 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Unconquered
|
 |
America
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
It looks like it also applies to outposts... this allows for a much earlier funneling of sea invasions to specific points (exception being the Scandinavians Bezerker), with no offensive counter until Amp. Warfare is reached (and you have access to rubber). A very good way to use your captured workers (as slave coast guards)  This must be a bug, I don't believe this was Firaxis' intent.
Also, offtopic, has anyone noticed that you can trade across sea tile before you have astronomy if you are a) At peace b) You have a continuous border. I had an island across one tile of sea and when I went to war I no longer had access to that resource. When peace was restored it was available to my main island again...
 Attachment: outpost.jpg
This has been downloaded 575 time(s).
Last edited by Unconquered on 24-03-2003 at 22:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
This is indeed a relatively major bug. Someone should tell Firaxis about it (although they should hear about it sooner or later by reading these forums...).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Any unintended feature of the game mechanics that can be exploited by the human player and not by the AI is a bug. Sometimes these exploits are left in the game because they're popular, such turning the "no random seed" option, in which case it is no longer a bug.
Personally I get no satisfaction in using these exploits to win the game, and in fact I feel sort of dumb if I do. There is definitely a gray area here, as much of SP skill in Civ3 involves knowledge of the AI. But creating an impregnable island fortress with Outposts is clearly in the "non-admissible dirty trick" for me.
In MP, where you can argue that this trick is not an "exploit" anymore, there is still a problem since each island nation can just close themselves off from attack for 3/4 of the game (get a Worker pump going an you have no need for defense in your homeland!). This makes for very boring games (unless you're playing the Vikings).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
Possibly not a bug. It's logical.
Only an amph. unit can attack by sea, so only an amph. unit can take a worker by sea.
Outpost, radar tower, airfield are just transformed workers: they occupy the tile just as a worker would.
And its not w/out precedent: Coastal cities. Only amph. units can attack a city by sea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rob_S
Possibly not a bug. It's logical.
|
All bugs are logical. That does not mean they were intended.
quote:
Outpost, radar tower, airfield are just transformed workers: they occupy the tile just as a worker would.
|
Yes, but they're not units or cities anymore, they're terrain improvements, and therefore should not act like units or cities.
But I guess you're arguing that this was what Firaxis intended, to make all the "cost a Worker" improvements to act as though a Worker were actually in that square. This makes sense if you consider the fact that these improvements "disappear" if an enemy unit moves over them. Yet if their intention was to also make in impossible to move on to these improvements from water, then I'll be incredibly suprised. It makes for silly gameplay and is highly "unrealistic".
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
OK, Dominae, I can see your point. But if it were 'realistic' wouldn't it be safe to assume that an active, functioning radar tower/outpost/airfield is staffed and defended and thus likely to defend well against any sea assault other than amph units? In the parameters of the game this would be no different than the designers making it impossible for me to assault a city with paratroopers (which realistically should be possible but in reality would be a bad idea). The game cannot accurately depict anything more than a virtual reality (which we can mod--to a point).
I don't agree with the tactic of using
these 'improvements' as they are a waste of workers (other than captured workers). I do defend open spots on my coast with military units to prevent any other civ from plopping a city down on the one open tile they can do it at.
My point is--the virtual world of the game must have some trade-offs with the real world (or CivIII would have been ten years in production). I don't consider this a bad trade-off, nor a bug. It makes sense.
BUT it IS a bad strategy (waste of workers/population).
Enjoying this --R
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rob_S
I don't agree with the tactic of using
these 'improvements' as they are a waste of workers (other than captured workers). I do defend open spots on my coast with military units to prevent any other civ from plopping a city down on the one open tile they can do it at.
|
Workers are cheap! And when turned into terrain improvements that cost no upkeep, they're even cheaper! This is easily exploitable against the AI, almost guaranteeing your island cities are safe from all attack. Humans players are craftier and can adapt, but it still removes the necessity for coast patrolling with units, which is otherwise a strategic necessity in MP.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Workers are cheap! And when turned into terrain improvements that cost no upkeep, they're even cheaper
Dominae |
Workers are cheap? The cost is in population. Military units are cheap. Upkeep is a minimal cost--something I expect and deal with. I want a population that makes the most out of shield production. A few extra (obsolete) military units to defend the coast tiles from settlement doesn't cost much. AI is only bright in some ways.
