Is This a Cheat?

[Beard Rinker]

Originally posted by Aeson
If the AI would ever use marines, and if there were more units capable of making direct assaults from ships, this really wouldn't be a problem. Invasions launched from sea were common before marines were ever thought of. Vikings did it all the time, Corsairs and Pirates of various sorts did as well. There need to be more options for this type of assault in the game. I don't think its a cheat to use though, otherwise building a city on a 1 tile island would be a cheat. They are invincible until marines come around.

Yes I can see that now. Ancient times, near what would be the future city of Dublin.
Brother Liam: "Father, A Viking invasion ship has been spotted off the coast!"
Father Patrick: "Quick, head to the coast and chop down the forest."
Brother Liam: "But father, the forest was chopped down last year."
Father Patrick: "Ok then, go and plant a new one."
Brother Liam shrugs his shoulders and heads to the coast. Having had a wee bit too much the previous night, he falls asleep on the shore.
The Viking invaders approach the coast and spot the sleeping monk. "Sorry boys, no invasion today. We'll never get by him."

Clearly, lining the shores with workers is a ridiculous (yet effective) means of preventing an invasion. Even lining the shores with military units is questionable. How can 1 pikeman prevent several transports full of tanks from landing.

What I am suggesting is that this tactic should not be used in a GOTM. Firaxis did provide a means of defending against a sea invasion: units can't land and attack on the same turn, giving the defenders one free shot.

I've not played allot of civ 3 games yet but my guess is a one tile island isn't much of an issue. I have yet to see one, and if I did the one shield of production and slow growth wouldn’t be that tempting.

 

[Aeson]

These one tile islands can sometimes use surrounding land, and be quite productive. Their real value lies in the fact that they become unsinkable "carriers" later in the game. Still not a big deal, but its nice to have an invincible base of military operations.

As far as the Scouts are concerned, are they allowed to be used that way in GOTM's or not? It certainly could be imbalancing in some situations. I can think of a few other uses that they might have as well, mostly just being a nuisance in AI territory with no reprocussions. Just want to clear this up as 3 of the next 4 will be Expansionist Civs.

 

[Beard Rinker]

Maybe I've missed something on this. It seems like a perfectly valid strategy to place a unit on a vital resource. The AI certainly uses a similar tactic.

I've never used a scout before. Is there something special about them that will make the AI ignore them? I've had workers wander onto neighboring civilization’s territory and I pretty sure I got warnings about that. Is this not true with scouts?

Matrix claims the AI doesn’t realize it's being denied use of the resource. Is this a fact or is it the AI is now in a weak position and doesn't want to risk a conflict. If the former is true then I would consider this an unfair exploit, if its the later, then I'd say it's a good tactic.

 

[Aeson]

The AI never asks for Scouts to be withdrawn, unless perhaps you have other types of units in their territory as well. I was using this on Deity, where my military, landmass, and overall score were about half that of everyone else. Definitely they weren't afraid of me, which seems to point to the fact that they didn't realize what was going on. They didn't declare war to remove the Scouts at any time while I was doing this for most of the BC's. Workers and Settlers can be used the same way, because when the "Remove your troops or declare war" option comes up, they aren't relocated by withdrawing your troops. Usually the AI will try and capture Workers or Settlers that are undefended in their territory for very long though. I don't know if they realize whether the resource is being denied to them or not, but they don't seem to care about Scouts doing it.

 

[Aeson]

I just found out that the AI will ask for you to withdraw the scouts eventually, but I haven't seen them demand that I do or declare war yet. I had a scout holding an Egyptian Iron source for about 20 turns, and then they asked me to withdraw my troops. The scout is still there though, and it's been at least 50 more turns. I've had a Scout in Iroquois territory doing the same thing for about 120 turns overall.

 

[Matrix]

You only have (a) scout(s) on their terrain and they ask you to remove your troups but never force you to it ("<your troups will move automatically>")? What difficulty do you play?

 

[The Danster]

Something I find i'm doing regularly is:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10018&perpage=20&pagenumber=10

Does anyone else think this is a bit of a cheat?

 

[Beard Rinker]

RE: Expansionist Mischief

Aeson: from the way you describe it, it smells of an unfair exploit. Given that this would be a significant advantage, I won't use it the next GOTM. However, I may do this with military units if the opportunity presents itself.

RE: Making money at the end of research

The Danster: My understanding about the scientific rate is it's supposed to carry forward any excess beakers to the next research project. Reducing your science rate prior to discovery may get you a little extra gold, but will slow next research project. However, from what I've read elsewhere on this forum, the science rate does not carry forward and your method is indeed a means of squeezing a few extra gold pieces. Keep in mind that this may not work in future patches as I don't think it's the intended behavior. Although it is an exploit, it doesn't give you a significant advantage and in my opinion it should be fair game.

I believe Matrix is the one who manages the GOTM so he should have the last word on these topics.

 

[Matrix]

Beard Rinker, I agree with you almost fully. (Ofcourse your last sentence. ) I think Firaxis intended to have a minimum and maximum number of turns for advances. Taking advantage is no exploit at all.

 

[Aeson]

I've played a Deity game (Large/Pangaea/8 AI), and an Emporer game (Huge/Pangaea/8 AI) using Scouts to deny the AI resources. It's worked extremely well each time, keeping everyone else from getting Iron and/or Horses until I was ready to destroy them.

I have yet to see the AI try to remove my Scouts either diplomatically or militarily. For its cost (10 shields for a Scout, 1 gold per turn support), it is by far the most effective way that I have found of denying resources to the AI. I personally wouldn't use it in a GOTM unless it was deemed an allowed "exploit". I think Explorers could be used this way for non-Expansionist Civs to keep later resources out of the hands of the AI in some cases. I haven't tested this with Explorers yet though.

