pigswill said:
Charles 22: I'm easily confused but you said you turned all your pop to specialists to starve the city (and get a bonus) and you also said that you wouldn't gift the city to a neutral civ because that was something the AI wouldn't do and was therefore cheating. Have you noticed the AI turning a city's pop to specialists just before you take it?
There's no way I can check that, but it's a minor enough cheat if that's your point. No, come to think of it, it's not a cheat at all. A true cheat would be to know what the AI does at all times. When the AI, or I, can manipulate our people in any way we deem, then what can be cheating about moving them to VERY slightly favor a city I know is going to fall? To gift a city to another AI as suggested earlier, I guarantee is WAY beyond the scope of at least the original AI to this game, as it's quite exotic and clearly is beyond the spirit of the game in my book. IOW, it's a trick the AI will not do, whereas putting production away from building what was being built, and instead into a paltry few more science points I'm hoping the AI will do too should the occasion arise. In any event, I've seen that there are clearly times when it's best to -not- starve them, such as when you think you will re-capture that city. Either strategy (starve or business as usual) is completely acceptable as far as I'm concerned, and I'm confident the AI does one or the other, or both at different times.
So, in case I haven't made it clear:
1. Moves that are exotic by nature and try to use the system against itself is basically cheating. If I knew the AI were doing it, which I have no evidence of, I have to conclude it does not, and therefore won't do it. I know the AI sells techs between themselves in many instances, so I will try to sell the same tech to as many civs as possible in the same player turn for example. It's not really outside the spirit of the game for the AI to do this, but it just something the non-initiated who hasn't played civ3 doesn't expect. From what I've seen it looks sometimes as though after I've made that first transaction that same civ has the opportunity to sell it to the other civs before me (in civ4), but I might be seeing things (it used to wait until the player turn finished in civ3 to sell between themselves). Even if it does do that, there's nothing I can do about it.
2. Moves which are entirely permissable and logical, and aren't exotic in the least, are allowable, even if for some reason I somehow find out the AI doesn't do it. With this particular move in question, the end result is so minor that it scarcely matters anyway. If you want to dig more extensively, over time you might find that I do something which fits into category 1, but I doubt it, but even so the main criteria for me is that I don't make it too easy for myself. I lose at this game on the noble level often enough that I can say I certainly don't cheat enough to win routinely
. You see, I would rather play noble forever and not cheat, and still lose often, than to cheat big time and play deity.
BTW, pigswill, just for your general question, the AI uses specialists FAR more than I do as they're being born all over the place, and since it's a legitimate use it doesn't bother me, so I sure don't feel any twinge of conscience even if he doesn't do a similar shift in the same situation. NOw the bigger question may be do I consider it cheating to quit the game after I've lost a city? Not really and I'll tell you why. While I think it's true that the AI can't quit it's not a fair comparison. Why? Because when I do that I consider it an AI win. Often enough I will restart because of something like that, sometimes I will not. But I see no point in continuing to play the game when I've in essence "given up". I'll start a different game and hope to get revenge.
