In the Civ3 tournament they introduced the rule that workers may only be added to a city that does not have a food shortage. This takes away both the dogpile cheat and the pop rushing cheat effectively (you can only rush-build units which need only 1 population).

Good idea?

Other threads about this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32619
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32965

Matrix,

That's sort-of the defacto rule I was playing to anyway. I would quite happily rush settlers from a large city in a poor position, to disband it and rebuild it later in a better one.

Depending on the degree of ICS, this may put the odd city into "starvation", but for my purposes, I would limit it to only starving enough for one person - certainly not dogpiling. And this starvation may be lifted by improving the terrain (or even cleaning pollution ;) )

I would therefore advocate making the rule that you can only add workers to result in a food shortage of one. :)

Beam and I had a long discussion on this one.

It has the great virtue of being simple. You can see if you're city is red. If it is then you cant add workers or settlers. A simple rule everyone can understand and follow.

Still a shame not to have those mountain powerhouses though.

If a city was used for pop rushing to a point of just having a single entertainer for a worker, it is still not starving. So that rule does not defeat the pop rushing loophole, so that rule should stay as is.

The not adding workers to starving cities would be easier for most to understand but does leave the loop hole of manually moving cities workers around so that it would be legal to add the worker and then rearrange the workers again after the worker was added and leaving the with mega starving. Maybe just amend the current rule and also include this new stipulation.

CB, your remarks are undoubtly brilliant, but I don't understand them. :undecided:

What I do understand is that about pop rushing, but as far as I can see it, a city which has pop rushed a lot always has a food shortage at the size of 2 and higher, since it always has only two grain (the centre square).

The other thing you need to elaborate. :(

Pop rushing:
You have a city that has been pop rushing like crazy and the size is down to 1, it is not starving it still gets two food from the city center, even though the worker is an entertainer. So you can add a worker. So every 10 turns you could produce a swordsman from the city.

Dogpiling:

You have a city size 1 with that has 20 squares of grassland that it can work so you add 19 workers. All the squares are now being worked and no food shortage. Now go in and change all the workers to taxmen or scientists. Now the city is starving 38 food a turn. Any other city in range can now use those grassland for their own workers. Would be legal under your proposed rule.

Pop rushing: point taken. ;)

Dogpiling: Do you think that's cheating? I mean, what's wrong with the example you give here?

Well you add 19 workers to the city and end up being 38 food short.

Using workers to pop-rush - I can see cases where limited use should be acceptable. It is possible to massively abuse worker pop-rushing, but there are also penalties from employing this tactic: your cities are not fully productive, and the government is not the best. However, I am quite comfortable with banning worker pop-rushing, outright.

I support adding workers to a city up to its food support capability, even if specialists are being generated. I'd amend the rule to allow the adding workers for this purpose, as long as afterwards that city never loses a single population point due to starvation. This would allow the cyclical low-level starvation due to switching between irrigation and mining.

Originally posted by Matrix
Dogpiling: Do you think that's cheating? I mean, what's wrong with the example you(CB) give here? [/B]

It's only a workaround to actually dogpiling 19 workers into a zero-extra food city. It still results in the same exploit but goes the lawyerly approach to making it legal in accordance to the "no dogpile on starving cities" rule.

But will it really boost up your score? I mean, 19 extra people in a city won't be very lucrative.

It may not be for the score but I can think of a few ways to use this fully as an exploit.

You could use this workaround for pop-rushing units (that is if you remove the original pop-rushing rule and replace it with the "no dogpile on starving cities" rule).

Maybe you could add the rule to the present ones. It might be a little repetitive but if it works then it's for the best.

Ok, I'll do that.

Arrr, that's pretty hard on communistic systems. What if the whole point is to convert citizens into materiel?

What about having the rule state you can only add workers to cities that have a food surplus. This is almost the same, but would cover the pop rushing loophole.

Originally posted by Beard Rinker
What about having the rule state you can only add workers to cities that have a food surplus. This is almost the same, but would cover the pop rushing loophole.
I don't know. I think it's ok. Anyone else got objections against that?
Originally posted by Jove
Arrr, that's pretty hard on communistic systems. What if the whole point is to convert citizens into materiel?
You mean disband the workers? That's never a problem. ;)

The advntage of beam's rule is that a deficit stands out as being RED. You cansee the cities on the map and when you go into the city management screen you can see SHORTAGE in red .

