My whip broke

[biggamer132]

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.

I think a good way to start would be, just maybe, to stop accusing people of being cheaters. To each man his own.

 

[morchuflex]

I think a good way to start would be, just maybe, to stop accusing people of being cheaters. To each man his own.

I wasn't using the word as a term of contempt: didn't you notice the ?
Anyway, I don't want to offend anyone. So, since shortrushing, if not an outright cheat, is at least an exploit, what about "exploiters"?

 

[Justus II]

I hate jumping into these types of discussions (and will probably regret this one) but I have to agree with Arathorn here.

I did play quite a bit of both Civ 1 and Civ 2. Personally, I LIKED the penalties on switching builds in Civ 2, and I do agree that the ability to change projects, even mid-turn, reduces the strategic challenge and is can be one of the biggest advantages a human player has in terms of micro-management of cities. I think having restrictions on swapping builds would force the player to use more long-term planning rather than relying on 'instant military' or swapping to the best wonder as soon as the tech becomes available. For some good examples, see the SG in my sig (Bugs 2.1) where we decided as a variant to not allow any changes.

HOWEVER, all that said, the fact is that those restrictions were specifically removed from Civ2 to Civ III. The designers obviously decided that production-swapping should be freely available to the player. As mentioned, the fact that swaps of rushed sheilds to Wonders are not allowed shows they had the ability to restrict swapping, and chose to only restrict that specific circumstance. Therefore, it IS part of the game's strategy, just as choosing which tiles to work or how to set up workers on terrain. I would assume Arathorn's comment about the 'majority' refers to the fact that even most people who try to adhere to the 'spirit' of the game, still accept that build-swapping is within that spirit. That's why the game we are playing is considered a variant, and of many variants that I have played or been aware of, is one of only a couple to restrict changing of city builds.

So, although it's a feature I might wish was changed in future versions, it's still a feature of the game, and one of many tools the player can use in running his empire efficiently.

 

[Ben E Gas]

@.......

@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.

Well said.

 

[Ben E Gas]

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

I have to agree with this.

 

[huh?]

Does the AI short-rush?

 

[SesnOfWthr]

I'm not sure how you could find a definitive answer to that one, but my guess would be no.

Then again, the ai doesn't adjust it's science slider when running deficit research it can't afford either, it just lets it's units/buildings get disbanded....

I guess I'm saying the ai is a bad comparison tool, if that's where you were going with it.

 

[eg577]

I'm pretty sure that I've seen the AI whip defenders when a city is threatened. I don't think the AI is programmed to ever rush projects in 'normal' situations where a human would do so, such as in hopelessly corrupted cities. I highly doubt it tries to short rush.

 

[morchuflex]

I hate jumping into these types of discussions (and will probably regret this one) but I have to agree with Arathorn here.

I did play quite a bit of both Civ 1 and Civ 2. Personally, I LIKED the penalties on switching builds in Civ 2, and I do agree that the ability to change projects, even mid-turn, reduces the strategic challenge and is can be one of the biggest advantages a human player has in terms of micro-management of cities. I think having restrictions on swapping builds would force the player to use more long-term planning rather than relying on 'instant military' or swapping to the best wonder as soon as the tech becomes available. For some good examples, see the SG in my sig (Bugs 2.1) where we decided as a variant to not allow any changes.

HOWEVER, all that said, the fact is that those restrictions were specifically removed from Civ2 to Civ III. The designers obviously decided that production-swapping should be freely available to the player. As mentioned, the fact that swaps of rushed sheilds to Wonders are not allowed shows they had the ability to restrict swapping, and chose to only restrict that specific circumstance. Therefore, it IS part of the game's strategy, just as choosing which tiles to work or how to set up workers on terrain. I would assume Arathorn's comment about the 'majority' refers to the fact that even most people who try to adhere to the 'spirit' of the game, still accept that build-swapping is within that spirit. That's why the game we are playing is considered a variant, and of many variants that I have played or been aware of, is one of only a couple to restrict changing of city builds.

So, although it's a feature I might wish was changed in future versions, it's still a feature of the game, and one of many tools the player can use in running his empire efficiently.

Thank you for making your point clearly, precisely and without unneeded passion. I agree with most of it, except the conclusion... I still can't understand how you can escape the conclusion that shortrushing is outright theft.
Let's put it this way: you enter a shop, ask for some goods, and are required to pay a certain price. Then you say: "in my opinion these goods are only worth half that price". Hence you pay only half the required price, and go away with the goods... Now, you may call this behavior "clever unilateral bartering", but the salesman is still likely to call the cops, don't you think?

 

[Justus II]

I don't see it as theft, because I'm not getting something for less than the normal price. As an example, let's take the Harbor discussed earlier. The normal cost is 60 shields. Assuming we got twenty shields accumulated (I think he mentioned a forest chop and a few turns of travel time), the "bill" is 40 sheilds remaining. That would require 2 population at 20 shields each. For a pop-4 or higher city, that would be an easy rush, you would lose 2 citizens and the harbor is done. For a pop-2 or less city, it can't be done, as that would eliminate the city. The tricky case is the pop-3 city. The computer will initially say no, because it's too many citizens, more than half. However, by swapping to a Longbow (example) at 40 shields, and pop-rushing it, we now have 40 in the box, and a size 2 city. Swap back to the harbor, and rush it, costing one citizen for 20 shields, and you have your harbor and a size one city, with 2 "un-smiley's" worth of pop-rush unhappiness. You have paid the same amount (40 shields) with the same cost (2 pop, 2 unhappy), you just had to break the transaction into different parts.

