Hills
- Thread starter Redcom
- Start date
Check out...
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2scrolls.shtml#Airbase
...for a full comparison.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2scrolls.shtml#Airbase
...for a full comparison.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>
drake
Bring it
I'm playing a game right now with a hill that has a river......tack on some more food for that baby, some trade and an un-beatable defensive location
Marko Polo
Chieftain
Hmm.. I come from Apolyton and there this "airfield on a hill" for extra food trick is commonly regarded as a cheat. At least if you are going to post your logs then you shouldn't use it. Why cheat? Because it's clearly a software bug.
Of course, if you are playing just for yourself you can do whatever pleases you..
Of course, if you are playing just for yourself you can do whatever pleases you..
Andu Indorin
Retired Druid
Yes, the "airbase cheat" is an oversight in Civ2's programming. I doubt it will be available in Civ3.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I prefer grassland. I'll have to try that airbase thing though..
------------------
<FONT COLOR="blue"><FONT face="lucida handwriting">"And this is how it all began, where did we mess up?"
</FONT c></FONT f>
Check out Arcade Portal and Civworld Forms
------------------
<FONT COLOR="blue"><FONT face="lucida handwriting">"And this is how it all began, where did we mess up?"
</FONT c></FONT f>
Check out Arcade Portal and Civworld Forms
weimar_republic
Warlord
I know an easy way to aviod this cheat. do what I do. dont build airbases!!!
once I played a game where I build a fighter. it was my biggest airforece ever!! by biggest navy ever: 2 ships! I dont build militarys.
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
Yet you call yourself Weimar Republic?
You seem to be playing Good Civ all the time when Bad Civ is to many people far more fun. If you only concentrate on one aspect then you won't become a very good player. On the higher levels you will be sh*t on by the computer if you can't both broker treaties and crush resistance in the same game.
------------------
in vino veritas
You seem to be playing Good Civ all the time when Bad Civ is to many people far more fun. If you only concentrate on one aspect then you won't become a very good player. On the higher levels you will be sh*t on by the computer if you can't both broker treaties and crush resistance in the same game.
------------------
in vino veritas
thealien_83
King
I'd say it's stupid to stop building airbases ( if you build them to start with, that is ), just don't use them for what was mentioned earlier, but rather what they are there for, to station fighters and bombers there. And despite that I suspect I am a bit like Weimar, in that I am not overly fond of warfare ( though of course sometimes I do fight wars just for fun, but not often ) I tend to hold large armies up. I try to keep my army on the cutting edge and with numbers at the very least intimidating to even those war-crazed fundamentalists... But I tend to be more a defensive player all in all...
I never build airbases. Who has the time to make an engineer, get it out into dangerous territory where it can easily get killed and then wait a few turns more. Besides, they just mark the spot for a enemy fighters to pick them off. Snd i'm strictly defense usually. I build up my empire, get the best techs and then beat my enemies with tehnology, not numbers.
I often build airbases on Islands, sort of 'stepping stones' for my bombers and paras. And i leave a few fighters there all the time.
One strategy i have, which is a bits risky - when i have only fighters i sometimes send waves of planes beyond their return to base fuel range to attack a city. On the basis that i will neutralise all enemy ground troops, and invade the city with some units of my own. And be able to land my planes safely there.
(The WAIT function must be used for the planes whilst they still have 1 movement left, until I occupy the city).
------------------
Nil Mortis Sine Lucre
One strategy i have, which is a bits risky - when i have only fighters i sometimes send waves of planes beyond their return to base fuel range to attack a city. On the basis that i will neutralise all enemy ground troops, and invade the city with some units of my own. And be able to land my planes safely there.
(The WAIT function must be used for the planes whilst they still have 1 movement left, until I occupy the city).
------------------
Nil Mortis Sine Lucre
starlifter
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,210
Questions (if anyone still reads this month-old thread):
1. Marko Polo: Where is Apolyton? I've traveled to over 80 countries, and never heard of it.
"Hmm.. I come from Apolyton and there..."
2. Also for Marko (or anyone else): How do you know the Airbase on a hill is a cheat? Has Sid or Bryan publically stated that it is? Or is it just a personal opinion?
3. I just joined Civ Fanatics, and jumped right in to play GOTM 5. In the 1700's, I was reading some GOTM threads and discovered that others use the Airbase on a hill in their GOTMs (personally, I was not using them to that point). But since it is a game function, it seems hard to call it a cheat.
4. Airbases also have a special defensive advantage... stacked units must be killed one by one. No defensive bonus, but if you have 6 warriors on one, it would take 6 bombers to kill all of them, LOL...
5. BTW, Airbases and forts cannot be combined on the same cell.
6. So bottom line... if airbases are really cheating, cite the source. Likely, it is just an opinion from someone.
1. Marko Polo: Where is Apolyton? I've traveled to over 80 countries, and never heard of it.
"Hmm.. I come from Apolyton and there..."
2. Also for Marko (or anyone else): How do you know the Airbase on a hill is a cheat? Has Sid or Bryan publically stated that it is? Or is it just a personal opinion?
