Do you think ICS has been solved adequately?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Absolutely. Please note that both of your examples did not arise from people gathering in one area on their own accord.

You are for players not controlling city placement, but then give a thumbs up to players choosing where to place their cities.

You are for both? I obviously don't understand your position properly.

[Zeiter]

Here's a super simple solution:

Have the base square output relate directly to the population. A size 1 base would produce 1 of everything in the base square, a size 2 base 2 of everything, and so on. Also, have the nutrient requirement for gaining a pop point the exact same at all population levels. That would actually be simpler than the current model. There could also be improvements that have their effectiveness increase as a city's population grows. Like maybe an improvement that gives +50% output in the base square. Let there also be a happiness penalty for having a base within another base's radius.

I think these simple modifications would greatly help the ICS problem.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin
You are for both? I obviously don't understand your position properly.

It's UR. He doesn't have to have a consistent position.

[alms66]

Originally posted by Dominae
...but Firaxis is probably cooking up some better scheme, so I'll stop here.

NowTHATisFUNNY!

[Enigma_Nova]

[Russian_King]

the way i see it... ICS is encouraged in civ4. you are always benefitted with stuff for havig lots of cities (as long as they have a good distance between each other so they dont overlap and you can get some resources)
HOWEVER
at later game difficulties, it becomes increasingly hard to actually sprawl at the begginning of the game. on prince, any more than 6 cities at the start and you will fall behind deep if you don't spend some time on workers very soon!
i tried building 9 cities once, by the time the 9th built a settler my units started dying off and i had 0% funds for research.
so the outcome:

the system forbids quick ICS, but still encourages it! so you'd have to be very skilful to execute it! which is ok, but ther should be more rewards for having huge cities.
one of the things i found is, if you don't have any productive land, you won't have production.. you should ALWAYS have a good amount of that in a large city
i think each citizen in a city should automatically produce 1 shield(hammer) that way a size 12 city would produce about 30 hammers whereas a size 3 would only do 4-5 (terrain included)

[HavenDuuk]

Personally, I'd like to see less penalties for large, well developed cities.

Right now in Civ4 large cities have increased unhappiness and well developed cities lead to huge economic losses from upkeep.

So as a change suggestion:

I like having the "overflow" shields idea. If I have the city set to produce endless axemen and it would be possible for my city to make 2 in 1 turn, then it should make 2 in 1 turn.

I like the idea of incrementally increased production (2 pop is more effecient than 2 sets of 1 pop).

As far as costs go: Make cities have a "base" cost but remove the cost for improvement upkeep. Have this base cost be a sliding scale based on size-of-empire. Call the "bureaucracy cost" or whatever. 1 city costs 1 gold, 2 cities cost 3 gold, etc. That way ICS becomes a death spiral strategy, since your tiny cities increase the bureaucracy cost without adding enough income to offset it.

In effect, having 10 size 20 cities with their economic bonus and only having 10 B.C. is better than having 25 undeveloped cities with the increased administrative costs.

[Arrian]

Woah, back from the dead!!

I read one of Dom's post quoting me and was like "I said that? When the hell did I say that??"



-Arrian

[Destroyer]

I have played 3 games and each time my research has bottomed out to 10% or less at the start of the renaissance.

I must admit I like to sprall as much as I can, but the maintenance sneaks up on you.

The answer is to get Currency as quickly as possible.

The worst thing is when you are being assailed on all sides by barbarians and suddenly automatically start disbanding your armies. Gives the game an interesting edge.

[QuantumPion]

Uh, how about just having a minimum population requirement before being able to build another settler? Like you can build the first one with pop 1, the second pop 2, the third 4, then 8, etc. That way to build more cities your early cities or cities you capture have to be progressively more developed.

[VetLegion]

Enigma_Nova, why did you bump this?
The poll has nothing to do with Civ IV.

[asleepathewheel]

apparently someone thought that it was related to CiV, hence its forum location.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Arrian
I read one of Dom's post quoting me and was like "I said that? When the hell did I say that??"

At some time in the distant past.

[Zoid]

All right, this is just stupid...

[Enigma_Nova]

Stupid, but quite useful.