Cheating

[moriluk]

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.

[overweightninja]

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.

I really can't be bothered to list everything I do now, but suffice to say I cheat a lot, both to my benefit and detriment. The numb-nuts AI in RTW practically forces cheating IMHO, so I'm quite happy to use things like force diplomacy, auto_win (only in silly battles where the AI attacks with ridiculous armies), and i quite often use a combination of create unit etc commands and scripts to beef up the AI.
I basically run my own game, and use cheats to roleplay a fair amount. IMHO it's only cheating if you do it to give yourself an unfair advantage, and I try to cheat to simply make the game play out the way I'd like while still retaining the challenge.
+BTW, unless you start doing anything really crazy simple console commands and even script edits aren't usually game breaking by any means in my experience.
Cheers

[Majd il-Romani]

does FD even work? Itried using it and it didn't recognize the command....

[QuintusSertorius]

does FD even work? Itried using it and it didn't recognize the command....

No, one of the update patches disabled it, along with perfect_spy.

I cheat all the time to improve my gameplay experience. I transport AI stacks to where they might do some damage, or away to protect weaker factions. I add units to AI garrisons and stacks, the latter especially when they come at me half-arsed.

I don't play to "beat the game", that's pitifully easy and no fun. I play to get a nice, steady, historical simulation. I'm willing to use every tool at my disposal to do that.

[Reno Melitensis]

QuintusSertorius gave you a good reason why you have to cheat. At times you must move other factions stalks around, where they can do damage, and away from a weak faction. Force diplomacy is good to protect small factions, give them time to conquer the "Free People" settlements. If you dont cheat, factions like the Ptolemaioi, Epirus, Koinon Hellenon, Lusitanni and our beloved Rome will conquer all. Its not nice to fight it over between three or four super factions.

Use Force diplomacy and move_character to preserve other factions and have fun, never cheat to make gameplay easy to you.

Cheers.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

FD works well with the current version and it is easy to reactive the perfect_spy cheat.

I "cheat" often in my games. Mostly my cheating is revolved around "fixing" the AI (preventing them from going where I don't want them, get too strong, or get too weak). I also will cheat every now and then to avoid a battle I know I'll win but don't want to waste an hour fighting. "Cheating" can also allow for some interesting gameplay and roleplaying. I took this to an extreme in my AAR campaign, simulating a civil war.

[tapanojum]

I use "Auto_win" so damn much. I simply cannot stay entertained by this game, fighting the same boring and repetitive battles. If I create a well sized and proportioned armies, and I am up against stacks of levies or much lesser armies, where the outcome is my victory no matter what, I will cheat. Or when its tiny battles like 2 stacks of slingers vs a levy spearmen or something.

I notice even with auto_win, I still take more losses then if I would fighting the battle myself, and much more often the losses are in my more expensive units such as heavy cavalry which would normally under my control would rarely lose more than a few.

I toggle_Fow every 5 years to see which AI needs help in form of add_money faction, or not. Also when playing a new faction, I toggle_fow at the start of the game to get an idea of what the landscape looks like and sorrounding rebels. I figured a faction leader would realistically have a general idea of what the land he lives in looks like.

process_cq and add_money I only do when I am unsure about something. If I am unsure if a certain region produces certain regional troops. Rather than minimizing my game and risking a crash, I will take note of how much money I have, process_cq to the desired regional baracks level, see if the unit is recruitable or not, then destroy the baracks and restore my money to where it was before I did the "process_cq"

[Aemilius Paulus]

What I dislike the most is when people try to recreate recreate history while playing EB. I believe history is history and EB is EB. I am a huge history buff and that is why EB is my favorite game. However, I play EB to have fun, to create alternate history (my favorite book genre! Just try reading Harry Turtledove- he's the best). I do not like using cheats either, even to make a game more historical. I use the fog-of-war cheat, but I don't consider that a cheat myself. I use it because of my curiosity to see what is happening to the other factions. I don't use the Force Diplomacy either. I never make peace with an enemy faction. I conquer their territories until they are dead. As for faction balance, I have not seen an enemy faction become too strong. Then again, I have played only one campaign until 200 BC. That was my Romani campaign, which I'm still playing. My Kart-Hadast and AS campaigns are still in their beginning stages. Usually, when I see a faction becoming too strong, I attack it and thus stop its expansion.

[||Lz3||]

to each its own... I guess

I for example have an historical (yep exact date, bla bla bla smulate defeats etc) and at the same time I have 2 alternate history campaigns for when I'm tired of "fixing" the AI; I highly enjoy both of em' .

