the game was never truly play tested fully and it shows.

[Deity Dude]

I think the analogy about the stadium is not a good one because in that example someone IS cheated, the stadium owner. He is not aware or did not agree to the unintended behavior. In addition as the owner, he makes the rules and anyone not following them is breaking the rule.

To me its more like basketball. When the game was invented by Dr Naismith. the backboard was intended as a backstop (ie to stop the ball from going all over the place after shots). Over time people realized they could bank the ball off the backboard and make shots - (not its intended purpose). People could have made a rule outlawing shots that hit the backboard but they didnt. Over time it became part of the game. Everyone knows about it and everyone uses it.

When players play pick-up games, if everyone agreed, they could outlaw bank shots for that game. Some might like this because it preserves the intent of the original rulemaker, others might not because they've developed thier shot and game around this unintended, but generally accepted behavior.

Ultimately if everyone agrees on what is allowed and what isn't, either is acceptable. It just becomes a rule.

[Smash]

the stadium is quite funny.I think the b-ball is more appropriate.

back to improvement sheilds
why isn't it cheaper to incrementally buy a bank for example?.Start temple.Buy it.Buy granary.Buy wall,colliseum etc.Is that not the same as warrior>phalanx>archer etc?
why does the price of units sheilds change at all?Its 50 for a new warrior but 25 for a row of 10, 22 for 9 sheilds....11 for 5.What is this?An oversight?

Either way,I use it and will continue to do so.

Someone intended something.The "buy" and "change" are prominently displayed and very easy to use.They even gave an" in city window" slider for scrolling thru cities.Obviously(to me) someone figured that this was going to be a major part of "playing"

[Scouse Gits]

One of the reasons we all keep playing are the loose ends left by the designers which still keep us guessing. If everything was "black and white" we may have moved on. But did they intend it that way ...........

SG(2)

[EOL]

Originally posted by Smash
back to improvement sheilds
why isn't it cheaper to incrementally buy a bank for example?.Start temple.Buy it.Buy granary.Buy wall,colliseum etc.Is that not the same as warrior>phalanx>archer etc?
why does the price of units sheilds change at all?Its 50 for a new warrior but 25 for a row of 10, 22 for 9 sheilds....11 for 5.What is this?An oversight?

If you want to recruit a lot of builders to finish a job quick you can hire each extra one at the same price - they're usually desperate for some work. If you're looking to up recruitment into the army by a lot more than the usual rate you've best offer people some cash incentives to get shot at. . The more you need to recruit, the better the jobs you're trying to poach them from (at the top end) the bigger the incentive needs to be.

Everythings at double cost per shield if there's nothing in the box.

[Edward]

Smash,

Yes, in my previous post I agreed that the designers wanted players to be able to change production orders and to rush-buy stuff. My position is that they intended for the players to use this to change their minds about what the city should build and to "rush" an item in one turn. However, they did not intend for players to use this feature to circumvent the increased cost per shield of unit shields. Otherwise, why even have an increased cost if it can be avoided by incremental buying?

And I think EOL is correct. The reason the designers made it more costly to buy lots of units shields (as opposed to improvement shields) is they thought it should be harder to quickly gather together and train a lot of people than to quickly gather together and assemble a lot of resources. Good or bad, this was the intent of the designers. If you personally think it should be just as easy to rush units and therefore you use incremental buying as some a sort of civil disobedience to knowingly defy authority - then I'd see your side. However, I won't back up the opinion that incremental buying was intended.

Deity Dude,

It looks like you agree with me that the designers didn't intend to allow players to use incremental buying to avoid paying an increased price per shield. You argue that a tactic merely not being intended by the designers is insufficient to prove that that tactic is "cheating". I'll agree. However, in the case of incremental buying, there is good evidence that not only was it not intended; it also goes against the spirit of the game.

If all players in a game were to agree on a particular issue, then that wouldn't be cheating for that game. However, I think that something that circumvents a rule of the game is, at a minimum, not in the spirit of the game. (Auto-irrigating landlocked squares, "waiting" a plane to keep it in the air, etc.)

