Incremental Buying...

[Ming]

Gee, so much to respond too

mindseye:
In your comments on the two criteria for whether something is in the spirit of the game, I just had to laugh
(1) was it clearly intended as acceptable practice by the designers?" ... but all the manuals offer reloading up as a helpful tip

Yes, I agree that you shouldn't do it, but that just means we all agree, but disagree with the intent of the designers...
So this can't be a valid criteria

"(2) does it make any sense at all within the context of the game?" Well, you then say that unlimited movement makes sense and that railroad travel is legitimate. Yet you then say that you would limit it to maybe 15 squares. HUH. It is not realistic, even in an abstract way. There are many things that arent' realistic or make sense, even in the context of the game.

So both your criteria don't work

OzzyKP
I agree with Rah... Your holy than thou attitude that anybody that doesn't agree with you is wrong is just damn insulting. I believe that I stay within the spirit of the game... Heck, people can't agree on what the spirit of the game is. So get off you high horse and just admit that their are many perspectives to each issue.

iadkins
You say we shouldn't use bugs. And how the heck do you know what is a bug, or what was intended by the designers. We can only guess what the designers intended, so what some might think is a bug, may actually be what they intended. Again, even the manual states you should save before going into a hut, so by your own words, it's legal

So I come to the same conclusion... Know who you play with. If there are concerns with somebody new, discuss them up front. There will never be a general agreement on what is right or wrong... as seen by this thread.
Neither side is right, neither side is wrong.
Don't look down your nose at people that disagree, and just be prepared that people might have a different point of view... because they will

[wonderdog4]

I will occasionally utilize incremental buying agains the AI in an extreme emergency -- such as building a unit to defend my capital. However, I never use it in an MP game because I am really anal about time. I won't do anything that forces my opponents to wait even a few seconds longer than they have to. And would hope that my opponents are equally courteous.

It's sad that you guys feel the need to nit pick this game to death. It's just a game, get a life. I sometimes think you people get so involved in this that you forget it's a game. Come on! Now we have a name for this thing? Incremental buying? What's next? Maybe we should ban every level of play, every style, everything except for Diety, 1x1x, and raging hordes. Oh, and you're only allowed to use Republic or Democracy. No Monarchy is allowed. Also Knights are now outlawed. You may only use Crusaders until you get Dragoons. Phalanx are strictly prohibited and you can only use one pikeman per city. If someone says what you're doing is a cheat, immediately post it here and we'll flame him to death and outlaw what he does. THen we'll go ahead and sit on our thrown knowing we are truly honest civ players.

I'm done babbling now.

[Ming]

Eyes of Night... ROTFLMAO

Good attitude to have. It is just a game.

[Carolus Rex]

JUST A GAME?!

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH...

BLASPHEMY! HERETICS! SAVAGES! BARBARIANS! RE-LOADERS!

Carolus

[Bird]

I can't believe this issue is even debatable, so I won't debate it.

[mindseye]

WHAT? Re-loading is in the manual??! <slapping forehead>
Ming you have it backwards, that doesn't invalidate my criteria, it invalidates my conclusion! If the designers actually suggest it in the manual, well, I suppose it's a legit practice (at least in SP). I'm surprised!!

As for criteria 2, you are right - there are many things in the game which don't make much sense. BUT they satisfy the first criteria (they are clearly intended to work that way)! The murky areas, where you should reach agreement with your opponents in advance, are the things that satisfy neither criteria - does not appear intended, and makes little sense.

Essentially we are all agreeing that you need to establish the borderline tactics in advance, we just have different notions of how to define them. Let the games begin!

[Ming]

Yeah... it is in the manual... simply mind boggeling...

Like any game, there will be a disagreement on how the rules are interpreted. It happened in the old days with board games, and computer games haven't cleared up the problem.

And yes, we are all making the same point. It is impossible for everybody to agree on the same side of any issue here. The trick is to make sure that everybody playing in the game is on the same page. Keep on civin'

[CapTVK]

That comic relief came just on time. This thread was becoming a little too serious.

But seriously, Civ2 is a game that's easy to learn but hard to master, you'll learn from experience. We've had incremental buying (and ship chaing for that matter) back in Civ1 but then you could do it with everything (units, improvements, WoW's). Which was taking things a bit too far. Civ2 toned this incremental buying down by limiting it to units only, as explained in the manual.

