Save-and-Load is not cheating

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by aaglo
1# Statement: I do not cheat.
2# Statement: I sometimes load previous autosaves, because I forgot to react in something. And sometimes I save game (especially in early game) before I enter a barbarian village.

conclusion: save&load is not cheating...

Statement #2 nullifies statement 1, conclusion your are rationalizing.

[CerberusIV]

After my earlier post in this thread I decided to try a game without reloading at all and I have to say it is more interesting and more of a challenge.

I do agree with the idea that if you are testing a mod then reloading to try a different combat result is valid but not reloading in a competitive game.

I still think the unmodded game produces some way out results but if real warfare went the way it was supposed to the history books would be very different.

So I'm converted - no reloading when playing to win.

[swagled]

Playing without reload is fine and I consider that an option too. It's kind of like:

"Can I wind a game without railroads?"
"Can I win a game without any wonders?"
"Can I win a game without reloading?"

It's just another voluntary restriction to challenge onesself.

[vmxa1]

Not quite the same thing. True it would be a handicap and a valid challenge to play with no RR or wonders.
Using them does not give you an advantage that was not meant to be in the game though, reload does.

[Pyrodrew]

"Can I wind a game without railroads?"

Not quite the same thing.

Agreed. All Civs are capable of having RRs & wonders, therefore one playing without RRs or wonders would give that player a disadvantage when compared to the other Civs. Not all Civs can get this "Reload" technology.

[High_Lord]

When I first started playing Civ III I found myself constantly reloading my autosave if anything went against my plans...if AI puts down settler in spot I want, reload--move troops to block em and rush my settler out, or if AI beat me to a GW I just HAD to have--reload back (too) many turns and tweak and prod till I come out on top...after a while it just got boring and I realized I shouldnt be so dogmatic in the way I build my Civ--adaptation is so much more fun for me! Part of the fun is learning to play better so that on the NEXT time I will not have to be in that situation (and If it happens, well it happens) Now if those settler come they are killed while trespassing in my 'chosen' land, or I just build up my armies a little more and destroy their stupid city while its only defended by 1 warrior!! So much better!! Now I rarely reload--in fact , before I do something big like starting a war or switching gov., I make a save to document this big change and sometimes I will return to it later (as mentioned in this thread before) to see 'what might happen' if I had done differently. Thats what I love most in any game...figuring out (or reading about\learning) some new way to play that I hadnt thought about before. RePLAYability Baby!! Is what is all about!! Not ReLOADability!! As in, play another game, not play the SAME one till you get it "right", cause its a GAME and while there are victory conditions in CivIII its the FUN conditions that I concern with

[High_Lord]

Also, I am in the midst of making my way up to Regent...yeah, Im not the greatest Civ player (I was so proud just to be off of Chieftain and holding my own )...my first game on Regent, all the other civs were mean to me (when they finally found me---just so happend my first try was the ol' 'hey im on an island by myself for millenium!' so everybody raced past me, trading tech and resources and luxury while i slowly, then very quickly fell behind) I plan to give er another go next game (ok I admit it--I went right back and played on lovely lovely WARLORD level immediatly after my Regent fiasco, but Ill be back!!)

[vmxa1]

High_Lord good luck and hope to see you post your deity win soon.

[Redstar]

I was wondering what happened to all the DOT coms after the crash. Here i find them partying like there is no tomorrow.