 |
| |
|
|
Boney
|
|
Thailand
Jan 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
Another 'cheat thing' that I have not seen mentioned. Following on this tack I notice that the use of bombers over ground units is allowed. So what I would like to know is if this tactic of mine would be 1) considered legit and 2) Does it actually wear down production of the AI.
The tactic this: we all know how the AI loves their cruise missiles, and we should also know how much they target Battleships. For some reason other kinds of ships are very rarely, if at all, targetted (except aircraft carriers, does anyone actually buy these expensive useless things). So my tactic is to place battleships near enough to the AI civ to become a target, but also in a position where my bombers can reach them. Then I would position a bomber over them. I would then just leave them there and wait for the missiles. On my next turn they would be totally surrounded by missiles. So my first move would be to activate the battleship and knock all those missiles out of the air, but one will always remain. Then send the bomber back and bring the new one out and once it is over the battleship knock out the remaining missile. If you leave a missile it just seems to hang in the air, so all must be knocked out. I am not sure whether this tactic can be used to drain the AIs production, but it does give an indication of their power. Once the flow of missiles lessens you know they are weakening.
This battleship base can be used as your 'Cuba', I have used this tactic to create a safety chain right up to the AI's land. In fact in one game I had 3 cargo ships full of tanks and howitzers hiding under a bomber with my battleship before my big invasion. They arrived there from my chain of battleship islands, protected from airbases built in unoccupied islands. Carriers are useless as they cannot get bomber protection. For some reason the AI never attacks the bomber with fighters, I have never been shot out of the air. Does this mean that a bomber over a ship or a ship under a bomber are both un attackable?
This was voted on as acceptable tactics, but I do not know if it works on multiplyer as I have never played a multiplayer game. Also I do not think people saw super stacking being used in this way.
I suppose there must be a thread about his somewhere.
[This message has been edited by Boney (edited March 29, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
I remember a very heated discussion about WLT*D being a cheat.
What is cheating? Civ2 is set up very equitably so (apart from starting positions, or the AI vs. the human) the rules affect everyone equally. "Cheats" are open to all players so it's more a matter of feeling something's "unfair" than one player actually having an advantage over another. (Of course in a multiplayer game, doing something all the players have agreed is a cheat WOULD be an unfair advantage.) I think there are three categories that proposed cheats fall under:
1. Something the game designers didn't intend. Because the designers didn't intend for it to happen, it is a cheat. (e.g. You can't rehome a caravan, but you can "support from this city" it; Fighters crash at the end of their turn if not in a city, but they can stay in the air if you "wait" them; There's a price per shield penalty when buying a bunch of unit shields at once, but incremental rush-buying avoids the penalty, ...) There's a fine line between "the AI doesn't do it, so it wasn't intended (a cheat)" and "the AI would do it if it were smarter (not a cheat)". Cheat #1 arguments are generally countered with "I think the designers DID intend to have this feature"; "It's not a cheat, it's a clever use of the rules"; "If the game lets me do it, it's legal"; or sometimes "The AI cheats so much it's only fair I get some advantages too." When the proposer says "Yah, the designers intended for you to be able to do it, but they didn't expect you to do it so much or they didn't see the impact," then you get a cheat #3 instead.
2. Something unrealistic. Whether or not this feature was intended, it just wouldn't happen in the real world. (e.g. Bombers shouldn't be able to stop my troops from marching in. Is it realistic for settlers to "bring work with them" (by pre-working)? Can whole cities be bribed?) Usually these arguments are followed with real world situations supporting or disproving the claim. Of course a little reality-bending should be expected when reducing human history to a turn-based game, so these complaints are usually centered around things that could have been programmed to work more "realistically". Also, as with most games, there's a certain suspension of disbelief when you enter the Civ world (e.g. I've never heard anyone complain that it's unrealistic for Leonardo's Workshop magically upgrade a ship deep in the arctic circle).
3. Something that alters the game play so radically that it's use almost turns Civ into a different (and in your opinion worse) game. (e.g. It becomes a game of bribing & bribing back cities; It becomes a race for a certain wonder with winner take all; There is no longer any development of cities; ...) These are generally "legal" or "intended" options but you feel that the designers shouldn't have added them - or at least they should be significantly modified. "Such-n-such is too powerful" arguments are generally cheat #3's. It doesn't unbalance the game in favor of anyone - you just feel it's a different and less enjoyable game when you exploit this feature. You can usually get around these unfortunate features by voluntarily not using them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Xin Yu
|
 |
Emeryville, CA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 21:12
|
|
Here's my theory. I have only played a couple of games so I'm not sure if it works.
Part I, using one food caravan and one commodity caravan
Suppose you have established 3 trade routes, and your city screen looks like:
-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt)(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides
London Salt: +7$
London Dye: +7$
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------
If you send a food caravan to London, you get to supply Salt again:
-----------------------------
Supplies: Salt(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides
London food: -1f
London Dye: +7$
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------
Then you send a salt caravan to London you get back to
-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt)(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides
London Salt: +7$
London Dye: +7$
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------
Here's how it works: A new trade route always replaces the first existing trade route if there are 3 routes already existed. For the source city, IF THE OLD FIRST TRADE ROUTE HAD THE SAME COMMODITY AS ONE OF THE SUPPLIES IN PARENTHESIS (example, salt in the above case), then the supply will come back. In the above case, you can keep on sending a food caravan to London then get to build a salt caravan, until the trade route no longer shows Salt as commodity:
-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt)(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides
London Beeds: +7$
London Dye: +7$
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------
You will not likely to get salt back now so you should try your luck in another city. Remember you will much less likely to get Dye or Silver (the 2nd and 3rd trade routes) back by using the above technique.
