RAH Rules: The Rules Keep Rolling On. - Page 6

Baron O · May 13, 2003, 13:47

also so this does not become a burden on the originating city, especially if you are in republic or democracy

Ming · May 13, 2003, 19:14

Because you can't rehome a caravan with both the short cut and city menu, we've always thought it was just another bug. To us, it just seemed unfair that you could rehome all your caravans to your trade city... that's just not the way it's supposed to work

So Rah rules outlawed that a long time ago...

War4ever · May 13, 2003, 21:35

how did we get on to this? whom is cheating?

Berzerker · May 14, 2003, 02:19

Quote:

Because you can't rehome a caravan with both the short cut and city menu, we've always thought it was just another bug. To us, it just seemed unfair that you could rehome all your caravans to your trade city... that's just not the way it's supposed to work

Hmm...I never knew about the "h" way of rehoming units so I only dealt with the city menu feature which is why I never knew or considered it a bug. But why is it unfair? I doubt I'll change anyone's mind, but everyone can do this. I wonder why the city menu function of rehoming would be considered a bug when the "h" method seems less built into the game. I always considered some of the tricks like black clicking and hut finding programs to be "cheats" because not everyone knew about it and exploring territory without actually exploring it with units seemed illogical, so I never do that kind of stuff. And diplo guiding which is allowed seems illogical too. Oh well, live and learn.

Quote:

how did we get on to this? whom is cheating?

Me, looks like you guys all get a mulligan and I don't.

Seriously, in all the games we've played, I doubt I've sent more than a dozen rehomed caravans to other civs and I don't even bother doing it when sending caravans to my own cities. I'm sure we're pretty even though given you guys seem to know quite a few tricks I'm still ignorant about. Hell, I just found out about hut finding.

Berzerker · May 14, 2003, 02:33

Btw, I'm curious, is there a site where people involved with making civ II have discussed whether or not bugs were intentional or mistakes? Seems such an important bug would have been taken care of in one of the patches.

Ming · May 14, 2003, 02:57

If you truely didn't know... your reputation is intact. Heck, I thought I could build GW in a three person game... did I take heat for that. A simple misunderstanding... and in my case, thanks to a lot of beer.

Many "BUGS" are just a matter of opinion... we try to think what the designers intended, and as you as ask, there is no place to really ask them what they intended.

So we muddle along and make our silly assumptions... who really knows?

But that's why we have the Rah Rules thread. While many might not agree with them, at least it provides us with a framework to save time in setting up our games.

The rules are in B/W...

rah · May 14, 2003, 08:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Btw, I'm curious, is there a site where people involved with making civ II have discussed whether or not bugs were intentional or mistakes? Seems such an important bug would have been taken care of in one of the patches.

No, the original people involved have never been forthcoming on what was intentional or a bug.
But they have been discussed here often. Many threads have been devoted to whether people thought they were simple bugs or not. Ming's original Cheat thread in prep for civIII identified most of them.

The earlier "RAH RULES" threads had lot's of discussions but it was mostly just us.

RAH

War4ever · May 14, 2003, 10:47

yeah, i wouldn't worry about it Berz...honest mistake on your part

to be honest i didn't realize it either, i have never done that in sp or mp for that matter IIRC, well maybe once by mistake....but i have never been a caravan rehomer mainly b/c i wasn't exactly sure how to do it

Ming · May 14, 2003, 11:30

People make mistakes... but to me, it's the intent that matters. If you knew it was against the rules Berz, and still did it, that's one thing... but an honest mistake...

Don't worry about it... just something we can pick on you for

rah · May 14, 2003, 11:42

Yeah, no problem, but you may want to go back and read the rules thread. Just in case.

Ming · May 14, 2003, 11:46

I know I did after my last "mistake"

rah · May 14, 2003, 11:51

I did too, just to make sure it specified the number of players threashold for building it. Even though I knew it, it's getting harder and harder to trust my memory.

Rich

Ming · May 14, 2003, 11:59

Well... if "advancing age" wasn't hard enough on the memory... The extra 6 pack of beer during the game doesn't help it either

War4ever · May 14, 2003, 16:26

only a 6 pack.......i swear you put away a case sometimes.....say...those games that go to 5am your time

rah · May 14, 2003, 17:33

Yeah, last saturday we played for 10 hours and even though I didn't drink for the first 5, I still killed more than a 12 pack.

atawa · May 14, 2003, 17:43

Only a 12-pack.....you're getting old

Is mass warrior upgrade allowed in Rah rules btw?