I am attaching the Emporer save game if anyone wants to check it out. I think the Greeks and Egyptians were both able to claim a Horse, the Baylonians and Romans both have a shot at a Horse. All the Iron is "claimed" by my scouts, or will be before the AI can get there. A few Horses are still available, but still far enough away from the AI that my Scouts should get them. I spent a lot of extra time in Iroquois and Persian territory, making sure that they didn't get any Horses or Iron respectively. It turned out they both didn't have the resource for their UU's anyways. I think there is one AI off of the main continent, though they could be in the uncovered area still.

Something interesting about the game. The Babylonians are sending a force to attack me I think, they have just passed my Scout on Iroquois Iron. They didn't bother attacking, nor did they target any of my Scouts holding resources near their territory. It takes about 15-20 more turns before the Babylonians can even get to my territory though. They may be headed for an Iroquois city, but I doubt it. The Persians already tried to do the same thing with 4 Warriors and 2 Spearmen. That's the only warfare so far, as I'm building up a few more Horsemen before attacking the Romans. I also like the Inland Sea on this map, it's by far the largest that I've seen.

 

[The Danster]

Had a little chat with my workmate about it and we reckon it could be seen as being akin to having a project which is overbudgeted, so if u need the cash then you gather in the overspend!!

Anyhoo... just thought I'd say

 

[Aeson]

I finally had the AI demand that I withdraw my Scouts. Just moved them back in 2 turns though If 2 or more Scouts are in an AI Civ's territory they seem more likely to demand that they are withdrawn. There may also be a relative power check the AI does to determine when to demand a withdrawl, as some Civs allowed the intrusions for much longer than others.

 

[macaskil]

IMO it should not be possible to switch production without losing all the shields invested. In the real world if you have got half way to building the pyramids you can't suddenly switch to building something else without having to start again. Similarly a half-built temple can't suddenly become a settler or warrior.

Perhaps (though it would add to the complexity) a half-built wonder/improvement could remain half-built until you restart building at a later turn.

 

[Matrix]

Originally posted by macaskil
Perhaps (though it would add to the complexity) a half-built wonder/improvement could remain half-built until you restart building at a later turn.

Exactly. Remember Civ III is a game, not a simulation. There are many things that aren't exactly real, but an apparent best solution between reality and fun game-play.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Beard Rinker

....What I am suggesting is that this tactic should not be used in a GOTM. Firaxis did provide a means of defending against a sea invasion: units can't land and attack on the same turn, giving the defenders one free shot.

I thought that if you "woke" the units in the transports rather than "unloading" them, then you could move them. Eg. For a tank, you use one movement point (depending on terrain) to land, and can then use one more to attack. Is this right?

 

[Beard Rinker]

Originally posted by ainwood


I thought that if you "woke" the units in the transports rather than "unloading" them, then you could move them. Eg. For a tank, you use one movement point (depending on terrain) to land, and can then use one more to attack. Is this right?

My experience has been you are only allowed to land, regardless of the unit's movement. Now that I think about it, all of my landings may have been on tiles with high movement cost like hills or jungle. I'd better reinforce those unguarded coastal towns.

Regardless, I still feel that lining the shore with units (particularly workers) to prevent a landing is an unfair tactic and I won't use it in a GOTM. Although this tactic is similar to blocking units on land, the difference is on land your opponent can respect your block or attack you. For example: the AI making that mad dash across your territory to grab some land. Blocking the settler is perfectly valid since the AI can always attack you if it really wants to get by.

I feel that the game could handle the invasion by sea better than it does. Historically, this type of invasion can be very difficult to execute. If a country prepares for an invasion, then the invading country will suffer substantial casualties. In civilization, a sea invasion is a little more difficult to execute than a land invasion, but the difference is more of a logistical problem and not that there would be a higher than normal casualty rate.

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by Beard Rinker

If a country prepares for an invasion, then the invading country will suffer substantial casualties. In civilization, a sea invasion is a little more difficult to execute than a land invasion, but the difference is more of a logistical problem and not that there would be a higher than normal casualty rate.

Well this is true in Civ 3 too, when you land your troops on the shores, they can't move and the Opponent will have his turn to retaliate and attack first, so their will be more casualties then a normal assault were you are the first attacker... right?

 

[Beard Rinker]

Originally posted by Grey Fox


Well this is true in Civ 3 too, when you land your troops on the shores, they can't move and the Opponent will have his turn to retaliate and attack first, so their will be more casualties then a normal assault were you are the first attacker... right?

I'm not sure. Ainwood claims that units with more than 1 movement can land and attack if they land on a low movement cost tile like grass or plains. I suspect this is true.

Anyway, I don't see this as any more risky than blitzing across an enemy front lines. If the borders are deep enough, you can't attack the target city the first turn. It seems to me that attacking a fortified coastline should be much more difficult than attacking a fortified front line.

I do have a suggestion on how this might be improved in a future version of civilization.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=172750&t=4477#post172750

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by Beard Rinker
I'm not sure. Ainwood claims that units with more than 1 movement can land and attack if they land on a low movement cost tile like grass or plains. I suspect this is true.

Well I have never been able to move units after I have unloaded them or moved them by "un-waiting" them and moving them to the shore... And I tranported a lot of Modern Armor During GOTM2...

 

[Aeson]

If you bring a transport into a coastal city, all the units on the transport will have full movement when they are activated. If you are at peace with the Civ you wish to invade, first land a Settler, and build a city the next turn. All your troops will be able to have the initiative, instead of waiting for the AI to strike first.