My whip broke

[floydmcw]

Looks like I don't understand whipping (hurrying through pop loss) as well as I thought.

I was playing as the Celts and I had a jones for iron. But I could only find it in some out-of-the-way spot. It was a long distance by road but not so far by sea. I sent a settler right onto the iron spot and founded the city of McLemore there.

But I needed a harbor, and the city was of course corrupt, producing 1 per turn. So here was my plan: Ship 2 foreign workers over, chop a forest to get the remaining time down below 40, join the workers to the city, and whip. 20-39 shields left = 2 workers, so I will have a 1-pop city with a harbor.

When I tried to do this, I was told that "rushing this project would cost the lives of too many citizens." What went wrong? There were 36 or so shields left to build the harbor. Is it because I had a city with two foreigners and only one Celt?

 

[socralynnek]

No, that's not the problem, but with pop-rushing you are not allowed to kill more than half of your population. So, if pop-rushing needs 2 pop-points, the city must be at least of size 4.

 

[Chieftess]

I think if you have no shields put towards the city, the number of citizens killed doubles. (i.e., instead of it being 2, it's 4. But, once you get atleast 1 shield, it's 2).

 

[SesnOfWthr]

A pretty common trick is a form of "short-rushing" it too.

An example:
You need another sword from a size 3 city.
You wait one turn, and rush a spear, giving you 20 shields in the box.
On the same turn, you switch to sword (now size 2) and rush the last ten shields for the sword, leaving you at size 1, with a brand new shield.

In your situation, I would have tried to find something for 40 shields. This could be a barracks, temple, or library, depending on your civ stats. IIRC, there is no natural 40 shield build available early, but those half price libraries are perfect for scientific civs.

You had 21 in the box, so you whip a citizen, and get the forty shields. Switch to your harbor, wait another turn to get the extra shield so you only need nineteen, and whip the last available citizen to finish it. Presto! Brand new harbor to ship out you iron!

HTH

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

sesn, if you have 1 or 20 shields in the box doesn't matter. Pop-Rushing for any reason works different:

(at least one shield in the box!)
+20 Shields = 1 Citizen
+40 Shields = 3 Citizens

Please do never ask why it is that way; at least, it helps getting rid of unwnated inhabitants.

So, if you want a Harbor, you have to do it so:
Chop/handbuild 20sp.
Choose a 40sp item (Barracks). Rush it, 1 pop.
Switch to Harbor. Rush it, 1 pop.

 

[morchuflex]

If you want a Harbor, you have to do it so:
Chop/handbuild 20sp.
Choose a 40sp item (Barracks). Rush it, 1 pop.
Switch to Harbor. Rush it, 1 pop.

This is a cheat, since it allows you to get stg for a lesser cost than what you are supposed to pay, or at least an exploit, and an ugly one at that.
It is about the same cheat that veterans of previous Civ games probably remember: since rushing units was more expensive than rushing improvments, some players used to rush a building, then change production. For the game developpers, the only way to prevent that was to forbid production change after rushing...

 

[SesnOfWthr]

@Doc - I could have sworn each citizen was only worth 19s? That's why I described the method the way I did.

Then again, I seem to be wrong a lot lately...

@Morchuflex - Do you also consider shortrushing with cash an exploit? e.g. rush a worker for 80g then switch to the larger item and rush for 4x remaining shield cost, rather than rushing the whole item for 8x shield cost? I find it hard to believe the programmers did not realize this and think people would use it....

There are many things I consider exploitive, but short-rushing is not one of them. Whether rushing or short rushing, you are trading one resource (gold or pop) for another (unit, building, etc). Of course, until Firaxis release a list of "certified exploits", each players' definition will change.

 

[Oystein]

Pop-Rushing for any reason works different:

(at least one shield in the box!)
+20 Shields = 1 Citizen
+40 Shields = 3 Citizens

No, you need 4 citizen to poprush 40 shield, but only 2 of them will die. At least I managed to get 39 shields from 2 citizen.

As mentioned, you can rush 40 shield in a 3-town by poprushing in steps. Assuming you avoid the fresh start penalty. Stepwise, or all in one go will not make any difference in shields or unhappy faces. (Unless theres some round off, for rushing 10 shield or something)

 

[morchuflex]

@Morchuflex - Do you also consider shortrushing with cash an exploit? e.g. rush a worker for 80g then switch to the larger item and rush for 4x remaining shield cost, rather than rushing the whole item for 8x shield cost?

