Incremental Buying...

[mindseye]

Um, Ming!!!

When you wrote:
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>...but all the manuals offer reloading up as a helpful tip
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I didn't realize this was in the context of the tutorial! Ahem! I retract my earlier statement conceding that this must be a legitimate practice!

- mindseye

[Ming]

Just think if that concept was applied to MP.

"Uhhh... mister host... I just entered a goody hut and got barbarians... could you please do a restart so I can try again."

HA HA HA HA!

As I said, using their documentation might not be the best guideline
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ming (edited April 18, 2000).]</font>

[CapTVK]

After seriously playing FreeCiv for awhile I can safely state:

There's no incremental buying possible in FreeCiv!

You can rushbuild of course but you can't change your buildscreen once done so. It's simple now, ONE BUY - ONE UNIT - NO SWITCHING .
That means the incremental buying trick no longer works.

You've got your wish Iadkins!

[Venger]

Well, I'm coming mighty late to this thread, but here's my two cents anyways...

Incremental buying clearly circumvents the pricing algorithm used to calculate the cost of a rush-buy. If you'd like to allow this in your MP games, so be it, as the rule affects everyone more or less evenly.

However, let's not try to sell incremental buying as "legitimate strategy". Many posts have thoughtfully touched on this, including Mindseye, iadkins, and Rasputin00. Incremental buying is outside the ruleset.

Curiously, for those who advocate it as perfectly legitimate or within the legal rule structure: if this is the case, why have a difference there at all? Why not default to the incremental build price? Did they leave it in to punish lazy people who don't feel like buy-switch, buy-switch, buy-switch, buy? That makes very little sense, and is a waste of programming time...

Venger

[Venger]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by mindseye on 04-12-2000 11:22 PM</font>
I strongly disagree with those who argue that incremental buying is legitimate just because "you can do it" or because it appears the programmers may have known about it.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Hear Hear!!!

Venger
P.S. Or is it here here? Methinks the former...oooh...MP3 player just kicked off some Stevie Wonder - That Girl. Mmmmmmm....

[finbar]

Methinks you're right. In that context, it's definitely "Hear! Hear!".

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

Does inc buying work for improvements?

[Jedi518]

FreeCiv?

its a pity old Syd never reads these posts and lets us know what the designers really intended....

[Ming]

On that we can agree Rasputin00. There are so many rule discussions that come down to arguing about what the designers intended. In some cases, it seems more clear cut, but in situations like this... who really knows.

In this case, they were indeed aware of it.
The changes made from Civ I to Civ II is proof enough that they were at least "aware" of it because of all the changes they made in this area so you couldn't switch between categories to gain anything.

Now, was it something they intended us to do.
Who really knows. My opinion is that they did, because they did change so much, and left that area alone. Others have argued the exact opposite. Who is right? Well, unless they post here and tell us their intent, we will never really know.
So again, it leaves us with ANOTHER rule that has to be discussed before the start of an MP game. And there already too many of the those. sigh...

[Graag]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>So again, it leaves us with ANOTHER rule that has to be discussed before the start of an MP game. And there already too many of the those. sigh...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I have never seen a player who objects to incremental buying, so it isn't really and issue or a problem really.

Graag

------------------
"Fumer provoque le cancer - Roken veroorzaakt kanker - Rauchen verursach krebs"

[Ming]

Graag... then read through this thread. You would think that people who used incrimental buying were evil incarnate

I agree with you. Just about everybody I play with knew about it and used it. But as usual, there seems to be a difference of opinion on this subject (no surprise).

So, to not be accused of cheating, I always now mention it when a game starts.

[Smash]

it used to work with improvements but that was "fixed" in one of the patches.It costs the same to rush an improvement outright or to do it incrementally.

And yet they did not "fix" it for units.This is why I believe it to be intentional

[Sten Sture]

MP forum... I must be lost.

Having played a bunch of Captain Nemo's Red Front scenario lately, I can honestly say that I now hate incremental rush buying.

I don't think it is a cheat, but it certainly is draining and I wish it couldn't be done. In fact I wish there was no rush building option. Think how much faster the game would go if there was no rush building - incremental or straight out.

Again Ming, you state the designers wanted it left in and yet dont mention it in the rules, how are new comers supposed to learn of this if it isnt in manual ???

Seems to me that too many people who hav epalyed Civ sionce its beginnings assume everyone has too, or if they havnet then thats their bad luck, well not all are old enough to remember Civ 1 or if they are (like me) maybe couldnt afford computers back then, so not all have played Civ 1 or Civ Net so are unaware of Incremental buying there. It is an undocumented feeature that should not be used IMHO

I don't object to people using it I just wish someone would explain to me how to use it properly as its not in the manual and until I learn to use it I will continue to be at a disadvantage

[rah]

Actually you're probably right Ras. Those that have played Civ since the beginning knew it was there and have continued to use it and since it hasn't been removed, we assume it's natural. Actually I was shocked when someone brought up the fact that they thought it was a cheat. And actually I thought everyone knew about it and used it. But having read this thread, I guess we were wrong about thinking that everyone knew about it. I don't think there was any premeditated thought to put people that didn't know about it at a disadvantage. That thought never crossed by mind. This thread has surely shown that some people didn't know. I'm still surprised by that but now I know. I will continue to use it because all the regulars that I play with know about it and use it. But if we do play with someone new, I guess we'll have to discuss it. But I won't take the initiative to do it.

RAH
Surprised but now informed.

[Carolus Rex]

Hydey, it works like this (I leave the exact net gain for others to fill in ).

