 |
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:12
|
|
Well, I'm coming mighty late to this thread, but here's my two cents anyways...
Incremental buying clearly circumvents the pricing algorithm used to calculate the cost of a rush-buy. If you'd like to allow this in your MP games, so be it, as the rule affects everyone more or less evenly.
However, let's not try to sell incremental buying as "legitimate strategy". Many posts have thoughtfully touched on this, including Mindseye, iadkins, and Rasputin00. Incremental buying is outside the ruleset.
Curiously, for those who advocate it as perfectly legitimate or within the legal rule structure: if this is the case, why have a difference there at all? Why not default to the incremental build price? Did they leave it in to punish lazy people who don't feel like buy-switch, buy-switch, buy-switch, buy? That makes very little sense, and is a waste of programming time...
Venger
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:12
|
|
<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><font size=1>Originally posted by mindseye on 04-12-2000 11:22 PM</font>
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.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
Hear Hear!!!
Venger
P.S. Or is it here here? Methinks the former...oooh...MP3 player just kicked off some Stevie Wonder - That Girl. Mmmmmmm....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
Does inc buying work for improvements?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
its a pity old Syd never reads these posts and lets us know what the designers really intended....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
Again Ming, you state the designers wanted it left in and yet dont mention it in the rules, how are new comers supposed to learn of this if it isnt in manual ???
Seems to me that too many people who hav epalyed Civ sionce its beginnings assume everyone has too, or if they havnet then thats their bad luck, well not all are old enough to remember Civ 1 or if they are (like me) maybe couldnt afford computers back then, so not all have played Civ 1 or Civ Net so are unaware of Incremental buying there. It is an undocumented feeature that should not be used IMHO
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
I don't object to people using it I just wish someone would explain to me how to use it properly as its not in the manual and until I learn to use it I will continue to be at a disadvantage 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
It's not in the manual... so it's no more/less of a cheat than pre-working settlers or bomber stacking. This incremental buying thing, come on, it's taking advantage of code, really.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DaveV
|
 |
USA - EDT (GMT-5)
Jan 1970 time: 00:12
|
|
For fellow number crunchers, the formula is x*x/20 + x*2, where x is the number of shields you're buying. So it takes 5*5/20 + 5*2 = 11 gold to buy 5 shields. It takes 60 gold to buy two rows (20 shields), 105 gold to buy three rows (30 shields), 160 gold to buy 4 rows (40 shields). The cost is double if the shield box is empty, so the savings are really huge if you have to have that unit right away. Rush-build a diplomat = 210 gold. Rush-build a warrior = 50 gold; switch to phalanx and buy = 25 gold; switch to diplo and buy = 25 gold.
Advanced incremental rushbuilding tips: once you've discovered gunpowder and chivalry, the cheapest unit you can build is 30 shields. When you're building from scratch, it's cheaper to buy a temple (160 gold), switch to a diplomat, and buy the rest of him (25 gold), as opposed to rushing the diplomat outright (210 gold).
Sometimes it can save you a lot if you disband a unit to put some shields into the box. Say you're upgrading your warriors to pikemen. Disbanding a warrior puts 5 shields into the box; you can then rush the pikemen for 41 gold. Rushing the pikemen in an empty box would cost 120 gold! Just hope that nobody drops by for a visit while your pikemen is being processed...
(Proofreading corrections after posting - oops)
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by DaveV (edited May 16, 2000).]</font>
|
|
|  |
 |
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
well i have known about it. just not the amount of savings you can get from it. if i do it it's not because i'm trying to save gold but because of other needs (really need a unit over an improvement kinda thing) and not paying attention to the bottom line in terms of gold spent. after seeing what kind of savings one can get I now know that I would have done much better in many MP games. still... it's a cheat. like i said, start with a ship and end up with a bomber. sounds funny to me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
well... I don't (at least didnt) micro manage like some here. man! some of you take freakin forever to move. Now I know why. It does tell you what wonders do - in online help.
I also think preworking settlers is cool. I've taken more than a few cities this way. The other person, most of the time, does say - where the heck did that fort come from?!?!
I don't have it down yet as to which improvment/unit combination is best, in terms of gold savings. but it's a cheat.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
I still say it's a cheat. Taking advantage of weak code.
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|