I'm not sure how pointless it is to discuss a side effect of the patch. Palace jumping, to a distant location, is not a good idea. Relocating to a more central location is.
Conquests Beta Patch Now Available
- Thread starter dojoboy
- Start date
I'm not sure how pointless it is to discuss a side effect of the patch. Palace jumping, to a distant location, is not a good idea. Relocating to a more central location is.
Well Qitai, I don't care a lot about the Palace Jump, if they were to make a big penalty for it (as whmm, Yumbo I think it was suggested) it wouldn't bother me; in an intelluctual sense I guess it would please me, as it would be the elimination of a technique I somewhat deplore ... but if they left it alone that would be ok too, since I elect not to use it.
OTOH, if the ability of the FP to generate a second core of effective (non-corrupt, non-wasted {hehe} cities) were to be oblerated by changes in the game, I would be VERY caring about that! And some of the discussion regarding the corruption calculations involved with the FP has contained comments and suggesstions that weakeing this "player cheat" is desirable. THIS is what I guess is getting my response going.
Hopefully, as The Last Conformist states, there is not a big thrust on to keep the v 1.12 approach ... although I suspect that I am in violation of his "other kettle of fish", if so, sorry about that! Considering the time of night I am writing, I am not sure though!
I have to admit I like the Old FP, if by that it is meant the ability to generate a second effective core. IF I understand the difference between the "Old FP" and preposed new methods of doing the corruption calculation, the "New FP" would still generate a second core, but perhaps a smaller one- say a core and a half. IF so, I prefer the Old FP ... but would be able to adapt to the new one. But would still vote for the old one.
Again, just my 2 cents worth.
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
There's a poll thread here which I hope will bring together the discussions about FP corruption from a few threads including this one 
DaviddesJ
Deity
The palace jump just isn't a big deal one way or the other, as long as it's possible to rush the FP (or Palace). I don't like using palace jump, I always played by just rushing the FP in my second core, and I think I got results just as good as anyone using the palace jump.
I do think the FP is a fundamentally flawed element of Civ3 (all versions so far, that I can see). It gives the human a big late-game advantage over the AI players, because humans use it more effectively. It also makes leaders disproportionately important. But these "problems" are easily fixed just by deciding not to build the FP, as a handicap. Or even by disabling it in the game setup. So I personally don't think this is something Firaxis needs to change, as players can decide it for themselves.
By far, the thing that would be most valuable to me in a patch would be the option for carryover production (that alone would be a huge improvement, and it's something I can't change myself). After that would be some UI improvements that would help with managing lots of cities and units, and in diplomacizing with many AIs (and perhaps some fixes to some of the flawed aspects of how they trade). The RCP fix was also important (it's different from the FP issues, because you can't just "decide not to" use RCP; you have to put your cities somewhere, and every placement has pluses and minuses, and placing cities is one of the key strategic decisions of the game).
I won't say the FP issue isn't important, I can understand why it makes a big difference to some people, but I wish it didn't get such disproportionate attention.
I do think the FP is a fundamentally flawed element of Civ3 (all versions so far, that I can see). It gives the human a big late-game advantage over the AI players, because humans use it more effectively. It also makes leaders disproportionately important. But these "problems" are easily fixed just by deciding not to build the FP, as a handicap. Or even by disabling it in the game setup. So I personally don't think this is something Firaxis needs to change, as players can decide it for themselves.
By far, the thing that would be most valuable to me in a patch would be the option for carryover production (that alone would be a huge improvement, and it's something I can't change myself). After that would be some UI improvements that would help with managing lots of cities and units, and in diplomacizing with many AIs (and perhaps some fixes to some of the flawed aspects of how they trade). The RCP fix was also important (it's different from the FP issues, because you can't just "decide not to" use RCP; you have to put your cities somewhere, and every placement has pluses and minuses, and placing cities is one of the key strategic decisions of the game).
I won't say the FP issue isn't important, I can understand why it makes a big difference to some people, but I wish it didn't get such disproportionate attention.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
The 'Old FP' has two notable differences from the 1.12 incarnation; it enables a second core, and it makes jumping your Palace to Easter Island a sensible anti-corruption move. The first difference is due to a bug in 1.12, the second to one in CivIII/PTW. The next patch will, or so we hope, have neither bug.