So experienced Civ2 players know these tricks/tactics and you don't, is that fair? Sure, it doesn't seem fair when you get creamed in every match at the start. But with time you'll learn, by playing the game and browsing threads, all the tricks (and the rules for decent gameplay!)in the book.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by CapTVK (edited April 13, 2000).]</font>

[Matthew]

First of all, Re. ship chaining being unrealistic and not fitting into the context of the game:

We all agree that it would never take 60 years to sail a settler or a caravan 3000 miles or so.(If you do, you are an idiot).
However, that is the time scale the game seems to indicate. Realistically 60 years should be enough time to circumnavigate the globe several times in a rowboat with a broken oar. However that's not what the game is trying to depict in allowing you to sail the boat and it's contents only 3 squares in 20 years. Rather the time it takes to get to the destination more realistically represents the time spent by many ships makin various round trip voyages to get the whole cargo to it's destination. You have more ships, you need less trips per ship, and the process of shipping all of those goods or people is much quicker. Granted, something truely equivalent to ship chaining does not exist on land until the railroad, but this is hardly surprising, since anciently transport over land always presented much greater logistical problems than did transportation by sea. Te Carthagenians at their height controlled almost the entire Medditerranian coast of Africa up to Egypt, yet when transporting goods between distant places on the coastline they did so by boat, not land. This was because it was a much easier and faster way to transport goods than by land, even with roads.

[KhanMan]

Ozzy-As far as chivalry goes, anyone who has played me knows that I play, whether win, lose, or tie, fairly.

My whole point in this is that nothing is set in stone, and there are no establish rules, beyond consensus, on what is acceptable, therefore, it should be decided by all players in a game, at the start of the game.

(which means that I now agree with the later opinions)

Eyes-LOL! It's music in my ears to hear you say that...

-KhanMan of the Sayen

Cap, Ming and others.. you are still missing the point. The manual talks about rush buying on P59, not 'incremental' rush buying. I've bought all copies of civ and can't see incremental rush buying addressed in any manual. (If I've missed it, can someone please scan it in and post it!! I might even save you all from my ramblings by shutting upthen!!)
But for the moment it appears to me that it was CLEARLY INTENDED there be a penalty for disbanding units so why would there be an advantage in rush buying them?

Of course it's just a game Cap, but it's a better game if we do get serious about it sometimes! It's a bit of a cop out to just laugh things off and say it's just a game though. And Cap, who were you referring to when you said people were getting wiped out early on cos they didn't use undocumented 'features' like this Huh?

The best and toughest civ players are those that don't become reliant on using these tricks. I can understand that there is a group of players who get off on this sort of thing but come on, you guys are pros! Don't you want the toughest challenge by playing by the book. And Ming, don't confuse this with the need for beginners to 'cheat' a little when learning the game. I'm shocked that you guys actually use or rely on these tricks at all WIMPS!!

Any logical fair minded person would have to have a starting point wherby use of these things was not legitimate UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AGREED at the beginning of a game - and not the other way round.
I thank Matt for bringing it up in the Diplo VI game

And I challenge you all to let go of your little crutches and play THE GAME with real skill... he he.... a few wipouts coming along here

Long live THE DEITIANS, the chivalrous, the ethical and fair

Long live the cheaters too, for it's no good not to have an adversary

Good v. Evil!

------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

You guys talk as if this were your lives. You even have names for this ****. ICS strategy, Incremental buying, etc. Maybe you should get out more Iadkins? I feel like I'm surrounded by computer nerds with the exception of a few of you.

Hey, Eyes.. you almost sound serious
LOL


------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

[Ming]

That's why I do it between turns.

I'm with you, anything that slows down play during your turn, that can be done between turns, should wait. Maybe there is something we can ALL agree on

