Is this a cheat?

[Basil]

I was building a secret project in the early game and another faction completed it before I could. There were no other secret projects I could build, so I continued work on the completed SP, and then when I researched the tech for another secret project I switched work to it and completed it very quickly.

Would people consider this cheating in MP? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, and it has nice properties for play balance (it helps spread the early SP's around), but the messages imply that you shouldn't be continuing to build it.

[Nigel]

The question came up a little while ago in the Civ2 forum about wonders. It was unanimously thought to be OK. Firaxis could have easily done more than leave a message to stop it from happening. Besides, you run the risk of taking too long to get the right tech and loosing a lot more minerals.

[Misotu]

Seconded. In MP, it is common to switch SPs. Personally, I often build SPs that have already almost been completed - in fact, I start to build them *knowing* I won't get them - in order to switch to a new project later. Or sometimes just to mislead people about what I'm after. The game clearly permits it, and I have never seen anyone object.

Although I just know there's a purist out there somewhere who's going to haul me over the coals for saying this ....

But in general, my personal point of view is that if the game allows it, it should be permissible except where it is obviously ridiculous. For example, the game allows you to break hab limits by adding colony pods to cities of max size. In my opinion, this is fine. However ... apparently, there's some bug involving mind worms and patrol points where the mind worm for no apparent reason suddenly becomes a demon boil. This is an obvious bug, and should not be used. Again in my opinion.

So on SPs, absolutely no problem. The game permits you to switch freely between SPs. So use it!

[MariOne]

I read just now that adding colonist allows you to exceed hab limits.
I never imagined to try it because it's clearly stated that the game shouldn't work that way.
Otherwise, you should try for every forbidden move, or for every mechanism that is explained to work a different way, knowing that Firaxis liberally sprinkled their code with every sort of bug.

In my opinion, adding colonists to exceed hab limits can't be seen as a smart trick, it just shows that Firaxis FORGOT to add a validity check when you perform that operation.

OK, worms morale upgrading has nothing to do with patrolling, while adding colonists to a base is a normal operation, which just happens to ignore the restraints which were supposed to limit that operation, so the seriousness of the two bugs seems different.

I could even accept to use the colonists bug in a game, but only if it's agreed IN ADVANCE between the players. If a player starts using it without asking to the other player or to the eventual referee whether that's acceptable in that particular pbem, I would protest for Bug Exploitment.

About keeping production on a Project, there's even a specific Dialog asking you whether you want to zoom to base to change orders OR PROCEED, thus the option is *explicit* part of the game design! I'm surprised that someone could think it as a cheat in the first place! (not considering that directly accumulating minerals in a project instead of building crawlers in the meanwhile is a POOR gaming choice 99% of the times)

[Misotu]

Hi MariOne

I'm not sure where it's clearly stated that the game shouldn't work that way? All I've ever seen is information relating to pop *growth* limits, which is a different thing. Pop growth is free - building a colony pod costs time and minerals. And then more time to get it to the target base. In terms of turn advantage, it's a pretty heavy penalty.

Where is it clearly stated that using pods to break hab limits is against the rules?

[Provost Harrison]

I think it is one of those things that is left down the discretion of the players. But the reason you could consider a lot of these a cheat it that they are loopholes the AI is not equipped to utilise; they cannot add colony pods to bases, and once an SP is completed, the abandon it wholesale...but as I said, it is an issue of discretion...

[MariOne]

Misotu, are you a lawyer?

It is stated that you NEED a Hab Complex to grow beyond size 7 (factional/project mods apart).
Or rather, that "a Hab Complex ALLOWS a base to grow beyond size 7".

Now if adding a pod to a base is NOT growth, you're right.
But you can't deny that adding a pod makes the base grow.
Unless you say that "grow" and "increase in size" are NOT synonyms!

So, is "GROWTH"
- the process of increasing a base in size thru the accumulation of nutrients in the tanks
or
- *anything* that causes a base to increase in size?

Observe that a base increases in size when you fill the tanks with nutrients, but also when it booms. Both of these mechanisms respect the Hab limits.

