Do you think ICS has been solved adequately?

[punkbass2000]

To further curb ICS, they could place similar restrictions on unit building. A reasonable rule of thumb would be the city has to be as large as the unit's highest attribue in order to build it (ie., size 1 cities can build warriors, size 2 spearmen/archers, size three swordsman/pikeman, etc.) Special allowances may need to be made for UUs, however (might not be fair to force Greeks to wait till size three just build a hoplite).

[GePap]

I agree that population caps are a huge reason for ICS.

The negative of huge cities should be the possiblity of revolt or mass riots, as well as increased possibility of disease and pandemics. At the same time you produce massive amounts of wealth, influence, culture and have a mass of surplus population to send of to die in making empires.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My idea is merchants (invisible to the players) perform this function automatically. For example, they will buy food from an area with surplus food and sell it in an area with a food shortage. This of course drives up food price in that latter area and decreases quality of life.

I prefer player control over this aspect. This represents that the government can influence what is going on. The fact is that effective players will basically do the merchant's job, but they will feel in control of what is going on. Also, you avoid messy AI issues that might crop up (and take forever for an official patch)*. Lastly, players might find new and creative ways to apply the system that the computer AI wouldn't think of. Any automatic system here should be optional for many players will want personal control (and they should get it, it's a game).

As for decreasing the quality of life...well, aren't those people getting money and trade from those merchants? That should be increasing it. Trading is beneficial to both parties.

Originally posted by Drachasor
As for the idea of getting rid of city-building, I don't see how it would effectively different. What is going to stop people from forcing cities to form near each other, and the proceeding along happily with ICS?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Because you can't. If there's an existing city, it acts as a magnet for the people in the countryside due to higher quality of life (culture, education, wage levels, etc.) in the city.

If you have two cities close to each other, the better city is going to suck people away from the lesser one.

This is effectively the same as increasing the distance minimum distance between cities. Or, if you want to have cities suck population away from other cities, then provide those factors in the empire/city system. There are too many benefits from the settler system (greater player control, colonizing other continents by sending emmigrants, etc) to toss it away for something basically equivalent.

-Drachasor

*IMHO bad AI in how your empire acts is a lot less acceptable than bad AI in how other empires act.

[Arrian]

If CivIV is to have population figure into the building of military units, then obviously that can be used to boost the power of big cities (as Punkbass and GePap suggest).

I agree my idea about city density doesn't do very well from a realism standpoint, btw.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

One more thing:

Count me as STRONGLY opposed to having cities just sprout up outside of the player's direct control. I like sending a settler to found a city directly. It's something I like about Civ, despite the fact that it's unrealistic (except w/respect to founding overseas colonies).

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

I agree. City location is one of the most important decisions in Civ. It has to be a human decision and not indirectly controlled.

[joncnunn]

You know, if a requirement that a city had to be pop 6+ to build a settler was added [still using 2 pop points], it would largely solve ICS right there.

Additionaly, requirements could be added to most modern era strutures and units to require pop 15+ cities and for most industrial era structrues and units to require pop 12+ cities, most middle ages era structrues and units to require pop 9+ cities, and some other advanced ancient era structures and units to require pop 6+ cities.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rasputin
ICS not destroyed i sue it whenever playing the higher levels , works very well, a city separated by one square.. and lots ofo them

You miss my point. ICS was an exploit in C2 because it essentially gave you a free pop point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by TimeTraveler
One thing I always wondered about in Civ games is why the city square gives its resources without any of the population heads working on it. With that thought I think ICS could be stopped (or nearly stopped) dead in its tracks if

1. The city square doesn't give its common resources unless a laborer works on the square.

Essentially done in C3 (settlers cost 2 pop; there's an "invisible" laborer on that square). Your conception of ICS does not exist in C3.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Arrian
One more thing:

Count me as STRONGLY opposed to having cities just sprout up outside of the player's direct control. I like sending a settler to found a city directly. It's something I like about Civ, despite the fact that it's unrealistic (except w/respect to founding overseas colonies).

-Arrian

I agree. That is entering the realm of MoO3, someplace I pray to Allah that Soren doesn't take Civ to.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My idea is merchants (invisible to the players) perform this function automatically. For example, they will buy food from an area with surplus food and sell it in an area with a food shortage. This of course drives up food price in that latter area and decreases quality of life.

And you call yourself a commie?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by joncnunn
You know, if a requirement that a city had to be pop 6+ to build a settler was added [still using 2 pop points], it would largely solve ICS right there.

Alternatively, change the pop limit before aqueduct to 2 - so you either have to build an aqueduct or next to a river to have a city that can make settlers.

[Dauphin]

That would be in the running for the prize for the most annoying feature.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by TimeTraveler
One thing I always wondered about in Civ games is why the city square gives its resources without any of the population heads working on it. With that thought I think ICS could be stopped (or nearly stopped) dead in its tracks if

1. The city square doesn't give its common resources unless a laborer works on the square.

Essentially done in C3 (settlers cost 2 pop; there's an "invisible" laborer on that square). Your conception of ICS does not exist in C3.

There is still the problem of greatly increasing the growth rate of your empire. Two size 1 cities grow faster than a Size 2, meaning the former get two pop points before the Size 2 even gets one. That is one of the main powers of ICS, and I think it is also an exploit.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

The way around that, I guess, is to tie growth more to happiness and/or prosperity than to having excess food.

-Arrian