Ming · May 14, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
only a 6 pack.......i swear you put away a case sometimes.....say...those games that go to 5am your time

Well...

yeah, a case is about right some nights...

Your point

rah · May 14, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
Only a 12-pack.....you're getting old

Is mass warrior upgrade allowed in Rah rules btw?

Getting old, unfortunately yes. But 12 is not my limit. As I prove most saturdays on the golf course.

Mass warrior upgrade, is that going straight to gunpowder without any of the others in the middle and just keep building warriors that upgrade to muskets. If so, I don't think we've every discussed it. I would bet, not allowed, but we should probably bring it up in the rah rules thread. Feel free to take the +1

I'm sure it will attract attention.

RAH

War4ever · May 14, 2003, 18:44

its a blatant bug but i admit to having used it ....10 shield muskets....WOOTTTTTTTTTTTt......

but its a blatant bug nonetheless...i would be fine either way on this one.......besides its the ultimate reward for those of us with the warrior defence strategy

DrSpike · May 14, 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

I would bet, not allowed, but we should probably bring it up in the rah rules thread.
RAH

What thread is this?

Ming · May 14, 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
What thread is this?

Yeah... I spit up water laughing when I saw him post that comment. I couldn't believe it.

A CLASSIC SENIOR MOMENT BY RAH...

He gets so busy in spam mode, that he forgets what thread he is posting in

DrSpike · May 14, 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Yeah... I spit up water laughing when I saw him post that comment. I couldn't believe it.

A CLASSIC SENIOR MOMENT BY RAH...

He gets so busy in spam mode, that he forgets what thread he is posting in

's funny..............I read it, then thought "that looks interesting, maybe I'll go and check the Rah rules thread".

Hey! Hold on a minute..................

War4ever · May 14, 2003, 20:53

even i realized this was the rah rules thread.....

what do people think about this loophole...trying to stay on topic ofcourse

Berzerker · May 14, 2003, 21:39

Quote:

If you truely didn't know... your reputation is intact.

I'm not sure if that's a plus, I've been getting killed lately and haven't had a good start in months. Hell, War4 took my capital recently and it had HG in it.

Quote:

Heck, I thought I could build GW in a three person game... did I take heat for that. A simple misunderstanding... and in my case, thanks to a lot of beer.

Yup, that one caught me by surprise too, and the Oracle being extended. I don't pay enough attention to the mp section, but I believe the GW and Oracle were more recent add ons to the rules.

Sparrowhawk · May 14, 2003, 22:34

Not sure my opinion counts but I think the upgrade from warriors to musketeers is not only allowed and intended, but perfectly legit.
Now if you are talking about upgrading Warriors to another unit immediately somehow (Riflemen??) then maybe that should take a second look, but I don't see any reason why you have to upgrade Warriors to Phalanx, Phalanx to Pikemen, and Pikemen to Musketeers. If the tech tree advances leading to Gunpowder made Warriors obsolete then I could understand the point, and agree that it is a stretch of the rules, but I don't think that is the case here.

Berzerker · May 14, 2003, 23:58

Not sure if you understand the issue, there is a bug that allows people who have bronze working (phalanx and warriors) while skipping feudalism and going right to gunpowder to continue production of warriors even after guns are discovered. And if you have Leo's, the warriors automatically upgrade to muskets once they're built and a new tech is discovered so you are effectively building muskets with the necessary shields for only warriors. If you go into a city menu and physically change the production of warriors, then the city will start producing muskets at the 30 shield rate, but if you have a city producing warriors and don't change the production, the city will continue pumping out warriors until conscription is discovered. Normally, when you find a new tech, your production changes automatically to the upgrade so you don't get to keep producing the obsolete units.

Ming · May 15, 2003, 00:16

That is what we are talking about Berz... good summary

I'm rarely in a position to take advantage of it, because I'm a big fan of pikeman... But I could go either way on this one.

War4ever · May 15, 2003, 00:48

i can go either way...and i am a warrior defence fella...again it doesn't happen in every city, but if your smart and delay feudalism as berz said, you can save the shields, disband and make 20 per turn providing your cities are intact, and you take the time to shuffle the men to cities for placement or for disbanding

not sure if it works to rifle......i don't think it does IIRC

DrSpike · May 15, 2003, 06:27

Yeah no one is against a one-off upgrade Sparrow.............just the continued upgrading. I have never seen this tried, but it's clearly very dubious indeed.

rah · May 15, 2003, 08:11

This is the RAH rules thread. I don't believe it

Yep, a classic senior moment. I could be convinced either way. (did I say that already?)

RAH