Do you consider re-loading previous saves to be cheating?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by nato
I definitely feel the game is "tainted" if I save and reload. I feel much prouder of games that were "clean", as in no reloading.

Not saving makes it feel so much more real and exciting! . . . .With saving, no cool, memorable defeat stories to come back from ... only guaranteed victories.

That's the best reason. It's more fun (without reloading)!

There's a twilight zone episode where a lover of gambling dies. He ends up in a place where he wins every game of craps, every game of poker, every game. He thinks he's in heaven. Then it dawns on him. Without the chance of losing there is no fun, no excitement. Turns out he wasn't in heaven. (Break to Serling).

[FrostyBoy]

I know a few ppl who just quit the game when they "KNOW" they are going to lose no matter what.

If I had 3 cities on an island and its 1900AD, I would still keep playing.

Actually, I remember an old game where it was much like that, and I gathered enough forces that my city could support and started taking over the next smallest civ, and I continued like that, I got bigger and bigger and won the game.

So if you think that your miniscule mistake is a huge problem, you have a lot more to learn.

[Coracle]

In such cases, with Civ 2, we could switch sides using the Cheat Mode.

Switching sides gave us more options, was more fun, and gave us a chance to see if we could do a lot better than the AI.

Of course, we have no Cheat Mode in Civ 3.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I know

If I had 3 cities on an island and its 1900AD, I would still keep playing.

What level were you playing on? At higher levels there is less room for error especially at the beginning.

[Akka]

Reloading ?
It's cheating.
But I rarely care about cheating, so I often reload

Though I admit that it's much more rewarding to have the feel of playing "despite bad luck" and to overcome to trouble rather than just reload until all happen the best way. So I usually try ro reload as few as possible.

[Skanky Burns]

Of course, we have no Cheat Mode in Civ 3.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Coracle
In such cases, with Civ 2, we could switch sides using the Cheat Mode.

Switching sides gave us more options, was more fun, and gave us a chance to see if we could do a lot better than the AI.

Of course, we have no Cheat Mode in Civ 3.

Man, oh man, you like to harp about this!

[nato]

That Twilight Zone sums it up perfectly, Zachriel. Reloading seems great at first, fixing things that go wrong, but in the long run its less satisfying.

Reloading ?
It's cheating.
But I rarely care about cheating, so I often reload

Good one.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Tuberski



Man, oh man, you like to harp about this!

Coracle claims that Civ III cheats insanely but he WANTS to be the one cheating. I guess thats his real complaint because he sure is wrong when he claims that Civ III has more cheating than Civ II did.

[Jon Shafer]

I have to admit that I reload every now and then. Is it cheating? Depends on how you look at it. Like people have said, if you're just playing by yourself for fun, then it's not. If you're preparing for MP/high score, then it would be.

I often reload when that stupid barbarian unit will destroy my Musketman escorting 15 Settlers to colonize a new continent. Maybe it is my fault for only escorting 15 Settlers with 1 defender, but originally it's not, because all my other Musketmen are off fighting a war started by the AI because I wouldn't hand over 10 gold .

[Inverse Icarus]

Do you consider re-loading previous saves to be cheating?

yes. take what you get.

[Redstar]

tell me how a civilization can build a wonder and then 2 turns later
build another -- no, they had no leader.

sometimes it defies logic.

I will always reload a game where my city goes over to the other side when it should not.

if i am actually losing a game..i will give up rather than reload
I lose quite alot of games in the early years.

I also don't like how the enemy ai will trade good techs to civs that could only offer me 10 gold and 1 gold per turn for the same tech.

grr

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Redstar
tell me how a civilization can build a wonder and then 2 turns later
build another -- no, they had no leader.

They often have two or even three cities building wonders at the same time. If you investigate any of their cities you will often find them building wonders in the capital.


If they were at war they could use a leader on the same turn they got it. I am under the impression the AI rarely if ever uses a leader to finish a wonder. They seem fixated on armies.

I also don't like how the enemy ai will trade good techs to civs that could only offer me 10 gold and 1 gold per turn for the same tech.

grr

Well it is sometimes to hard to figure out how it was done. Sometimes they trade resources to someone else for the money. One of the things going on is that the AI charges what its worth to the buyer. They will charge you less when you are near to finishing. Presumably they do the same with each other. If you are playing on high levels your expenses for a tech are higher than theirs and they charge accordingly. Early in the game the main thing going on is the popping of goody huts. They also have a high valuation for maps. If you explore more than they do your maps will be worth more.