Playing historically lets you understand better the history of the faction you're playing IMO and I like that

[QuintusSertorius]

What I dislike the most is when people try to recreate recreate history while playing EB. I believe history is history and EB is EB. I am a huge history buff and that is why EB is my favorite game. However, I play EB to have fun, to create alternate history (my favorite book genre! Just try reading Harry Turtledove- he's the best).

Because personally, I hate alt-history. Especially when a writer takes just one event, and assumes that can be the juncture around which "everything changes".

[Aemilius Paulus]

Because personally, I hate alt-history. Especially when a writer takes just one event, and assumes that can be the juncture around which "everything changes".

Sure why not? If Hitler, Megas Alexander, Khengis Khan, Lenin, William the Conqueror, Peter the Great had died, weren't born or were raised differently, so many events could have not happened. Not everything is inevitable. Without Alexander, Persian Empire would have been never conquered. It is true that Philip II planned the invasion, but who else but him and Alexander could have do it so skillfully? Philip, as a matter of fact, never wanted to beyong Euphrates. Without Philip II, there would not have been Alexander either. Without Philip II, Makedonia would remain a backwards, uncivilised and disunited country full of minor squabbles. Without Philip II, Greece would not have been united. Therefore, without Philip II, there could have been no invasion of Persian Empire (or at least a successful one). Without the invasion, there couldn't have been the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires. Nations such as Baktria and Pontus would not exist. History would have been monumentally changed. Pyrrhus would not become who he was either, without the Diadochi.

Saying that if it wasn't Philip II and Alexander who did this, someone else would come up and do it is illogical. If no one in the entire history of Greece, Thrakia and Makedonia prior to Philip's time was able to unite these lands, then it is unlikely that another potential uniter existed in near time period. I do believe alternate history is possible in the sense it is written in the numerous books of this genre. The same goes for decisive battles.

[Bellum]

It is not unethical to cheat in a single player game. :/

It's all good fun, do what you enjoy.

[QuintusSertorius]

Sure why not? If Hitler, Megas Alexander, Khengis Khan, Lenin, William the Conqueror, Peter the Great had died, weren't born or were raised differently, so many events could have not happened. Not everything is inevitable. Without Alexander, Persian Empire would have been never conquered. It is true that Philip II planned the invasion, but who else but him and Alexander could have do it so skillfully? Philip, as a matter of fact, never wanted to beyong Euphrates. Without Philip II, there would not have been Alexander either. Without Philip II, Makedonia would remain a backwards, uncivilised and disunited country full of minor squabbles. Without Philip II, Greece would not have been united. Therefore, without Philip II, there could have been no invasion of Persian Empire (or at least a successful one). Without the invasion, there couldn't have been the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires. Nations such as Baktria and Pontus would not exist. History would have been monumentally changed. Pyrrhus would not become who he was either, without the Diadochi.

Saying that if it wasn't Philip II and Alexander who did this, someone else would come up and do it is illogical. If no one in the entire history of Greece, Thrakia and Makedonia prior to Philip's time was able to unite these lands, then it is unlikely that another potential uniter existed in near time period. I do believe alternate history is possible in the sense it is written in the numerous books of this genre. The same goes for decisive battles.

No, based on the Great Man theory of history, it might seem illogical. It's one particular way of looking at the past, not the only valid one. We don't have anywhere near enough information on the influences and trends surrounding events in antiquity to make informed guesses on how things might have changed just because of removing one person.

[Celtic_Punk]

very true Quintus.

back on topic, what is the exact command to move another factions army? one of my allies is about to attack me and its a quite illogical move since i could just crush ptolemy given my naval superiority and 90% of his empire is coastal.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

it is move_character "character name" location example move_character "Captain Hercules" x100 y100


About cheating.. I do it.. in some campaigns when I just don't want to bother dealing with money problems or building something I use add_money and process_cq cheats and give myself a lot of money and then build every building in my settlements... but I don't do it often.. This is more like a nice way to relax and have fun in EB..

[QuintusSertorius]

it is move_character "character name" location example move_character "Captain Hercules" x100 y100

You missed out the extremely important comma between co-ordinates. Without it you'll just get an error.

move_character "Captain Sosistratos" 48,119

[Celtic_Punk]

how do you check the co-ordinates of a specific tile?

[Foot]

show cursor_stat

Foot

[RJA]

Hello guys. I'm new to this forum but I have an account on twcenter for some months now. I really love EB, but I was wondering how the cheats worked. For example can you give rebel cities to yourself? Because I have been playing for a really long time now, but the AI rarely seems to conquer anything. I was thinking about giving some cities to myself and then use force diplomacy to give them to the AI.
Oh and another thing. The process_cq cheat doesn't seem to work with me. Not that I really want to use it but I'm playing Pahlava (sp?) and I have no money to build anything for years in a row. I'm way behind now so I was thinking as soon as I have some money I'll build a couple buildings in one.
I know it's cheating and I don't like it (exept the first thing, because that would make my future enemies stronger) but sometimes I wish I could start a bit later in the game, because the beginning is always kind of slow.

