Acceptable exploits or 'cheats'

[SlowThinker]

rushbuild of units in disorder

Originally posted by Thoth in Civil disorder questions
You may rush build improvements and wonders when a city is in disorder, but you may not rush a military unit.

If you change production, and there are enough shields accumulated from previous turns, you can complete a cheaper military unit.

Do you think it is a cheat?

If it is not a cheat, then we could ignore the disorder practically

[Scouse Gits]

Re: rushbuild of units in disorder

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Do you think it is a cheat?
If it is not a cheat, then we could ignore the disorder practically

You are paying more for your units using this method. If you need a quick Rifleman (assuming no shields in the box) you start with a rush build of a Temple/Barracks for 160g. Then change to City Walls for an extra 80g. Then convert to the unit for 40 shields.

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

SG(2)

[Thoth]

Re: Re: rushbuild of units in disorder

Originally posted by Scouse Gits


You are paying more for your units using this method. If you need a quick Rifleman (assuming no shields in the box) you start with a rush build of a Temple/Barracks for 160g. Then change to City Walls for an extra 80g. Then convert to the unit for 40 shields.

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

SG(2)

Even with shields in the box, it's still a very expensive way of buying units (4g per shield assuming a 50% production loss for switching production types). (1)

If you are already building a unit, you can switch to a cheaper one, and if you have a number of shields in the box equal to or greater than the shield cost of the cheaper unit, it will be completed. I don't think this is a cheat. You've lost at least one turn of production by letting your city go into revolt, and you've been forced to settle for a unit other than the one you originally desired.


(1) This is the standard value, some secenarios change this percentage. Note that if this percentage is set to 0 it is cheaper to rushbuy an improvement and then switch to a military unit of the same cost.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Edward
What is cheating?
1. Something the game designers didn't intend.
2. Something unrealistic.
3. Something that alters the game play so radically that it's use almost turns Civ into a different (and in your opinion worse) game.

I agree with Edward well enough, and I would add
4. Something that is laborious for example rushbuying, putting workers to trade producing squares in the domestic city before you deliver a caravan...

[Howitzer Al]

I agree, SlowThinker, but I would imagine that that would also fall under #3 since all the micromanaging would radically alter gameplay (assuming that you're doing enough of it to actually make a difference! )

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Howitzer Al
I agree, SlowThinker, but I would imagine that that would also fall under #3 since all the micromanaging would radically alter gameplay (assuming that you're doing enough of it to actually make a difference! )

I hope you're not saying that there is a certain level of micromanaging that is acceptable and anything above that is "cheating." You say all the micromanaging would radically alter the game. To me, EVERY aspect of the game involves micromanaging.

[SlowwHand]

I'll be glad when III goes on Sale.

[fittstim]

I would say that micromanaging to an extreme is perhaps the only way to win when you play deity level.

[Howitzer Al]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I hope you're not saying that there is a certain level of micromanaging that is acceptable and anything above that is "cheating." You say all the micromanaging would radically alter the game. To me, EVERY aspect of the game involves micromanaging.

No I'm not intending to say that micromanaging is cheating. I think that it's a perfectly valid way to play the game. I'm just saying that if you do a LOT of micromanaging throughout the entire game, the game has a much different feel to it. Personally, I do a little bit of it, but I get bored if I do too much.

Fittstim, I gotta disagree with you. I play only at Diety and do very little micromanaging. I make sure my cities are harvesting the right resources (until the endgame when that usually takes forever for all the cities) and I occasionally max out trade in cities that are about to get a caravan, but that's it.
I'm not trying to toot my own horn or anything. I'm just saying that the more experienced you get and the more strategies you learn, the easier Deity will become.
There's a Winning at Diety guide in the Great Library, I think, that can help if you're getting totally creamed at Diety.

My secret--lots of Howitzers
Well, that's not much of a secret

[Edward]

Yes, micromanagement is important and should be legal in and of itself. Why else allow players to change squares worked, etc.? A certain degree of micromanagement always exists in strategy games which is why some people like them and some don't. As Howitzer Al alludes to, extensive play will allow you to play more sloppily, rely on less micromanagement, and still win. Also, after you play the game a lot (perhaps too much) some of what you previously considered micromanagement becomes instinctive and less noticeable as micromanagement.

I promised myself I'd drop this topic but I just can't help it....
As for SlowThinker's #4 cheat, in some instances I think that something being laborious and difficult implies that the designers didn't intend it (#1 cheat) and that you're bending the rules.

Change your worked squares in the source city to arrow-rich ones before delivering a caravan and then switch back. This will always result in the best outcome, one should always do it this way, and therefore there is no strategic or interesting choice being made here. Why didn't the designers just make caravan bonuses based on the most arrows the source & destination cities could produce rather than making bonuses based on actual squares worked and forcing players to temporarily change the squares themselves? Incremental rushbuying will reduce the price of rushbuilt units. This will always result in the best price - again no strategy or choice here. Why didn't the designers just make the cost to rush a unit based on the incremental buying price rather than forcing you to go through all those laborious steps?

Are these examples of loopholes and/or cheating? Off hand, I'd say yes. I think my pointed questions strongly imply that the designers did not want players to do these things and that players are circumventing intended principles in using them. One could argue that they are design flaws that could be improved or fixed with a better game engine and interface. However, in making this claim I think one would be admitting that either 1) the fixes should make the above advantages automatic and players currently using them flatout disagree with, IMHO, explicit Civ2 rules (such as unit shields varying in cost, etc.); or much more likely 2) the fixes should prevent the above advantages and players are currently circumventing intended rules, not based on strategy or realism, but merely because it's to their advantage and they can.

[reds4ever]

personally i think micomanaging is fime if thats how you want to play, but when i've done it i feel i miss out on the 'buzz' of running a developing civilization and it becomes a painstaking excercise in number crunching, your so intent on the specfics you miss out on the thrill of the grand picture.

any no one will ever convince me that incremental buying was an intended feature, IMHO it's a dubious tactic at best, (lights touch paper and retires to a safe distance)

[Deity Dude]

I mostly play MP. I agree u can easily get away without micromanaging in SP and win at any level. I dare u too try it against any decent MP player (except maybe some 2x2x small map duels)

[reds4ever]

i did it against you and did well enough that you wouldn't continue the game despite my many requests, remember?

[Laszlo]

1.4.1. AIRBASES ON HILLS - Intended or not?

As a simple test of the original intention for airbases I saw if a unit would favor roads over airbases with the Go To command.

When I told an Engineer to go to a point, it could have used the railroad abilities of airbases to get there without wasting movement points, but instead it took the road and ran out of them. This demonstrates that the Go To command doesn't know to look for the airbases when calculating its course, though I guess final confirmation will come with Civ 3's release.

[Laszlo]

Though another test to try and trick Civ 2 into not noticing the airfields doesn't work. In the city window, if you click on the city in the resource map, it automatically distributes your worked squares to its liking. But instead of ignoring the airbases, it switches to them from unimproved terrain of the same type.

I don't think that this proves anything about intent though, because the resource manager is probably just looking at all the food/shields/trade given off by each square.