3. I just joined Civ Fanatics, and jumped right in to play GOTM 5. In the 1700's, I was reading some GOTM threads and discovered that others use the Airbase on a hill in their GOTMs (personally, I was not using them to that point). But since it is a game function, it seems hard to call it a cheat.
4. Airbases also have a special defensive advantage... stacked units must be killed one by one. No defensive bonus, but if you have 6 warriors on one, it would take 6 bombers to kill all of them, LOL...
5. BTW, Airbases and forts cannot be combined on the same cell.
6. So bottom line... if airbases are really cheating, cite the source. Likely, it is just an opinion from someone.
1.Its another Civ related site.Very good.
ApolytonCS
2.It is a cheat for "comparison" OCC games.This was decided by vote.
I can't imagine designers intended to have maps covered with airbases but against the ai do what you want.I would frown upon it for non defensive purposes in a MP game should one actually go that far.
3.Yes seems like it is ok in GotMs.Been allowed from the start so....
4.Not in my experience.Units stacked on airbases are all lost if 1 goes.
5.Not at the same time but during a turn they can both be used.See "Xin Yu's X-Pack"
6.Do what you want.It is a "house rule" in many scenarios.
Why?
Because they do things that are not wanted,mainly free movement and double irrigation.
Airbases are bases for planes.Not farms and RR stations.
ApolytonCS
2.It is a cheat for "comparison" OCC games.This was decided by vote.
I can't imagine designers intended to have maps covered with airbases but against the ai do what you want.I would frown upon it for non defensive purposes in a MP game should one actually go that far.
3.Yes seems like it is ok in GotMs.Been allowed from the start so....
4.Not in my experience.Units stacked on airbases are all lost if 1 goes.
5.Not at the same time but during a turn they can both be used.See "Xin Yu's X-Pack"
6.Do what you want.It is a "house rule" in many scenarios.
Why?
Because they do things that are not wanted,mainly free movement and double irrigation.
Airbases are bases for planes.Not farms and RR stations.
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
Even if it is cheating, I like to build airbases all around my capital so that enemies can't go and bomb it in one turn. You have to land on an airbase when you get there so if they have to pause on the outskirts of my city then I can strike back at them with cruise missiles or stealths. I'll have a couple of stealth fighters in my capital when the AI gets flight and advanced flight, but not built other units to attack from there because they'd obviously get caught in my web of airbases. I consider them cheating for the extra production, but I hope that this tactic isn't cheating too.
------------------
in vino veritas
------------------
in vino veritas
The "Poor Man's SDI"
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
And the poor man's SAM battery
------------------
in vino veritas
------------------
in vino veritas
starlifter
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,210
Thanks for the reply, Smash. I have enjoyed reading about your OCC exploits, and I have even tried a few OCC games myself of late. Quite a different approach to things in OCC!
> 1.Its another Civ related site.Very good.
> ApolytonCS
Thanks. I went an looked at it. Quite extensive!
> 2.It is a cheat for "comparison" OCC
>games.This was decided by vote.
Right... like anything, it is restricted by decision. I was sort of suprised that it was allowed in the GOTM, but as long as everyone has the same advantage/opportunity, then it's OK. But building airfields, even on Hills or to reduce movement costs, is not a "cheat" in the vein of enabling the cheat mode, or inputting a cheat code, and many new Civ players are probably confused about that.
> I can't imagine designers intended to have
>maps covered with airbases but against the
>ai do what you want.
I agree it is silly to cover a map with airbases, esp. since the AI does not/ can not do it too. It is a huge huge advantage for the human to do that against the AI.
> 4.Not in my experience.Units stacked on airbases are all lost if 1 goes.
I'm using Civ 2 MGE, 5.4.0f, 26 march 99. Any units in an airbase defend one at a time, and losing one will not take out the stack. It will take 6 attacks to kill 6 warriors, for example.
> 5.Not at the same time but during a turn they can both be used.See "Xin Yu's X-Pack"
I went and looked at that, but had noted that peculiar behavior of Civ 2 a long time ago. IMHO, blocking the attack of forces with a bomber is a "cheat", and if airfields were supposed to have a defensive bonus, they would have been made that way.
As a pilot having flown in hundreds of combat airfields myself, I can tell you, however, planes do need an airfield at all times (except Harriers)... and certainly any bombers at our frontline airfields (that might be pillaged at the moment) do not prevent enemy ground attacks... LOL
The inability of Civ 2 to directly nuke a stack with a bomber in it is, IMHO, a serious game error. We definitely worry about missiles and nukes in real life, and there should be no place on a Civ 2 map that a nuke/cruise missile cannot directly attack.
Do players actually use the bomber stack 'bug' in a MP game? Seems like that would be an exploit people would prefer not to see used.
> 6.Do what you want.It is a "house rule" in
>many scenarios.
> Why? Because they do things that are not
>wanted,mainly free movement and double
>irrigation.
>Airbases are bases for planes.Not farms and
>RR stations.
It is somewhat ironic that many real-life airfields I've flown into all over the world are very often used as farmlands, because of all the irrigated/maintained flatlands. When we make a new airbase in real life, it flattens the whole area more often than not.
