admtanaka
Warlord
If I lose a city in 2000BC to a .1% barb, I'm quitting the game. No questions asked.
Bad Luck and Honesty
- Thread starter Framesticker
- Start date
I might start again but would be happier with myself if I played on. Lost my capital in my clan game last night, maybe on single player I would have quit, but I soldiered on, retook my capital, kicked Shaka's but and took his last 3 cities.
My new capital is actually in a more central position now that I have Shaka's land too. So, in a way, it worked out for the best.
My new capital is actually in a more central position now that I have Shaka's land too. So, in a way, it worked out for the best.
z0wb13
undead
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Messages
- 657
if you open WB at all, it will reveal the entire map. so yeah, it's cheating. because as soon as you touch it, you are getting all this extra information that you haven't earned yet.
that being said, i the first thing i do when i start a OCC is pop open the WB and look to see what kinds of resources are going to be available. it's cheating, but i'm pretty confident in my civ abilities, and i know that i'm not going to get very far in a OCC space race without coal or aluminum. i mean, i could make smart diplomatic plays and trade for the resources i need, but i'm not going to waste my time on emperor. resource-less OCC i like to play on settler;p
that being said, i the first thing i do when i start a OCC is pop open the WB and look to see what kinds of resources are going to be available. it's cheating, but i'm pretty confident in my civ abilities, and i know that i'm not going to get very far in a OCC space race without coal or aluminum. i mean, i could make smart diplomatic plays and trade for the resources i need, but i'm not going to waste my time on emperor. resource-less OCC i like to play on settler;p
I lately play always with the WB turned off, because I know that in cases like the one you mention chances are I could not be able to resist the temptation to cheat. And now that I play more on immortal, things like that tend to happen a lot for some awfull reason. It's like playing on a double difficulty level. 
But play on. can make the game fun
But play on. can make the game fun
azzaman333
meh
Most of the time, my bad luck occurs with great generals. I can throw 5 axeman at 50% odds, win them all, use my GG at 99% odds and lose. I don't think I've ever had a GG get past 50 exp, which would be roughly 12 low risk battles after GG attachment. Maybe I should stick them on units that can go down the drill path...
carolyny476
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1
LateGameWarMong
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 115
Personally... I already play my own modded version of CIV, so I don't care.
What does the concept of honor have to do with a game one plays for entertainment?
After all, the game is just an excercise in winning vs cheaters (the AI)
I modded it such that at Noble difficulty, the AI modifiers are the same as yours.
This includes maintenence, production, inflation (which I just got rid of completely for everyone because I don't like the mechanic)
Taking away an AI bonus vs Barbarians, is VERY rough on the AI, I think they normally have a +40% bonus vs barbs on Noble, giving them only +10% like you have.... often results in multiple AI civs being destroyed, or losing multiple cities...
Some suffer a slower death, expanding to 3-6 cities, then 1 by on they fall until only the capital/some hiltop city remains.
Rushing to the Great Wall virtually ensures you win the game as the ai gets set back so much by the Barbs early on (ussually a few civs manage to keep them at bay, and eventually expand and prevent their appearance).
Putting on Raging barbs with such a setting basically kills any AI that doesn't get the GW.
So, as a result, I start several games... go into world builder, and edit the world such that every civ (including mine) starts on a hill plain (2 hammer city plot) completely surrounded by a river (thus every Capital City has fresh water).
Thus every capital city starts with the 25% hills defense bonus, and the 25% river crossing bonus (although this also makes it harder to counter attack stacks outside the capital city), making them much more resistant to conquest (by barbs or otherwise)
Their second and third cities often fall, but I try to get great wall, to free up my units, and go "liberating" from barbarians, earning me good relations with many of the AI (again, not every AI loses cities to the barbs, some still thrive, and even seem to benefit, due to weaker neighbor civs)
Then While I'm at it I don't allow any coastal desert or riverside desert (unless it has floodplains), and edit those to grassland (or plains if it has a resource).
Then I don't allow tundra more than 1 tile below the snow tree line, and place forrest on any non-riverside camp resources that aren't already covered in forrest or jungle.
So I edit 10 maps like this, and save them all before the first time just labeled "Enhanced Start X" where X is a number between 1-10, and pick one at random (flip a coin and roll a die, pick a number in your head, use a pseudorandom number generator, etc), and play it.
