|
Author
|
|
Topic: Settler/Engineer file questions |  |
|
Gastrifitis
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 10:07
   | 
 |
 |  |
I'm trying to get together a single Settler/Engineer file for the GL. It's going to be modeled loosely on the Info: Diplomats/Spies file, which means it's going to take everything from the basic to the new. In order to make sure the information is accurate, I've started testing again, and a few things didn't work out.1. In Xin Yu's original point about the multiple Engineer trick, it was stated that you could use as many Engineers as you want in a single turn. To get to the bottom of the stack, you would go to the home cities of the top Engineers and tell them to Return to City from the city menu. I'd never actually tested that, so I tried it. The top Engineers on the list did get the Goto command on their shield, but they stayed at the top of the list and didn't move, so it doesn't help. If I have to wait until next turn before they move, I can do it without the Return to City command. Am I missing something? 2. One of the cheat lists states that you can build a city on a hill and get the benefit of the mine if you start digging the mine and then build the city. I tried every combination of this I could think of: building the city while someone else was mining the square, at various stages of completion; starting the mine, then stopping the mine, then building the city next turn; starting the mine, waiting one turn, then waking the worker right away and immediately starting the city. I never got the mine bonus. Again, am I missing something? Some of this may have to do with game versions. I'm using FW. If the settler's abilities change with the game version, I need to know that too. Anyway, that's all the questions I have for now. I'll probably think of more later. I didn't know if this topic should go in the General/Help forum instead, but I thought people here might be more likely to know.  |
Marquis de Sodaq
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 10, 2001 10:42
|
|
| |
Your problem 2 might be a version issue. In MGE, at any point before the completion of the mine, a second settler can build a city on that square and get the mine, too. Once the mine is finished, building a city on the mine eliminates it.------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon |
East Street Trader
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 10, 2001 10:55
|
|
| |
GastrifitisThe mine doesn't appear at the moment you build the city. The settler/engineer has to finish his work in the usual way. So if you look in the city screen after founding there he is with his shield showing an "M". You wait a move or two and then the settler starts winking at you from the city, ready to be given a new task and, lo and behold, the city square is producing the extra shields from the completed mine.
[This message has been edited by East Street Trader (edited May 10, 2001).] |
Xin Yu
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 10, 2001 13:00
|
|
| |
For your first question: You need to clear the working order for the (n-1)th engineer before the (n+1)th engineer starts working. The 'back to home city' command replaces (thus clears) the working order for the engineer. The engineer has already finished his turn so he cannot move, but his working 'charge' has already been passed to the next engineer. |
Mixam
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 10, 2001 18:01
|
|
| |
Also Reply to #2. It works in 2.42 also. Any time after the mine starts and b4 it finishes build a city on that square and when it is done you will get the benefit. It is basically like mining and building an airbase cause you get the mine and irrigation/farmland. I will actually build most of my border cities on hills using this. Extra d good food and lots of shields to get city walls and units and maybe even barracks quickly.------------------
"I know not how I may seem to others, but to myself I am but a small child wandering upon the vast shores of knowledge, every now and then finding a small bright pebble to content myself with"
Plato |
towigg
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 11, 2001 11:03
|
|
| |
Does this cith/mine cheat work in ToT? I tried it, but could not get it to work, but I might not be doing it right.
|
Scouse Gits
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 11, 2001 11:37
|
|
| |
towigg - - I don't think it's a cheat - and I believe my feeling is shared by most here
- Yes it works in ToT (I just loaded it here and tried it out in the 'Original Game' successfully
- To try it yourself - start a game at Deity (you get two Settlers) move both to the nearest hill - on the next turn give the first the command 'm' then give the second the command 'b' to found your capital - some ?20? turns later your first settler becomes available again and your city is now on a mined hill - until the mine is completed the city is on an unmined hill of course ...