The result will be that you can still get a second core, but not minimize corruption by moving your Palace to some lonely town in the middle of nowhere. So unless you want to retain that "functionality", you don't really want the 'Old FP' back.
Yes, you are indeed correct about this Palace Jump to (no offense please) Timbuktu as an exploit/bug- forgoten about that as I never did that. Seemed un-natural.
So, in that since I don't want the "Old" FP back, you are correct.
What I had in mind without realizing it at the time is the slight drop off in efficency of the second core (in the newer approachs) compared to essentially having two equal (or perhaps slighlty better at the FP) cores, which I had experienced. I had never deliberately used RCP but had inadverdantly, in an unplanned fashion, benefited from it somewhat- by "accident"- by my approach of building cities in ~equidistant rings around the capitol and later the FP- I did this for planning strategic movemnent at a glance by seeing which ring I was moving between- obviouly irrivilant after RR- but helpful to me prior to that point. I had never even heard of RCP until about the time C3C came out as I'd stopped visiting the Forum before it was "discovered", and resumed lurking once C3C was released. Boy was I in for a shock at what I had missed. Serves me right!
I have now seen the error of my ways ...
So I wind up being in the group that wants the "mostly the Old FP" back, but with the rank/RCP/Palace Jump bugs extermnated.
So, in that since I don't want the "Old" FP back, you are correct.
What I had in mind without realizing it at the time is the slight drop off in efficency of the second core (in the newer approachs) compared to essentially having two equal (or perhaps slighlty better at the FP) cores, which I had experienced. I had never deliberately used RCP but had inadverdantly, in an unplanned fashion, benefited from it somewhat- by "accident"- by my approach of building cities in ~equidistant rings around the capitol and later the FP- I did this for planning strategic movemnent at a glance by seeing which ring I was moving between- obviouly irrivilant after RR- but helpful to me prior to that point. I had never even heard of RCP until about the time C3C came out as I'd stopped visiting the Forum before it was "discovered", and resumed lurking once C3C was released. Boy was I in for a shock at what I had missed. Serves me right!
I have now seen the error of my ways ...
So I wind up being in the group that wants the "mostly the Old FP" back, but with the rank/RCP/Palace Jump bugs extermnated.
PorthosdPirate
Chieftain
IF (and I am by no way for this) the Palace jump is disabled, how does it effect other aspects of the game that (I presume) use the same code set for determining where the palace goes after the original is destroyed with the city
1) You capital is destroyed or captured by the AI or another player?
2) You capture or destroy the capital of an AI civ or another player?
If I understand the palace jump you are manually affecting the settings to which the GAME will choose as the best city for your new capital, which it does automatically in the above scenarios. So by disabling it for the human (or yourself in a MP) what does that code change do to legit palace jumps?
1) You capital is destroyed or captured by the AI or another player?
2) You capture or destroy the capital of an AI civ or another player?
If I understand the palace jump you are manually affecting the settings to which the GAME will choose as the best city for your new capital, which it does automatically in the above scenarios. So by disabling it for the human (or yourself in a MP) what does that code change do to legit palace jumps?
PorthosdPirate:
Two (or three) easy solutions:
1) Disable the ability to disband your capital city. Obviously, this is the part of capital jumping that is counter-intuitive and just wrong. If you can't do this, palace jumping becomes MUCH more difficult.
2) Upon the dissolution of the capital (through warfare) either: Replace the FP with a Palace (if the Civ owns an FP) or move the Palace to the next closest city.
3) Use distance from prior palace in making determination. This would prevent "jumping" the palace half-way across the world.
None of these solutions should hurt the balance of the game. In fact, simply implementing #1 would not affect the pbalance at all, but would all but eliminate palace jumping.
I also think that a period of anarchy should follow any time where a palace is conquered. This, however, could unbalance the game in favor of the human player...
Two (or three) easy solutions:
1) Disable the ability to disband your capital city. Obviously, this is the part of capital jumping that is counter-intuitive and just wrong. If you can't do this, palace jumping becomes MUCH more difficult.
2) Upon the dissolution of the capital (through warfare) either: Replace the FP with a Palace (if the Civ owns an FP) or move the Palace to the next closest city.
3) Use distance from prior palace in making determination. This would prevent "jumping" the palace half-way across the world.
None of these solutions should hurt the balance of the game. In fact, simply implementing #1 would not affect the pbalance at all, but would all but eliminate palace jumping.
