Incremental Rush buying: Legal or Not

H Tower · June 17, 2003, 08:35

An example of incremental rush buying:
(taken from the economic minister's save file for august 1942)

Take the city of Tobolsk for example which is set to begin producing a Katyusha, with zero shields built so far. Ordinarily a katyusha takes 1170, (000) rubles to rush. However, incremental rush building allows you to get it at a much cheaper price.

start by switching to a laborer and buy that for 50, (000) rubles.
next, switch to a labor brigade and purchase that for 25, (000) rubles.
Next switch to motorized infantry and purchase that for 25, (000) rubles.
Then switch to 152mm howitzer and purchase that for 25, (000) rubles.
Then buy the T-26 tank for 25, (000) rubles.
Then the La-5 for 25, (000) rubles
Then the 734/76 tank for 25, (000) rubles.
Now at this point the Katyusha will finish building in the next turn, while we have spent only 200, (000) rubles. That's a lot less than the initial price tag of 1170, (000) rubles!

Imagine the money we can save by this technique! But should it be legal? I don't know of any PBEMs that dissalow it, the vanilla civ2 demo game allows it, and "rah rules" for the civ2 mp group allow it as well. Should we?

Xenozod · June 17, 2003, 08:38

Well, I don't see why not, since all the other games allow it.

Bossy20000 · June 17, 2003, 09:06

I don't see a problem if everybody else allows it. I don't do it in my games, I consider it some sort of cheating (taking advantage of the system) and most of the time it isn't really needed. We won't lose the war if we have one Katyushka less, but again, if everybody here allows it, I don't have a problem with it.

greeny · June 17, 2003, 13:15

I hadn't been doing it during my stint as Economic minister as I consider it mild cheating (the extra cost is supposed to represent the inefficiencies of rushing production). So I'm going to vote no. But I won't be very bothered either way. One key question is surely wether EZRhino can be bothered with it. And it's not as if we have a shortage of cash ATM.

conmcb25 · June 17, 2003, 16:31

This sounds like some decadent capitalist ploy!

I kind of agree with greeny but if the group agrees I dont have a problem with it.

I dont think I would like that in a PBEM but then this isn't a PBEM. Just MHO!

Colwyn · June 17, 2003, 19:58

No I think its cheating for the scenario as the maker did not factor in this (and other exploitation method I might add) into the game.

This is the reason I'm doing RF 1.5 to fix these so the game plays as the scenario should ie no taking berlin in 42/43

We already have agreed that disbanding one unit is allowed to help with rush buys, in hindsite I would for future games say no. Initially I thought it would be ok since I expected the mutiple commanders to penalise us to even it out but that wasn't the case.

Colwyn · June 17, 2003, 20:04

No I think its cheating for the scenario as the maker did not factor in this (and other exploitation method I might add) into the game.

This is the reason I'm doing RF 1.5 to fix these so the game plays as the scenario should ie no taking berlin in 42/43

We already have agreed that disbanding one unit is allowed to help with rush buys, in hindsite I would for future games say no. Initially I thought it would be ok since I expected the mutiple commanders to penalise us to even it out but that wasn't the case.

conmcb25 · June 17, 2003, 20:05

Well then Comrade Pavlov you need to vote!

Colwyn · June 17, 2003, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by conmcb25
Well then Comrade Pavlov you need to vote!

i have since though voted.

EZRhino · June 17, 2003, 23:10

So far, I have been using this technique for some of the larger speedbuys. But since we are pretty well off financially, we could survive without it.

conmcb25 · June 17, 2003, 23:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Colwyn
How did you know I didn't vote?

i have since though voted.

Well Comrade dont forget the NKVD works for me!

Xenozod · June 18, 2003, 00:12

Oh crap...is 11:13, by any chance, BEFORE 10:00? Please?

Colwyn · June 18, 2003, 00:15

Whats before 10:00 ??? you mean a decision re this, until otherwise changed we allow the disbanding of one unit to help rush buy, but not incremental buying as yet.

Xenozod · June 18, 2003, 00:16

Nothing, nevermind.

PinkyGen · June 18, 2003, 12:03

I don't like it, because it was not considered by the scenario maker. I also don't do it, I consider it exploiting the engine, and I am taking over from comrade Pavlov in mid-july over at economics.

That said, I'll accept whatever the final decision is.

H Tower · June 18, 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Xenozod
Oh crap...is 11:13, by any chance, BEFORE 10:00? Please?

oh comrade....

Xenozod · June 18, 2003, 20:10

Better late than never, right?