I'll accept semantic lessons in english, which is not my first language.
More, I used to read the Hab rule reported above as if without a Hab facility you're then not allowed to grow beyond the related Hab limits.
I admit that striclty applying logic, just stating that A allows B does not deny that "something else" allows B too...


It boils down to whehter you found an undocumented "exception" to a game mechanism, or a coding loophole where a check omission makes the game ignore one of its internal rules.
"Discretion" is ok for me, if that means that the players of a game agree in advance.

It's also true that it's possible to have big bases without Hab Complexes, if you lose the facility after the growth (scrap, sabotage, conquest...).

(NOTE: pop growth requires time too, unless you boom, and the collection of a sufficient number of the appropriate resources, i.e. nutrients.
If you privilege nutrient collection at the expense of mineral collection your base will grow more and produce less, if you do the opposite your base will grow less and produce more.
So, growth and production both require the appropriate time and resources.)

[mark13]

I think we're in danger of an encycolpaedia war here

Let us consider the realistic logistics of this. I know this is in no way meant to be a totally realistic game, but we haven't managed to solve it any other way....

Hab Complex, short for Habitation Complex, what, exactly, would it do? It would allow citizens to live comfortably with more citizens in a more confined space. Therefore, common logic would suggest that a base would need a Hab Complex to support any population above seven citizens, regardless of how they achieved that population....

Well, that's my view, anyway....

[stuntman19]

I'm in a MP where one of my bases boomed to size 8 because of a reported pop boom at the children's creche I built there earlier. I don't have a hab complex yet so in this case the game allows growth beyond the hab limits. I'm not sure if this is helpful information, but it does show the hab rule is not specific to all cases.

[Provost Harrison]

I don't care what you say, this issue is still nothing more than discretionary, but I would err on the side of caution to avoid being accused of cheating on this one...

------------------
Provost (Harrison):

CivII and SMAC forum moderator at www.civgaming.net

Go there godammit!

[MariOne]

I am open to change my position when presented with convincing arguments.
Stuntman's was a significant contribution which I overlooked.
As I did tho, I guess that other players might (initially) perceive it as a bug. So, its use in a pbem, albeit not a cheat, can be a "delicate" initiative, you oughta be ready for discussions .

PH, I won't accuse you of cheating, don't worry.
But, goddammit, I won't definitely go to a site moderated by someone who dismisses a discussion with "I don't care what you say..."!

BTW, IIRC someone else got banned, or threatened to, for making publicity here to other sites (was it JT?). What's that, double standards?

[Misotu]

Provost: I'm not interested in doing things in games that might be considered cheating. I'm happy to follow the rules. But this is not what the thread is about.

MariOne: No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm making a fair distinction between natural population growth, and artificially forcing additional pop to reside in the base. The point is that when you add a pod, the base will grow by 1. But it won't continue to grow. Any further growth can only be achieved by building another pod, transporting it to the base in question and adding it again. All of which has quite a cost in terms of minerals and turn advantage ...

So IMHO it's not a cheat - it's another example of just how rich and varied this game is. Like I said, in all this time (I bought SMAC on the day it was released) I've used it *once* (!!!). It's really not that powerful, to be honest, except perhaps in SP. But you don't need a tactic like this to beat the AI - just using supply crawlers/orbital improvements properly will be enough.

Stuntman: I too have often had the game itself cause my population to break the hab limits due to the random event pop boom, and I think your point is a good one (especially since it supports my case )

This has occurred in bases at max size without a hab dome, as well as a complex.

So ... it's clearly not the case that hab limits define max population in a base, then. In that case, what possible objection to this tactic can there be? This is a very rich game, with hundreds of options available to a player at every turn. Why do people want fewer options, rather than more?

[MariOne]

Ok, OK, I was convinced already before this last post of you.

About its non-effectiveness, I'm just using my imagination (as I never tested it) but well, if you get to size 14, you still have a long way before STS, and you still have an unexploited mixed-resource tile inside your basezone, investing 3 mineral rows to obtain one more worker should bring better returns than building a crawler (except that you can cash back the crawler).
And even if you wisely packed your bases so that there are no worthy tiles left to put a citizen at work on it, 1 more citizen can be employed as specialist Engineer, giving you +3ec & +2labs per turn from then on.