I also think that a period of anarchy should follow any time where a palace is conquered. This, however, could unbalance the game in favor of the human player...
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
#2 sounds good to me.. this is intuitive and would convince most players, I guess
PorthosdPirate
Chieftain
@Yumbo
Why should I not be allowed to disband my capital? In my game if my capital is on the dingle-berry end of a land mass and not worth anything why can't I simply say " ok people, everyone and everything pack up, we are leaving this dump for a better city". It's my city, I am supreme lord, what I say goes in my game. If you don't want to use the palace jump don't use it. If I abandon that city and build a new one near by, due to better access to resources and such why should I be penalized? The same thing happens as stated in my first post. I don't have to build a palace if my city is taken and neither does the AI. The advantage of building a palace and keeping you original capital city is that you retain the land and access to the resources.
But I still would like to know what this "code change" will do to the legit palace jumps. What "can of worms" are you asking to open up? As for the period of anarchy following the fall of a capital is unbalanced for both the AI and the human player. I do not want to be on the losing end of a war, lose my capital and then lose the ability to produce new units to defend the rest of my civ for 6 to 8 turns.
Ultimately, yeah, you're probably right. I consider it cheating, but if you want to do it in your single-player games, I say, go right on ahead. In MP games, I think I'd be pretty angry if someone used it, but then, I almost never play MP games.
I also realize that CivIII is not a historical suimulation.
That said, I think it is a rather glaring exploit (read, cheat) for someone, through their knowledge of the inner workings of the game engine, to rush-improve and rush-populate a city far from their capital in order to slingshot their capital half-way around the world and gain an advantage on either the AI or a human opponent. Firaxis has addressed less egregious exploits than this one (RCP, for example).
I'm not sure what you mean by legit palace jumps. I think by simply implementing idea #1, you eliminate almost all exploitative palace jumps, and don't really change the balance of the game, except that now you do not have access to a technique that is never used by the AI. That way, if you want to move your palace, you can either build a new one, or rush-build a palace with a GL.
Yet there is some historical precedence for this. Paris fell in WWII, and France immediately sued for peace. Even a 1-2 turn period of anarchy and upheaval seems reasonable while your gov't regroups.
I might add that there is something almost comically ludicrous to the concept of disbanding your nations capital only to have the entire infrastructure of your federal government reappear magcally on another continent. Perhaps in CivIV a provisional seat of gov't could automatically appear, but the player/AI would still have to build some sort of infrastructure in order to receive all of the anti-corruption benefits.
PorthosdPirate
Chieftain
What I call legit palace jumps (most likely the wrong term) is when your capital is destroyed or captured. The same code set (I presume) is used to determine the next location. If it is disabled for the player to manually disband his city what will happen when the players capital is destroyed or captured (in effect disbanded)?
Well, Constantine did build improvements and send the best and brightest he had to Constantinople as fast as he could to move his capital to a more centric location. While he did not disband Rome, he in effect left it to fend for itself.
BAD Example!
During the American Revolution when the British captured Philadelphia the Continental Congress fled the city and setup shop in New York City. The same could be said for China in WWII. Anyhow, I do agree that this issue needs to be tabled and addressed in CIV4.
I think that points 2 and 3 in amy above post indicate that I am not opposed to the palace moving; what I am opposed to is the human player exploiting a knowledge of the mechanism whereby the AI decides where to place the palace in the event of the conquering/disbanding of the capital.
If the capital is destroyed or captured, you could either a) maintain the current mechanism, or b) adopt one of the two mechanisms stated in my prvious post.
And BTW, at least as it is used in this post, palace jumping refers to deliberately disbanding your capital in order to catapult your palace to a more desirable city. In CivIII/PTW, with the FP rank bug, the human player could use this to HUGE advantage.
Palace relocation due to conquest/destruction is a completely different issue. They both rely on the same mechanism to determine where the AI will place the palace, but if you disable the ability of the human player to disband thier capital, then palace jumping has all but been disabled as well.
PorthosdPirate
Chieftain
I do not think the human is exploiting anything over the AI. The human is doing what he does best. He adapts to gain the best advantage over his opponent. As it stands how do we know that the AI does not build up cities so that when his capital is destroyed or captured that the capital moves to the best location for it? The only thing that we do know is that the AI does not abandon any city and that is because it is programmed not to do so. That would counter the get as much territory as possible code that is in place. i.e. it can not self terminate. Exploit or cheat? No I think not. Unforeseen by the programmer? Maybe. His fault, no because his forsight and input from those around may not have seen this coming verses the world at large. Should we limit the human to what the AI can do? No, adapt the AI to attempt to do what the human can for a greater challenge.