Yes, I consider it cheating too. Simply put, I consider cheating any trick that makes things easier than the developpers obviously wanted to make them for you.
You can also consider it this way: this trick obviously diminishes the challenge, so if you want the game to be easier, just play one level lower but play a 100% fair game.
However I agree with you that definitions of cheats may vary from player to player. I personnally can't help reloading when I feel too badly "cheated" by bad luck in battles. So I guess I'm not a saint either... But I maintain shortrushing is wrong.

 

[Arathorn]

What an interesting viewpoint, morchuflex. Going completely outside the game to utterly rewrite history in your favor is OK, but cleverly using the resources the game gives you isn't.

Using artillery diminishes the challenge. Managing cities diminishes the challenge. Diplomacy diminishes the challenge. Managing workes diminishes the challenge. Are those all classified as cheating too, for you? What's the point in playing a strategy game, if you're not making the most of your limited resources in-game? Oh, right, reloading until the luck is your way. :boggle:

Arathorn

 

[eg577]

Well I don't think he meant he always reloads, I just think he's trying to say that he considers short rushing exploitive [in additon to reload] but he also wants to point out that he isn't a stickler for what he consider exploitive by saying that he reloads [and might do other exploits like short rushes] in very bad situations. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but that sounds much more probable than saying he considers short rushes exploitive but does not consider reloading exploitive.

Anyways....I completely agree with Arathorn on why short rushing isn't exploitive. Any form of micromanagement is beyond the capability of the AI, so don't jump to the conclusion that just because a straightforward method is less effecient than a clever method that the clever method is just a bug.

 

[biggamer132]

What an interesting viewpoint, morchuflex. Going completely outside the game to utterly rewrite history in your favor is OK, but cleverly using the resources the game gives you isn't.

Using artillery diminishes the challenge. Managing cities diminishes the challenge. Diplomacy diminishes the challenge. Managing workes diminishes the challenge. Are those all classified as cheating too, for you? What's the point in playing a strategy game, if you're not making the most of your limited resources in-game? Oh, right, reloading until the luck is your way. :boggle:

Arathorn

Agreed. The developers made the game in a way that players could use to ther own devices and use what they had to develop tricks and strategies. The developers aren't telling you how to play. Each person has his own priorities and his own methods, which would mean everything would be a cheat in morchuflex's book. Besides, if we didn't come up with clever ways to do things and ways to hurry production and micromanage, half the articles in the War Academy would be considered cheating.

 

[Arathorn]

eg577, you're probably right and I probably overreacted on the reload thing. My apologies for any pain I caused. It wasn't meant to do that. Sometimes my sarcastic streak gets the better of me. I mean what I say about short-rushing and strategy, but there was no call to put down morchuflex.

Arathorn

 

[SesnOfWthr]

Darnit Arathorn! You completely beat me to the punch.

For the record, I don't even think RBC, one of the strcitest rulesets out there, considers short-rushing exploitive, or even "dastardly" for that matter. (I could be wrong, I'm not and RBC player .... yet )

However, I would say 99% of people would call reloading outrighting cheating.

Your argument was (fairly) sound until you put in the reloading comment.

 

[eg577]

First of all, I want to clarify something:

You had 21 in the box, so you whip a citizen, and get the forty shields. Switch to your harbor, wait another turn to get the extra shield so you only need nineteen, and whip the last available citizen to finish it. Presto! Brand new harbor to ship out you iron!

1 citizen will give 20 shields, not 19, so you don't need to wait a turn to go from 40 shields to 41 shields. You would, however, have to wait a turn to go from zero to one shield since it costs double the number of citizens when you rush a project without any shields produced yet.

Now, I'm a little confused about one thing:

No, that's not the problem, but with pop-rushing you are not allowed to kill more than half of your population. So, if pop-rushing needs 2 pop-points, the city must be at least of size 4.

Pop-Rushing for any reason works different:

(at least one shield in the box!)
+20 Shields = 1 Citizen
+40 Shields = 3 Citizens

Can we settle this once and for all? If you have a size 4 city building a 40 shield project with 1 shield built so far and you whip it will you end up with a size 1 or a size 2 city?