True, I guess that we can think of many more useful items or higher priorities.
But for those who build a lot of crawlers, maybe running out of decent tiles to put them on, this seems not a bad alternative to them.

[stuntman19]

I think Provost H missed his meds again.

[Misotu]

Stuntman:

MariOne: Sorry, our posts crossed so I didn't see what you wrote earlier.

Just to emphasise the point about limited effectiveness, here's the deal:

In SP, it's a ridiculous thing to do. The AI already has a handicap for goodness sake, why would you be so short-term desperate?

In MP however ... well. If you have a seriously hard-fought game, you might consider it. But only under certain circumstances, IMO. Here's why:

I used this tactic for the only time in an MP game on the tourny map. SMAX tourny map, where your territory is restricted to a tiny island. The Aliens occupy the polar continents, your possibilities for expansion are *extremely* limited. I had the Supercollider and the ToE in a single base. By adding a pop to this base, I generated something like 20 extra RP. BUT, to do this I had to:

a) Build a colony pod in another base (3 turns)
b) Get it to my science base (3 minerals @ 1/turn)
c) Build a supply crawler to get the food to support the extra pop in order to turn it into a thinker (4 turns, 27 minerals)

And after that, all it will ever produce, per turn, is 20 RP. Unless I get a chance to build more science improvements in that base, which I think I won't.

Now, under almost any other circumstance, that colony pod would produce more RPs *long-term* if I found another colony. Not to mention the additional benefits in terms of a) support for units b) energy income c) strategic military/territory benefits.

So you see, it's still a trade. I judged it to be beneficial under these, very particular, circumstances. I have never seen another situation where I thought it would be beneficial.

Because of this, I think that I would beat anyone in MP who actually pursued this as a serious strategy when space was not at a premium. While they are spending all those turns and minerals building a super-science city, I am simply founding bases and building military units to rase their splendid city to rubble Plus I'm generating more research from each pod after a while, plus an energy contribution, plus the extra votes in an election.

Nah. It's not a killer strategy. It's a diversion, and people pay too much attention to it. It's a very specialised approach for very specialised circumstances.

And that, I think, is why it's permitted in the informal Apolyton tournament. BTW MariOne, are you playing in the tourny?

[VoodooChild]

To the orginional topic:

I personaly would frown on switch tactics for SPs. The early SPs can be started way before someone gets a chance to infiltrate factions and know what they are capable of producing. So I will say that I have no problem with someone keeping a built SP going until a new tech arrives.

Now while I agree that if you have nothing better to do, then build a crawler, but there are times before IndAuto that you may want to start a project before the tech is available. Again I would frown on this in MP

Now I don't play MP, so all of this is mute, but that is my 2 credits worth.

Now for the issue of forced settlement:

This like any other tactic can be exploited for full effect. All you would need is one base with a forested nut special cranking out colony pods to populate an entire empire. The cost/loss ratio is nothing when you consider how much time it take to naturaly increase population in a size 4+ base. All you need after that is the WP and you should have no problems gathering enough food to feed the masses

[mark13]

To be honest, I have never considered switching projects cheating, for the simple reason that it has been an integral part of the game design since civ2 had its heyday. If Firaxis wanted rid of this feature, they could certainly have done so by now....

[Misotu]

The point about MP is that you really do have to draw the line somewhere. This is an extremely complex game, and there are sufficient, undisputed bugs which people must avoid (multiple drops, demon boil etc) without having to start introducing complications for "purity" reasons.

Fact is, the game permits you to switch between SPs. Now whether some people approve or not, that's what it does. So we live with it and - since it's there - we exploit it. Changing that would make the game a different game - what, you're going to make it OK up until the point where you know what your opponents are doing? Supposing I don't bother to infiltrate then, will I be able to switch projects happily for the rest of the game, while anyone who uses probe teams, builds the Empath or becomes Governor has to stop???

Sorry if I sound tetchy, but I play MP on two different boards and they each have different rules because of varying sensitivities. It is the bane of my life trying to remember what is permitted here, and what will get you chucked out there. Pointless nonsense most of it - the game is as it is.

The stockpile energy bug ... well, I'm not even going to go there. Suffice it to say two boards, two different rulings.