After done playing it, start a new game, and edit a new start to those same standards, and save it to replace the number you just played.
That way, at best I have only a vague recollection of the map by the time I get around to playing it.
Personally, I think beyond a certain odds % (say... 95%), victory should be gauranteed, and the only randomness being if you survive with full health, or a strength of 0.1.
Or perhaps set a different threshold, and at 99% odds, withdrawal chance goes to 100%, and at less than 1% odds, the damage limit goes to 99 rather than the normal 100.
I wonder if this can be done in Python.... hmmm, a post for the modding forum.
Anyway, as you can see by how much I am willing to modify the game, I don't consider your practices to be unacceptable/dishonorable.
What does the concept of honor have to do with a game one plays for entertainment?
After all, the game is just an excercise in winning vs cheaters (the AI)
I modded it such that at Noble difficulty, the AI modifiers are the same as yours.
This includes maintenence, production, inflation (which I just got rid of completely for everyone because I don't like the mechanic)
Taking away an AI bonus vs Barbarians, is VERY rough on the AI, I think they normally have a +40% bonus vs barbs on Noble, giving them only +10% like you have.... often results in multiple AI civs being destroyed, or losing multiple cities...
Some suffer a slower death, expanding to 3-6 cities, then 1 by on they fall until only the capital/some hiltop city remains.
Rushing to the Great Wall virtually ensures you win the game as the ai gets set back so much by the Barbs early on (ussually a few civs manage to keep them at bay, and eventually expand and prevent their appearance).
Putting on Raging barbs with such a setting basically kills any AI that doesn't get the GW.
So, as a result, I start several games... go into world builder, and edit the world such that every civ (including mine) starts on a hill plain (2 hammer city plot) completely surrounded by a river (thus every Capital City has fresh water).
Thus every capital city starts with the 25% hills defense bonus, and the 25% river crossing bonus (although this also makes it harder to counter attack stacks outside the capital city), making them much more resistant to conquest (by barbs or otherwise)
Their second and third cities often fall, but I try to get great wall, to free up my units, and go "liberating" from barbarians, earning me good relations with many of the AI (again, not every AI loses cities to the barbs, some still thrive, and even seem to benefit, due to weaker neighbor civs)
Then While I'm at it I don't allow any coastal desert or riverside desert (unless it has floodplains), and edit those to grassland (or plains if it has a resource).
Then I don't allow tundra more than 1 tile below the snow tree line, and place forrest on any non-riverside camp resources that aren't already covered in forrest or jungle.
So I edit 10 maps like this, and save them all before the first time just labeled "Enhanced Start X" where X is a number between 1-10, and pick one at random (flip a coin and roll a die, pick a number in your head, use a pseudorandom number generator, etc), and play it.
After done playing it, start a new game, and edit a new start to those same standards, and save it to replace the number you just played.
That way, at best I have only a vague recollection of the map by the time I get around to playing it.
Personally, I think beyond a certain odds % (say... 95%), victory should be gauranteed, and the only randomness being if you survive with full health, or a strength of 0.1.
Or perhaps set a different threshold, and at 99% odds, withdrawal chance goes to 100%, and at less than 1% odds, the damage limit goes to 99 rather than the normal 100.
I wonder if this can be done in Python.... hmmm, a post for the modding forum.
Anyway, as you can see by how much I am willing to modify the game, I don't consider your practices to be unacceptable/dishonorable.
@LategameWarMong
How is it fun if you basically know you've won the game before it even starts? If the AI in your modded maps can't even handle the barbs, where's the challenge? Even if you go about liberating AI cities that barbs have captured, by that time you'd have such a huge lead that you'd just be hitting the enter key to victory.
Perhaps you find that fun, but I would find it terribly boring after the first game I would think.
How is it fun if you basically know you've won the game before it even starts? If the AI in your modded maps can't even handle the barbs, where's the challenge? Even if you go about liberating AI cities that barbs have captured, by that time you'd have such a huge lead that you'd just be hitting the enter key to victory.
Perhaps you find that fun, but I would find it terribly boring after the first game I would think.
LateGameWarMong
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 115
Well, thats not the only thing modded... as I said, some civs can handle it (as long as you don't put Raging Barbarians on) without losing their cities.
