Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for The Eye: Cheating or Not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question for The Eye: Cheating or Not?

    In 770AD, we lost WLTKDs in our pop 12 cities (yeah, all hands to their battlestations... ) because of the weird way Civ3 handles luxury deal expiration and checks WLTKD/disorder.

    In 760AD, ND was not able to send us ivory, since the previous deal was still in effect (they would have to manually cancel it to be able to renew it). The warning message that we lost ivory appeared AFTER I played the 760AD save.

    In 770AD, on the first turn it was possible, ND resent us ivory as accepted. I naturally accepted as the first thing after opening the save.

    Now, despite we had ivory in 760AD and we had ivory in 770AD, we still lost WLTKDs in 770AD, since the game did not "see" that ivory there when it was doing whatever kind of happiness/WLTKD check.

    Now, so far it's just something that irritates me... BUT: in another PBEM of mine, I - pretty much by chance (it was a different situation) - found a partial workaround. The moment you get the first "build finished" (or "city riots") pop-up, you jump into the city screen and - that one city cannot be helped, but... if you use the cursor keys to scroll through all the other cities of yours, you can actually "fix" the problem by taking a labourer off a tile and immediately placing him back again. You effectively make no WF allocation change, but the result is that the city (when actually "processed" during the production phase) uses the proper level of happiness/unhappiness for the purporse of determining WLTKD/disorder.

    I played our last turn WITHOUT this trick, but this may happen again and I would like to know what you think about the workaround/fix I know about. And what does The Eye think?

    Would that be cheating? Or would that be ok?

  • #2
    Sounds like good city management to me
    Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

    Comment


    • #3
      This not a cheat...I would call it a "legitimate work around.

      Comment


      • #4
        As it is a trick all teams can use to fix a legitimate "bug" in that you can't maintain a constant luxury flow I see no problem with doing it in the future.

        Comment


        • #5
          Good.

          Comment


          • #6
            This not a cheat...I would call it a "legitimate work around.

            Whoops, double post.

            Comment

            Working...
            X