Ring City Placement and Palace Jump, exploits? - Page 3

Aggie · 11-07-2003, 16:27

anarres, you have a point here. I still consider OCP and Palace Jump to be a 'feature' and exploit but it is impossible to enforce. It's just that I hate to use these features because I want to play in the spirit of the game. I am forced to play differently because of the fact that Civ Fanatics find loopholes in the gameplay. Sure, a palace should appear when your capital is taken, but I really don't think it was intenended to serve the palace jump purpose.

I for one hope that Firaxis fixes these things. FWIW I never used Ship Hopping and Palace Jump.

I don't think that OCP, ICS can be called exploits at all. Mass Upgrading, Pre-build are a grey area to me.

Cartouche Bee · 11-07-2003, 17:02

I think micromanagement is an exploit, since the AI can't do it. That's why in most of my games, even, PBEM I use the governors shortly after the start. I'd rather spend my time on the 'big picture' that clicking all over the place to grab an extra food, shield, commerce this turn or next, whatever....

The Palace reconstruction should cost cash, like in Civ2, this Palace jumping was a step back, like many other steps back just to make changes in the game. Just like alot of changes that will be made to the game, flash in the pan, changes to promote cash flow, RL.

RCP, ummm, we can't use the game mechanics to cut corruption and have to place all our cities at varying distances from the Palace and FP? Who is going to figure all that out?

Aggie · 11-07-2003, 17:16

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Cartouche Bee

I think micromanagement is an exploit, since the AI can't do it.

Again: that is NOT the point I am trying to make.

Cartouche Bee · 11-07-2003, 17:35

No, that was a point I was trying to make.

All this micromanagement that goes on is to take advantage of the poor game mechanics.

anarres · 11-07-2003, 18:06

CB, does this mean you also attack in a haphazard way to simulate the AI? Does it also mean you either use production like the AI or use governors for that?

Anyway, we all saw the Korean Death Star.

Aggie, if you stop using Palace Pre-builds I will consider not using RCP (even though I can guarentee that no map will ever meet RCP requirements). Pre-builds are much more of an exploit than RCP IMO

DrAlimentado · 11-07-2003, 18:31

As anarres has said these things are highly subjective (as is his definition of what is a bug or a feature

). I personally hate palace-jump, (maybe because I have never used it) but it seems to me to go against the 'logic' of the game. I accept a palace is nessecary to the game mechanics but they could have found a solution... maybe the city it jumps to would have a negative shield deficit of the palace cost until it accumulated the shields to pay it off, whatever - I think the way it is used is an unintended aspect of the game mechanics.

RCP - for me I don't like it because it dosen't make sense. I would prefer it if equally distant cities shared the highest corruption cost, not the average (which in a way is the most logical), and certainly not the lowest! My reasoning for highest over average - to make this kind of number crunching unattractive to the player, not rewarding. Now that I know about it though I will undoutably place cities at the same distance if it's sensible, although I kinda doubt it will take precadence over where a river or bonus tile is. IOW I don't think we'll actually see too many RCP empires as other terrain factors are more important in siting cities, but we'll see. In any event banning it is unenforcable for the reasons anarres states, the only sensible 'ban' would be to say you can't have x number of cities all equidistant where x is a pretty high number. This won't stop 'mini-rings' which are still going to benefit the player. A better solution is for firaxis to change the formula to average or highest, and as we still have mobilisation bugs and such (which are game-breakers) I wouldn't hold my breath.

I have to admit I do micromanage, but I admire the spirit of what CB says in that the game should be about the big picture not the endless MM... hmm, and now I'm rethinking MM cos if a player as good as CB can be successful without it maybe I can discard it too... Of course what would be best here is if the governers did a better job of MM in the first place, then the AI would be doing it and we could trust governers better ourselves.

DrAlimentado · 11-07-2003, 18:43

It has been pointed out to me that CB was probably being sarcastic re: MM, dam. But I stand by my comments... I would love it if MM wasn't nessecary because the governers were better at their jobs! Looks like I'm gonna be MM for a while yet though.

Cartouche Bee · 11-07-2003, 20:11

I think we should leave it up to Atari to fix the dumb stuff, trying to make rules to circumvent all the things wrong with Civ3 may not be too easy. Although, a bit of discussion is always nice.

Aggie · 11-07-2003, 20:45

Indeed CB

. And I found that this section of the forum needed a bit of life. It worked

Lt. Killer M · 12-07-2003, 03:23

hey, as far as I am concerned, all is fair in war and love. After all, we ALL can do it

Seriously, I cannot access CFC atm, but the way I understand it ring placement is what all humans can do, so is the Palace jump - so who cares?