I have one modded civ that has Montezuma's personality, who has a UB version of every building or unit that has a UB, and has all leader traits, not just two, and I also have a playable "Minor" civilization with no UB, no UU, and no traits.
The personality of Monty, with gunpoweder units starting at combat 1, drill 1, CG1, all units taking 3/4 experience to promote, and all the other benefits of the other leader traits.... combined with other civs that are generally weak due to barbarian incursions... on a continents map, Generally results in an unstopable war monger who ends up owning the whole continent.
If he's on the same continent as you... yea, it can be challenging, especially if you play as the Minor civ.
Or play at a higher play difficulty level, where the modifiers are the same, except for the bonus vs barbs
If one plays on a terra map, where the old world is rather packed, the barbs are a short lived problem, and if the Super-Monty civ is there (either randomly, or specifically placed there), it can be very tough.
I like to see some civs struggle against the barbs, I generally add a few extras as well, anticipating some will be wiped out.
I prefer to see in my games some other civs that struggle and collapse, and others that are juggernauts.
And of course, if you know you will win, the question is, how fast can you do so?
Removing the AI bonuse vs barbarians was an experiment to see what would happen, and it was clear they can't handle the Barbarians without bonuses, as is.
So I further tweaked, and further tweaked, to get a dynamic I like.
The current iteration involves all capital cities being naturally well fortified, a map slightly crowded with civs, and at least 1 super civ (currently considering an other super civ just like the other one, but with a more cultural/technological focus- ie Mansu Musa or Ghandi's personality, and a different selection of UU and UB when there is more than possible one UU or UB replacement candidate).
An expansionist, but normally not warlike leader, would benefit from other civs stuggling to deal with barbarians, if it could easily deal with barbarians, given that it has CG1, drill Bowmen, and the bonuses to construction speed of Duns, giving bowmen guerilla 1.
Normal civ games often have similarly sized civs, civs are rarely destroyed from anything other than the players actions, while some civs become significantly more powerful than others, they rarely completely dominate.
All that changes in the versions I play.
My current game, I own about 1/3 to 1/2 of my continent, killed the "minor" civ before anyone considered it a friend and took its land, liberated cities from the barbs for two of the other civs and got us all on the same religion, they both volentarily became my vassal, leaving only 1 non vassal civ on my continent, who is currently pleased with me, things are looking OK for me, except its a domination/conquest victory condition, and as I am still tweaking, I use WB to check up on how super Monty is doing...
He's already defeated two other civilizations (both which had lost cities to the barbarians), and has about half his continent, I suspect by the time astronomy rolls around, he'll have the whole thing.
OOOH, I used WB.....
OOOOH I don't use the standard version
OOOOH I use edited maps.
Who cares, I'm not dishonorable or dishonest, I'm playing a game and not harming anyone.
I have one modded civ that has Montezuma's personality, who has a UB version of every building or unit that has a UB, and has all leader traits, not just two, and I also have a playable "Minor" civilization with no UB, no UU, and no traits.
The personality of Monty, with gunpoweder units starting at combat 1, drill 1, CG1, all units taking 3/4 experience to promote, and all the other benefits of the other leader traits.... combined with other civs that are generally weak due to barbarian incursions... on a continents map, Generally results in an unstopable war monger who ends up owning the whole continent.
If he's on the same continent as you... yea, it can be challenging, especially if you play as the Minor civ.
Or play at a higher play difficulty level, where the modifiers are the same, except for the bonus vs barbs
If one plays on a terra map, where the old world is rather packed, the barbs are a short lived problem, and if the Super-Monty civ is there (either randomly, or specifically placed there), it can be very tough.
I like to see some civs struggle against the barbs, I generally add a few extras as well, anticipating some will be wiped out.
I prefer to see in my games some other civs that struggle and collapse, and others that are juggernauts.
And of course, if you know you will win, the question is, how fast can you do so?
Removing the AI bonuse vs barbarians was an experiment to see what would happen, and it was clear they can't handle the Barbarians without bonuses, as is.
So I further tweaked, and further tweaked, to get a dynamic I like.
