 |
|
|
errrr.....
Why did they make it so you have to frig around with incremental buying when it could have been done in ONE BUY?
Surely this is a design oversight or am I missing something mathematical here?
I'll have to check the manual when I get home.
I also agree with Empress - not everyone knows about it.
Once Matt brought it to my attention in the Diplo VI game I tried one experiment with incremental rush buying and it is WAY too advantageous to those that use it.
And it is just not logical to switch production anyway. Straight rush buying makes sense though.
------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by iadkins (edited April 10, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
i agree with deity. i beleive it was just another oversight of designers and patch builders, how can you switch fro mbuilding one type of unit to anothger, all soprt sof resources ar ewasted.. rush building is fine as it just throwes your economy bewhind the result,
and remember not all know of this
|
|
| |
|
|
|
everyone on these boards may know of it , but the people here are the minority when it comes to playing games..
And I dont fully understand your question, 3-4 gold short of what ?? building a warrioe ??
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Rasputin00 (edited April 11, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
and ming they left all the other "cheats / loopholes " in place purposefully too ????
i understnad how you think this may be so, but then why isnt it documented re the saving in cost by incremental buying, civ 2 is complicated enough without having to learn all the "undocumented" features...
I want to know who has had the time to work all this out , i never knew what was stated above was so benificial , is evryon already doing this? no wonder i fall behind in unit construction with some people....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
This still doesn't address my point that if it was deliberate why make it such a cumbersome process - surely far simpler to change the maths for rush buying?
There's enough microing in this game anyway.
So, the more I think about it and read about it, IMHO this is definitely an oversight.
------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924
|
|
| |
|
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
And let me take this opportunity to say yet again that they who say that ship chaining is a cheat are out of their minds. If I spend more shields on ships than MC, JSB, and Leo`s cost combined, I have expended vast resources, and am going to make the very most of it. One is hardly getting over by doing this. To ship chain much, and do it effectively, especially on larger worlds, costs dearly. It`s just a price that I am often very willing to pay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
i havent seen that in documentation RAH, referiing not being able to buy settler...
and I agree , most on these threads have now seen something re this problem, but to bleeive that all the people that paly post here is not true, i know about 4 people myslef that never post here , and yet love playing MP ...
I have never once been asked by anyone i play whether to use incremntal buying or not, appears that msot people either assume everyone is doing it , or dont want to announce it during game setup , just in case
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:12
|
|
Matt, I agree with you on that one. It does require a lot of resources to set up right and I don't consider it a cheat either. I don't ever remember asking if it was allowed before a game either. Wonder why. It's no different then a caravan that moves across a rail network into a port, sleeps, gets shipped to another coast, then continues moving to another port, sleeps, etc.
I guess we're going to have to ask everyone before we start the next game, whether they've read the rules.
Are all superior tactics cheats, since they're all not specifically listed in the rules but common place in these threads? The next time I try the super iron clad strategy, I don't want to be accused of cheating by people that have never read about it here.
RAH
Thank god the group I usually play with is knowledgable.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by rah (edited April 11, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carolus Rex
|
|
Sweden
Jan 1970
time: 06:12
|
|
I thought rush buying units in steps was common knowledge?!
Nice little trick and not a cheat, IMHO. It also adds some (maybe small) element of tactics when choosing techs as someone above pointed out.
But...
I agree that it's tedious and takes the fun out of the game. Remember the days when you played civ happily unaware of all such little tricks, completely absorbed by the game? Now, all I can think of is rush buying units etc...
Another drawback is that I do it during my own turn, which slows down the game. Why? Because if I'm in the middle of rush buying a settler, I don't want to end up with an archer when my turn comes and I haven't had time to change back to a settler.
Carolus
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited April 11, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jedi518
|
|
yea i think incremental buying stuff really is stupid....sometimes i forget to do it and now i wonder if the game really could have made a difference....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
well back to the manual it is then to find where it says buying units incrementally will save money, as everyone says its there , it must be, I know I havent read it for ages so will spend this weekend brushing up on civ2 101....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:12
|
|
I strongly disagree with those who argue that incremental buying is legitimate just because "you can do it" or because it appears the programmers may have known about it. It's not mentioned in the manual, and it certainly makes no sense at all from a game theory viewpoint. If it was intended, as iadkins forcibly argues, it simply would have been factored into rush-buying. How can you believe such a cumbersome, undocumented practice was intended?
Further, just because the designers knew about it (debatable) does not mean it was intended. I'm sure there were many problems the design team knew about, but didn't have the time or resources to fix - or simply flat-out forgot in a sea of dealing with other details. I have been involved with application development, take my word that this happens.
The real question here is "What is cheating?"
For those of you who believe that tactics like ship-chaining are not cheating just because "you can do it" or it's expensive, I'd say that's a poor way to decide if something's a cheat. How about saving a game just prior to tipping a hut and then re-loading if the results were not favorable? Does the fact that "you can do it" mean that it's not "cheating"?
Well, it may not be cheating, but it's certainly not in the spirit of the game which, in my opinion, is a much better measure of legitimacy. For me, using such corner-cutting tactics diminishes the gaming experience, reducing it to an exercise in exploiting programming weaknesses. Exploiting loopholes in the code may not be cheating per se, but it certainly isn't in the spirit of the game which for me means "less fun".
It really comes down to the reasons why you are playing Civ2. Some people love to search out and exploit loopholes in the code, for them it is fun. If you enjoy that, then go for it!
But if you play Civ2 to immerse yourself in the challenge of the imaginary realm the designers were attempting to create, then you probably don't want to indulge in practices like incremental buying, ship-chaining, or saving/re-loading, which make absolutely no sense in the context of the game. And if you are playing with others, as Empress suggests, you should establish whether exploiting code loopholes is allowable or not.
