Prepoll Discussion: Redefining "Playing Ahead"

[Jon Shafer]

Those damn Japanese killing off 19 Archers in one turn with 3 Spearmen!

I think tech-whoring 'playing ahead' is perfectly fine. I justify things as if they could be done in real life. So what if you don't have Nuclear Fission, that doesn't mean you can't ask some other country how much they would give you for it... in Civ you can't do that, and instead have to 'guess' what they might give you for it.

[Kloreep]

Yes, in real life, you could do so; IRL, you could also pay workers overtime no matter how "Wonder"ful the building in question is. And a brand new Colosseum or "luxury" spending wouldn't calm down protestors against war and/or draft.

Civ is a game, not a representation of the world; part of what's fun about it is the fact that it draws everything from real history, but it is still a game, and we should work within its rules. While gathering information about what would happen if you did X and then reloading isn't breaking any rock-solid rules, it does remove a lot of the risk - and, subsequently, a lot of the decision making - from the game.

Besides, if we played ahead on all diplomatic deals, the FAM would have a pretty boring job.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Trip
I justify things as if they could be done in real life. So what if you don't have Nuclear Fission, that doesn't mean you can't ask some other country how much they would give you for it...

This is not absolutely true, particularly for important matters ; in real life, to be answered, you need a credibility gained primarily by being known as owning the thing or being able to produce it.