|
kstolzy
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA
May 2004
time: 21:14
|
|
I realize that I am a "Johnny come lately" in this discussion and I apologize if I open any old wounds, but I was so inspired and stimulated by the discussion in the thread that Quinn started that I would like to try and make a useful contribution, if that's possible. I don't know where else to put this, the original thread being in the archive.
When I first read references to this trick/cheat in other threads, it was neither clear enough nor seemed significant enough to pursue. But after reading Quinn intro post, and the implications it had, I investigated for myself. What is clear to me now is that there is a Rush-Buy cost, per production unit, ratio that varies depending on whether it is an improvement, a unit or a wonder being built. Not only that, these ratios vary depending on the current government.
For example: cost in gold /(per) production unit generated (in Rush/Buy) in Tyranny(I presume): improvements: 2/1 units: 6/1
(hence the Settler costs three times as much to Rush-Buy as the Granary, but they both require the same amount of production - 540).
When this production is generated, it can be directly, and without loss, via the Build Cue, applied to another improvement/unit or wonder. (Quinn provided very clear instructions).
In my current Facist government, the ratios are: improvement: 4/1 unit: 8/1 wonder: 12/1. In this case, you only get double the value of your gold spent when switching from improvement to unit(to continue the example, I would get a 4320 Settler for 2160). J Bytheway has introduced a little more complexity by sharing that if the Rush-Buy/Remove is done is done sequentially , your Rush-Buy gold can be stretched even further. I verified this, but was unable to match the magnitude of his results. I suspect that some kind of rounding "fudge factor" would account for his observation. Have you ever noticed that even when an improvement/unit/wonder is due to finish in one turn, there is still a positive (not zero) Rush-Buy cost?(Smells like fudge, could be tempting  )
Basically these are methods of stretching your Rush-Buy dollars. No doubt mods with significant (10,000  ) starting gold could be an awful temptation  (I acknowledge that the "cheats" more than triple the value). In a normal 0 gold start, I don't think these "cheats" would provide an overwhelming advantage. I don't think you can accumulate enough gold, fast enough, especially if you are investing in science, paying above average wages as well as covering maintenance costs of your improvements, for this to outweigh good strategy. I don't think Rush-Buying is that big a part of the game. But it's just my opinion, I'm not speaking from experience. 
As far as trying to "fix" this problem goes, I imagine that would require a patch that restricts changing Rush-Buy production from improvements to units & wonders. I don't hold out much hope for that, I've read too many times that there will be no further developement on Ctp1. I don't know how changing the current files works or how the SLIC stuff I've read about works, but it seems like this mainly invovles altering game parameters, and I suspect there is no quick fix for this on that path. This is all speculation on my part. I'm afraid that beyond a few batch files, the only programming I ever did was in a PL1 class a million years ago(in the age of dinosaurs, before PCs, maybe before you were born  ). Basically, I am saying we probably need to find a human solution.
So, is this a "trick" or a "cheat". I assume "trick" would mean that this is an "undocumented" tactic that the original developers intended. I considered that a possibility because of another post:
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
Rush build costs are very low when you're in Anarchy, so it's officially not a bug but a feature  But I must say 20k still seems extremely cheap, though a Nanite Factory might indeed explain this.
However, in Anarchy rush build costs should IMHO be extremely high, not low (as it is, you could switch to Anarchy for a few turns every now and then to buy stuff real cheap), so even if it's officially not a bug, it's certainly in need of fixing. |
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...ghlight=anarchy
I can imagine the developers intentionally reduced Rush-Buy costs in Anarchy to compensate for the hit that production takes in that government(many cities, big loss). But the question of whether it is a bug appears open. But I couldn't think of any reason for defeating the difference in gold/production Rush-Buy ratios between improvements, units and wonders, with an undocumented "feature". The way they are promotes civ building as opposed to military build up and severly restricts wonder Rush-Buying.
In the wide woolly world of PBEM and MP, if someone discovers an "undocumeted" tactic, bug or no, through experimentation or by just paying close attention, it's hard for me to get mad at them for using it to their advantage. When I discovered in MOO that having two stargates enabled me to send a ship, or and entire fleet anywhere in the galaxy in one turn, I couldn't resist using it in every subsequent game against the computer. This feature/bug/cheat enabled me to maintain one massive single defensive/attack fleet that could act or respond anywhere in one turn. In the world of commerce, trade secrets are protected by law. In the world of diplomacy by other means, we do not expect countries who are at war to exchange military technology so they can fight on an equal technological level. So I can understand berXpert's original position. Some people might like to play with the "cheats" allowed option. I support them in finding likeminded players. I'm open to trying it that way myself. I must admit that I will probably use the trick in SP games. I just hate losing to a machine!! 
But I think the argument blackice made is irrefutable. Nothing like killing all fun, blackice, by bringing out "the facts". It sounds like the purpose of the Game League is to provide the "level playing field" that Quinn talked about. The rules that members are presumed to have agreed to upon joining are necessary to preserve that "level playing field" and certainly not to provide a "hunting ground" for unscrupulous players. (BTW, blackice, when I tried your link to the Game League, http://gameleague.megaultra.com/fea...s/conduct.php3, there was nothing there. Has it dissolved?) Would it not be the duty of any member to ask about any "trick" with which they had any doubts? Wouldn't any new "undocumented" tactic be subject to the consensus of the group? Maintenance of the "level playing field" would belong to all. Some people have trouble assuming responsibilty for the "whole". They're more comfortable with being an "outsider". I suggest that you might find some comfort in the thought that you may have provided some grist for the spiritual mill we are all evolving in. But before I launch into outer space. I myself prefer a stand up fight. I don't want to be wondering if someone is using a corked bat or throwing spitballs at me. While I am still too intimidated by the depth of experience and the stories of massively powerful civilizations to seek out a match with a human opponent  , I look forward to matching wits and wisdom with a human, not artificial, intelligence and would not direspect myself or my opponent by breaking the ground rules. I wouldn't mind getting my butt kicked nearly so much knowing that I was met on a "level playing field". Thanks Quinn, for making that possible.
If you've read this far, I am honored. If you have any opinions, good or bad, I would be interested. If you just want to move on, I understand, me too.... 
|
01-08-2001 08:12
|
|