civ1 GOTM?

[Pikachu]

pikachu -
it looks like
you like to hinder people to use tactics you know about and use yourself, don't you?

I want a discussion about what might could be considered exploits, but I have suggested to make exploiting features the AI don’t use legal! Discussing it will not hinder people in using these tactics. If anything it will make people aware of the possibilities instead.

And these exploits are listed in the GOTM rules for civ2 and civ3, so I think it is appropriate that we discuss them here too.

btw.
r we ready with the ruleset now?

is somebody here willin'n'able
to resume the ya-ya's and no-no's -
or/and
to install that 20 polls for the open questions to be real democrats?

As far as I can see we have agreed on the following rules:
(see here for explanations)

Shift-56 CHEAT: Banned
TERRAFORM CHEATS: Banned
WATERBRiDGE CHEAT: Allowed
Exploiting features the AI don’t use or don’t use efficiently: Allowed


We have not agreed on the SETTLER CHEAT, and the SAVEGAME CHEAT has many shades and it is not clear what reasons are acceptable for starting over from a save game. We should also agree on if civ1 GOTQ shall be the first attempt on the game like in civ2-4 or if we are allowed to play the game many times and submit the best try.

Let’s have a poll to settle this:

1: Should settler cheat be legal?
2: Should reloading to get what you want form goody huts be allowed?
3: Should it be legal to start over from a save game if the AI ”build” a key wonder?
4: Should we allow reloading in cases of extreme unluck in battle?
5: Should it be legal to reload if you loose a city because of an unlucky battle?
6: Sould it be allowed to reload if you give a command you didn't mean to give?
7: Should starting over form a save game be allowed for other reasons? Please specify!
8: Should we be required to submit our first try on the game?


Come on and vote everybody!

 

[Pikachu]

1: Should settler cheat be legal?
2: Should reloading to get what you want form goody huts be allowed?
3: Should it be legal to start over from a save game if the AI ”build” a key wonder?
4: Should we allow reloading in cases of extreme unluck in battle?
5: Should it be legal to reload if you loose a city because of an unlucky battle?
6: Sould it be allowed to reload if you give a command you didn't mean to give?
7: Should starting over form a save game be allowed for other reasons? Please specify!
8: Should we be required to submit our first try on the game?

1: No
2: No
3: No
4: No
5: No
6: Yes, if it was important to get the command right
7: Only if the computer crash
8: Yes

 

[Alex Johnson]

1: Should settler cheat be legal?
2: Should reloading to get what you want form goody huts be allowed?
3: Should it be legal to start over from a save game if the AI ”build” a key wonder?
4: Should we allow reloading in cases of extreme unluck in battle?
5: Should it be legal to reload if you loose a city because of an unlucky battle?
6: Sould it be allowed to reload if you give a command you didn't mean to give?
7: Should starting over form a save game be allowed for other reasons? Please specify!
8: Should we be required to submit our first try on the game?

1: still nobody has explained what the "settler cheat" is!
2: NO
3: NO
4: NO
5: NO
6: Maybe (I normally don't but some wrong commands can be catastrophic, like Disband on a settler or building a city by accident in the square next to a major city.)
7: Yes. Bugs in the game that prevent completion of the scenario and crashes of your system that corrupt graphics, sounds, or other features of the game.
8: Maybe (I would say yes, but what if your first try you lose the game...last city destroyed. Then you start again from the very beginning and win. I'd allow the first win to be counted. I vote for a "first win" not "first try" scoring.)

 

[Pikachu]

1: still nobody has explained what the "settler cheat" is!

Click on the link!

SETTLER CHEAT (start any 'settler action' over & over again until (for example)
the road is build, the hills change to mines, the jungle change to grassland, the grassland is irrigated in one turn)

The Settler Cheat
Most settler functions take from 2 to 12 turns to accomplish. Any of them can be accomplished in one turn by putting the settler a square, pressing R or M or I or whatever, clicking on the settler to make it blink again (which seemingly aborts the function) and pressing R again. Keep repeating this process until the road or irrigation is finished. If you turn on the End-of-Turn feature, this helps you perform the desired function in one turn. Otherwise you could just keep some nearby piece blinking so that the turn doesn't end before you've milked the cheat for all it's worth. Irrigating swamp takes 10 or 11 turns so this cheat is real handy.

8: Maybe (I would say yes, but what if your first try you lose the game...

So what? Why can’t you submit a game you lost?

I expect that we will play a GOTQ on Emperor one day, and then some of us will not be able to win at all, but that shouldn’t stop us from taking part in the competition.