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
Yumbo, I'd like to ask if you've ever done a planned and successful distant Palace jump? And have you ever used RCP to the maximum? I'm curious because I have, and based on the results I would not make the comparison you've made above.
I'd also like to add one other thing to the debate on Palace jumping: On many maps the Palace jump provides a useable "builder" option for developing a strong FP region. With the Palace jump removed, the military approach would be the only way, further reducing the strength of builder approaches to the game.
Never done a "planned and successful" palace jump. Maxed out on RCP once, when I first read about it; basically, just to see what all of the fuss was about and whether it was as effective as people said.
To clarify on my point to PortisdPirate: What I am concerned by is the trend to analyze the game and its mechinations to death. I've said elsewhere: the AI is, by definition (at least for the foreseeable future) limited to what it can be programmed to do. Everything it does is drive by complex algorithms. Learnig and applying these algorithms might make us better players (depending on how you define "better", and depending on how you define "player"), but it also shortens the life of the game and removes CivIII from the realm of a gaming experience into the realm of, as Marlor put it, mathmatical puzzle.
Yes, if we keep digging and analyzing, we can probably "solve" CivIII. Let's just hope that doesn't happen before CivIV is released.
You'd need to elaborate; I'm not sure what your point is here...
The same might be said for RCP, or Palace prebuilding, or any of a number of other exploits. That does not justify their existance.
To clarify on my point to PortisdPirate: What I am concerned by is the trend to analyze the game and its mechinations to death. I've said elsewhere: the AI is, by definition (at least for the foreseeable future) limited to what it can be programmed to do. Everything it does is drive by complex algorithms. Learnig and applying these algorithms might make us better players (depending on how you define "better", and depending on how you define "player"), but it also shortens the life of the game and removes CivIII from the realm of a gaming experience into the realm of, as Marlor put it, mathmatical puzzle.
Yes, if we keep digging and analyzing, we can probably "solve" CivIII. Let's just hope that doesn't happen before CivIV is released.
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
My point is that if you haven't done a planned and successful Palace jump then I don't think you should be making statements such as "I consider it cheating", "In MP games, I think I'd be pretty angry if someone used it", and "Firaxis has addressed less egregious exploits than this one (RCP, for example)". You do not know from experience how difficult a Palace jump is to use, how strong its results are, nor whether techqniques such as RCP are less egregious. So I think you should back off on how strongly you feel about it
Huh??? RCP and Palace prebuilding are equally powerful for military or builder approaches. Removing either of them would not weaken the builder approach relative to the military approach. So that same can't be said for them at all.
Well, sorry to offend you. My position is, a cheat is a cheat; whether you use it and benefit from it or whether it takes some time to pull off, it still violates the spirit of the game. Period.
Ultimately, as I said earlier, it doesn't effect me much, if at all, so I don't mind if they patch it. But it's still a cheat.
PorthosdPirate
Chieftain
I think that unless you are in the high-archy of Firaxis or Atari you should not be overly concerned about people analyzing the mechanics of the game and how it could possible shorten the life of the product. Or turn it into a realm of a mathematical puzzle. Unless you are doing the calculations for every possible move in Civ3 the game will never become a mathematical puzzle. As long as you play it as a game then it will always remain that, a game. Which is what 90% plus of the people who purchase and play Civ3 do. They enjoy the game and really dont care advantages others do to help win the game. If they did then others would be here or on other fan pages vocalizing and agreeing with you. What you seem to be arguing against a group of very dedicated players doing what they can to find every advantage that they can over their opponent and they are more than glad to share the knowledge they have gained with others who are willing to listen.
Is it a cheat because someone in a MP and or GOTM type game did a palace jump and received the benefits and was able to perform better than you? Or is that someone had a better way of moving the capital with out wasting the turns of building a palace and you are two years behind on finding this out?
I do not mean to sound offending but I fail to see why you have taken up this cause to have the palace jump removed? For each argument you use to have it taken out myself or someone else can counter with a reason to keep it in.
Similar threads
