Do you consider re-loading previous saves to be cheating?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by nato
I definitely feel the game is "tainted" if I save and reload. I feel much prouder of games that were "clean", as in no reloading.

Not saving makes it feel so much more real and exciting! . . . .With saving, no cool, memorable defeat stories to come back from ... only guaranteed victories.

That's the best reason. It's more fun (without reloading)!

There's a twilight zone episode where a lover of gambling dies. He ends up in a place where he wins every game of craps, every game of poker, every game. He thinks he's in heaven. Then it dawns on him. Without the chance of losing there is no fun, no excitement. Turns out he wasn't in heaven. (Break to Serling).

[FrostyBoy]

I know a few ppl who just quit the game when they "KNOW" they are going to lose no matter what.

If I had 3 cities on an island and its 1900AD, I would still keep playing.

Actually, I remember an old game where it was much like that, and I gathered enough forces that my city could support and started taking over the next smallest civ, and I continued like that, I got bigger and bigger and won the game.

So if you think that your miniscule mistake is a huge problem, you have a lot more to learn.

[Coracle]

In such cases, with Civ 2, we could switch sides using the Cheat Mode.

Switching sides gave us more options, was more fun, and gave us a chance to see if we could do a lot better than the AI.

Of course, we have no Cheat Mode in Civ 3.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I know

If I had 3 cities on an island and its 1900AD, I would still keep playing.

What level were you playing on? At higher levels there is less room for error especially at the beginning.

[Akka]

Reloading ?
It's cheating.
But I rarely care about cheating, so I often reload

Though I admit that it's much more rewarding to have the feel of playing "despite bad luck" and to overcome to trouble rather than just reload until all happen the best way. So I usually try ro reload as few as possible.

[Skanky Burns]

Of course, we have no Cheat Mode in Civ 3.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Coracle
In such cases, with Civ 2, we could switch sides using the Cheat Mode.

Switching sides gave us more options, was more fun, and gave us a chance to see if we could do a lot better than the AI.

Of course, we have no Cheat Mode in Civ 3.

Man, oh man, you like to harp about this!

[nato]

That Twilight Zone sums it up perfectly, Zachriel. Reloading seems great at first, fixing things that go wrong, but in the long run its less satisfying.

Reloading ?
It's cheating.
But I rarely care about cheating, so I often reload

Good one.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Tuberski



Man, oh man, you like to harp about this!

Coracle claims that Civ III cheats insanely but he WANTS to be the one cheating. I guess thats his real complaint because he sure is wrong when he claims that Civ III has more cheating than Civ II did.

[Jon Shafer]

I have to admit that I reload every now and then. Is it cheating? Depends on how you look at it. Like people have said, if you're just playing by yourself for fun, then it's not. If you're preparing for MP/high score, then it would be.

I often reload when that stupid barbarian unit will destroy my Musketman escorting 15 Settlers to colonize a new continent. Maybe it is my fault for only escorting 15 Settlers with 1 defender, but originally it's not, because all my other Musketmen are off fighting a war started by the AI because I wouldn't hand over 10 gold .

[Inverse Icarus]

Do you consider re-loading previous saves to be cheating?

yes. take what you get.

[Redstar]

tell me how a civilization can build a wonder and then 2 turns later
build another -- no, they had no leader.

sometimes it defies logic.

I will always reload a game where my city goes over to the other side when it should not.

if i am actually losing a game..i will give up rather than reload
I lose quite alot of games in the early years.

I also don't like how the enemy ai will trade good techs to civs that could only offer me 10 gold and 1 gold per turn for the same tech.

grr

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Redstar
tell me how a civilization can build a wonder and then 2 turns later
build another -- no, they had no leader.

They often have two or even three cities building wonders at the same time. If you investigate any of their cities you will often find them building wonders in the capital.


If they were at war they could use a leader on the same turn they got it. I am under the impression the AI rarely if ever uses a leader to finish a wonder. They seem fixated on armies.

I also don't like how the enemy ai will trade good techs to civs that could only offer me 10 gold and 1 gold per turn for the same tech.

grr

Well it is sometimes to hard to figure out how it was done. Sometimes they trade resources to someone else for the money. One of the things going on is that the AI charges what its worth to the buyer. They will charge you less when you are near to finishing. Presumably they do the same with each other. If you are playing on high levels your expenses for a tech are higher than theirs and they charge accordingly. Early in the game the main thing going on is the popping of goody huts. They also have a high valuation for maps. If you explore more than they do your maps will be worth more.

I once was the only civ with contact between two continents. I was able to trade my map for two techs to one civ. I gained at least four techs on one turn and I had no spare cash to start with. Sure was a lot luck involved in that one. I sent a galley out on the ocean for two turns to make that contact.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Trip . . .
I often reload when that stupid barbarian unit will destroy my Musketman escorting 15 Settlers to colonize a new continent. Maybe it is my fault for only escorting 15 Settlers with 1 defender, but originally it's not, because all my other Musketmen are off fighting a war started by the AI because I wouldn't hand over 10 gold .

So then the AI IS illogical. Glad you agree.

I can't imagine a "new continent" as you describe. By the time I have enough cities to produce "15" settlers, without greatly slowing down the rest of my production, every continent has already been settled for several thousand years. Perhaps you're playing on a huge map against just one other civ!

[Jon Shafer]

*Snickers*
Nahhh, it was a large map, and my expedition left at about 1 AD/BC. The pseudo-contiennt was cut off from the rest of the known world by a mountain range (and in the blitz mod settlers can't traverse mountain ranges), so I managed to get each city to produce a Settler each and set off. Maybe it was a Pikeman I was defending them with and not a Musketman after all.

And yes, the AI is illogical. If people feel that is a reason to justify things by reloading, then go ahead. I don't care, and neither does the game. It is, after all, only a computer program. Don't expect Operation Barbarossa or the Treaty of Paris from it.