RAH rules VI: No Spamming! - Page 4

Ljube · February 17, 2004, 08:41

Diplo guiding I use a lot. Still, it doesn't make it more realistic. I was not discussing what you are used to. I was trying to point your attention to the fact that diploguiding distorts the game in that it negates the defensive value of forts and zone of control and forces you to build cities on mountains. It was surely not something that was intended.

And let me tell you why I think it was not intended. Have you ever seen AI diploguiding his troops?

On the other hand, AI is building forts around its cities in a pattern to prevent approach of enemy troops using zone of control of the units inside forts. From this I conclude diploguiding is just an unfortunate error in programming and should not be allowed in games which are not one night stand.

Ljube · February 17, 2004, 08:44

Having said that, I would also like to point out I can play any settings, so I don't mind having diplo guiding allowed. I am simply against the argument that it's a feature that was initially intended.

Ming · February 17, 2004, 08:49

I'm not sure anybody can say for sure what was or was not intended. I do know that they had a chance to fix it with the updates, and didn't

As far as the AI not doing it... that's not proof of anything. Based on that theory, Aircraft carriers are meant for attacking other ships and cities, and should never actually have any aircraft on them

rah · February 17, 2004, 11:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
As far as the AI not doing it... that's not proof of anything. Based on that theory, Aircraft carriers are meant for attacking other ships and cities, and should never actually have any aircraft on them

Good point.

Deity Dude · February 17, 2004, 11:39

I don't buy the AI doesn't do it argument either. We could probably have a thread with over 1000 posts of stupid things the AI does or doesn't do.

I just always thought of it in this fashion; If a unit was being excorted by a diplomat it was under the same veil of diplomatic immunity as the diplomat. However, I can see the counter point that in "real-life" a tank probably couldn't claim diplomatic immunity and stroll past a guarded fort.

Like so many of these things in civ, what it really comes down to is, do you and the group you play in like the feature. If so, it was intended. If not its an unrealistic obvious exploit.

rah · February 17, 2004, 12:35

But even if you use it, the opposing fort gets a chance to fire on you, so I don't see it as unrealistic. The whole concept of ZOC is slightly unrealistic. So much so that civ III eliminated it and incorporated the free turn of fire, which makes much more sense.

Of course, after saying that, I prefer having ZOC and the diplo guiding.

Deity Dude · February 17, 2004, 13:01

Yeah, again its probably just what I am used to, but that is one of the things i dont like about civIII. The elimination of ZOC.

Ming · February 17, 2004, 13:07

I agree... while ZOC's aren't perfect, it beats the alternative as proven in Civ III

rah · February 17, 2004, 13:10

They just wanted to be able to make the AI look smarter.

rah · April 2, 2004, 09:34

Over a month since the last post.
Shameless bump.

rah · April 24, 2004, 18:14

I asked someone if they had read this thread, and they asked "what thread" so I guess it's time for another shameless bump.

rah · May 30, 2004, 18:17

Bumped for BlindArbalest

deity · June 24, 2004, 04:22

Bump!

rah · July 24, 2004, 20:32

Bump

War4ever · August 3, 2004, 19:38

I never had a problem with diploguiding.... for the amount of times its actually used in a game......

Besides, as everyone knows, NO fort is impregnable nor is it impossible to bypass if you want to take the time and resources to do so.

That being said, one could argue that a diplomat would never lead troops into battle during an invasion

But that is a totally different arguement

Deity Dude · August 7, 2004, 17:25

I think diplos are named wrong. They are more like terrorists or intelligence/specials ops in thier actual function. Looking at it that way - they would lead the invasion.

rah · September 11, 2004, 18:28

Gratutious bump.
Maybe ming should just top it.

deity · September 17, 2004, 01:57

Topped!

Ming · October 11, 2004, 20:04

Bump for the new people to the forum.

ColdWizard · October 11, 2004, 22:53

Extraneous bump of general updated-ishness. Added in the ancient modification of redoing moves to the best of one's ability to section 2c and updated the link to the current setting up IP games thread.

rah · October 12, 2004, 08:46

Ming, maybe you should just top it

rah · November 10, 2004, 14:59

Maybe I should remember that I could top it myself.

ColdWizard · November 10, 2004, 18:43

Ming · November 10, 2004, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Maybe I should remember that I could top it myself.

I was wondering when you were going to remember that...

Caesar Jon · February 28, 2005, 14:56

I was talking with DD about the hut finder program and I guess I was unaware of the unbalancing effect this has on games. I was not aware you could see specials with this program. It is no wonder you guys are always finding the good spots. I really feel this should be banned in future games. Lets discuss.....

ColdWizard · March 8, 2005, 13:08

The specials pattern isn't too hard to figure anyway, even I used to be able to do it. (Not that I actually care if y'all use the hutfinder or not).

Deity Dude · March 10, 2005, 14:32

I am totally against hut-finder. I consider it the steriods of civ mp. But these are RAH's rules afterall. So when in Rome.... I personally dont use it even in RAH games though and I don't know of any other group of players that allow it use. Anyways there's my 2 cents.

Ming · March 10, 2005, 15:33

I laugh whenever this one comes up.

Before hut finder, many of us had graph paper charts that did the same thing... and also know many of the patterns by heart. Hut finder has just speeded up the game (faster than looking at a chart or running through the combinations in your head) ... and helps even the scales for those that don't know the patterns by heart

Caesar Jon · March 10, 2005, 20:57

I disagree...you may as well reveal the map. This program allows the user a huge advantage because you know preciasely where to look and go. Oh well, I am not wanting to start a war or anything over this. I just cannot stand programs that do pretty much the same thing the cheat mode does.

Ming · March 10, 2005, 22:08

And the classic argument... you might as well reveal the map HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHA

One, hut finder doesn't tell you "which" speciial... two, sometimes the special is a dot, and three, huts need to be on land to be there... and again, most of the old time players KNOW the patterns anyway.

I guess if you haven't studied the game, you might consider it cheat mode...

It speeds up the game, and gives the newbee a chance to have a clue... Frankly, you can outlaw hut finder if you wish, and you will just be at an even bigger disadvantage against those that understand the patterns... So that's why we don't mind if people want to use it.

You can try to throw out arguments like you might as well reveal the map or cheat mode for high emotion value, but the patterns are common knowledge for anybody who knows the game... that's why a program such as hut finder was possible in the first place.

If you have no interest in learning that much depth about the game, hut finder can make things easier for you... but any good opponent already knows the patterns