AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
No, probably to one of the Pacific islands you passed by (I once had my Incan conquerors flipped to that hut island because I forgot to scout NW of Cuzco first before I declared war).
Vote for squatting
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
No, you can PLAY the Dutch and Portuguese to give them a point.
In regular civ4 the AI can sometimes found their capitals slightly away from their spawn points. Maybe some variation (+/- 1 square in each direction) will encourage some variety.
In regular civ4 the AI can sometimes found their capitals slightly away from their spawn points. Maybe some variation (+/- 1 square in each direction) will encourage some variety.
OK, I think I've solved the maze.
I'll release 1.183 tonight, so that you'll see my decision!
I'll release 1.183 tonight, so that you'll see my decision!
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
Off topic, but is 1.183 compatible with games started with 1.182?
it could be, but may cause some crashes and python exception during civ spawns
onedreamer
Dragon
no it was with open borders.
I see... yeah it doesn't sound exploitive. Neither does it sound strategical though.
wolfigor
Emperor
To be honest I'm pretty neutral to squatting.
Like many other exploits, it's up to the player to decide to use it or not.
Normally I don't do any squatting, but once in a while I don't mind to try just for the fun of a slightly different game.
At the end of the day the human player will always have a large advantage due to pre-knowledge of map and events (spawn dates & locations).
Even destrying a newly spawn Civ is possible only thanks to this advantage... anway that's the predictability at the base of RFC.
In conclusion having or not having the possibility of squatting (migrational approach to alternative history) is not very important: at the end is the player that decides to use it or not.
BTW squatting more than one CIV is a considerable challenge and can provide some interesting fun on the side of regular games.
Like many other exploits, it's up to the player to decide to use it or not.
Normally I don't do any squatting, but once in a while I don't mind to try just for the fun of a slightly different game.
At the end of the day the human player will always have a large advantage due to pre-knowledge of map and events (spawn dates & locations).
Even destrying a newly spawn Civ is possible only thanks to this advantage... anway that's the predictability at the base of RFC.
In conclusion having or not having the possibility of squatting (migrational approach to alternative history) is not very important: at the end is the player that decides to use it or not.
BTW squatting more than one CIV is a considerable challenge and can provide some interesting fun on the side of regular games.
The Q-Meister
King
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 774
No.
Squatting is cheating, if you want someone else's land just conquer it with your army. Far more fun, realistic and IMO in the "spirit" that RFC was intended.
Squatting is cheating, if you want someone else's land just conquer it with your army. Far more fun, realistic and IMO in the "spirit" that RFC was intended.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
For the fun of it...
A French Capital in German lans means that France essentially turns into Germany. In that case, it's the territory of France who should revolt. No matter where you build your capital, ethnicities still revolt.
In that case, Spanish should revolt and flip from Portugese oppressive rule.
A French Capital in German lans means that France essentially turns into Germany. In that case, it's the territory of France who should revolt. No matter where you build your capital, ethnicities still revolt.
In that case, Spanish should revolt and flip from Portugese oppressive rule.
exploit
verb
1. use or manipulate to one's advantage
Let's settle one thing, most "strategies" are just exploits of an imperfect design and AI. You see more tips on AI behavior and manipulating it on the Emperor+ levels than any actual strategy, since the basics from Settler still apply. Then question designers have is whether or not an exploit goes against the original intent. I have always considered "squatting" as an exploit, just as I always thought Conquest+Razing was an exploit. And I was happy to use them both until Rhye removed them.
How is it an exploit? Well, let's look at the intent of the design. First and foremost, RFC was meant to be as accurate an depiction of history as possible, whereby you can attain victory from a new condition, the UHV. That is the core of the the design, period. You can argue that people "could have" settled in different regions, but the fact is they didn't. Preventing a civ's rise in their historic area is questionable at best (from a GD view).
The action becomes an exploit because it manipulates a rule meant to protect players. Noto nly that but...
As I mentioned beforehand, this is a manipulation of a flawed AI, not an actual strategy. You can tell the difference if you assume a human was playing the AI. A human would DoW and burn and pillage the Vikings on their isle with their Longbows. I'm ambivalent to this whole change since it doesn't affect the majority of players. However, stop deluding yourselves and realize that this is an exploit of a flawed system.
verb
1. use or manipulate to one's advantage
Let's settle one thing, most "strategies" are just exploits of an imperfect design and AI. You see more tips on AI behavior and manipulating it on the Emperor+ levels than any actual strategy, since the basics from Settler still apply. Then question designers have is whether or not an exploit goes against the original intent. I have always considered "squatting" as an exploit, just as I always thought Conquest+Razing was an exploit. And I was happy to use them both until Rhye removed them.
How is it an exploit? Well, let's look at the intent of the design. First and foremost, RFC was meant to be as accurate an depiction of history as possible, whereby you can attain victory from a new condition, the UHV. That is the core of the the design, period. You can argue that people "could have" settled in different regions, but the fact is they didn't. Preventing a civ's rise in their historic area is questionable at best (from a GD view).
The action becomes an exploit because it manipulates a rule meant to protect players. Noto nly that but...
