Have you ever cheated?

[Marcus_Aurelius]

I realized that Civilization is the only game that I have ever played where I never had any interest in cheating. Civ III didn't have a built in cheat mode I guess, but I never even bothered to look. I don't think you could get the same satisfaction from the game if you cheat. Even when things go downhill, that just makes it more challenging.

 

[Sigalf03]

I haven't cheated in any civ game by putting in codes or activating cheat mods. I have on a few occasions gone back after getting sneak attacked and losing my capital or something majore and restarted from the last autosave, but I don't know if thats considered cheating or not. I have always assumed that everyone one is gulty of that at least once, but i could be wrong

 

[Marcus_Aurelius]

Ohhhhh, yeah. Maybe I have done that occasionaly But I am thinking of the type of cheat where you give yourself 10,000 gold, etc.

 

[dmd]

Yep I have, but nothing major. Just reloading if my spy fails, I only did that a couple of times.

 

[Tarkhan]

Well ive never actually cheated per se, but have used the save/reload feature a few times.

 

[Panzer Ace]

Cheating takes the fun/challange out of any game. Now, I have modded the game but not to cheat. Usally to change the greeting from other Civs, etc...

 

[Meegs]

My first game... Isabell declared war on me, i was caught with my pants around my ancles... I saw the world builder tool, haha, put two navy SEALs right in front of her forces, and an iron clad next to her galleon. It easily solved the problem, but I don't think I'll do that again... Anyone else do that yet in Civ4?

 

[Varelse]

I used to use the cheat mode in Civ2. I haven't checked out the world builder cheat mode in Civ4 yet though.

 

[RazorChain]

After playing the Total War games extensively I never load, even when I get caught with my pants down...I mean in most strategy games it is easy enough to beat the A.I and often when I am losing then I am having the most fun. Especially when I manage to pull myself together from serious tactical or strategic mistakes and win the game. Those games are the most memoriable. Also when I get backstabbed and slapped around by the A.I
I tend to get angry as hell and seethe with hatred loading the game is not the way to solve the problem and teach that stupid A.I the price of double crossing ME

The only times I load is if my game crashes or something like that

 

[Sub]

I used to when I started out in Civ 2. I plan on cheating in Civ 4 when / if I can get the game to work.

 

[ronok]

If you call getting 200000000 gpt for a world map, yes.

 

[Pragmatic]

I cheat like crazy. Hence my name: die-hards may not like us cheaters, but we outnumber them, and we make it so games are affordable. Don't like us? Fine, go ahead and pay five times as much for all your games. (I'm Pragmatic about cheating.)

Mainly, though, I like to set up what I call a Constantinople situation. A small, high-tech civilization against hordes of barbarians. I've played that way in Civ 2, I've played that way in MOO 2, and I fully intend to play that way in Civ 4. (I don't play Civ 3 that much, for some reason.)

I intend to set up a peninsula that has only two accesses (all others blocked by impassable mountains): a narrow bridge that is highly defensible for my army, and a port so I can build my navy. I'll have nine cities (maybe a bit more?) with a good selection of resources.

I may not be as isolationist as I usually am (I'm a builder and a perfectionist), but I still plan on building my Constantinople.

 

[Tarkhan]

hehe, nothing wrong with that I never really liked mass expansion, constantly spamming settlers, i'm hoping civ4 makes it more important to have fewer, but more powerful cities.

One sad point, Atilla the hun did manage to sack Constantinople, I believe =/

I'd like a "Fall of Rome" scenario, where the only player is you, and youre incessantly attacked by gradually stronger and stronger barbs (about even with your strength, etc) and you win if you get to 1000AD, etc, just because barbarians arent as realistic following the discovery of gunpowder.

 

[Pragmatic]

I'd like a "Fall of Rome" scenario, where the only player is you, and youre incessantly attacked by gradually stronger and stronger barbs (about even with your strength, etc) and you win if you get to 1000AD, etc, just because barbarians arent as realistic following the discovery of gunpowder.

Sort of possible, I think. Just put one enemy civilization in a circle of mountains. Now you just have to figure out how to create progressively stronger barbarians...

 

[Nyvin]

I don't cheat unless you'd count putting malicious code into the booting sectors of the kernal files of the game. Mainly to setup a system of repeating loops so that a certain civ's income doubles each turn, but at the same time keeping the application in a stable state. Isolating the bug to one civ is complicated, but since it's designed to focus on the human player itself, it does have flaws. Cracking the source code for this is pretty complicated, but it can be done.

I just do it so I can beat the scenario's on monarch, cause Regent doesnt' look impressive... :-(