|
|
Post by cmdishr on Mar 30, 2004 10:20:45 GMT -5
If you read Donald Kippers post he speaks of a ctl game....that was me. I was trying to reinforce and eventually one unit went in, it turns out the city was empty and because of that hesitation the unit finally went in. I didnt concede, and I dont think I was wrong in not conceding. I think different interpertions of how to handle game bugs doesnt show anything but differing opinions, if you want to eliminate this pass rules that deal with this situation
|
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Mar 30, 2004 11:24:52 GMT -5
hi cmd, im not trying to say u should have conceded, nor am i saying u deliberately exploited the bug - i dont think u did
i am more inclined discuss the general principle than specific events - i should not of mentioned the ctl, sorry
what i AM saying is it CAN be exploited, and it happens often enough without people trying to exploit it - last gasp reinforcements naturally have a chance to arrive just after last unit dies
|
|
|
|
Post by synseer on Mar 30, 2004 12:08:48 GMT -5
ive personally NEVER had a problem reinforcing towns. i just use the G button on keyboard and just click where i want reinforcements to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mo D on Mar 30, 2004 12:25:33 GMT -5
Cmd should not have conceded and is in no way dishonorable for not doing so, IMO. If this had happened in one of my tourneys, I would also rule that way.
With a bug such as this, the law of the land is that you play on. When you think about it, there really is no other rule you could make. Who's to say the city was empty? How can it be verified that your stack has lost movement points? Too much subjectivity. The only objective thing to do is to play thru it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmdishr on Mar 30, 2004 12:42:26 GMT -5
To be honest, when it first happened I was looking at the screen with a confused look on my face(more so then usual) and was thinking that conceding might be the right course of action. Then I thought that if it happened to me I would just get pissed for the rotten luck, kick my computer, throw my beer can(empty of course) and play on. So I played on.
|
|
|
|
Post by zerza on Mar 30, 2004 12:50:51 GMT -5
At any rate,, it was obviously intentional that it was meant to not be able to reinforce during an attack,, therefore finding new ways to do it is just finding bugs to still accomplish what they intended you not to. Using the gamers dictionary, this is called an exploit by definition. (To find a method to do what was not intended = exploit) Definition is pretty blunt, Im sure justification can be made all around,, but a duck is a duck,, even if you paint it up with makeup and spray perfume on it to make it more pleasant  So, if we are accepting of some exploits,, then how do we pick and choose? I would deem it acceptable based on the participation of this particular exploit to move in units as last defender dies.. Kinda hypocritical to accept one exploit but not another |
|
|
|
Post by Mo D on Mar 30, 2004 13:04:50 GMT -5
Tell you what, Mr. Honorable:  You go ahead and don't do this move. Think your opponents will follow suit? Oh, and I disagree. Why shouldn't you be able to reinforce? Reinforcement has always been a part of military warfare. Those who position their troops correctly have an advantage. This is known as skillful deployment of troops. |
|
|
|
Post by zerza on Mar 30, 2004 13:07:57 GMT -5
I plan to do it,, and I also plan to swoop that warrior in as last defender dies to buy an extra turn I myself dont pick and choose what exploits to use,, if I'm gonna use one exploit that makes it fair game to use them all And dunno about why shouldn't you reinforce,, it was obvious the designers meant for you not to be able to. So ask them that question Mo I doubt they meant for u to reinforce only if you sing a lil dance and turn yourself around,, jump thru a hoop of fire and yell "galloping gorillas" three times Civ has always been you either can or u cant,, not if u find a special method you can do what you normally cant. |
|
|
|
Post by Mo D on Mar 30, 2004 13:15:51 GMT -5
I guess I still don't understand why people think that reinforcement wasn't intended. What leads you to this conclusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by zerza on Mar 30, 2004 13:55:52 GMT -5
The fact that all known methods from PTW were taken out,, this would point to the fact that it was not intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmdishr on Mar 30, 2004 13:58:56 GMT -5
Now we are trying to determine what the designers intended?
|
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Mar 30, 2004 14:15:06 GMT -5
I'll say it again. I believe this situation comes from firaxis's lame attempt at working around the empty city bug. I believe reinforcement was intended but it can't happen "normally" because an empty city might result.
|
|
|
|
Post by FriedrichPsitalon on Mar 30, 2004 14:19:34 GMT -5
Excuse me, gentlemen, but uh, let me state it in clear and undeniable terms:
Reinforcement was NOT intended to be allowed in MP C3C.
I know because I was one of the people in on the decision. Rather than get into an endless debate as to whether or not it should be allowable (and believe me, both sides of that argument had quite a lot of ammo) the basic fact is that the intention was to NOT allow it. Part of the final reasoning was technical/game related, and some was realism/strategic - however, assuredly the designers did not intend to allow midturn reinforcement.
Feel free to debate whether we should do it anyway till the cows come home, but don't doubt for a moment whether or not it was intended - it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mo D on Mar 30, 2004 14:23:22 GMT -5
Lies! Dirty lies!  |
|
|
|
Post by FriedrichPsitalon on Mar 30, 2004 14:29:19 GMT -5
For obvious reasons I can't elaborate beyond that - and I might have danced on a grey line going that far, but this long after release I doubt they care about something that minor - but assuredly, good Mo: truth.
|
|