Seeing a surplus needs closer inspection. I prefer the rule as phrased by Beam.

I dont have a problem with CB's loophole. I dont see it as giving any great advantage.

Originally posted by col
The advntage of beam's rule is that a deficit stands out as being RED. You cansee the cities on the map and when you go into the city management screen you can see SHORTAGE in red .

Seeing a surplus needs closer inspection. I prefer the rule as phrased by Beam.

I dont have a problem with CB's loophole. I dont see it as giving any great advantage.


A city with no surplus has the population number in yellow. This would mean you could not add a worker to a city that has a red or yellow population number.

When I used the pop-rushing exploit, I had a couple of garbage cities set aside for this explicit purpose. These cities were always at size 1 with an entertainer and I could squeeze a unit out of them every 2nd turn. The loophole pointed out by CB is the pop-rushing exploit.

I occured to me that part of the pop-rushing exploit was the fact that the first citizen was worth 40 shields. This allowed you pop-rush any unit up to a longbowman every 2nd turn.

The current version negates this to some degree by valuing the first citizen at 20 shields. You can pop rush a spearman or archer every 2nd turn but as CB pointed out a swordsman would take 10 turns.

I'm not sure the exploit even exists any more. By the time you set up the garbage cities and start feeding them with workers, an army of spearmen and archers would not be that effective.

Note that there might be other reasons to add workers to a starving city. If a size 6 city on your border is under attack, this is a quick way to push it to 7 to get the benifit of walls.

Greg

If it's in the Game, it's in the Game...

I guess I don't see the problem with pop-rushing if you're a communist. Maybe I don't understand the debate properly anyway. The exploit problem is, what, you get an extra 20 shields? Or is the problem piling on workers and hurrying the production? If you're a communist, I can see the problem with the first but not the second. The whole thing is about working everybody to death. Even in despotism... maybe I've never understood what's wrong with it. Not that I do it-I'm not a dogpiler. Could someone restate exactly where the exploit lies?

Jove- It's because people will make garbage cities. By using ICS you will have several 'good' (happy, hasn't been poprushed) cities that will produce workers. These workers will 'join' into the garbage cities that will poprush every turn or two for infinity. Basically making a 1-shield city a 20, 40, or 60 shield/turn city (or even higher). That garbage city will be a size 1 entertainer city forever, but you can still add workers to it every turn to poprush even more. No, it's not likely that it's something your capital will do, but it's pretty powerful to use if all your 1 or 2 shield cities are conspiring together like this.

I haven't created a 'garbage' city to exploit the pop-rushing capability, so I have to extend Jove's question just a bit further to understand the exploit.

In release 1.29f, each pop-rushed citizen is worth 20 production points, but you can only convert 1/2 or less of your city's population into production. You can add a worker to a garbage city, and pop-rush a 20 point unit (perhaps an archer or spearman) on that turn (2 pop point converted to 1 pop and the unit.) Or, you can wait until you're 20 production short of what you're building, and then pop-rush the 1 worker to complete the build.

To get 40 production points out of a 'garbage' city, you'd have to add 3 workers (increase pop from 1 to 4), convert 2 to production (say a longbowman; pop goes from 4 to 2.) The two remaining pop points will be unhappy, so they are maintained as specialists. On the next turn the extra point will get starved out (there's no extra food in the city, and no way to build it up with only specialists.) So, if I've described this properly, the 40 production pop-rushing costs 3 workers (originally 30 production and 3 pop points), and requires a city reduced to 'garbage' status and the continued use of Despotism or Communism to allow the pop-rushing.

If I'm missing something, please enlighten me. If I'm describing things correctly, the use of excessive worker pop-rushing has limited utility.

Alright ... I've been thinking a little more about this. If two workers were added to the city (pop goes from 1 to 3), then production were set to spearman and production hurried (pop goes from 3 to 2, spearman set to be built), then production changed to longbowman and production hurried again (pop goes from 2 to 1, longbowman set to be built), this would maximize the worker pop-rush strategy (ideally 2x production vs worker cost). This technique could be extended to produce anything, as long as you had the right production cost intermediates to bridge up to the production cost of your intended item. I'm assuming that Civ3 allows the scheduled production to be changed once pop-rushing has occured (I don't know, as I haven't tried this.)