Most airbases have a supporting rail (and/or port) structure, and almost always a new road structure too. We (the Coalition) built up quite a few in Saudi Arabia and later in Kuwait (in the Persian Gulf War), and it is an impressive sight.
What is odd to me, however, is allowing an airbase on a mountain or a hill. That just does not happen, at least militarily, in real life. And if it were to be done, it would take forever.
> 1.Its another Civ related site.Very good.
> ApolytonCS
Thanks. I went an looked at it. Quite extensive!
> 2.It is a cheat for "comparison" OCC
>games.This was decided by vote.
Right... like anything, it is restricted by decision. I was sort of suprised that it was allowed in the GOTM, but as long as everyone has the same advantage/opportunity, then it's OK. But building airfields, even on Hills or to reduce movement costs, is not a "cheat" in the vein of enabling the cheat mode, or inputting a cheat code, and many new Civ players are probably confused about that.
> I can't imagine designers intended to have
>maps covered with airbases but against the
>ai do what you want.
I agree it is silly to cover a map with airbases, esp. since the AI does not/ can not do it too. It is a huge huge advantage for the human to do that against the AI.
> 4.Not in my experience.Units stacked on airbases are all lost if 1 goes.
I'm using Civ 2 MGE, 5.4.0f, 26 march 99. Any units in an airbase defend one at a time, and losing one will not take out the stack. It will take 6 attacks to kill 6 warriors, for example.
> 5.Not at the same time but during a turn they can both be used.See "Xin Yu's X-Pack"
I went and looked at that, but had noted that peculiar behavior of Civ 2 a long time ago. IMHO, blocking the attack of forces with a bomber is a "cheat", and if airfields were supposed to have a defensive bonus, they would have been made that way.
As a pilot having flown in hundreds of combat airfields myself, I can tell you, however, planes do need an airfield at all times (except Harriers)... and certainly any bombers at our frontline airfields (that might be pillaged at the moment) do not prevent enemy ground attacks... LOL
The inability of Civ 2 to directly nuke a stack with a bomber in it is, IMHO, a serious game error. We definitely worry about missiles and nukes in real life, and there should be no place on a Civ 2 map that a nuke/cruise missile cannot directly attack.
Do players actually use the bomber stack 'bug' in a MP game? Seems like that would be an exploit people would prefer not to see used.
> 6.Do what you want.It is a "house rule" in
>many scenarios.
> Why? Because they do things that are not
>wanted,mainly free movement and double
>irrigation.
>Airbases are bases for planes.Not farms and
>RR stations.
It is somewhat ironic that many real-life airfields I've flown into all over the world are very often used as farmlands, because of all the irrigated/maintained flatlands. When we make a new airbase in real life, it flattens the whole area more often than not.
Most airbases have a supporting rail (and/or port) structure, and almost always a new road structure too. We (the Coalition) built up quite a few in Saudi Arabia and later in Kuwait (in the Persian Gulf War), and it is an impressive sight.
What is odd to me, however, is allowing an airbase on a mountain or a hill. That just does not happen, at least militarily, in real life. And if it were to be done, it would take forever.
greenie
Warlord
Just remember this when it comes to the ethical question of cheating - if all players have acccess to do it, then it isnt cheating.
------------------
- Greenie
" Let us take by
cunning what we would
take by force"
------------------
- Greenie
" Let us take by
cunning what we would
take by force"
Kev
Hired Goon
Well, if you think about it, the opportunity is not (technically) "equally" available. When playing in an MP game or in comparison games like a GOTM, it is the tech-minded player who will be better able to take advantage of this bug.
I can't remember the tech needed to build airbases (flight? adv. flight?), but the player who reaches it first will be the one able to put airbases on his/her map. A more militaristic player would have to steal the tech in order to get it about the same time.
I understand that the converse argument could be that the tech person is also rewarded with the ability to produce modern units and improvements, so this could be just one more reward for the "techie". This is a reason that the player utilizes this style in the first place.
Yet, IMHO, I don't agree.
In theory, the two methods should balance each other: the tech player having fewer but more modern units (having to spend production on improvements and/or trade and the like) with the militaristic having greater numbers. If you add the fact that the tech player can also provide a huge boost in food and production merely by building airbases (well before the opponent can), then I think that the balance tilts unfairly to that player.
------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock
I can't remember the tech needed to build airbases (flight? adv. flight?), but the player who reaches it first will be the one able to put airbases on his/her map. A more militaristic player would have to steal the tech in order to get it about the same time.
I understand that the converse argument could be that the tech person is also rewarded with the ability to produce modern units and improvements, so this could be just one more reward for the "techie". This is a reason that the player utilizes this style in the first place.
Yet, IMHO, I don't agree.
In theory, the two methods should balance each other: the tech player having fewer but more modern units (having to spend production on improvements and/or trade and the like) with the militaristic having greater numbers. If you add the fact that the tech player can also provide a huge boost in food and production merely by building airbases (well before the opponent can), then I think that the balance tilts unfairly to that player.
------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock
SlowThinker
Prince
I agree with starlifter. I use MGE.