I once was the only civ with contact between two continents. I was able to trade my map for two techs to one civ. I gained at least four techs on one turn and I had no spare cash to start with. Sure was a lot luck involved in that one. I sent a galley out on the ocean for two turns to make that contact.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Trip . . .
I often reload when that stupid barbarian unit will destroy my Musketman escorting 15 Settlers to colonize a new continent. Maybe it is my fault for only escorting 15 Settlers with 1 defender, but originally it's not, because all my other Musketmen are off fighting a war started by the AI because I wouldn't hand over 10 gold .

So then the AI IS illogical. Glad you agree.

I can't imagine a "new continent" as you describe. By the time I have enough cities to produce "15" settlers, without greatly slowing down the rest of my production, every continent has already been settled for several thousand years. Perhaps you're playing on a huge map against just one other civ!

[Jon Shafer]

*Snickers*
Nahhh, it was a large map, and my expedition left at about 1 AD/BC. The pseudo-contiennt was cut off from the rest of the known world by a mountain range (and in the blitz mod settlers can't traverse mountain ranges), so I managed to get each city to produce a Settler each and set off. Maybe it was a Pikeman I was defending them with and not a Musketman after all.

And yes, the AI is illogical. If people feel that is a reason to justify things by reloading, then go ahead. I don't care, and neither does the game. It is, after all, only a computer program. Don't expect Operation Barbarossa or the Treaty of Paris from it.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Redstar
tell me how a civilization can build a wonder and then 2 turns later
build another -- no, they had no leader.
grr

Are you sure it was the same city? If it was, I've never come across this - ever.

[ACooper]

In answer to the original question: Yes, reloading is cheating. About on the same level as coveting your neighbors wife.........you can go to hell for doing it, but everybody does.

(Although my neighbors wife is ugly)

[Aeson]

For competitive games (GOTM, Tourney, HOF) of course it is cheating to reload.

In personal games I reload all the time. It's the best way to get a feel for how the AI will react to different situations, to test and refine certain strategies, or to figure out game mechanics. I don't just reload when something bad happens, but when anything critical does, regardless of the outcome.

It all depends on the nature of the game you want to play.

I know a few ppl who just quit the game when they "KNOW" they are going to lose no matter what.

I'm that way. I also quit the game when I "KNOW" I am going to win no matter what. It just isn't fun for me to reach an obvious outcome, the game has already been played out. Usually the only games I finish are the competitive games.

[Redstar]

Originally posted by Ethelred


They often have two or even three cities building wonders at the same time. If you investigate any of their cities you will often find them building wonders in the capital.


If they were at war they could use a leader on the same turn they got it. I am under the impression the AI rarely if ever uses a leader to finish a wonder. They seem fixated on armies.

.

I would buy that if they were a large civilization in the modern era.
But we are talking about a civ that only had 9 cities. There is no way they could do 2 wonders and still spit out 56 military units.

I had almost triple the cities with better production..and had trouble building the 1 wonder and keeping pace with their tech research and military production.

Unfortunately i can't confirm whether this was or was not the case.

As for the leader...since i watch their moves...i would have seen if a leader was created or not. I did not see one.

And as far as tech...turns make no difference since i and the other civ are offering the same tech --

I guess my main hrmph there...is that another AI will trade a tech
to a civ that really can't afford to accept it at all. Or in otherwords, the AI is overly generous with itself.

(in this case luxuries/resources were not the deciding factor cause there was none to be had)

Also while i'm on it...if i offer some money for a tech, the ai will say
we are close to a deal (close enough)
but if i throw in a luxury..it becomes..they would be insulted by the offer. Yet clearly, my updated offer was better than my first.

anyways...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Redstar

There is no way they could do 2 wonders and still spit out 56 military units.

Depends on the level. Anything above Regent results in AI production bonuses.

[Akka]

I already tried to catch the AI cheating. If I'm still suspicious about unsinkable galley and research bonus and plan to make some tests later, I can say I'm pretty sure that the AI does not have fight nor production hidden bonuses (by "hidden", I mean : others than the one it's supposed to have according to the difficulty level).