I discovered a new strategy. Thought I'd name it kind of like the ICS strategy since you all like to name everything in civ. It's called the STUWOAXNDKSLAIDIFAKNVOIZXCVOINEWROIJALKSDNLZX
KCVJOUIERALKJDSFLKANSDLKJZXCVBOUIWEORUPAOSIZL
KNOEIRUEWOIUPRQOIWELAKSDVLKXJCVZLKXCJVASDOFIU
AWOEIRHQWEORIQWEORUPQEWOIRU It also comes with another variation called ADLSFKJWOEURLASJKVLJXCVOIUWERQOIWEJKASHLDFKZX
CJVBNKXJCVHSKJFHASFHASLFH but that is a different story. For now we'll focus on STUWOAXNDKSLAIDIFAKNVOIZXCVOINEWROIJALKSDNLZX
KCVJOUIERALKJDSFLKANSDLKJZXCVBOUIWEORUPAOSIZL
KNOEIRUEWOIUPRQOIWELAKSDVLKXJCVZLKXCJVASDOFIU
AWOEIRHQWEORIQWEORUPQEWOIRU. STUWOAXNDKSLAIDIFAKNVOIZXCVOINEWROIJALKSDNLZX
KCVJOUIERALKJDSFLKANSDLKJZXCVBOUIWEORUPAOSIZL
KNOEIRUEWOIUPRQOIWELAKSDVLKXJCVZLKXCJVASDOFIU
AWOEIRHQWEORIQWEORUPQEWOIRU is a great strategy when used effectively, but you of course need certain qualities. First of all you must be arrogant, with the potential to be a complete dick. Not only that a very large ego is required. Now, in order to use STUWOAXNDKSLAIDIFAKNVOIZXCVOINEWROIJALKSDNLZX
KCVJOUIERALKJDSFLKANSDLKJZXCVBOUIWEORUPAOSIZL
KNOEIRUEWOIUPRQOIWELAKSDVLKXJCVZLKXCJVASDOFIU
AWOEIRHQWEORIQWEORUPQEWOIRU you need to be able to stab a friend in the back which means that you can't suck **** and kiss *** to each other all day long. Not only that you need to possess those qualities that some people like to call Evil. I don't know why they call us that, just seems to be a label. We really are nice people, in our own unique way. Now some of you might think STUWOAXNDKSLAIDIFAKNVOIZXCVOINEWROIJALKSDNLZX
KCVJOUIERALKJDSFLKANSDLKJZXCVBOUIWEORUPAOSIZL
KNOEIRUEWOIUPRQOIWELAKSDVLKXJCVZLKXCJVASDOFIU
AWOEIRHQWEORIQWEORUPQEWOIRU is a really long name, but just think of what people will say!! John doe uses the STUWOAXNDKSLAIDIFAKNVOIZXCVOINEWROIJALKSDNLZX
KCVJOUIERALKJDSFLKANSDLKJZXCVBOUIWEORUPAOSIZL
KNOEIRUEWOIUPRQOIWELAKSDVLKXJCVZLKXCJVASDOFIU
AWOEIRHQWEORIQWEORUPQEWOIRU!!! I can't even spell that thing and he uses it!! Don't you want this fame and fortune?? Don't you want this power over your underlings? Don't you want to feel power just like Ming feels when he deletes a post? Just ask Ming about the kind of power trip he's on. He'll tell you. That's what this whole moderator job is about, POWER!!! I can teach you the STUWOAXNDKSLAIDIFAKNVOIZXCVOINEWROIJALKSDNLZX
KCVJOUIERALKJDSFLKANSDLKJZXCVBOUIWEORUPAOSIZL
KNOEIRUEWOIUPRQOIWELAKSDVLKXJCVZLKXCJVASDOFIU
AWOEIRHQWEORIQWEORUPQEWOIRU strategy for the low low price of 567 quadrillion dollars. But that's not all!!! Call now and I"ll throw in my patented ADLSFKJWOEURLASJKVLJXCVOIUWERQOIWEJKASHLDFKZX
CJVBNKXJCVHSKJFHASFHASLFH strategy for free!!! That means you get 2 strategies for the low price of one!! Call now!! Sorry, no COD's.

Yeah, I know, I was bored. Can you blame me?

Edited by Ming: Next time, put in spaces or use the enter key to break up long strings of letters... all you managed to do was make it hard to read by screwing up the screen
&lt;font size=1 face=Arial color=444444&gt;[This message has been edited by Ming (edited April 14, 2000).]&lt;/font&gt;
Yeah yeah, you just wanted an excuse to edit the message...just one big power trip I tell you.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Eyes Of Night (edited April 14, 2000).]</font>

[rah]

I only do it during my turn prior to around 3000 bc when the complete turns are taking less than a minute and there's a good chance that you won't complete the transaction before your turn starts and get caught buying something you didn't want. After that it's always during others turns. Every now and then you end up buying the wrong thing, but that's the chance you take.

RAH

[Steve Clark]

All of you have WAY too much time on your hands.

[KhanMan]

Umm, Eyes? It's not the smartest thing in the world to delibrately antagonize the moderator...

Also, it seems that your back to cursing again...didn't your beat-down at Sayen hands teach you to be nicer?

Oh well.

-KhanMan

EYES what an extrordinary plan. IT all makes sense now I shall try it in my next game keep up the good work you are an inspiration to us all

------------------
hooray hooray its a Hydey Hydey day

[SmartFart]

WHAT A PHUCK IS ALL THIS ABOUT ?!?

[Jedi518]

What is with all that crap?! you act so childish eyes...

[mindseye]

Eyes -

I can certainly understand how so much serious discussion about a "game" might seem a bit much. But look at it this way: suppose you just spent scores and scores of hours over a five month period playing a marathon MP game, and you just lost by a narrow margin. Now you find out that the winner was using some tactics you thought weren't allowed. After investing all that time and energy, you might consider it a serious issue!

Besides, Civ2 is a thinking feller's game, so you shouldn't be so surprised!

