Do you think ICS has been solved adequately?

[Tassadar500]

So to build a settler in the Industrial age, you need to take away five population points?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

thats retarted.

[Darkstar]

So are many of the suggestions in this thread. But people are being polite and not mentioning it.

ICS exists because of how you harness tiles. The more tiles you can work, the better off you are. The only drag is CORRUPTION.

In early civ, you also got a bonus tile (yielding +1).

If you want to get rid of ICS, you are going to have to change your production (resource translation) points (that's your cities). So that, no matter HOW you have your 100 points of workers, it yields the same results. As many units/improvements/etc...

Then, people will move to whatever makes their POP grow. Because then Pop will be king.

Civ is currently a resource harvesting game. You harvest your tiles. Small cities don't take as long to get to that next tile. Add in that they each give you another queue (no "overflow"), and players all ICS naturally. The game GUIDES you to it, because of the framework.

Putting a pop cost on founding a new city (settlers) doesn't stop ICS. It only slows it. But it's all about turning the tiles into whatever the player wants (more production, research, money, units). And since more cities means more and faster tiles harvested, that means players sprawl. Fix it so one CITY of 40 works exactly as 40 cities of 1 or 20 cities of 2, and ICS will dissolve. Otherwise, ICS will remain.

Remember... TILE utilization. The more tiles = better right now, and the fastest way to do that is more cities. Change that, and ICS will go away (actually, it will transform into whatever improves resource utilization fatest under the new model).

[Drachasor]

As people have said, make it so that there are bonuses for larger citys. Say for each citizen above the last size that doesn't need an aqueduct, the city produces an extra 5-10% trade, shields, and food. This would require some balancing in regards to how much things costs, but something like this could work quite well. Cities with 10 citizens beyond the highest size without an aqueduct would then produce 50-100% more goods than a number of smaller cities that add up to the same number of population points.

There might still be a problem on small maps, but certainly on any map that will reach the modern ages ICS would be dead.

Hmm, another way to handle it would be to give some national bonus when your median city size is above some number, and higher bonuses the higher you are above. As you might recall the median is the middle number you get when you line up your set of numbers (in this case city size) in order from smallest to largest. This means that founding a few new cities wouldn't hurt this effect much, but doubling your city number with a ton of foundings would.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

[SIZE=1] And since more cities means more and faster tiles harvested, that means players sprawl. Fix it so one CITY of 40 works exactly as 40 cities of 1 or 20 cities of 2, and ICS will dissolve. Otherwise, ICS will remain.

ICS exists because 40 cities of 1 and/or 20 cities of 2 work just like 1 city of 40 (well, to a point*). The problem is that it takes so long for you to get a high population city, and it is very easy to make a ton of low population cities, that there is no reason to way for zero benefit.

-Drachasor

*A more telling comparison might be a city of 20 vs. 20 cities of 1 or 10 cities of 2.

[Darkstar]

Not correct, Drachasor.

With 20 cities of 2, you get 20 build queues. You also get to utilizing tiles faster, becase you grow those cities faster then having one big one.

But if you change it so you have overflow (you spend all your production) so it can produce 20 items in one turn, and you grow just as fast if they are all in the same center or not, then ICS vanishes, and only strategy, tactical, and personal preference will guide the player.

And it would be easier on the AI as well.

[Dauphin]

20 size 1 cities use 40 tiles, and assuming all tiles produce 2 food all cities will double in 10 turns.
1 size 20 city uses only 21 tiles, and assuming all tiles produce 2 food the city will double in over 200 turns.

That is the difference in power. Even those settlers cost two pop points in Civ3 the city they build only uses one population point worth of food, compared to two population points of food in their original city from which they were built.

[Blake]

Lets list what favors ICS:
Growth model: Smaller cities grow faster, adding population and worked tiles to your empire faster. (this is why cost 2 settlers doesn't work)
Production Overflow Truncation: A relatively minor effect, but significant none the less.
(Un)Hapiness: This is MASSIVE, if it's impossible to have a happy size-10 city at some point in the game, players will have to make do with smaller cities. The problem is with the happiness model, Larger cities = unhappy. There is no real rational for this.
City Size Caps: Needs no explaining really. If you want 100% utlization of tiles, you need to ICS to a degree.


Now, what favors BIG cities:
City Improvements: It's cheaper to build 1 Marketplace to service 1 size 10 city, than 2 marketplaces to service 2 size 5 cities. Really simple logic, and the biggest disadvantage of ICS.
Corruption based on city count.
Unhappiness based on city count: This is a dramatically ineffective measure because of the happiness model. 20 size 2 cities are still easier to keep happy than 10 size 4 cities.

The problem is that (un)happiness and City size caps overpower the concentration of infrastructure factor, leaving the growth model what pushes players into ICS.

And Firaxis's problem is they approach the problem from the wrong angle, they should instead be looking at changing what favors ICS, rather than adding disincentives to ICS.

[Enigma_Nova]

Settler inefficiency (2 pop to 1 pop) would have its advantages.

If you shift the power to large cities, people will probably make a bunch of satellite bases to pump settlers into the main base.

Make it so large cities are king, and there will be equally cheesy tactics springing up to rediculously oversize your HQ.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Darkstar
Not correct, Drachasor.

With 20 cities of 2, you get 20 build queues. You also get to utilizing tiles faster, becase you grow those cities faster then having one big one.

But if you change it so you have overflow (you spend all your production) so it can produce 20 items in one turn, and you grow just as fast if they are all in the same center or not, then ICS vanishes, and only strategy, tactical, and personal preference will guide the player.

And it would be easier on the AI as well.

Well I did touch on the time to get a large city issue, but you make a good point about the overflow.

Hmm, overflow could work into my Crazy Idea (that almost no one really likes). Oh well.

-Drachasor

[Deathmerchant]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Settler inefficiency (2 pop to 1 pop) would have its advantages.

If you shift the power to large cities, people will probably make a bunch of satellite bases to pump settlers into the main base.

Make it so large cities are king, and there will be equally cheesy tactics springing up to rediculously oversize your HQ.

I believe there was a size cap for adding population to cities wasn't there? In Civ2 it was 8.. which pretty much prevented what you suggest.

[Enigma_Nova]

I presumed you had the space to stack new people, and were producing the people outside the main base rather than inside it.

When the cost of pop size 2 & 3 combined is less than the cost of pop size 7...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
vulture was right - civ models are too linear. change them to exponential growth models, and you will get rid of ICS in no time.

Nope, that's way too simple. Cities grow on more factors other than a surplus of food. Food merely makes it possible to have growth. You must have other factors as well so there is actually growth - including immigration.

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
but you need to make sure that there is still incentive to found new cities, so dont make the model too steep.

Get rid of it. Let cities appear on their own.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dauphin
20 size 1 cities use 40 tiles, and assuming all tiles produce 2 food all cities will double in 10 turns.
1 size 20 city uses only 21 tiles, and assuming all tiles produce 2 food the city will double in over 200 turns.

That's because the current population model is retarded.

[Rasputin]

the sugestionshere getting away from the idea of what civ is.

it is a civilasition game, make your empires. if citys just pop up then you are no longer in control

if we add extra formulaes for calculating city growth the game will become less fun and too micromanagment (parts of it already are)

The simple solution is to restrict how close citys can be, a one line change in the code will possibly be done, all this other stuff will probably mean no change in civ4 .