[Arrian]

I have decided that my suspicions of unsinkable galleys were unfounded.

Here's what I think happens:

There is a 3-square wide stretch of ocean, with sea/coast on each side dividing two landmasses. An AI on one of them has the Great Lighthouse. The galley can make that crossing, but the player technically has no way of knowing that. Well, the AI does know it. The move is legal, the knowledge is a little shady. Then again, I routinely throw ships out into promising stretches of ocean hoping to make contact, whereas I do not believe the AI does this - it only makes a move that is "valid."

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

There is a galley 'teleport' bug that can happen when a galley is demanded to be withdrawn. It is moved to the nearest coastal tile not claimed by the civ making the demands. In some cases this can result in a galley crossing ocean that they should not have been able to.

It works for the player as well as the AI.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Redstar
I would buy that if they were a large civilization in the modern era.
But we are talking about a civ that only had 9 cities. There is no way they could do 2 wonders and still spit out 56 military units.

Actually there is. They often don't build many improvements.

However you can easily check if you still have a save of the game.

Go to the F7 screen and look. I bet you will find the two Wonders are in two different cities. This is how I know that they often have more than one city building wonders even in the early game.

As for the leader...since i watch their moves...i would have seen if a leader was created or not. I did not see one.

It doesn't really matter. I don't think the AI ever uses a leader to build a Wonder.

And as far as tech...turns make no difference since i and the other civ are offering the same tech --

Sure does make a difference. It the remaining cost to learn the tech that the AI uses to decide on price. Not the total cost, the remaining cost. If you have tech half researched the AI will sell it to you cheaper. If another AI discovered the tech after your turn then the cost of the tech would go down. Sometimes you or the AI civ will have the half the tech researched and then another civ will get it, lowering the cost for everone, trade it, lowering the cost again, and then on you turn you will finish the tech because you have the new cost covered.

I guess my main hrmph there...is that another AI will trade a tech
to a civ that really can't afford to accept it at all. Or in otherwords, the AI is overly generous with itself.

As I pointed out on higher levels your cost is greater than the AIs cost. With the other things going on this can result in a substantial difference in cost as the turn changes from yours to France to Germany to England and so on before it comes back to you. I believe this change in cost is what you are seeing.

Also while i'm on it...if i offer some money for a tech, the ai will say
we are close to a deal (close enough)
but if i throw in a luxury..it becomes..they would be insulted by the offer. Yet clearly, my updated offer was better than my first.

anyways...

There are some strange things going on there. Sometimes I get the feeling that the game is not always showing all the details of trade correctly. Also the Foreign Advisor is wrong on occasion and the AI will make a trade that is similar to the one you are asking for. Its always a good idea to check to so what the AI will offer for something. I get some nice surprises that way although since the 1.17f patch the AI doesn't always offer the most it will pay. Prior to that patch you couldn't get them to come up on an offer and now they will often do so.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Aeson
There is a galley 'teleport' bug that can happen when a galley is demanded to be withdrawn. It is moved to the nearest coastal tile not claimed by the civ making the demands. In some cases this can result in a galley crossing ocean that they should not have been able to.

It works for the player as well as the AI.

I will have to try forcing that. Sounds like an exploit though.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Coracle


I can't imagine a "new continent" as you describe. By the time I have enough cities to produce "15" settlers, without greatly slowing down the rest of my production, every continent has already been settled for several thousand years. Perhaps you're playing on a huge map against just one other civ!

I've had that before. Not a huge continent, to be sure, but enough for 3 or 4 cities.

Plus my last game. i didn't even meet half of the civs until 1200 AD or so. We were seperated by too much ocean.

[Redstar]

"Sure does make a difference. It the remaining cost to learn the tech that the AI uses to decide on price. Not the total cost, the remaining cost. If you have tech half researched the AI will sell it to you cheaper."