As I mentioned beforehand, this is a manipulation of a flawed AI, not an actual strategy. You can tell the difference if you assume a human was playing the AI. A human would DoW and burn and pillage the Vikings on their isle with their Longbows. I'm ambivalent to this whole change since it doesn't affect the majority of players. However, stop deluding yourselves and realize that this is an exploit of a flawed system.
FenrirWolf
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22
I'd like to change my vote from Don't Care to Allow. I still won't ever get to use it but from an historical point of view much of civilization has been spent trying to stop splinter groups from breaking away. For instance the Medo-Persians were determined to keep the Bablyonians, the Egyptians and the Greeks under control (although Cyrus ended up being killed by Barbs). There's even a statue in (either Persepolis or Shushan) of a Persian holding down a one-horned goat symbolising their subjugating Macedonia. In the end they held down Bablylon and Egypt but not Greece, then Alexander fell+Egypt was back in the game until Roman times.
Its nice for us to pretend our Civilization is all nicely homogonized but thats never the case which is why other civs spawn in what we considered OUR land. Byzantium kept Greece Roman after all even after Rome itself had fallen.
Lots of strategies have (and are) being used in real life to deal with this, in Civ we mainly just use armed might and Squatting, but while methods vary in effectiveness and morality (ask Armenians how Turkey handled their Civ trying to reappear) simply saying one is cheating but another isn't ... well, its just not how life has gone.
We know in past times WHEN Real World Civs started to make an impact on the world, but when one's were crushed early we just think "The Romans ruled for x hundred years and nothing happened". Lots happened, sometimes the entire western Roman Empire nearly was carved away centuries before it finally happened, but someone "cheated" or in another way prevented a new civ rising up, for a while.
So I'd like to vote that Squatting stay on because at the end of the day you CAN'T squat on EVERY civ's home turf, all you can really do is allow yourself to grow a bit more so you start getting more severe research maintenance and stability penalties while newer civs speed past you laughing at the sick old giant.
EDIT: But I also think that dead Civs should be able to start reappearing sooner than the arrival of Nationalism. This is because while the last century has certainly seen a major division in the 19th Century powers all through time Civilizations have been rising, falling, re-rising, re-falling (Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar for instance is called Neo-Bablyoninan because it was far from being the first Bablyonian power). However that's MY view and I certainly don't think Rhye should change his game over that, I can just look at the python files myself, shudder deeply and play the normal mod.
Its nice for us to pretend our Civilization is all nicely homogonized but thats never the case which is why other civs spawn in what we considered OUR land. Byzantium kept Greece Roman after all even after Rome itself had fallen.
Lots of strategies have (and are) being used in real life to deal with this, in Civ we mainly just use armed might and Squatting, but while methods vary in effectiveness and morality (ask Armenians how Turkey handled their Civ trying to reappear) simply saying one is cheating but another isn't ... well, its just not how life has gone.
We know in past times WHEN Real World Civs started to make an impact on the world, but when one's were crushed early we just think "The Romans ruled for x hundred years and nothing happened". Lots happened, sometimes the entire western Roman Empire nearly was carved away centuries before it finally happened, but someone "cheated" or in another way prevented a new civ rising up, for a while.
So I'd like to vote that Squatting stay on because at the end of the day you CAN'T squat on EVERY civ's home turf, all you can really do is allow yourself to grow a bit more so you start getting more severe research maintenance and stability penalties while newer civs speed past you laughing at the sick old giant.
EDIT: But I also think that dead Civs should be able to start reappearing sooner than the arrival of Nationalism. This is because while the last century has certainly seen a major division in the 19th Century powers all through time Civilizations have been rising, falling, re-rising, re-falling (Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar for instance is called Neo-Bablyoninan because it was far from being the first Bablyonian power). However that's MY view and I certainly don't think Rhye should change his game over that, I can just look at the python files myself, shudder deeply and play the normal mod.
Truest than Manowar.
thadian
Kami of Awakened Dreamers
I voted to restore the exploit. i don't know much about the issue, but i used to enter WB and make-shift new civs by taking a dead civ i don't want reborn (babylon, egypt to name a few, rome for another) - and placing them a nicely developed Australia, South Africa, West Coast USA or somewhere. this would, in theory, "create" a civ in the desired location, prevent rebirth - but until now i never realized why all my intentions fail. Being built so far away from its "zone", it's entire empire is screwed and doomed to hopeless failure.
If restoring this exploit can allow my "Pseudo-Civs" to live, then restore it. only for that reason. and for that reason only. if it would not impact their survivability, i am lost on this one. when used as an exploit, i can see how it is abusive. but i also see a LOT of unique strategies. not oriented around settling a preventive area or moving the capital to screw spawning civ's.
I am talking about using world builder to give japan Aussie instead of Honshu, or to settle japan in the spice islands. just different places to settle for a different country. I would happily lose turns to settle a better capital.
If restoring this exploit can allow my "Pseudo-Civs" to live, then restore it. only for that reason. and for that reason only. if it would not impact their survivability, i am lost on this one. when used as an exploit, i can see how it is abusive. but i also see a LOT of unique strategies. not oriented around settling a preventive area or moving the capital to screw spawning civ's.
I am talking about using world builder to give japan Aussie instead of Honshu, or to settle japan in the spice islands. just different places to settle for a different country. I would happily lose turns to settle a better capital.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