11-07-2003, 18:06	#25
anarres anarchist butcher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United States of Whatever. Posts: 4,677	CB, does this mean you also attack in a haphazard way to simulate the AI? Does it also mean you either use production like the AI or use governors for that? Anyway, we all saw the Korean Death Star. Aggie, if you stop using Palace Pre-builds I will consider not using RCP (even though I can guarentee that no map will ever meet RCP requirements). Pre-builds are much more of an exploit than RCP IMO __________________ <b>Calculate the probability of culture flips: Flip Calc</b>

11-07-2003, 18:31	#26
DrAlimentado Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the cookie jar. Posts: 1,568	As anarres has said these things are highly subjective (as is his definition of what is a bug or a feature ). I personally hate palace-jump, (maybe because I have never used it) but it seems to me to go against the 'logic' of the game. I accept a palace is nessecary to the game mechanics but they could have found a solution... maybe the city it jumps to would have a negative shield deficit of the palace cost until it accumulated the shields to pay it off, whatever - I think the way it is used is an unintended aspect of the game mechanics. RCP - for me I don't like it because it dosen't make sense. I would prefer it if equally distant cities shared the highest corruption cost, not the average (which in a way is the most logical), and certainly not the lowest! My reasoning for highest over average - to make this kind of number crunching unattractive to the player, not rewarding. Now that I know about it though I will undoutably place cities at the same distance if it's sensible, although I kinda doubt it will take precadence over where a river or bonus tile is. IOW I don't think we'll actually see too many RCP empires as other terrain factors are more important in siting cities, but we'll see. In any event banning it is unenforcable for the reasons anarres states, the only sensible 'ban' would be to say you can't have x number of cities all equidistant where x is a pretty high number. This won't stop 'mini-rings' which are still going to benefit the player. A better solution is for firaxis to change the formula to average or highest, and as we still have mobilisation bugs and such (which are game-breakers) I wouldn't hold my breath. I have to admit I do micromanage, but I admire the spirit of what CB says in that the game should be about the big picture not the endless MM... hmm, and now I'm rethinking MM cos if a player as good as CB can be successful without it maybe I can discard it too... Of course what would be best here is if the governers did a better job of MM in the first place, then the AI would be doing it and we could trust governers better ourselves. __________________ <font color=\"red\">sign up for the best game on the forum</font id=\"red\"> <font color=\"green\">My Army</font id=\"green\"> <font color=\"green\">Help my orcs to prosper</font id=\"green\"> MapTweaker Utility beta (copy/paste/resize biq files)

11-07-2003, 18:43	#27
DrAlimentado Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the cookie jar. Posts: 1,568	It has been pointed out to me that CB was probably being sarcastic re: MM, dam. But I stand by my comments... I would love it if MM wasn't nessecary because the governers were better at their jobs! Looks like I'm gonna be MM for a while yet though. __________________ <font color=\"red\">sign up for the best game on the forum</font id=\"red\"> <font color=\"green\">My Army</font id=\"green\"> <font color=\"green\">Help my orcs to prosper</font id=\"green\"> MapTweaker Utility beta (copy/paste/resize biq files)

12-07-2003, 03:23	#30
Lt. Killer M Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: HAWK!. Posts: 4,365	hey, as far as I am concerned, all is fair in war and love. After all, we ALL can do it Seriously, I cannot access CFC atm, but the way I understand it ring placement is what all humans can do, so is the Palace jump - so who cares? __________________ One more turn..... just one more turn... one MORE!

11-07-2003, 16:27	#21
Aggie Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: N/A Posts: 4,490	anarres, you have a point here. I still consider OCP and Palace Jump to be a 'feature' and exploit but it is impossible to enforce. It's just that I hate to use these features because I want to play in the spirit of the game. I am forced to play differently because of the fact that Civ Fanatics find loopholes in the gameplay. Sure, a palace should appear when your capital is taken, but I really don't think it was intenended to serve the palace jump purpose. I for one hope that Firaxis fixes these things. FWIW I never used Ship Hopping and Palace Jump. I don't think that OCP, ICS can be called exploits at all. Mass Upgrading, Pre-build are a grey area to me.

11-07-2003, 17:02	#22
Cartouche Bee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada. Posts: 192	I think micromanagement is an exploit, since the AI can't do it. That's why in most of my games, even, PBEM I use the governors shortly after the start. I'd rather spend my time on the 'big picture' that clicking all over the place to grab an extra food, shield, commerce this turn or next, whatever.... The Palace reconstruction should cost cash, like in Civ2, this Palace jumping was a step back, like many other steps back just to make changes in the game. Just like alot of changes that will be made to the game, flash in the pan, changes to promote cash flow, RL. RCP, ummm, we can't use the game mechanics to cut corruption and have to place all our cities at varying distances from the Palace and FP? Who is going to figure all that out?

11-07-2003, 17:35	#24
Cartouche Bee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada. Posts: 192	No, that was a point I was trying to make. All this micromanagement that goes on is to take advantage of the poor game mechanics.

11-07-2003, 20:11	#28
Cartouche Bee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada. Posts: 192	I think we should leave it up to Atari to fix the dumb stuff, trying to make rules to circumvent all the things wrong with Civ3 may not be too easy. Although, a bit of discussion is always nice.

11-07-2003, 20:45	#29
Aggie Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: N/A Posts: 4,490	Indeed CB . And I found that this section of the forum needed a bit of life. It worked