Must admit I've not played MP. Curious enough about it that I'd like to try but I understand the games are long. I'd hate to slow a game down because I'm wrapped up in something else that slows an opponent down.
--R
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Whether it's an improvement or not, blocking landings with Workers has always been an option (going back to Civ1 |
Never played CivI, so you're light years ahead of me, but what you are saying is basically my point. I don't see a problem w/ using workers or their 'offshoots' (radar towers etc) to block landings.
Rob now says "G'night Gracie" to this thread. --R
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Rob_S, the population cost of Workers is minimal once you've got your empire up and running. If you've got a dedicated "Worker pump", the only thing keeping you back from producing them ad infinitum is the upkeep cost and the fact that you'll eventually run out of a use for them. I would definitely not mind producing a few dozen of them in order to protect my coasts in a upkeep-free way.
Theseus, the difference between being able to block the coast with Workers and with Outposts, Radar Towers, etc. is that the latter does not cost any upkeep. Therefore if you've ever used the first strategy (which will cost you around 30gpt on average, unless you're using captured Workers), you gain a whole lot by switching over to the second.
Personally I dislike the idea of blocking off your land with Workers, and the fact that you can now do it with improvements is just twice as dumb.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Personally I dislike the idea of blocking off your land with Workers, and the fact that you can now do it with improvements is just twice as dumb.
Dominae |
Dominae--
I agree. I want military units on coast tiles, not workers. Call me dumb, but am I not paying for upkeep of workers once I've become a republic or democracy? I've never actually counted all my units, but if I check the military advisor screen and it says I have 63 workers, and upkeep seems to include those 63, than I am paying, right? If not right, then I've been making a tragic mistake in all my games. I assumed the workers were not free from upkeep.
But then, I should never assume anything.
Yer answer may radically affect my style of paying in the future (free workers?--Yippee! Viva la revolucion!)
--R
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Your intuition is correct: you do pay upkeep for Workers (1gpt each).
The point is that you could always block off the coast from enemy military units by putting Workers all along the edges of your island. I consider this an exploit, yet it is one that is entrenched in the game rules. The cost was, of course, the upkeep of the Workers. If you wanted to "seal off" a largish continent with Workers, you would be paying upwards of 50gpt. But now, since you achieve the same effect with improvements that require no upkeep, there is no stopping one from producing Workers (2 per turn in a nice Worker-pump) until all water-adjacent tiles were blocked off.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
But it is logical to use military units to do the same purpose, correct? And thus not 'exploit' the game? I'm quite fond of filling those miscellaneous coastal tiles with some leftover longbows or med. inf. just so none of the AI-run civs try to plop a settlement there (which annoyingly happened in earlier games until I started this strategy).
I'd like to play the game straight--no exploiting beyond what the designers seemed to have in mind. --R
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Murtin
|
|
Sweden
Dec 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Whether it's an improvement or not, blocking landings with Workers has always been an option (going back to Civ1).
I don;t generally do it, but what's the big deal? |
I think "the big deal" here is mainly that workers cost upkeep whereas radar towers do not. Apart from that I can't see any reason to object either, since the rule is that amphibious assault capability is needed for a unit to attack from the sea.
This strategy is much more of an option (exploit, if you will) in Civ3 though, than it ever was in Civ1 or 2 since in those games you could use almost any lousy boat to rid the coastline of such vulnerable units as settlers. Now you can only bombard.
I would suggest that in a future patch these improvements should act just like stationary workers in that they cost upkeep and that the worker is captured if enemy units destroy the improvement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
It is worth noting that the answer to this tactic is bombardment, not amphibious warfare. Prior to RR's it would take two successful bombardments to remove a road/mine/irrigation and then an observation post.
The AI is quite keen on bombarding tile improvements with ships but as I rarely build RT's or OP's I don't know if the AI bombards them. Whether the AI can co-ordinate bombarding a tile and then landing units is another matter.
Once the AI has Navigation it has a potential answer. However until someone tries this in an actual SP game we can't be sure how the AI will respond.
Edit: It is possible to give some protection from bombardment by stationing a military unit on the tile but that rather defeats the object of this tactic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
It should do. Bombardment is bombardment whether it is from a ship, artillery or air.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2003 04:53
sounds like a bug to me... unless Firaxis wanted workers to be able to form some sort of Atlantic wall.
|
|