Say you want to build a settler the next turn. Suppose you already have 5 shields accumulated in the production box.

i) Switch to warrior, buy the remaining 5 shields for ? gold.

ii) Switch to horseman, buy 10 shields for 25 gold.

iii) Switch to diplo/archer and buy 10 shields for 25 gold.

iv) Switch to settler and buy 10 shields for 25 gold.

Compare the total sum from i)-iv) with buying the settler right away from 5 shields. Proceeding in steps like i)-iv) is cheaper and saves you some gold (a lot during a whole game).

Also, when the settler is bought shuffle your workers around to max trade or food according to your needs.

Carolus

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited May 16, 2000).]</font>

[Ming]

Rasputin00... I hear you on the lack of documentation. On the other hand, there is so much that isn't documented. The manual is just awful. Look at how lazy they got when they released Civ II and Gold MPE. They used the exact same manual as Civ I, and just added a few sections to it. They didn't even bother to correct stuff that was wrong in the original manual

[Carolus Rex]

BTW, later in the game you don't need to buy the units "all the way". For example, if the city can produce 10 shields you can skip step iv) above.

Also, the cost in step i) depends on the number of shields you initially have.

Sometimes when I'm low on gold I only rush buy every other turn. Say a city produces 5 shields and I want a diplo. If buying whole rows of shields will empty my treasury I let the city build for one turn, then buy 5 shields, then the city builds the next turn and then I buy 5 more shields the next turn etc.

I agree with the emigrated viking's grandson's post above. It's mechanical and a real game killer. But I have (until now) assumed that everyone uses it and do it myself. Else I'll find myself having four cities when everyone else has eight.

Carolus

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited May 16, 2000).]</font>

[Carolus Rex]

Hm, come to think of it that happens all the time anyway?!

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH... I give up!

Carolus

[My Wife Hates CIV]

It's not in the manual... so it's no more/less of a cheat than pre-working settlers or bomber stacking. This incremental buying thing, come on, it's taking advantage of code, really.

[DaveV]

For fellow number crunchers, the formula is x*x/20 + x*2, where x is the number of shields you're buying. So it takes 5*5/20 + 5*2 = 11 gold to buy 5 shields. It takes 60 gold to buy two rows (20 shields), 105 gold to buy three rows (30 shields), 160 gold to buy 4 rows (40 shields). The cost is double if the shield box is empty, so the savings are really huge if you have to have that unit right away. Rush-build a diplomat = 210 gold. Rush-build a warrior = 50 gold; switch to phalanx and buy = 25 gold; switch to diplo and buy = 25 gold.

Advanced incremental rushbuilding tips: once you've discovered gunpowder and chivalry, the cheapest unit you can build is 30 shields. When you're building from scratch, it's cheaper to buy a temple (160 gold), switch to a diplomat, and buy the rest of him (25 gold), as opposed to rushing the diplomat outright (210 gold).

Sometimes it can save you a lot if you disband a unit to put some shields into the box. Say you're upgrading your warriors to pikemen. Disbanding a warrior puts 5 shields into the box; you can then rush the pikemen for 41 gold. Rushing the pikemen in an empty box would cost 120 gold! Just hope that nobody drops by for a visit while your pikemen is being processed...

(Proofreading corrections after posting - oops)
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by DaveV (edited May 16, 2000).]</font>

[Bohlen]

Dave: To put it simply...You are the man! You are actually using Algebra in the "real world." I thought my teachers were lying to me!

------------------
Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance

[Ming]

Yeah... It's a hold over from CivI. But I don't switch from a city improvement to a unit. Just unit to unit.

But yes, you do point out the flaw in my they didn't fix it argument... that was a stupid thing for me to say.

But I still stand by the other comments. They did a TOTAL redesign from CivI to CivII.
Their intent was to penalize you if you switched from building a unit, to an improvement, to a wonder... But after the total redesign, they left it so you could still incrementally buy units? It had to be intentional IMHO. But that's all it is, an opinion.

And I'm actually surprised you weren't aware of this "feature " You are the one that figured out many of the bugs/cheats...

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ming (edited May 16, 2000).]</font>

[My Wife Hates CIV]

well i have known about it. just not the amount of savings you can get from it. if i do it it's not because i'm trying to save gold but because of other needs (really need a unit over an improvement kinda thing) and not paying attention to the bottom line in terms of gold spent. after seeing what kind of savings one can get I now know that I would have done much better in many MP games. still... it's a cheat. like i said, start with a ship and end up with a bomber. sounds funny to me.

[oedo]

oh come on MWHC, you were playing that game long enough to know how the production box works. and now you rely on the (english) manual and tell us IR is not described there. so it just must be a cheat! besides, the manual doesn´t also tell that copernicus doubles the science output in it´s city. sometimes I build it anyway. so what?

and yes, preworked settlers are an excellent feature too

[My Wife Hates CIV]

well... I don't (at least didnt) micro manage like some here. man! some of you take freakin forever to move. Now I know why. It does tell you what wonders do - in online help.

I also think preworking settlers is cool. I've taken more than a few cities this way. The other person, most of the time, does say - where the heck did that fort come from?!?!

I don't have it down yet as to which improvment/unit combination is best, in terms of gold savings. but it's a cheat.

[oedo]

I´d rather say I micromanage because other players need that long, giving me more time I really need for it. when it´s my turn, I try to finish it as fast as possible. most people do so....hopefully

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I still say it's a cheat. Taking advantage of weak code.