Thanks in advance.
RJA

[moriluk]

First off, I wasn't being critical of people who like to run an accurate historical game. It's just something I don't care to do. And I didn't mean for this post to take this turn - a debate on alternate history (isn't this part of the point of EB? To alter history a bit?).

But since it has, I have to say it takes more than one great man to forge or end an empire. With Alexander, he was a great general. I will never cease to be amazed at what he did in such a short time. But he wouldn't have been able to do it without the resources and situations in place.

Some things are inevitable. All empires come to an end at some point. Sometimes the straw that broke the camels back is a powerful General or a political genius. If Alexander wasn't born do you believe the Persian Empire would still be in full effect today? Perhaps Rome would have had to take it, or someone else from Greece, or the Steppes, or the Celts (the Getai?), or if no one else there may have been an internal civil war. Either way those turn of events would have had their own historical figures who we could now debate how different history could have been if they hadn't been born.

So, yes. Alexander dieing as a child would have led to an entirely different (but perhaps similar) history. But there probably still probably would have been a Roman Empire (they had the position and the resources), a Holy Roman Empire, a British Empire, eventually someone from the western world would have discovered America (and probably would have fought to keep it), not to mention the industrial revolution, the technological revolution, world wars, nukes, robots, space travel, etc. In other words, what comes up must come down and all good things come to an end. Even with the case of Hitler. If he had died during world war one, this doesn't mean that Germany would not or could not have been a power during world war two. Nothing unifies a people more than a scapegoat, Hitler or no Hitler.

Anyway. I have decided not to process_cq with Romani. I am absolutely crushing the world anyway (m/m with them is way to easy). And I have decided to take a break from it and play with the Casse after I totally screwed up my last Casse Dynasty.

I guess "beating the game" is still a challenge to me. I have recently (humbly) had to go back to m/m because all I could do on h/h is survive. I have had this realization with Casse, Makedonia, Epeiros, and Sweboz. All of these I played on h/h and realized I would never be destroyed, but I would never achieve victory conditions.

On another note. I didn't know that the win battle cheat still left you with less armies than you would have had if you had fought the battle. I always felt this way when doing a regular simulation. Especially when you simulate a battle with non phalanx units against mostly phalanx units. You pretty much have to fight those even if you have elite troops. Perhaps next time I find myself defending a city for the 20th time against an elite phalanx Arche army, I may have to "cheat" a little.

[Celtic_Punk]

show cursor_stat

Foot

hmmm sorry foot but this doesn't seem to be working?

[Slim_Ghost]

I cheat during siege battles when I had a full stack of elites sieging a city that is garrisoned by a family member who had more stars than the Andromeda galaxy. I knew that I can win since the casualties I suffered from the wall projectiles would be neglible and one-on-one fighting between each unit and the enemy's would result in victory. But if I press the auto-calculate I will get a crushing defeat thanks to the absurd command stars of the general.

So I type auto_win attacker and move on without any guilt. For me it's not cheating, it's a time saving device or rather an anti-cheat against the cheating AI if used correctly.

[Rilder]

I use "Auto_win" alot, mainly because if I fight out ever battle I'd only ever play for 15 minutes at the most.

[QuintusSertorius]

hmmm sorry foot but this doesn't seem to be working?

That's because it should be show_cursorstat.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hello guys. I'm new to this forum but I have an account on twcenter for some months now. I really love EB, but I was wondering how the cheats worked. For example can you give rebel cities to yourself? Because I have been playing for a really long time now, but the AI rarely seems to conquer anything. I was thinking about giving some cities to myself and then use force diplomacy to give them to the AI.
Oh and another thing. The process_cq cheat doesn't seem to work with me. Not that I really want to use it but I'm playing Pahlava (sp?) and I have no money to build anything for years in a row. I'm way behind now so I was thinking as soon as I have some money I'll build a couple buildings in one.
I know it's cheating and I don't like it (exept the first thing, because that would make my future enemies stronger) but sometimes I wish I could start a bit later in the game, because the beginning is always kind of slow.

Thanks in advance.
RJA

For force diplomacy, you can download the force diplomacy mod here:
http://files.filefront.com/Force+Dip.../fileinfo.html

As for process_cq cheat, I don't know why its not working for you. Just type in process_cq Roma or whatever city where you have something to build in place of "Roma" and you get an instant build. Don't forget that there is a space between "cq" and "Roma/some other city". I use this cheat when I am faced with a situation where the regional MIC doesn't give you any units until you upgrade it to level 4 or 3.