Super Trieme?

atomant · February 5, 2003, 05:47

OK heres the deal, was playing last night.... got lazy and decided to just press the left mouse button down to faciliate the 'go to' command on a tri. The boat actualy starts going the opposite way than what I wanted. As I had a ton of them any way, I was prepared to lose it, but decided to see how long it would last before being destroyed by being out of sight of land.

The trouble is the damn thing didn't sink!!!!!! and it went five consecutive turns without sighting land. I had not discovered any other sea faring techs and did not build the light house. When I tried folloiwng in another Tri, moving manually rather than on auto, the boat sank in a turn or two.

This represents two possible conclusions.

1) If you move Tri's on auto (go to X) they do not sink

or

2) I was damn lucky in this instance.

Does anyone else have experience with this or should I just buy a lotto ticket?

Scouse Gits · February 5, 2003, 08:39

Certainly needs testing - can't remember ever sending a pre Lighthouse trireme on 'goto' - too scared.

Could be a mega catch!

SG[1]

rah · February 5, 2003, 10:03

Interesting. To bad the GOTO is so reliable.

But there may be a few situations where this might be useful. If anyone else tests it, please report back.

Hydey · February 5, 2003, 17:15

I have used the goto command with a trireme. The idiot thing moved the wrong way and died.

Have never used goto with triremes again.

atomant · February 6, 2003, 02:57

Looks like i should buy the lotto (or world cup ticket then....must have been luck of the'draw' that the thing didn't sink...

Six Thousand Year Old Man · February 6, 2003, 11:33

Quote:

Originally posted by atomant
Looks like i should buy the lotto (or world cup ticket then....must have been luck of the'draw' that the thing didn't sink...

Don't feel too bad... I've seen many brilliant discoveries dashed to pieces on the shoals of repeated testing, here.

My oedo-year-for-huts theory comes to mind

Ming · February 6, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
My oedo-year-for-huts theory comes to mind

That was yours...

Yeah... a few "great ideas" have been proved wrong over time. I still find it great that things like this are still coming up years after the game was introduced...

War4ever · February 6, 2003, 23:11

lol i didn't realize it was HIS either

seeing as i playtested that theory with Ming Eons ago

but yes, many come to a crashing thud

Scouse Gits · February 7, 2003, 04:52

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
... Eons ago

Now I've just been slated for 'British understatement' in the General forum - this must be 'Canadian overstatement' - don't forget just how recent the oedo discovery actually is.

SG[1]

atomant · February 7, 2003, 06:03

As noted, there were to possible options.... looks like the second one was more accurate....

DrSpike · February 7, 2003, 09:41

Isn't the going the wrong way with goto related to crossing the 'edge' of the world? It's been so long since I used it since it is not exactly the epitome of reliability in any case.

The rest was almost certainly just luck. What are your lottery numbers this week btw?

War4ever · February 7, 2003, 12:50

remember way back in the day using go to on the RR...stupid units would move back and forth one square without stoping ...then the game would ask if i still wanted to keep moving the units

how lame

rah · February 7, 2003, 15:17

Yes, I always wondered how many iterations it did before it branched out. I can see the programmers considering that, "yeah after about 100 tries, there's probably a problem so let's put in an verification window". On an AI unit, it just stops in place.

DaveV · February 7, 2003, 16:12

Actually, I think the program just limits the number of squares moved, whether the unit is "stuck" or not. I remember some succession/challenge games on really large maps (shudder) where I had the goto routes to the front line worked out, and a unit would stop partway to its destination with that "do you want to continue" message. I didn't count out the squares, but 64 would be a good guess (based on the programmers' affinity for base 2).

Edit: I'm betting this cutoff was put in to limit the search space for the goto calculation, and the fact that it kept a unit from moving back and forth between the same two squares forever was just serendipity.

War4ever · February 7, 2003, 17:19

DaveV, you were still able to move the units after that though ? B/c other than a lack of mp left on the unit, i always believe it could move forever on a rail system if you had the time to manually do it ?

Six Thousand Year Old Man · February 7, 2003, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
lol i didn't realize it was HIS either

seeing as i playtested that theory with Ming Eons ago

Independently derived, gentlemen.

You of course can have full credit for being wrong first, if you want it!

DrSpike · February 7, 2003, 20:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

Independently derived, gentlemen.

You of course can have full credit for being wrong first, if you want it!

IIRC correctly the particular phenomenon STYOM had in mind was actually original.

War4ever · February 8, 2003, 17:13

perhaps spike, i remember playtesting something very similar with ming and rah over icq phone over the course of a few weeks....

but he can take credit for his own failure, i will take credit for mine

rah · February 8, 2003, 21:23

Yes, we did quite a few unscientific tests with huts, but the no real patterns ever developed.

ottok · February 9, 2003, 08:30

If go from at next or two SQUARE Mowe handly it... and almost always when it is a ship!

And i hint is move handly all critised units!

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 08:52

Perhaps we can get Rasbelin to translate.

ottok · February 9, 2003, 11:44

look now it!

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 11:49

Still not comprehensible! Have another go mate.

ottok · February 9, 2003, 11:52

Any ships,or missiles or air at maybe must be hand,
And the map is a point where at from to?

And ai not think that it is one to left,at go the cirlce wich take some turns...

APUA!

War4ever · February 9, 2003, 14:16

Hehe Spike you dont' know ottok do you !!!

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 15:05

Are you saying my posts are incomprehensible to you?

Bloody Monk · February 9, 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by ottok
Any ships,or missiles or air at maybe must be hand,
And the map is a point where at from to?

And ai not think that it is one to left,at go the cirlce wich take some turns...

APUA!

Brilliant!! Who could fail to agree with such a clear statement.

Move by hand, not by 'go to'

Monk

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloody Monk

Move by hand, not by 'go to'

Monk

Well translated......I stared at it for a couple of minutes without working it out.

War4ever · February 9, 2003, 23:22

nice to see you again Ottok!!!

rah · February 10, 2003, 09:40

Yep, good to see you again Ottok. Civ3 may have the "fog of war" but we have Ottok.