 

[GoldBerg]

Let’s have a poll to settle this:

1: Should settler cheat be legal?
2: Should reloading to get what you want form goody huts be allowed?
3: Should it be legal to start over from a save game if the AI ”build” a key wonder?
4: Should we allow reloading in cases of extreme unluck in battle?
5: Should it be legal to reload if you loose a city because of an unlucky battle?
6: Sould it be allowed to reload if you give a command you didn't mean to give?
7: Should starting over form a save game be allowed for other reasons? Please specify!
8: Should we be required to submit our first try on the game?

1. YES
2. YES
3. YES
4. YES
5. YES
6. YES
7. YES - for ANY reasons, of course.
8. would be nice.

Shift-56 CHEAT: Banned
TERRAFORM CHEATS: Banned
WATERBRiDGE CHEAT: Allowed

right.

Exploiting features the AI don’t use or don’t use efficiently: Allowed

this means:

BOMBER STACKiNG.
BRiBE CiTiES AND UNiTS.
SHiP 'BRiDGING'.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

When you say BOMBER STACKiNG you mean when you get a mech inf. fortified up on a mountain and have the bomber attack from there? I've seen the AI use that.

 

[GoldBerg]

When you say BOMBER STACKiNG you mean
... ...

PLEASE Tenoch -
the explanation was just ONE side away!!!

>>>

BOMBER STACK
... ... if you put a bomber over a stack of land units,
the AI cannot attack that stack.

well - this is WRONG.
the AI attacks the WEAKEST UNiT of them.

if there's a militia in the stack, the bomber will be destroyed TOO (as usual everything on the same field)

i did understand it THAT way
that you can block fields with BOMBERS.

if there's no other of your units on that field, just FiGHTER flight units 'can remove' BOMBERS

SO
you can use 'curtains of BOMBERS'
to defend an area by just keeping enough BOMBERS in the air -
without using them to destroy any units of AI tribes -
simply as a prevention (if you don't want to 'MEET the AI' (for example)
in 'vendetta cases'
(when you know the next meeting will be a WAR DECLARATiON, for example)

that's why i wrote:

one of my favourite tactics:

remember you need lots of money,
lots of tech,
lots of bomber units
to do this
with a larger area.

maybe you need up 6 bombers per turn 'in the air'
to hinder the AI units 'to come over'.
another 6 bombers had to be in their positions in the nearest city/cities
to go back into that same positions when the others need to go back to cities-'airfields'.
it happens often that you press the wrong key from time to time and you lose a bomber.

it's simply tactics,
of course EVERYBODY -who is able to do so- should protect his game,
his virtual cities and units
with -for example- bombers.

sorry for the confusion:
that's what happen when people from non-english countries discuss
with english / u.s. = confusion about the meaning of words
(i didn't read about stacking
but now it's more clear to me (like program stacks and so on)

i did mix up 'stack' with 'stick/stay on it').

 

[Pikachu]

you can use 'curtains of BOMBERS'
to defend an area by just keeping enough BOMBERS in the air -
without using them to destroy any units of AI tribes -
simply as a prevention (if you don't want to 'MEET the AI' (for example)
in 'vendetta cases'
(when you know the next meeting will be a WAR DECLARATiON, for example)

I don’t see anything wrong with using bombers this way. Spreading them around to limit the enemy’s movements is within the sprit of the game.

The problem is if you use it to put 24 artillery in one stack and put a bomber on top of the stack to prevent the enemy from attacking it. Then, for the cost of only two bombers, you can move this invincible stack around without any tactical considerations. That is what goes against the spirit of civ1. This would almost be like playing civ3

 

[GoldBerg]

... ...
if you use it to put 24 artillery in one stack and put a bomber on top of the stack to prevent the enemy from attacking it.
... ...

i've seen a situation where this didn't work:
1 PHALANX + 1 BOMBER (as far as i remember i did try to save the phalanx for strategic reasons)
on the same field.

an enemy catapult did attack: PHALANX + BOMBER destroyed.

that's why i wrote: it won't work to save other units with bombers.
maybe this depends on the civ.exe version?

i can imagine that maybe version 474.05 handles this problem in an other way as 474.03 (normally i use 474.05 to PLAY because it's the most stable)?

(so i guess you play with civ.exe 474.03 (most used one, i think)?
and bomber stacking may work with 474.02 and 474.01 as well...)

 

[Pikachu]

i've seen a situation where this didn't work:
1 PHALANX + 1 BOMBER (as far as i remember i did try to save the phalanx for strategic reasons)

You risked a bomber to try to save a phalanx? Nice!