By the way, are you sure that new strategy of yours was intended by the designers?
- mindseye

hehe If you're playing for 5 months on 1 gave you need a girl. And if you're married, maybe you need to get one of those better sex books. hehe

[OzzyKP]

I'm amazed to see Eyes criticize anyone for being too focused on the game. Hehehe, eyes is obsessed with the game more than most of us. Truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

------------------
Metalhead Greater Sayen, and all 'round nice guy

so which manual is it described as possible to save money by incrementaly building units, I cant find it in my manual , but then all i have is latest manual that comes with game, if I hav eto rely on older verison of manual then obviously designers thought they had removed the BUG when they updated it. If the only manual that refers to it is Civ 1 then again Designers must have thought they fixed the BUG... Problem with incremental buying is no way to detect if someone uses it against you , without saving every turn and then looking at eaxh civ, I personally dont have time to do that, but this again points out why Civ 2 is far harder t olearn than most imagine, because you have to be in the know to perform well....

Raz, I can only conclude that incremental rush buying is NOT in the manual as many posters claim. I've got 5 manuals and checked them all!
Civ1
Civ2
Civ2Scn
Civ2FW
Civ2MP
If I've missed it please let me know.

THE LOGIC:
So, if it's not in the manual I think we all should firstly admit this.
Therefore it is an undocumented feature and argument will exist over its validity.
Thus it needs to be clearly stated upfront whenever an undocumented feature is allowed in any game.

As you know I would not allow any of them!
[ But finbar me and Pinky are playing a no-howitzers game! Yeah I know.. most of you can't remember using them for a long time ]

I'm discovering that I'm in many games where others are using these features, unbeknowns to me.

Generally when I'm involved in starting up a game I suggest the following as not allowed:
Caraporting
Wonder trading
Unit trading back and forth
and
City & unit bribe situation discussed

I don't think it's my responsibility to seek out ALL known undocumented features and specify whether they are allowed in a certain game! CapTVK seemed to be suggesting that this was just smart strategy. I really do not agree. Exploitation of bugs is another game altogether!

mindseye has covered all the points very thoroughly and echoes my views. I just hope that our posts help to re-dress the civ culture so that at least it is generally agreed that the starting point is NOT to use any undocumented features unless specifically agreed.


------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

[Ming]

You missed a few...
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/H...tml?date=20:23

Oh, and the book suggests saving before entering a hut... maybe we should allow that since it's documented

Ming:
Saving before entering a hut is a 'documented' feature in the context of learning civ. And is NOT relevant to MP.
If there IS a documented feature that requires rational discussion then fine, let's discuss it - IF relevant

Bur seriously Ming, do you think there is any validity in the logic of my argument?

Or are you seriously suggesting that all those 'features' be discussed prior to every game? I guess that's fine if you play in the same cosy circle with a common understanding! I keep competing with new players and meeting different challenges but would like to play on an even playing field - win or lose.

Otherwise there will always be a mixup of players who abide by different rules. Really absurd and most unsatisfying

Knowledge of the bugs list is quite a separate issue from exploiting them.

------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by iadkins (edited April 17, 2000).]</font>

[Ming]

iadkins... we really are on the same page.
I think we both agree that everybody wants a level playing field.
The examples you point out in your earlier post are all classic examples of cheats that (IMHO)go above and beyond the intent of the designers. The trading of units to provide unlimited movement during a turn... giving caravans to people to provide instant trade routes... Trading wonder cities, or any city for that matter so that both parties get the advantage of that city during their turn.
But my point is, you seem to make everything sound like a black vs white issue. All the above examples are within the boundries of the rules and could be said to be covered in the manual. It's just a matter of how people interpret them. Using the many manuals (which some people haven't even bothered to read) as a guideline isn't the most definitive thing. The books are purposely vague to help add to the excitement of discovery during the game. Even the encyclopedia provided doesn't really provide clear information. Again, it comes down to interpretation, and two classic examples of differences of opinion are incremental buying and ship chaining. As rah pointed out, some people think ship chaining is wrong, yet these same people probably have no problem with having a unit end it's movement during a turn in a city, and moving it out of the city on a ship in the same turn... THIS TOO COULD BE CONSIDERED cheating, because you are doing the same thing as you do for ship chaining.


I'm just saying that people shouldn't get on their high horses and be calling people cheaters when the "gray areas" are being discussed. We should all respect other peoples point of view, and make sure that everybody is in agreement before the start of the game.

Your above list didn't mentions some of the other classics that many people have agreed on already. Using airbases to increase food or set up a perimeter that air units can't cross is one such example. The link I provided covers many of the supposed undocumented features of the game. I just want people aware of these, and make sure that people agree what can and can not be used during a game.