15-06-2005 21:48									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen I'll have to check but IIRC we used the Manhattan Project as a prebuild for the UN, we only switched to the UN the 3 turns before it was supposed to be built since the MP has less shields (800 vs 1000). Then when ND beat us to it, we switched back. I'm not sure if this triggered the bug, to be honest I still don't quite understand what it is. What I can assure you is that the turn build never changed, i.e. it took 12 turns more or less to build the UN in Killdaria from the start. Also whatever changes to the build in that city were done by right-clicking on the map.

All I can say is: try it. Get into mob, set a city to tank, and count your shields. If you feel you get the bonus (don't look at the shields icons in the city view, as these are updated like they should, but the total isn't), switch to e.g. Manhatten. You should have less spt in that city, but the spt remains the same. As such, you get a bonus for the wonder where you're not allowed one.

You can play around with this in city view, which is weird: in a situation where you are receiving the bonus due to the bug, your icons in the little map are updated correctly. You can then make entertainers from the workers, each time deminishing your spt. If you remove all workers, you still have e.g. 25 spt left. You can actually build things at 25 spt, while all your workers are turned into entertainers.

Similar, if you don't receive the bonus but should (e.g. the governor suggested a worker, but you changed it to a tank) the display in the little map is correct, but the calculation isn't. If you now turn workers into entertainers, it will e.g. distract 5 spt from your total each time, even if a size 12 city only has 40 spt left. The result is that if you change everyone to entertainers, you're running -20 spt, with only the city square still producing.

If you're not aware of this bug, it's practically certain you have gained from it, but it's also practically certain you've lost due to it. Some of your cities should have been on e.g. 60 spt, while they only got 45 spt.

DeepO

	15-06-2005 22:05									#32
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen You do however understand the exploitish possibilities from fake wars to trigger/untrigger mobilization? Any team could have made fake wars to speed up peace time builds by constantly declaring war/making peace. I think this is another big precedent that needs to be cleared up in future DGs.

Yep. (on both counts)

Fake wars had already been used, or planned for, multiple times in the game for various reasons (getting around bugs, cancelling trades, leader generation, starting GAs). The mobilization bug had been deemed "The damage has already been done" by Trip. Combining the two would have been more powerful, but still the same fundamental exploits at use.

I'm not sure this mobilization bug used continually would be that much of a difference in this game though. The die was basically cast before Nationalism, as it generally is. And anyways, if all teams can do it, there isn't any advantage.

	17-06-2005 21:03									#33
	Support Apolyton

I think the big issue is whether someone would try to exploit the bug willingly, or not. It can give a continous GA for your cities if you abuse it, which is very significant. But I doubt anyone would do that in this game... maybe a few of the rule bending stuff was over the edge, but nothing so clearly abusing than this.

As for us: when I discovered the bug in the first turn of mob, it was not clear yet what was causing it. Only a few turns later it was clear... at that time the question arose to publish it or not, but seeing that we were trying to avoid gaining (or losing) from it, and others weren't aware of it, it was no big deal. It does cancel out, more or less, it's just those specific instances like building a wonder where you can really gain from the bug even if you don't know what is going on.

DeepO

	17-06-2005 23:28									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

Well I think that all exploits, even those deemed too abusive to think they'd be considered (like Mobilizing/Fake Wars, GL hoarding, GL triggering, etc. etc.) should explicitly be banned in other games.

	17-06-2005 23:56									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I agree, MZ. But this would not have been an exploit of a dodgy game mechanic, it would have been exploiting a clear bug. At such a moment it's unacceptable no matter the impact of it, and doesn't explicitely have to be banned.

Other exploits are debatable, and there it's a matter of taste. I personally will never vow against transport chaining, as I think it's a fun addendum to the game if you play for it. I enjoyed thinking on how to use chaining best, it was part of the play (and well known at the time for all parties that it was possible). OTOH I will vote against any form of fake wars, unless they are to solve a bug. If they are in, I will try my best to 'use' them too, of course.

DeepO

	18-06-2005 01:29									#36
	Put an end to popups!

Well I think there are two types of exploits: those that are game un-balancing, and those which aren't.

I think there is little disagreement that exploits like using fake wars to go on/off mobilization, GL hoarding with warriors, or using an ally to trigger your GA have the potential to decisively unbalance the game towards one team's favor.

Other exploits require a certain skill and by themselves are not unbalancing, these would be transport chaining, the F1 trick, using fake wars to cancel deals, etc. These are very subjective. Personally, for example, I think the F1 trick is abhorrent, but others apparently don't think the same.

I think there's little debate the former deserve to be banned. As for the latter, there should be a discussion to try and reach a concensus on what is acceptable and what isn't. Still, the point is moot by now. Only one major DG is yet to start (the C3C ISDG round 2). In Civ4 we'll likely find a plethora of new exploits to ban/permit.

	18-06-2005 01:41									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen In Civ4 we'll likely find a plethora of new exploits to ban/permit.

The great thing is that we get to hold Trip personally responsible for any exploits/bugs, etc.

	18-06-2005 01:58									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I think the biggest exploit in Civ3 is warfare. It's just completely unrealistic and especially after the modern age simply becomes an issue of who knows his way around the exploits better.

I used to be an avid wargamer (I mean "real" wargames) early in my gaming carrer. The good ones, like Steel Panthers and Operation Art of War, truly require one be adept at strategy. Even the simple ones, like Panzer General, required far more strategic skills than exploit skills.

It should not be possible in a game which tries to represent war to be able to conquer an entire continent in one turn just because you managed to sneak in to an undefended city and swarm the rest with settlers.

It should not be possible to be able to marshall your entire army against one spot in one single turn. This would be akin to the Germans sending their entire army to Normandy to crush the landings and then sending it back to the Eastern Front. Totally unrealistic.

It is utterly unrealistic for armies in the industrial/modern age to remain stacked due to their sheer size and the destructive firepower available at the time makes stacking sheer idiocy in real life.

I guess this is the reason that I only really enjoy early and medieval warfare in Civ3, because it lends itself to far less exploits and does require a certain degree of strategy. The Voxian and Bobian wars were testament to this.

Trip, you supposedly like warfare. Please make Civ4 as realistic as possible in this regard.

	20-06-2005 13:35									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Agreed with MZ on all counts (and how often does anyone say that???)

I've thought (and said) before that a relatively simple system (like the Panzer General system) could easily work in a civ style game, although the danger is that it would make war an even bigger part of the game than it is now, which is something the designers evidently want to avoid.

Even a very small change - limited stacking, and some kind of rock-paper-scissors relationships would put strategy back in the warfare (as long as infinite railroad movement is removed).

	20-06-2005 15:24									#40
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Good Lord...

Dude, you have no idea...

There's several threads in the GS's forum that sure look like English and even smell like English but believe me, they are not!!
It's some weird mumbo jumbo code that gives normal mear mortals a flippin' headache starting page two.