You are still missing the point...its not me getting the tech its me trying to SELL the tech.

so the ai will have the same number of turns to tech with me offering versus some other ai offering.

do ya get the difference yet or am i still not expressing my point well enough?

as to the wonder thing ..it is the fist time i have seen that happen in countless times of playing. i have never seen a civ build 2 wonders so close together. Unfortunately i don't think i have a save of that since it happened so long ago.
****

edit: OK i have found something similiar and i think i know what may have happened now. The AI was building 2 wonders in 2 different cities as suggested --i built one of them first and so i got a message that the ai had started building the bach wonder. However, this was one of the 2 wonders it had already been building.
SO really the AI had been building the wonder for much longer and i only saw that last message. So that definately does make it possible...afterall. So the message that it was started and 2 turns later finished...was just a reporting glitch.
*********

you can bet i will be paying closer attention though.
While i think the AI does cheat at production, it is also true that it seems to give up fast. By this i mean...the AI easlily always produces more units than me in the beginning (while still growing as fast as me) But by the middle of the game after i have wiped out their stack of 20-50 units--the AI kinda gives up producing units --it just becomes a mop-up operation

[kring]

Originally posted by Ethelred


It doesn't really matter. I don't think the AI ever uses a leader to build a Wonder.

I have seen the AI use Leaders several times to build a Wonder. I made a mod that allows buildable leaders. Each civ did build several Armies, but they also hurried several wonders. The number of leaders produced was small, since I made it more expensive to produce one than to build the earlier wonders. I am in the process of updating the mod since it was made with 1.17 patch.

On the galley crossing, I have used moving a galley one square at a time into uncharted waters, looking for the narrow strip. I move it far enough out to be able to safely get it back, unless I had partially moved it without realizing it, then it may get sunk.

I have had several games where I miscalculated, and I either kept on playing, or never went back to the game, depending on how bad it was. I had a game where after moving the initial settler 10 turns I still hadn't found a decent spot (it was either all tundra or mountains). I gave up on that game.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Redstar
You are still missing the point...its not me getting the tech its me trying to SELL the tech.

No you did, I was talking about exactly that. You tried to sell it and then AFTER your turn the cost changed.

so the ai will have the same number of turns to tech with me offering versus some other ai offering.

No. Not at all. As soon as your turn ends an AI's begins. If France is working on that tech it then has less left to pay for after France's turn. Then Germany finishes the same tech which lowers the cost of the tech for France. Now France has more money from its turn and and a lower cost. France had more money and a lower cost and therefor can now aford something they couldn't on your turn.

Turns are civ by civ. You go and then they go. I think you are under the impression that you ALL do your builds and collect your money then the attacks come. Its not that way. You do your builds collect your money and do your research then you move then your turn ends. Now the next civ goes and they get MORE MONEY than they had on your turn. Then another Civ goes and they can trade with anyone including the civ that couldn't afford anything on your turn but now can because they had a turn and have more money.

you can bet i will be paying closer attention though.
While i think the AI does cheat at production, it is also true that it seems to give up fast. By this i mean...the AI easlily always produces more units than me in the beginning (while still growing as fast as me) But by the middle of the game after i have wiped out their stack of 20-50 units--the AI kinda gives up producing units --it just becomes a mop-up operation

Well it depends on the level you are playing. Once you get past regent the AI has a bonus. If you want to call paying less a cheat OK but I think of it as a discount. If you look at the number of rows of boxes on Monarch you will have the 10 and they will have 9, on Emperor you still have ten but they have eight and deity they have six. On top of which they get extra units to start with. So early on they will indeed have more units than you.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by kring
I have seen the AI use Leaders several times to build a Wonder. I made a mod that allows buildable leaders. Each civ did build several Armies, but they also hurried several wonders.

Well I usually play a builder game and that apparently causes the AI to be less aggressive as well. So they may not be getting many leaders in my games.

On the galley crossing, I have used moving a galley one square at a time into uncharted waters, looking for the narrow strip. I move it far enough out to be able to safely get it back, unless I had partially moved it without realizing it, then it may get sunk.

I do the same. I never move galleys with the mouse as that stops me from moving out to sea and back to the coast. I turn the grid on for naval movement much more often than I do for land movement.

I have had several games where I miscalculated, and I either kept on playing, or never went back to the game, depending on how bad it was. I had a game where after moving the initial settler 10 turns I still hadn't found a decent spot (it was either all tundra or mountains). I gave up on that game.

That sounds like a darn good reason to start another game. So far I haven't ever had to move more that two tiles to get something halfway tolerable. I think they changed things with the 1.16f patch though. Prior to that I kept finding myself starting on penisulas with desert between me and the mainland. Those were bad starts and on several of them I wound up moving my palace.