Incremental Buying... - Page 4

Ming · May 16, 2000, 14:46

Ah... the joy of the game. We can continue to disagree, because it is just a matter of opinion.

But MWHC, that is something I would only do between turns, like any other city maintenance type thing. I found the biggest time killer in MP is the stinking caravans.
Not only do you have to move the puppies, but people maximize the trade in both cities before setting up the trade route. THAT IS THE BIGGEST TIME KILLER. It makes sense to do it, but man, as you know, with lots of caravans on the board, the turns can take forever

My Wife Hates CIV · May 16, 2000, 15:04

A MP game without caravans...

Ming · May 16, 2000, 15:12

Great concept. You could only build caravans for building wonders... sigh...
It would be a much faster game.
Once trade is discovered, the turns start taking forever. And you really can't argue about it, because they can be the key to success. I would settle for a "no maximization" rule. Because it HAS to be done during the turn... at least most people wait until between turns (I hope) to put the cities back to normal.
It would really speed up the game.

My Wife Hates CIV · May 16, 2000, 15:25

No. A game WITHOUT caravans. Take them out of rules.txt on the host machine.

Ming · May 16, 2000, 15:30

Ahhh... I wouldn't go that far. But I will admit, that would insure that nobody built them

rah · May 16, 2000, 18:54

A game with no caravans, hmmmmmm. I could live with that. It would really speed up the game. And make the wonders a little harder to plan. And Make wltkd a lot harder to take advantage of. Might be fun.

RAH

Ming · May 16, 2000, 19:07

Heck, if it would give me a chance to see the MWHC war machine in action again, I'd be willing to try it

May 16, 2000, 20:55

I tend not to inc buy. I prefer to save my shields for big purchases like wonders, bribes and urgent construction. I do however disband units to speed constructions and use caras for the same purpose for wonders. I might inc buy however if a city was threatened and urgently needed a unit.

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

Venger · May 16, 2000, 21:53

Of course, My Wife Hates Civ Also...

But you are correct as to your assessment - incremental buying is outside the ruleset. Cheat is a harsh word, because it's a slight variation on a theme - rush building. But to incremental build to circumvent the cost of just building the damn unit seems CLEARLY to be at the least taking advantage of a bug or poor design, if not an outright cheat.

The TRUE fix is to adjust the code oh so slightly - when you buy, you're DONE, PERIOD. No more adjustments may be made to production noce you choose to buy the remaining shields.

Venger

oedo · May 17, 2000, 00:31

Incremental rushbuying (and the whole micromanagement thing)demands knowledge, patience and skillful playing. Players who can handle it will have a deserved faster growing in their game. I think it would be no loss if it will still exist in civ3 that way.

My Wife Hates CIV · May 17, 2000, 00:38

oh come on now! Rush building temples, diplos... to get to a military unit. please, this is not a cheat??? No wonder I've done poorly in MP games. I'm starting to think I'm a better player than I give myself credit for. I don't do the incremental buying thing... I guess in MP you have to. But really, it's a cheat.

My Wife Hates CIV · May 17, 2000, 00:43

'Players who can handle it will have a deserved faster growing in their game. '

hmmm... I had to think about that for a minute. So people who know about preworking settlers and other -features- of the game also will have a deserved faster growing? I need a tank! Lets start by building a temple... it's the first thing on the blueprint!

yeah, whatever.

Ming · May 17, 2000, 00:49

Well MWHC, I would agree that buying a barrack or temple, then switching to a military unit is indeed a cheat. The changes they made by setting up three different types of things you can buy/build from CivI to CivII shows us their intent was to stop that kind of foolishness.
However, I still disagree that we can understand the designers intent when it comes to incrementally buying up military units.
They went through the whole process of changing it, and then left it alone for JUST THE MILITARY UNITS? Plus, they have released patches since then which didn't change it.
They did fix the problem with re-homing caravans, but they have left this alone.
IMHO, I think they have left it alone on purpose, and that it was their intent to let us do this. But then again, it's only an opinion since we will never know their intent

My Wife Hates CIV · May 17, 2000, 00:53

'Plus, they have released patches since then which didn't change it.
They did fix the problem with re-homing caravans, but they have left this alone.
'

you've got to be kidding Ming. So... everything else that was not fixed in the latest patch is also now ok? It still sounds silly. We need a stealth bomber! ok, start with a transport ship! I know not all things make sense in the CIV world but really, you of all people, should understand that this is a flaw in the code. Otherwise, pre-working settlers is in no way a cheat. Same with bomber stacking. What about the airbase cheats... on and on.

My Wife Hates CIV · May 17, 2000, 00:56

In all the MP we've played... you have done this incremental buying thing??

May 17, 2000, 01:20

Thank you all for the new information.

special thanks to carolus rex and daveV I will now be a better opponent giving others a better game

rah · May 17, 2000, 08:23

Where do you make this stuff up from Venger. There is nothing clear about it. Just another opinion. So cut you preaching.

