I want to see what peoples opinions are on cheating and if it has any adverse effect on game play.
Generally I am against cheating. But in some instances here it may make the game more realistic. Others not. I know a lot of people here speak highly of forced diplomacy (if you are going for historical accuracy, i.e. re-enactment instead of recreation) and some people use "move_character" to start the game differently (like starting KH as Syracuse). These seem viable for their purposes. But other cheats seem ridiculous (like win battle, jerico, add trait, add money, cheapening the units, etc.)
I am tempted to use process_cq to get to skip barracks that don't do anything. Like Romani in Gaul you need to build L3 to get some troops and L5 for more, so you need to wait 18 seasons before being able to recruit anything, and 27 more to recruit anything else. So to recruit any good troops in Gaul with Romani you basically need to wait 45 seasons before recruiting above average troops (is this realistic?).
I feel it would not be unethical or unrealistic to skip the "useless" barracks (you are still paying for them). I guess it would be my own form of house rules (to only process_cq barracks that don't add new troops and not process_cq barracks that do). Basically I would think of it as a very large deposit before building the necessary barracks needed to recruit troops.
What is the majority opinion here on cheating?
And does it affect gameplay? Traits? Bugs? Victory conditions outcome? Script? Etc.?
PS Sorry if this has been posted before. I didn't see this exact topic but there are now so many posts here, I may have missed this one.
Bookmarks