A rule I just don't get

[Terrapin]

I am presently ginning up the courage (and tech necessities, I have no internet at home) to play a game of the month next month. One rule has always seemed strange to me. That is the prohibition against airports on hills. I mean we all routinely do things, and are allowed to do them in GotMs, like partial rush buys and black clicking which have no real-world analogues. But we are not allowed to build an airport on a hill because we get one or two extra foods. There is even a real world analogue for the airport thing, since an airport represents a major capital investment. In game terms, that investment takes the form of the large number of engineer turns needed to build an airport. So why does this little game quirk make people so unhappy? (I know this must have been discussed at leangth in the GotM rules thread, but it is like 4,000 pages long...)

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Just becasue it is not suppose to happen. An airport is not suppose to (according to any documentation from the game) give the benefit it does.

Also, If there is an actual need for an airport, it can be built anywhere. Since it also acts as a railway, what people would do is build strings of airports together rather than building actual railroads.

The rule is meant to remove the abuse that people were using in regards to airports, not rule them out altogether.

 

[Terrapin]

OK. I don't mean to be argumentative, but could not the same point be made about partial rush buys? They are not in the rules, but are a function allowed by the game.

Also, would this rule also prevent using a ring of airports to defend a city from attack?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Rush buying is mentioned in the game, so is the fatc that production can be changed at any time between 'same' type units. It doesn't take much to take things to the next logical step for it. Its one thing for it to not be a documented 'feature' and get used within the game like partial rush building.

But, when, the game actually says that airports do X only but it ends up doing Y it seems pretty apparent that it is just a bug. Just as when you try to rehome a cravan in a city by pressing the 'H' key. You get a message that it is not allowed; yet, if you go into the city screen and do it there it happens. It seems pretty clear that the game designers meant for them to not be rehomed because they actually made a message to stop it from happening a certain way.

So, it seems pretty apparent that they didn't mean for the airports to do what they did, they just screwed up the programming a bit. The rule is just to avoid the abuse of this 'feature'.

As for building a ring of airports around a city to protect it, sure, go ahead. It has a strategy reason behind it. Granted not a good one, but one.

 

[civiijkw]

..

Also, If there is an actual need for an airport, it can be built anywhere. Since it also acts as a railway, what people would do is build strings of airports together rather than building actual railroads.

...

One thing I've found with airbases acting as railroads is that, when doing a drag and drop to move units, the units seem to switch to roads rather than take a railroad to an airbase to a railroad. You can move square by square to take advantage of the zero movement cost, but that is tedious enough that I will simply go ahead and build a road and railroad over the top of an airbase.

 

[alcibaides]

like partial rush buys and black clicking which have no real-world analogues.

A real world analogy for a partial rush buy is the government taking out a construction bond for the completion of something.