In basketball, you have to dribble the ball. You can't run with the ball in your hands. What if you had the ball and a teammate lifted you up on his shoulders and then your teammate ran around the court. He isn't holding the ball so he isn't travelling. You aren't taking steps so you aren't travelling. Yet this is clearly (in my mind) against the whole intent and spirit of the no travelling rule. The rule was made because Dr. Naismith wanted to give opponents a chance to snag the ball while it's being dribbled and avoid having some big strong guy clutch the ball and force his way to the basket (which would be more like football or rugby). Piggyback riding avoids breaking the travelling rule as stated, but is certainly against the spirit of the rule and the game. Similarly incremental buying, while possible, is clearly against the spirit of the increased cost penalty for unit shields. You're avoiding an explicit penalty by doing something convoluted. Banking off the backboard (in contrast to piggyback riding) doesn't circumvent any obvious penalty or intent in basketball.

Also basketball has the distinct advantage of being a set of easily changed rules. Civ2, on the other hand, is a computer program which requires a lot of money, time, and effort on the part of the programmers to correct and release revisions. While I can agree that if a practice becomes common in basketball and isn't outlawed then one can assume that people like it and it has become part of the game. I do NOT agree that if a bug/feature/practice in a computer game isn't "corrected" in a patch, then the programmers intended for people to use it and it should be legal.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Edward

It looks like you agree with me that the designers didn't intend to allow players to use incremental buying to avoid paying an increased price per shield. You argue that a tactic merely not being intended by the designers is insufficient to prove that that tactic is "cheating".

I agree with both points.

However, in the case of incremental buying, there is good evidence that not only was it not intended; it also goes against the spirit of the game.

I agree it wasnt intended. I think the it is impossible to determine whether or not it goes against the spirit of the game since that is subjective.

In basketball, you have to dribble the ball. You can't run with the ball in your hands. What if you had the ball and a teammate lifted you up on his shoulders and then your teammate ran around the court. He isn't holding the ball so he isn't travelling. You aren't taking steps so you aren't travelling. Yet this is clearly (in my mind) against the whole intent and spirit of the no travelling rule. .

Here's where I have to disagree. First of all, it is illegal in b-ball to assist a teammate in that fashion. Why? Because it was decided that this unintended feature/practice was not desirable. So a rule was made outlawing it. (Believe me, if there were no rule against people would be doing it.) Just as low scoring games were considered undesirable so a shot clock was put in. These unintended features/practices were veiwed by the rulemakers as negative. Use of the backboard is an unintended feature/practice that people have found positive. Hence, no rule was made to stop it. Over time people wanted the game to be more exciting so a 3 point shot was added (that in my mind would be like modifying the rules.txt file with everyone's consent). I highly doubt when these changes were considered that the determining factor was the intent of Naismith. (In Naismith's day a shot from 3 pt distance would have probably been considered impossible.) It was the enjoyment of fans and spectators that was the determining factor.

I guess ultimately what I am trying to say is who cares what the intent was. And as far as spirit of the game goes a) its highly subjective and b) if you could objectively define it, should it stop players from doing something they all want and agree to do. Or should they be called cheaters for doing it. All that matters is the enjoyment derived. Having said that, I don't think that is the reason people use inc. rush buying. (i.e. it makes for a better game) I think it is more of a pandora's box issue. It's out there and there is really no way, other than honor, to enforce a rule against it. And if you did make a rule against it and everyone was an honorable player, incremental rush buying would still occur unintentionally. ( i.e. you rush build a warrior then notice an enemy a few squares off, so you rush build a phalanx, enemy gets knocked of by a barb and you dont need a phalanx, you switch to diplo to bribe the barb, but the barb goes the other way so now you decide you need a settler)

To get back to another sports analogy, this time football, making a rule against it would be like telling coaches they couldn't discuss strategy during the 2 minute warning because the break was intended to inform coaches about the clock. How would you enforce it.

Having said that, I hate incremental rush buying (but I always use it) and hope it is eliminated in civiii. I don't think it was intended and I don't think it adds to gameplay.