RAH

I can't wait for the response that nitpicks every line of this.

Bird · May 17, 2000, 09:50

This is ridicuous. I'm curious; am I cheating in MP when I take advantage of lag time to adjust city production or rushbuild units when barbs suddenly appear? After all, you sure couldn't do that in SP b/c the computer moved too fast. And the manual doesn't tell me anything about that. Geez.

Way back when the Civ III suggestion forums were created, one of the guys involved in making Civ II commented on one of the things that many people considered a "cheat." I'm not sure who it was or which "cheat" he was commenting on (feeble memory) and I'm not about to go look for it. (I think it might have been bomber stacking, though.) Whatever the subject was, his comment was that he didn't consider it a "cheat" at all, but simply an "undocumented feature." Get used to it folks, there are plenty of "undocumented features." You can agree or disagree on whether to use them, but get off your high horses and quit calling them cheats.

My Wife Hates CIV · May 17, 2000, 09:58

ok bird, next time we play I'll fire up my laptop and use that peek at maps "undocumented feature".
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by My Wife Hates CIV (edited May 17, 2000).]</font>

Ming · May 17, 2000, 10:10

HA HA HA HA! Good comeback MWHC. But I will disagree. Loading up the game on a second pc so you can peak at the map is definately a cheat. I don't think ANYBODY would consider that an undocumented feature.

I remember when you first discovered that when we were playing a game with Xin and Rah, and getting our asses kicked. It was really fun knowing that diplos and ships loaded with units were incoming, and where they were.
But that was the only time I ever used that type of information... and we got killed anyway

My Wife Hates CIV · May 17, 2000, 10:14

hahaha that did piss off Xin. I was able to thread a diplo into his civ undetected and take leos wonder (I think it was that wonder).

Bird · May 17, 2000, 10:28

There's a difference, MWHC. Not everyone has two computers

but everyone can take advantage of undocumented features. You just have to take the time to learn them. Industriousness should be rewarded, not discouraged.

Ming · May 17, 2000, 10:29

Ahhh... the good old days

Yeah, we may have abused that cheat the first time you discovered it (for experimentation purposes only

), but at least you posted it right away to let people know that it could it be done, just like you always did for the other many cheats you figured out.

oedo · May 17, 2000, 13:47

When I ran into the apolyton pages first I was delighted by these incredible number of valuable tips and hints. Too bad we finally have to find out that they´re all cheats. I think it´s time to close the pages now. (at least a warning that we are entering a cheating area would be reasonable)

-------------------
"justice is might"

Sten Sture · May 17, 2000, 14:04

Rush building kreigers is definately a cheat.

Ming · May 17, 2000, 14:10

oedo...
Not all the tips and suggestions are cheats.
The biggest argument for or against many of them are based on the "designers intent".
And since unless they post here, we will never know. Like all games, there are flaws, bugs, and rules that are open to interpretation. The good news is, that many of them are considered to be cheating by everybody, and we now know what to look for.
Others, like in every game, will stay in the permanent "gray" area... sigh...

On the other hand, this is still a great place to go for strategies and tactics, and to get questions answered. (since the documentation on this game is no better than many other games)

Bird · May 17, 2000, 14:30

Another thing. Why have a game with no caravans if the only purpose is to save time? Just set time limits and stick to them. If someone wants to build a bunch of caravans, fine, they'll just have to move them quickly or every other turn or not prime cities or something. Don't want to build them, then it's your choice. This is a game of tradeoffs.

My Wife Hates CIV · May 17, 2000, 15:02

I'm all for time limits. I can have 10 cities and 60 units and only need 2 minutes. Everyone else cries about time limits and not having the 15 minutes they need everyturn. It takes time to take advantage of all the loopholes in this game

As you said above, it's a game of trade offs and time limits IMHO give MP a real time taste. Sure in MP you can move 200 units before the attack... IMHO this is almost a cheat in itself. With a 2 minute limit you just have to plan things out a bit more. In fact, with the people I play with now we've tried 1 minute time limits even as far off as 1900. This turns CIV into almost an arcade game (it's a lot of fun). do I move that unit or this one!?!?

and lag?? that's just one more lucky/unlucky part of the game - which is (a lot IMHO) luck anyway.

Carolus Rex · May 17, 2000, 15:17

What's all this talk about caravans? Just give them away (or are you guys talking about the "before diplomatic relations"-era?).

Carolus

Venger · May 17, 2000, 18:54

<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 rah on 05-17-2000 08:23 AM</font>
Where do you make this stuff up from Venger. There is nothing clear about it. Just another opinion. So cut you preaching.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Yes, my opinion. SO WHAT? Find something else to whine about than what I write...

<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>I can't wait for the response that nitpicks every line of this.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Ra (the correct spelling):

<a href="http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy">
Please go here and follow the directions...</a>

Sometimes, you just have to go nuclear...

Venger