Hope this helps ...------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net "Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library has been built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven |
Gastrifitis
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 11, 2001 13:25
|
|
| |
1. Thanks, Xin Yu! Another slap-your-forehead Eureka moment!2. Thanks to everyone else, too. Now that I've got these things cleared up, I hope the file will near completion soon. I just realized that I've never tested the Automate settler to get irrigation where there's no water move, but I'm not anticipating problems getting that one to work. Back to experimenting, then to the file.  |
debeest
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 16, 2001 00:35
|
|
| |
The automate-settler-for-irrigation-without-water cheat is highly undependable; an automated settler is about as likely to move onto a nearby mountain as to do something useful. Don't be surprised when you test it and it fails a lot. In fact, if you want to do some real testing, maybe you can figure out under what conditions the automated settler will do the right cheat. |
Gastrifitis
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 16, 2001 10:05
|
|
| |
Yeah, why is it that the things I've never tested before always work out to be more complicated than I imagined. I did learn a few points, though. |
Mixam
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 05:42
|
|
| |
I think the automated settler is given a random number between 1 and 8 and that is the direction he moves  All joking aside has anyone actually tried to figure out the automated settler? I don't think I have even seen mention of it in a string b4. |
Jay Bee
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 10:48
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 05-11-2001 11:37 AM
I don't think it's a cheat - and I believe my feeling is shared by most here
|
Not by me, and believe me, I used to have one of the highest reps in Civ2 fair play
Would you care to explain in layman's terms why do you think it's not a cheat? I just can't seem to understand it. The AI can't do it. Ergo it should be a cheat.
|
Scouse Gits
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 11:29
|
|
| |
JayBee
First off, I was not implying that anyone who had an alternative view was either wrong or dishonest - far from it. I merely stated my own view and my honestly held opinion that most here would agree with me - perhaps this latter is wrong.
Secondly, although the stance that 'the AI can't do it therefore it is a cheat' although tenable does not (for me) hold water. The AI does not ship chain, the AI does not launch concerted attacks, the AI does not know how to use a Howitzer or a Navy or .... - but human players do know how and can do these things - subject to (in multiplayer or competitive games) the common consensus. I cannot use military units to bribe or any of the other AI 'cheats'. I fear your argument is unable to convince me.
Why should I think this is not a cheat - have you never heard of mining towns established for the sole purpose of housing, feeding and exploiting both the mine and the miners? Surely this is the Civ equivalent.
Perhaps we should have a poll on this matter to formally determine the Apolyton consensus - although it is so rarelky beneficial to do this that it is hardly a major issue ...------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net "Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library has been built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven |
East Street Trader
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 12:47
|
|
| |
It seems reasonably clear that the developers did not want a player to be able to mine the square as the game does not allow you to do so once the city is established.But I still do it and I am puzzled at why the developers took that attitude anyway. You can build on grass/plains and then forest and vice versa so why not mine a hill? In fact, I wouldn't be very surprised if there had not, at some time, been an intention for you to get a free mine when establishing on a hill in the same way you get free irrigation and the terrain benefit of a road when you found on flatland. It's not as though they are demonstrably keen that better defence should be a trade off with some loss, because a city built on a river gets the defence bonus but still gets the benefit of a bridge too. I don't use the airstrip quirk so I guess I'm inconsistent. But that one just seems too divorced from any reality. |
Marquis de Sodaq
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 13:18
|
|
| |
I agree with SG1 that it is acceptable, primarily because of the mining towns he mentions. While the AI cannot do this, it has plenty of cheats of its own. The trade-off is that the mining town's growth is dependent on productive food squares nearby. Large cities, in reality, produce almost no food whatsoever, but massive amounts of materials. Yet in the game, they produce food as if they are the richest farmland. So there is a sort of give and take...Perhaps this has become an informal poll, after all... ------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon |
Edward
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 15:34
|
|
| |
I agree with East Street Trader that the ability to mine a city square was not intended by the developers.I also agree with Scouse Gits that, right or wrong, it's a commonly accepted practice by (I'd dare say the majority of) Apolyton readers. It think that the developers SHOULD have made mining a city square legal and doable at any time ('though they didn't). In fact, if players were forced to irrigate, mine, and road city squares by hand (instead of getting roads and sometimes irrigation automatically) that would help remove some of the power of ICS. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums-archives