I haven’t used this bomber stack tactics myself, but I remember that a poster a long time ago claimed that it works. I couldn’t remember that I had lost any stack with a bomber in it to AI land units either, so I assumed bomber protection worked.

Since you insist on it not working I tested it now, and that revealed that it doesn’t work. If a bomber and a land unit occupy the same tile, enemy land units can attack your land unit, and if your land unit looses, you loose the bomber as well. So bomber stack doesn’t work. Sorry for causing this confusion.


I suppose that the poster I remember that once claimed that bombers protect land units has played too much civ2

 

[Irish Caesar]

Okay, not sure if this is the thread to submit, but:

This was a great map and I had a lot of fun with it.
There is absolutely no cheating in this game:
*No settler cheat
*No reloading of any kind (except where I forgot to save it for a few turns and quit for the night...but that really didn't change the outcome)
*No bomber stacking or any other sort of exploit
*The luxury slider to 100% can hardly be considered a cheat; I had it at 100% years before the last turn.

This is my first attempt at the game.

Spoiler Storytime! :

Nuclear weapons were used by both sides, although Lincoln hit me first. Therefore, he was very fair game.

The American Agency for the Colonization of Outer Space was found to have made significant advances towards sending Americans to a nearby star system. British troops, under the authority of Irish Caesar, seized their Washington office as well as later attempts to continue the construction of a space-ship.

Two American atomic fission weapons were detonated in the metropolis of Cork on the Iberian Peninsula in the early 1800's. By 1860, every city in North America under American control had been similarly attacked by the British Nuclear Command.

Results:
Irish Caesar, Queen Elizabeth I's military advisor, led a conquest of the world which saw domination complete in 1862 AD. With a "score" of 1274 and a "percentage rating" of 76%, Irish Caesar reports that the British Empire in 1863 AD boasts of having 45,970,000 loyal citizen-subjects.

Can't say I had a certain "goal" in mind -- a mix of population, conquest, and an impressive treasury of well over $10,000 were mine at the end. Although it took me until the late 1800's to control the Earth, I was having too much of a good time to worry about quicker domination.

 

[CivFan91]

I'd be happy to play the GOTM (Got CivWin, yippee!) but I'm not sure what to do with those MAPs and SVEs. What do I do with them?

 

[GoldBerg]

You risked a bomber to try to save a phalanx? Nice!
... ...

pik - you're such an *****!!!111

it was a special situation.
the PHALANX was in the right position to prevent (a AI diplomat to bribe or else) something or it wasn't possible to move the bomber elsewhere (point of attac) after 'action' - i don't know.
anyway the bomber was on the same field as the phalanx
and it was at MOUNTAiNS.

if BOMBER STACK would work -
NOTHiNG would've happen - o.k.? do you see my point?

but BOMBER + PHALANX were destroyed by an AI catapult (as far as i remember)
so with civ.exe 474.05 it's maybe not possible (anymore?) to 'bomber stack'?

... ...
If a bomber and a land unit occupy the same tile, enemy land units can attack your land unit, and if your land unit looses, you loose the bomber as well. So bomber stack doesn’t work.
... ...

with which version did you test it? 474.05?

 

[GoldBerg]

I'd be happy to play the GOTM (Got CivWin ... ... ) ...

the contest is CivDOS,
not WinCiv.
sorry.

 

[CivFan91]

Ouch. Oh well, it was worth a try.

 

[Pikachu]

Okay, not sure if this is the thread to submit, but:

It is not. The right thread is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147603

I'd be happy to play the GOTM (Got CivWin, yippee!) but I'm not sure what to do with those MAPs and SVEs. What do I do with them?

You go to eBay or something and buy civ1 dos, and then you put the files in your civ1 dos folder and play the game

pik - you're such an *****!!!111

I wonder what the censored word was? Was it a compliment?

if BOMBER STACK would work -
NOTHiNG would've happen - o.k.? do you see my point?

Of course I see your point. I still find it funny. I would love to see your face when this happened

with civ.exe 474.05 it's maybe not possible (anymore?) to 'bomber stack'?


with which version did you test it? 474.05?

Yes, it was 474.05, and bomber stack is definitely not possible in that version. Does anybody know for sure if it was possible in earlier versions?

I would guess that Microprose didn’t change this between the versions. They didn’t even fix the settler cheat, or the pollution bug, or, or… did they really fix anything at all in the later versions? Why would they fix the bomber stack thing when they failed to address more obvious bugs?

Oh well, maybe I am wrong again. Will someone please find out if bomber stack works in early versions?