One of the most ridiculous areas is Design Workshop upgrades. Now, as far as I know, you can upgrade units individually for one price, but it costs you a move. You can upgrade all your units of one type through the DW - but it costs you more per unit, you get some damage healed and you don't lose a move. So it seems to me that the DW upgrades are most definitely part of the game and have been designed to work differently. However ... Apolyton has ruled it a "cheat" in MP. Why? Because it's hard to defend against.

Well goodness me. So are planet busters and nerve gas air units (in spades). So perhaps we should make it a cheat to build those too? How about simply making it a cheat to have more attack units than your opponent? Or maybe we should ... um

... gulp ...

... well, I think you can tell where I'm coming from. I'm going to lie down now and look at something restful

[Misotu]

VoodooChild: In the majority of games I play, it takes no time to get to a 4+ size base, MP or SP. Most factions can pop boom quite simply with planned/demo/creche and Mark13 seems to do rather well with his golden ages ...

When I read your post, I wasn't quite sure whether you were saying colony pods were better used to found colonies or to add pop to an existing colony?

[Provost Harrison]

I second Mark on this point, I, too, have done the mineral accumulation on projects since the original Civ itself; and I have just considered it a part of the game...

[VoodooChild]

Colony Pods are better used to find new bases, but there are times when you will want to stop expansion and do other things. Typicaly I will expand up to the first warning then work on my infrastructure in preperations to build a couple of SPs. The other bases work on prototyping or other activities. All of this happens way before I have the tech to pop boom or the improvements in place to make it worth while.

But I could have my newest base dedicate itself to just building colony pods, and selectively force boom my other bases. There is very little turn loss since I am making one of my bases more productive at the expense of another, and it doesn't take away that much to churn out CPs. And as you said, its takes no time to raise pop in small bases.

There are other loopholes in the game, that if you wanted you could play them for all they are worth (coverting probes into speeders without Doc:Mob). Firaxis has known about these loopholes and has done nothing to correct them in an expansion and 4 patches between the two games, so does that make them playable?

There is no right or wrong answer here. Its your game, play it anyway you want to. When you do step into the MP area, set up the ground rules with the players involved, and enjoy.

Cheers

[Misotu]

But ... if you don't have the improvements in place to make an ordinary pop boom worthwhile, why would you want to do an expensive pop boom by building many colony pods

I can't agree that there is very little turn loss. On the contrary, if you expand to say 9 bases, before your first warning kicks in, then you are developing only 8 bases in terms of infrastructure while the ninth is very slowly building colony pods to little or no purpose. Given how easy and fast pop booms are for most factions, why would you want to sacrifice more than 10% of your infrastructure to achieve a few more pop a few turns early? Before, in fact, it's worthwhile?

As you said, all you are doing with each pod is making one of your bases more productive at the expense of another.

In any event, this early in the game we're talking well below hab limits. And if you're dividing your pods between several bases in your hypothetical situation, this forced pop resettlement probably won't contravene anybody's rules - you'll be lucky to build that number of pods before you reach orbital improvements

Your newest base will build CPs very slowly indeed - how many minerals will it have available before you have the techs to pop boom? Pre-pop boom means you don't have ethical calc or planetary networks - so no Planned and probably no Wealth, certainly not both - and then you almost certainly don't have crawlers to boost your mineral production. So in all seriousness, it isn't going to be terribly effective or worthwhile.

quote: Originally posted by VoodooChild on 10-31-2000 09:20 AM There are other loopholes in the game, that if you wanted you could play them for all they are worth (coverting probes into speeders without Doc:Mob). Firaxis has known about these loopholes and has done nothing to correct them in an expansion and 4 patches between the two games, so does that make them playable?

There is no cost involved in modifying a probe team to get rovers without Doc Mobility and the benefits are huge. Pod booming, on the other hand, is an extremely expensive exercise with debatable benefits, as we have seen here. I don't think this is an appropriate comparison.

[RedFred]

I'd like to relate an odd event that happened to me many moons ago. I call it the SMAC diet. I haven't tested this in SMACX; it happened to me in SMAC.