Part II, using two commodity caravans
Suppose, before establishing your 2nd trade route, you first send a food caravan to your trade partner city, you will make the food trade route be the 2nd trade route so it will never be replaced (unless you go to another city). After establishing your 2nd commodity route your city screen looks like:
-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt) Dye (Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides
London Salt: +7$
London food: -1f
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------
If you send a dye caravan to London, you get to supply Salt again:
-----------------------------
Supplies: Salt(Dye)(Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides
London Dye: +7$
London food: -1f
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------
Then you send a salt caravan to London you get back to
-----------------------------
Supplies: (Salt) Dye (Silver)
Demands: Spice (Coal) Hides
London Salt: +7$
London food: -1f
London Silver: +7$
-----------------------------
Compared to the technique in part I, You lose the benefit of one trade route each turn, but you get to produce more commodity caravans. Should be a good deal.
Note: In both games I played Salt and Dye were not demanded by the trade partner city. The technique might fail to work if the commodities were demanded.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Howitzer Al
|
 |
Dallas, TX
May 2001
time: 23:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deity Dude
I hope you're not saying that there is a certain level of micromanaging that is acceptable and anything above that is "cheating." You say all the micromanaging would radically alter the game. To me, EVERY aspect of the game involves micromanaging. |
No I'm not intending to say that micromanaging is cheating. I think that it's a perfectly valid way to play the game. I'm just saying that if you do a LOT of micromanaging throughout the entire game, the game has a much different feel to it. Personally, I do a little bit of it, but I get bored if I do too much.
Fittstim, I gotta disagree with you. I play only at Diety and do very little micromanaging. I make sure my cities are harvesting the right resources (until the endgame when that usually takes forever for all the cities) and I occasionally max out trade in cities that are about to get a caravan, but that's it.
I'm not trying to toot my own horn or anything. I'm just saying that the more experienced you get and the more strategies you learn, the easier Deity will become.
There's a Winning at Diety guide in the Great Library, I think, that can help if you're getting totally creamed at Diety.
My secret--lots of Howitzers
Well, that's not much of a secret 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
Yes, micromanagement is important and should be legal in and of itself. Why else allow players to change squares worked, etc.? A certain degree of micromanagement always exists in strategy games which is why some people like them and some don't. As Howitzer Al alludes to, extensive play will allow you to play more sloppily, rely on less micromanagement, and still win. Also, after you play the game a lot (perhaps too much) some of what you previously considered micromanagement becomes instinctive and less noticeable as micromanagement.
I promised myself I'd drop this topic but I just can't help it....
As for SlowThinker's #4 cheat, in some instances I think that something being laborious and difficult implies that the designers didn't intend it (#1 cheat) and that you're bending the rules.
Change your worked squares in the source city to arrow-rich ones before delivering a caravan and then switch back. This will always result in the best outcome, one should always do it this way, and therefore there is no strategic or interesting choice being made here. Why didn't the designers just make caravan bonuses based on the most arrows the source & destination cities could produce rather than making bonuses based on actual squares worked and forcing players to temporarily change the squares themselves? Incremental rushbuying will reduce the price of rushbuilt units. This will always result in the best price - again no strategy or choice here. Why didn't the designers just make the cost to rush a unit based on the incremental buying price rather than forcing you to go through all those laborious steps?
Are these examples of loopholes and/or cheating? Off hand, I'd say yes. I think my pointed questions strongly imply that the designers did not want players to do these things and that players are circumventing intended principles in using them. One could argue that they are design flaws that could be improved or fixed with a better game engine and interface. However, in making this claim I think one would be admitting that either 1) the fixes should make the above advantages automatic and players currently using them flatout disagree with, IMHO, explicit Civ2 rules (such as unit shields varying in cost, etc.); or much more likely 2) the fixes should prevent the above advantages and players are currently circumventing intended rules, not based on strategy or realism, but merely because it's to their advantage and they can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I mostly play MP. I agree u can easily get away without micromanaging in SP and win at any level. I dare u too try it against any decent MP player (except maybe some 2x2x small map duels)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Laszlo
|
 |
Taipei, Taiwan
May 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
Though another test to try and trick Civ 2 into not noticing the airfields doesn't work. In the city window, if you click on the city in the resource map, it automatically distributes your worked squares to its liking. But instead of ignoring the airbases, it switches to them from unimproved terrain of the same type.
I don't think that this proves anything about intent though, because the resource manager is probably just looking at all the food/shields/trade given off by each square.
Last edited by Laszlo on 16-08-2001 at 12:52
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-03-2001 17:16
for example rushbuying, putting workers to trade producing squares in the domestic city before you deliver a caravan...
)
|