The current iteration involves all capital cities being naturally well fortified, a map slightly crowded with civs, and at least 1 super civ (currently considering an other super civ just like the other one, but with a more cultural/technological focus- ie Mansu Musa or Ghandi's personality, and a different selection of UU and UB when there is more than possible one UU or UB replacement candidate).
An expansionist, but normally not warlike leader, would benefit from other civs stuggling to deal with barbarians, if it could easily deal with barbarians, given that it has CG1, drill Bowmen, and the bonuses to construction speed of Duns, giving bowmen guerilla 1.
Normal civ games often have similarly sized civs, civs are rarely destroyed from anything other than the players actions, while some civs become significantly more powerful than others, they rarely completely dominate.
All that changes in the versions I play.
My current game, I own about 1/3 to 1/2 of my continent, killed the "minor" civ before anyone considered it a friend and took its land, liberated cities from the barbs for two of the other civs and got us all on the same religion, they both volentarily became my vassal, leaving only 1 non vassal civ on my continent, who is currently pleased with me, things are looking OK for me, except its a domination/conquest victory condition, and as I am still tweaking, I use WB to check up on how super Monty is doing...
He's already defeated two other civilizations (both which had lost cities to the barbarians), and has about half his continent, I suspect by the time astronomy rolls around, he'll have the whole thing.
OOOH, I used WB.....
OOOOH I don't use the standard version
OOOOH I use edited maps.
Who cares, I'm not dishonorable or dishonest, I'm playing a game and not harming anyone.
Exactly.
CaptainKapow
Immortal
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 90
It's a single player game, there is no competition with others so there really is no cause to care about fair play. If it makes the game more fun to World Builder out horrific disasters and you don't feel it cheapens the play for you, then go ahead.
You don't need anyone's justification.
Personally, I take my lumps cause I feel it cheapens it otherwise. But I like to use the World Builder after something horrible happens that I can't see so I can at least learn from it. I had a game go south on Emperor with a weak plain heavy isolated start and I saw someone discover Liberalism before I even had Civil Service. Mouth still agape I popped open the WB to see Mansa Musa with a disgusting stockpile of river gems and flood plains.
It still haunts me to this day.
You don't need anyone's justification.
Personally, I take my lumps cause I feel it cheapens it otherwise. But I like to use the World Builder after something horrible happens that I can't see so I can at least learn from it. I had a game go south on Emperor with a weak plain heavy isolated start and I saw someone discover Liberalism before I even had Civil Service. Mouth still agape I popped open the WB to see Mansa Musa with a disgusting stockpile of river gems and flood plains.
It still haunts me to this day.
Brian Boru
Prince
There's your answer. Play on, start a new game, or change your policy
As others have said, "honesty" or "cheating" are completely irrelevant in the single player game. Your policy emphasizes the adventure game nature of CIV, which is indeed a very common and enjoyable route to go.
You could also go an almost opposite route, which is the strategy game route, where CIV becomes more like Chess. Chess plays with equal resources, the whole map and deployments revealed, and absolutely no random elements like events or combat outcomes.
Then there's the RPG route, and I'm sure others. Swapping around between these keeps CIV fresh for me, YMMV.
I wont say I have never WB a game but I try not to. If stuff like this happen I might reload but I try to cut down on this as well.
Latest reload I did was yesterday though but that was mis-clicking "normal peace" instead of "capitulation" with an AI where I had caped 10 AI already and it was just a matter of time until I won.
Like most people say, its only a game and its supposed to be fun so why not? WBing is a lot worse then reloading though since when you reload you can actually learn what to do different next time.
Latest reload I did was yesterday though but that was mis-clicking "normal peace" instead of "capitulation" with an AI where I had caped 10 AI already and it was just a matter of time until I won.
Like most people say, its only a game and its supposed to be fun so why not? WBing is a lot worse then reloading though since when you reload you can actually learn what to do different next time.
Reloading is one thing, but I don't get the backlash against regen. If there are 6 other AI, at least one of them likely has a better start than you in any given game. Making sure you don't have the *worst* start of all the players is not a horrible sin. I'm happy to regen if I get all plains, only one hill, or no visible food resources. Maybe someday I'll want such a handicap. But not today, thank you.
Honestly, I'd rather have greater visibility range at the start. There's a map script that does so, but it should just be default. Who, in real life, would settle (aka build permanent structures) somewhere before looking around a bit?