AI Lal freely entered into a Pact with me. The next thing I know he is firing probes my way stealing tech. I broke pact and went to war with him over it. The first two cities I take over have 9 pop, Lal's max before hab complexes. Both bases have virtually no infrastructure. I am busy fighting a war so building the habs is not a priority anyhow. Some years pass, I can't remember if it was ten or twenty and then both bases shrink to size 8. Another similar period passes. Then both bases shrink again to a slender size 7, my faction's max before hab complexes. The base artwork also switches to my faction's.

It is a known fact that you can exceed the pop limit by adding a colony. But has anyone checked to see if you can keep that extra pop? MariOne, you have no worries about me, for one, trying this strat. I am not sure if it should be admissible or not, but I believe the tactic is one of dubious utility.

Here is another odd tale, my games are full of them.

This time it is late at night and I am playing out the "get every SP in the game" challege. I have them all so far including the ever-so-handy EG which allows me to monitor the AI factions' progress on SPs. One faction gets within a turn of completing an SP so I rush mine knowing full well that a tie goes to the human. I win. The AI faction switches to something innocuous, leaving a big pile of red bricks in their build screen. During my turn I swap techs with that faction. During that very same turn that same faction switches without penalty to the new SP. If that isn't a cheat, I don't know what is.

So in my opinion, there is absolutely no way that it should be a cheat for a human to switch SPs when the evil AI not only does it, but does it in a way that I consider to be cheating.

[RedFred]

Sigh.

So that means that you agree with my point, then?

[Fitz]

Yes. I do not consider it a cheat to switch between SPs, and I don't consider it a cheat to continue building a SP after someone else has completed it.

[Fitz]

I thought it was a well known fact that the AI can switch production without penalty.

[Slash]

since we are on the topic "is this a cheat?" i've got another one for you regarding the use of formers.

1) Normally you can not terraform Mt. Planet (at least you can't do anything to the center tile) with just the simple keyboard commands (i.e. s,m,f,r....). However if you use the more complex commands (i.e. Shift-Control-s or Shift-Control-m) you can. If you can do this in one case and not the other is this a cheat?

2) When you put your formers on "auto" they can build Sensors in the ocean and at the center of Mt. Planet. Neither of which you can do manually. Cheat???

3) I tend to put sea formers on "auto" a lot ( i am way to lazy to figure out what I want to do in the ocean anyway.) I noticed that when the auto formers raise the ocean floor that it doesn't cost you anything. Raising the ocean floor is normally really expensive so getting it for free seems like a cheat to me.


------------------
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Anything to stupid to be said is sung.
The way to become boring is to say everything.

[mark13]

Hi Slash,

Not that you should be automating formers anyway, they are so inefficient it's laughable, but what you're describing.....in SP I would not regard it as a cheat, as the AI also does this, but in MP....uhhh.....it probably is. Although that is just my humble opinion, of course.

Raising the sea floor for free....again, the same rules apply, IMO. In SP, fine, the AI does it too, but not MP....

Of course, it is really up to you and your playing partners what set of rules you play by, and there should be a general consensus on this before you begin. But as this is a thread in which we are voicing our personal opinions about 'user-imposed rules', I thought I'd just put my tuppence in....
[This message has been edited by mark13 (edited November 03, 2000).]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Mis,

Regading pod booming. There is one instance that I know of that may turn the tide in the thought that pod booming isn't effective.

Assume for a second you have at your disposal Planetary transit SP a size 3 base and two crawlers. Assumet he cralwers are on mines or better yet borholes to the size three base. The size three base pops a pod every 2 ish turns reducing the base to a colony pod on turn 6. reestablish the base leaving the other two pods sent to increase populations at target bases. Repeat etc. What this means is that operating under ANY set of SE conditions regardless of growth you can grow your base sizes (not necessarily requiring Pop boom conditions for growth). So Yang whois virtually impossible to pop boom can Planetary Transit pod boom very well.

Just a wrinkle to discuss. Again, the prevailing thought that the pod supplying size 3 base may have better things to do like establish new bases is perfectly arguable inthis case as well but for pop boom incapable factions (Yang, 'Borgs, And to a lesser extent Sven and Morgan) PT pop booming has some attaractive upsides especially when the target base is a SSC.

Og

[VoodooChild]

*shudder*