 

[morchuflex]

Arathorn, you obviously didn't read me carefully. Eg577 did, however, so I don't need replying to you. I see no need for irony, unless you want to spoil the conversation.
Anyway, shortrushing is so obviously a cheat that it isn't even worth arguing. If you don't feel guilty using it, so much the better for you, but it makes no difference. Just the same way, some people don't feel bad about software piracy, but it's still illegal.
Shortrushing has nothing to do with cleverness, it is making a smart use of a program weakness. There has always been tons of such failures in Civ-likes. In Civ1, for instance, when you were in anarchy, quitting the game and reloading would give you the ability to choose a new gov immediatly. I suppose you would call that clever playing? And rushing a battleship that still needed 150 shields did cost 1050 gold, but "clever" players (like you?) could have it for only 300, rushing a cathedral and then switching production. What a quick way to spoil a great game!
All these exploits have nothing to do with good usage of artillery and micromanagement. I completely fail to see the connexion, unless that was some kind of humor that evades me?

Supplemental: I hadn't read your most recent message. I don't want to start a flame war, OK?

 

[SesnOfWthr]

The only thing I'm sure of is that you cannot whip more than half your pop. (I realize that's not really the important part of the question)

I've already demonstrated that I don't completely understand pop-rushing. Though I had thought I did. :shrug:

EDIT - I think many of the posts in this thread demonstrate that short-rushing with pop points can indeed be termed "clever". Look at all the confusion on how to do it properly.

 

[Arathorn]

Nope, what you call cheating, I call strategy. Just like artillery, city management, and everything else. I only very briefly played Civ1 and Civ2 had penalties for switching types. There's no penalty for switching in Civ3, so they obviously removed it (Civ3 is based on Civ2's code...it was a conscious design decision to remove penalties for switching). Thus, a feature, not a bug.

As for reloading, if you want to ruin your game that way (I don't know of ANY competition/collaboration effort where reloading isn't viewed as a complete cheat), you are welcome to do so. By the same token, I know of no non-variant game that doesn't allow short-rushing. Your opinion is obviously in the minority.

Arathorn

 

[eg577]

Well consider the micromangement analogy for a second. If you are building a warrior (10 shields) using a city that produces 6 shields and 6 commerce you could shuffle the workers and get (say) a production of 5 shields and 7 commerce while still getting the warrior out in the same amount of time. The straightforward method costs you 1 more gold, but with a little manual effort you can get the job done more effecicently. This probably won't convince you, but it should explain why it was mentoined.

Anyways, I *can* think of a good argument for why short rushing isn't exploitive. If you rush build a project or chop a forest or disband units then those shields will not be transfered over to a wonder or small wonder project. When Firaxis made this change (or maybe it was an original feature...I don't recall) they could have easily made it apply to switching to *any* project, not just wonders and small wonder.

Also, do you consider disbanding and/or chopping a forest in order to avoid having zero shields and thus paying the x2 penalty an exploit? What about buying a worker at the double rush cost then switching to a cathedral so you can rush the cathedral a normal price?

 

[morchuflex]

Nope, what you call cheating, I call strategy. Just like artillery, city management, and everything else. I only very briefly played Civ1 and Civ2 had penalties for switching types. There's no penalty for switching in Civ3, so they obviously removed it (Civ3 is based on Civ2's code...it was a conscious design decision to remove penalties for switching). Thus, a feature, not a bug.

As for reloading, if you want to ruin your game that way (I don't know of ANY competition/collaboration effort where reloading isn't viewed as a complete cheat), you are welcome to do so. By the same token, I know of no non-variant game that doesn't allow short-rushing. Your opinion is obviously in the minority.

Arathorn

As I mentionned, I hardly ever reload. I only do it when non-realistic streaks happen (such as loosing two BBs in a row against an ironclad...). And I still feel guilty! So I'm far less a cheater than you, since you don't even feel ashamed using dubious tricks.
Anyway, I really wish you carefully thought about my arguments instead of jumping to last-resort considerations like "the opinion of the majority". An opinion is just as valid as the person who emits it in terms of knowledge, experience, good faith and enlightenment. As a university teacher, I commonly find myself outnumbered by my students but still knowing more than them... So please, let's have a real discussion and avoid anything simplistic.