Settler/Engineer file questions

[East Street Trader]

It seems reasonably clear that the developers did not want a player to be able to mine the square as the game does not allow you to do so once the city is established.

But I still do it and I am puzzled at why the developers took that attitude anyway. You can build on grass/plains and then forest and vice versa so why not mine a hill? In fact, I wouldn't be very surprised if there had not, at some time, been an intention for you to get a free mine when establishing on a hill in the same way you get free irrigation and the terrain benefit of a road when you found on flatland. It's not as though they are demonstrably keen that better defence should be a trade off with some loss, because a city built on a river gets the defence bonus but still gets the benefit of a bridge too.

I don't use the airstrip quirk so I guess I'm inconsistent. But that one just seems too divorced from any reality.

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
First off, I was not implying that anyone who had an alternative view was either wrong or dishonest - far from it.

I did not mean to imply otherwise. Sorry for the confusion. I also merely stated my opinion on the issue. We have already had this discussion in the more-or-less distant past. One was in the dawn of this forum, and the other was when Paul was setting up the rules for the OCC.

Let me explain again the meaning of the sentence "the AI can't do it". As somebody else picked up, it only means that the designers did not intend this as a feature (and that's why the AI can't do it). So, it is a design flaw. Taking advantage of a design flaw is cheating imho. That the AI does not do any of the things SG referred to it's only because of weak programing, not because they were not intended. I believe there is a slight difference.

At this point I would still like to hear any further reasoning you guys may have, not just the classic line "well, the AI cheats in so many ways..". Please note that I am not saying it shouldn't be done. You can do anything you want -- this is a game. Maybe I am just looking for a justification to start using this 'feature'...

Bottomline, I completely agree that this is a very minor issue, but hey, I think it's important to sometimes discuss about the "player's code of honor"

[Scouse Gits]

JayBee - love your avatar -- and absolutely agree with your final point - it is always in order to discuss one's Code of Honour -- however we may choose to spell it

[Blaupanzer]

The English have been known to have some interesting definitions for "honour."

However, doing the "right" thing would seem to be pretty important in MP. The mine thing is clearly a programming glitch. The settler founding the city automatically irrigates and the city square provides at least one shield in addition, so other, mutually exclusive, improvements would not be possible, as on a non-city square. You can either mine or irrigate hills, not both.

Why the programmers permit the transformation of city squares is beyond me. Undertaking the raising, lowering, or reforestation of cities while the population works unimpeded is completely beyond modern technology. Can anyone think of an example?

[East Street Trader]

Hmmm.

Well, now you point it out, Blaupanzer, I see that the hill city does already get some benefit from an improved city square. I guess that just one wheatsheaf and one shield looks such a skinny alocation of resources that I have been overlooking the fact that without the effect of the city you wouldn't even get that.

I don't think I'll stop using this though. I have quite a lot of self denying ordinances. They are purely selfish things, mainly concerned with keeping the difficulty level of the game at a decent level and cutting down on techniques that increase the mechanical aspect.

So, to take an example recently discussed, I don't re-home caravans not because I give any great importance to the fact that the developers did not intend it but rather because it is just too effective a technique and too easy to do.

In the case of the mined city hill I am equally unwilling to give the developers intentions the last word - and in this instance I don't think the process is either too easy or too mechanical.

You have to tie up your settler for just as long mining the city's hill as any other hill and you have to take a modicum of care in what you are doing. And what you finish up with is no nuclear weapon.

The balance seems to fall a bit like this - you finish up with a city which has excellent defence and with a city square which is roughly comparable in productiveness to one built on flatlands. But you have had to tie up a settler the time it takes to create the mine plus, in all likelihood, do a modicum of advance planning so as to free up two settlers and get them where needed at about the same time. I am reminded that there is a little skill involved by an incident in my last game when I was mining with an engineer not a settler and I misjudged it not once but twice, getting the mine built too soon each time and having to manoevre a military unit into place to get rid of my own damn mine before I could, finally, get it right.

I'm not sure I'm worried that the A1 can't do this - apart from anything else I'm not sure I've ever seen an A1 city on a hill or mountain (or forest come to that). They get the benefit which flows from an "always found on flatlands" strategy so can take the downside of that policy.

Needless to say if playing MP and the majority did not want to agree this device, I'd fall in. But initially I'd say, lets all be able to do this if we like. Now, if I would want to agree it with others for MP I certainly see no reason not to indulge myself with it when I have no one else's preferences than my own to consider.

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
The English have been known to have some interesting definitions for "honour."

Pistols at dawn, I think Sir!