 

[GoldBerg]

... ...
I would guess that Microprose didn’t change this between the versions. They didn’t even fix the settler cheat, or the pollution bug, or, or… did they really fix anything at all in the later versions? Why would they fix the bomber stack thing when they failed to address more obvious bugs?

Oh well, maybe I am wrong again. Will someone please find out if bomber stack works in early versions?

CIV DOS version differences
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147869

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3453609&postcount=2

civ.exe 474.01 = 297kB (304.512 Byte), 311.296
...
civ.exe 474.03 = 295kB (302.982 Byte), 311.296
civ.exe 474.04 = 295kB (302.982 Byte), 311.296
civ.exe 474.05 = 297kB (305.030 Byte), 311.296

so -
WHAT (do you think) 'they' did change?

they disabled the shift-56 from 474.01 to 474.02 (?)
they did fix some bugs.
they did change some rules,

like the bomber stacking 'bug'
and other things
USERS did detect while playing civDOS.

that's really not hard to understand -
that's the way software companies work.

first public beta testing & first release (left the shift 56) (1990/1991)
up to
final 474.05 (1991/1992)

1 year later winciv for windows 3.** and
no support/changes for civDOS anymore, as usual.

another year later civNET (~1993/1994)

civ2 in 1995/1996

.
.

i will test bomber stacking with 474.01
then we know for sure if it ever did work.

so

... ...
I would guess that Microprose didn’t change this between the versions.

they did. you guess wrong. see 474.01 to 474.02 (shift-56)

... ...They didn’t even fix the settler cheat,

because people find that cheat useful. you can use it or not - your thing. they didn't thought about the internet and GOTM conquests in 1991.

Why would they fix the bomber stack thing when they failed to address more obvious bugs?

perhaps because this was EASY to do? don't forget that 1 month later the programmer team was no team anymore and all those people maybe elsewhere with other contracts in other software companies. maybe just 1 of those programmers at micropose did fix the bugs from version to version (i would BET it was this way!)

the pollution bug bases on a program restriction ('128') and a bug that breaks thru this restriction moves the whole program-chain one position up it shouldn't been moved to -as we all know- (see old discussions here)
and i doubt just one of the old civ programmer team was able to rewrite the whole games structure (again).

 

[Alex Johnson]

Can you post a link to the pollution bug discussion? I don't know about the pollution bug.

(Wow. I'm like a CivDOS virgin. I don't know about any cheats or any bugs except the invincible settler.)

 

[akaneda]

Shift-56 CHEAT: Banned
TERRAFORM CHEATS: Banned
WATERBRiDGE CHEAT: Allowed
Exploiting features the AI don’t use or don’t use efficiently: Allowed

dito, thats what i belief

1: Should settler cheat be legal?
2: Should reloading to get what you want form goody huts be allowed?
3: Should it be legal to start over from a save game if the AI ”build” a key wonder?
4: Should we allow reloading in cases of extreme unluck in battle?
5: Should it be legal to reload if you loose a city because of an unlucky battle?
6: Sould it be allowed to reload if you give a command you didn't mean to give?
7: Should starting over form a save game be allowed for other reasons? Please specify!
8: Should we be required to submit our first try on the game?

1-7:
cant give a clear answer to that questions, because nobody can ever proof, if it was used or not. i for my self can just say if WE descide to use it or not i will act that way.

for the reason that to many dont want use cheats i would say "yes, no cheating, even no settlers!".
but to make it more simple to control i would just bann the visible (shift-56 ...) cheats ( means settler- and save-cheat allowed)

8: i see no use to, similar reason as above

 

[akaneda]

seems like i have to remind all of the last poll.
till now the only ones who answered were pikachu, alex and i.

the results (is it allowed to say "results" if only three of x persons give an answer?) show that we dont differ to much in what we wish of the GOTwhatever

so to everybody who did not yet, plz answer my questions

and after all that the POLL i suggested:

please all answer that questions as fast as possible and post ur answers here


a.) did u already play the GOTM/GOTQ?

b.) will u play the GOTM/GOTQ in the future?

c.) which difficulty lvl do u prefer? please make a list from which u prefer most to less!

d.) do u like games that last till a specific year? if yes which one would u prefer?

e.) which goals for the game would u prefer (spaceship, complete conquest, population, whole tech tree, ...)? make a list ...

f.) do u cheat when just playing for yourself ( which ones)?

g.) would u rather say competition with or without cheating?

h.) which name would u suggest for the thread (i propose that question, because i just found the gotm by accident)

thats all and please answer them as fast as possible. of course i will post the results!!