I think worker pop-rushing has its place. I hope I'm understanding the issue properly. And, again, if it remains disallowed, that's fine by me.

Alright ... I've been thinking a little more about this. If two workers were added to the city (pop goes from 1 to 3), then production were set to spearman and production hurried (pop goes from 3 to 2, spearman set to be built), then production changed to longbowman and production hurried again (pop goes from 2 to 1, longbowman set to be built), this would maximize the worker pop-rush strategy (ideally 2x production vs worker cost). This technique could be extended to produce anything, as long as you had the right production cost intermediates to bridge up to the production cost of your intended item. I'm assuming that Civ3 allows the scheduled production to be changed once pop-rushing has occured (I don't know, as I haven't tried this.)

Now, you are getting the idea ;) . What you are describing here is kind of like the 'short rushing' tactic which is acceptable. Short rushing is used to minimize the wastage of shields. In a money rushing government, if you have a city producing say, 6 shields/turn and you want to build a 40 shield item. Normally it would take 7 turns and you would 'waste' 2 shields. But if you first set the city to build a warrior (or worker) for 1 turn, then rush the last 4 shields, then switch to the 40 shield item, you get it complete in 6 turns with no wasted shields and using just a minimal amount of gold (for the 4 shields you rushed).

You can do the same with pop-rushing (you can't poprush twice in one turn, but by rushing in back to back turns and switching production you could get more rushing out of that city than you normally could by sitting around waiting for your pop to grow to a large enough size). Micromanaging like that is perfectly OK IMO, and the R&B players (a group of players that claims, and others have stated, are very ethical players) have said it is ok by their standards. Joining workers to pop-rush out of a city (especially if you are building buildings and not units) once or a couple of times should be acceptable IMO, especially if you have enough happiness factors going into that city so it isn't left as a pop 1 specialists city. What is not ok, is continually doing this in a 'garbage city'. Yes, with v1.29f this tactic is less powerful than previous patches, but it still gives you a large advantage that you should not be getting.

Gotcha! Thanks for the more in-depth explanation!

'Garbage' city pop-rush is exploitive, and I wouldn't suggest its use for GOTM. Adding a worker to pop-rush, where at least 1 pop point is still working the city radius (not an all-specialist city) and where there is no starvation, should IMHO be permissible. (But I have no problem at all if worker pop-rushing is disallowed, as it currently is.)

And, as in earlier discussions, I support adding lots of workers to a city if it can, and continues, to support those added pop-points (no population loss due to starvation.)

There is no such thing as a garbage city. Any city could be home to the improvements that help lift garbage away, and if you can get a courthouse by killing workers, Da!

You pop stuff long enough, you get citizen unrest.

If you pop continuously in a number of cities, a "Rebel Leader" emerges and you lose control of those cities and any units in them until you can capture or kill the rebel leader, though they retain your color and nationality.

Oh, wait, that's in Civ4...

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash


If you pop continuously in a number of cities, a "Rebel Leader" emerges and you lose control of those cities and any units in them until you can capture or kill the rebel leader, though they retain your color and nationality.



:lol:

Nice slant with rebel leaders, for the Egyptians it could be Moses and for the Romans it could be Spartacus.

For the Kiwi's it can be Winston Peters

:P

Ok, great explanations guys. So what about a scenario like this: Let's say you're a Religious civilization. Gameplay progresses normally, no garbage cities, everything's fair and square. At the advent of Communism, you make the switch, every worker in the empire joins a city, they all pop-rush, and wham, you've got 25 cavalry, 3 turns later Catherine is toast. You switch back to Monarchy or whatever right after the big rush, continue on with your game. I haven't done this in GOTM games because it seems a little, uh, off, but at the same time it seems the only way to get any mileage out of communism. You don't have any garbage cities to start with, and afterwards, since it's a one-time event, the population eventually gets over it. Is this considered dogpiling and illegal, or is it just prudent, Stalinesque communist management practice? Pop rushing and communism Are features of the game, they must have some place...

Seems ok to me, after all this will cost you all of your workers, and 2 turns of anarchy. But I guess that once you've entered the industrial age with at least 25 no-garbage cities you should be able to build an army large enough to kill off catherine anyway, without having to lose 2 turns to anarchy.