Honestly, I'd rather have greater visibility range at the start. There's a map script that does so, but it should just be default. Who, in real life, would settle (aka build permanent structures) somewhere before looking around a bit?
play like you want and stop thinking about "honesty". what for? to become one of the best civ players? there's no guarantee that the top players out there are playing honestly (actually, I have reasons to believe that most of them don't - either that or they are just too lucky with stuff like terrain. I never lose IMM games with starts posted in these forums, while I lose a lot of them when play my own starts).
Ergo Sum
Prince
It has always been my strict policy that I play the game for fun and enjoyment only, although it came at the detriment of advancing in skill - i.e. only playing at monarch after 9 months of play, neglecting to sharpen up micro/economy/etc., only playing Earth maps until recently. In two of my recent games I WB'd in a little help, and I'm still feeling slightly dirty because of it. Pretty legitimate moments though.
First one, I'm mopping up Charlemagne and garrison a full strength pikeman and ~10 strength Rifleman in a recently captured city because he's got an Elephant hovering over it that I don't want to sacrifice units to the RNG to remove. The Elephant attacks, kills my well-promoted pikeman, and then a Crossbowman comes out of nowhere up the road to kill my Rifleman. I was in shock. I decided to take them on with my handy Modern Armor.
Second time I've smoked the AI in tech and plan a cav rush on a smaller civ to my west. Several hundred years of espionage and a rush ready in a couple of turns are ruined when the civ peace-vassals to Shaka to my north, which is bad enough, but the civ doesn't even share his religion. Not wanting to ruin a great game so far, I autosaved to a few turns earlier and started my rush sooner. Lo and behold, Qin (my target) vassals the turn after the DoW. Shaka's stack rolls up on one of my cities, but 5 WB'd rifleman (which I could have simply prepared during the preceding turns if I had had the brains to do so) staved them off before I took out Qin and the AP forced peace. I'll probably still finish the game, but this is the one I feel the worst about.
moments though.First one, I'm mopping up Charlemagne and garrison a full strength pikeman and ~10 strength Rifleman in a recently captured city because he's got an Elephant hovering over it that I don't want to sacrifice units to the RNG to remove. The Elephant attacks, kills my well-promoted pikeman, and then a Crossbowman comes out of nowhere up the road to kill my Rifleman. I was in shock. I decided to take them on with my handy Modern Armor.
Second time I've smoked the AI in tech and plan a cav rush on a smaller civ to my west. Several hundred years of espionage and a rush ready in a couple of turns are ruined when the civ peace-vassals to Shaka to my north, which is bad enough, but the civ doesn't even share his religion. Not wanting to ruin a great game so far, I autosaved to a few turns earlier and started my rush sooner. Lo and behold, Qin (my target) vassals the turn after the DoW.
Shaka's stack rolls up on one of my cities, but 5 WB'd rifleman (which I could have simply prepared during the preceding turns if I had had the brains to do so) staved them off before I took out Qin and the AP forced peace. I'll probably still finish the game, but this is the one I feel the worst about.Clam Spammer
Prince
I like this idea. It's not as if your settlers just crash-landed there from space or whatever. Surely they should know at least something of their surroundings. (OCC especially would benefit from this.) Better still would be actually balanced start locations. I've seen a ridiculous amount of plains cows lately - and regen'd every single one.
Also, I'm ok with taking a quick look in WB at the start of an OCC - you need at least a reasonable start to be competitive.
With my personal philosophy, I would do the same. Of course, at 2000 AD, that would be insignificant.
I recommend that anyone who encounters this situation do whatever appeals to them. I have chronic reload disease. I feel that reloading is intolerable for myself, but could care less for anyone else. Everyone should do whatever they feel is the most fun. I can't play a regular game without reloading. Due to this compulsion, I only play HoF games, that do not allow reloading. Therefore, my knee-jerk reaction to this situation is to quit and start a new game. The competition from HoF games keeps me playing.
I have played a number of settler game recently where I made some "what the heck" attacks with warriors on warrior guarded cities with < 5% chance at victory. I lost every time, but knew I had a chance.
I had my first 99.7% loss the other day. All I could do was swear/laugh (and start a new game.) RNG definitely owes me a ridiculous victory.
Similar threads