- mindseye
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KhanMan
|
|
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
Mindseye-For one, the save/reload cheat is irrelevant in mp-play, because no one who repeatedly reloads a game of mp with a lot of players is going to get a second match.
Second, ship chaining is not a cheat because it does not alter the ships' movement values, it merely transports units from one ship to another. Would you say that units can only be put on ships in ports?
Also, how about linking all of your cities with railroad? In effect, that increases the movement points of your units by a huge amount, yet who would say that building railroads is a cheat?
How about Wonders? If you build Lighthouse, your ships can move faster...must have been a flaw in the code, let's outlaw the Lighthouse Wonder.
How about mountain cities? A few misguided folk here say that building a city on a mountain is cheating, merely because it is hard to take.
All of these give a player an advantage, but, in my view, none are cheats.
The point is, if you want to set a house rule for a game (prohibitting whatever), then you MUST say so at the beginning of the game. Waiting until later, and accusing a player of cheating (without having agreed that something is a cheat) is a bad policiy. Deity, myself, and many others have stories about misunderstandings regarding cheats and house rules.
-KhanMan of the Sayen
|
|
| |
|
|
|
See P59 of the PC Civ2 manual.
Rushbuying is as I said.
NO mention of saving money if you incrementally rush buy.
The other thing to remember is that the game was designed so that there is a PENALTY for disbanding units. So why the heck would there be an ADVANTAGE for multiple disbanding of units, which is what incremental rush buying is?
Come on you guys, you are having yourself on!
I would like to suggest that we strictly follow the letter of the manual and not promote borderline practices or the exploitation of bugs. Because, if we all DON'T do it we are square again 
It's absurd to say at the beginning of every game what bugs we can and can't use!
DON"T USE ANY OF THEM!
Let's have a level playing field and play in the spirit of the game as mindseye said .
------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:12
|
|
Not to slight my fellow tribe member, but i agree completely with mindseye and iadkins/diety/whoever you are. There are many things that can be done, but the question is whether or not they should be done. I've had this discussion with Eyes several times, there are things he does that he doesn't consider cheats, and probably aren't, but i certianly don't consider honest playing.
For example, it is possible to disband units after they are bought by your opponent, while this is possible to do, it clearly is against the intents of the programmers and how they intended the game to be played. It is possible to disband the units in a city that is about to be bought, but it is something that i refuse to do on princible.
I think chivalry is more than an invention in the tech tree, it is a way of thinking and of playing that should be applied to this game at all possible oppurtunities. Fair play and honesty should be cherished qualities in this game and elsewhere. If the host starts with two settlers or some tech he should admit it upfront and restart. These are things that honest players i know do.
I applaud everyone who strives to play with the utmost honesty and chivalry, that is how it should be.
------------------
Metalhead Greater Sayen, and all 'round nice guy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:12
|
|
Khanman,
Save/Re-load
Okay, okay this does not apply to MP, I was speaking in generalities here. It was an example of something you literally can do (in SP anyway), but isn't "legitimate", i.e. it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. I suggest these two criteria: (1) was it clearly intended as acceptable practice by the designers? and (2) does it make any sense at all within the context of the game? Saving/Re-loading until the right thing pops out of a hut fails on both counts.
Ship-Chaining
As I said, I would not call this cheating per se, it is possible without altering the code or anything. However, I don't think it's "legitmate" because it fails both criteria. The designers did not intend it to work that way, and it doesn't make any sense within the context of the game. Think: what is going on here? If a Caravel can travel, say a maximum 30 miles per turn, does that mean that ten Caravels could move a Legion 300 miles in the same amount of time? Of course not, besides all of the unrealistic changing of ships at sea, this would mean each of the Caravels was moving ten times faster than normal! You are simply exploiting a loophole in the code. It's not cheating, but to me it's, for lack of a better term, unsporting.
Unlimited Rail Travel
Actually, this does fit both criteria, so it's okay. It was clearly intended by the designers to work that way, and it does make sense (albeit a bit abstract) within the context of the game. If you could travel, say 1,000 miles by rail in the time period of one turn, linking up ten cities over a 1,000-mile distance and shooting a unit all the way to to other end makes perfect sense. Personally, I wish there was a limit to the amount of rail travel per turn, maybe 15 spaces or something. However, since it clearly was intended to work that way by the designers - (it's in the manual, the AI does it, etc), I don't think there's any question as to whether or not it's legitimate.
Mountain Cities, Wonders
Nope, not cheating, use of both are legitimate. They were both clearly intended by the designers, and both make sense within the context of the game. It is not difficult to imagine a mountain city that would be difficult to take (e.g. Machu Piccu). The Wonders are a little more abstract, but make sense as the designers intended within the world of Civ2. For instance, the Lighthouse represents a civilization putting a huge amount of work into navigation, the payoff of which is ships which can travel farther, and so on. Fits both criteria, so legit.
Incremental buying
Fails both criteria, for me, it's not a legitimate practice.
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>The point is, if you want to set a house rule for a game (prohibitting whatever), then you MUST say so at the beginning of the game. Waiting until later, and accusing a player of cheating (without having agreed that something is a cheat) is a bad policiy.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
We agree! If there is any question at all whether something is a legitimate practice, it should be agreed upon in advance. If everyone agrees that ship-chaining is ok, then it's perfectly acceptable.
Sorry, for the length of my posts, but I think this is a very important issue. Also, I think it's a sign of how special Civ2 and its community is that so many would passionately discuss such a topic!
- mindseye
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2000 18:17
) cost 25 gold
We have been putting together a list to let them know what problems currently exist so they MIGHT correct them in the next game... 
|