Compared to your store example, I look at it as trying to buy something, and having your credit card declined as being over-limit (I'm sure it's never happened to anyone else, just me ). So, you then divide your purchase, paying for part of it with one card, then paying the rest with another credit card (or cash, or whatever). You still paid the full amount, the merchant still recieved their full value, you just had to use a roundabout (and annoying) method to complete the transaction, versus waiting for your credit limit to increase (or your population to grow to 4!)

And I do believe, that if the salesman (Firaxis) had wanted to call the cops (hard-coding in a restriction) they would have. As I said, I almost wish they would have, but they didn't, so that's the way the game is played. If you don't like it as a rule, then I wouldn't do it. There are many aspects of the game I have come to disagree with, or think are too 'cheesy', so I have chosen not to do them (ship-chaining, free palace jumps, etc), at least not in normal games. But that's my preference, it doesn't make it an exploit when someone else does, unless we had agreed beforehand not to use them.

 

[morchuflex]

Justus II, you are surely very persuasive...
Let's say I won't blame anyone for doing that, provided it doesn't ruin their gaming experience. After all, that's what matters. I still wouldn't use that trick myself, however - not because I have stronger ethics but because I would feel bad about it.
As I admitted earlier, I sometimes rewrite military history (ctrl-L) when history becomes too absurd (such as: my vet Dromon attacking a reg galley and sinking without inflicting any damage - probability 1.58%). So, who am I to tell others when they should feel guilty?
Anyway, interesting discussion.

 

[ozo]

I can't see how that Harbor-example could be considered cheating. You lose 2 pop anyway and get that harbor. Where is the cheating part?

 

[player1 fanatic]

agreed
You just pay the same price.

 

[jaki_staurt]

I've been playing Civ3/C3C for 18 months and up until recently I was micro-managing. Initially I wasn't fully aware of the capabilities of the option mainly because I didn't acquaint myself with the manual. I considered it an efficient method however recently I gave it up to save time spent on micro-managing. I don't think it can be cheating and as for reloading games, I don't think I would have become a better player if I wasn't able to do this. It helps in learning how to play. I would still be stuck on playing at the lowest level. I have since become good enough to play at higher levels and enjoying the game with any errors in judgment taken in my stride. To be honest I would rather not use tricks and cheats that would lessen the challenge. Its the one game I make time to play.

Incidentally can anyone recommend an interesting game they have come across recently. I Struggle to find games that will peak my interest. I have a number of games that I have only played a few times such as the 2nd hitman, madden nfl, GTA3. I can't even make the effort to load them. If you can help...

Thanks.

 

[ozo]

jaki_staurt: If you like turn-based strategy, I recommend Warlords III - Darklords Rising. You can read about the game on www.warlords3.com. It's an old game, but there are still some active online-players. The game has been re-released as far as I know and I think the price is ten dollars.

 

[amtrick]

Hmmm....I may be in a real minority, but I play for FUN! I'll also experiment to learn game mechanics that I'm too lazy to research. So when at turn 300 of a Sengoku Conquest I launch my Daimyo at a city defended by a Yamabushi and get whacked, I don't say "Gosh darn, I have to start all over", I actually reload the game and don't make the same mistake twice. And I will confess to using the "Palace" pre-build to grab a Wonder I really want on a occasion. Other times I just take my lumps and move on.

For me, the real test is am I having fun playing out the game I'm in. If so, I'll just keep going and enjoy it.

I find if I spend to much time trying to separate a strategy, from a exploit, from a cheat (especially when I am only playing against an AI), makes my head hurt too much.

So excuse me now, I have to make a deal with the Date that I have every intention of breaking next turn.

 

[Zandrew]

I can't see how that Harbor-example could be considered cheating. You lose 2 pop anyway and get that harbor. Where is the cheating part?

It's considered 'cheating' because you circumvent the rule preventing you from reducing your population by more than half. Which begs the question: why have such a restriction? Any guesses anyone? Perhaps it's considered historically inaccurate: would a civ actually do that to one of their cities?
Firaxis could easier prevent short-rushing by simply not allowing more than one rush per build: if you've done a rush but haven't finished a project, then no more rushing until you've finished something. My guess is that the designers just figured: ok, if you really want to get around the pop reduction rule and don't mind the hassle, knock yourself out, we're not going to stop you. It's just another of the many things a human player will do that the AI never thinks of.

 

[dgfred]

Hmmm....I may be in a real minority, but I play for FUN! I'll also experiment to learn game mechanics that I'm too lazy to research. So when at turn 300 of a Sengoku Conquest I launch my Daimyo at a city defended by a Yamabushi and get whacked, I don't say "Gosh darn, I have to start all over", I actually reload the game and don't make the same mistake twice. And I will confess to using the "Palace" pre-build to grab a Wonder I really want on a occasion. Other times I just take my lumps and move on.

For me, the real test is am I having fun playing out the game I'm in. If so, I'll just keep going and enjoy it.

I find if I spend to much time trying to separate a strategy, from a exploit, from a cheat (especially when I am only playing against an AI), makes my head hurt too much.

So excuse me now, I have to make a deal with the Date that I have every intention of breaking next turn.

You are not in such a minority

 

[Arathorn]

why have such a restriction? Any guesses anyone?

My best guess is that it's to save the AI from itself. The AI used to maniacally whip its cities into tiny 1 hamlets extremely rapidly anytime it could. Time was when the AI would go to Communism and see its population drop to 1/6th its former size in very few turns. That's no longer the case and I suspect (but have absolutely ZERO evidence) that the whip-half rule was introduced to save the AI from whipping its cities into tiny oozing puddles. I don't think this rule is present in 1.00 Civ3, but I'm not certain.

Arathorn

 

[Zandrew]

That makes sense. Thanks Arathorn.