Is ICS truly dead?

[vee4473]

I have read about one feature that is purported to kill ICS: The fact that settlers and workers will use food as well as shields (hammers) for production and therefore shut down that cities growth.

But, would this really do it? I mean, couldn't you sacrifice a city to no growth in order to pump settlers anyway?

In civ3, producing a settler meant losing a pop. point. Through a different mechanic it produced the same effect: attempt to limit ICS by penalizing city growth for every settler built.

I just don't see how this new mechanic does it any better.

Of course, I don't have the game yet, so ANYONE PLEEEEEEEEASE correct me and tell me what I am missing.

I will buy the game regardless, but this point has bugged me.

[Niptium]

Well apparently how it works is that while you aren't growing and pumping those settlers (wich cost a lot more 100 now)... not only don't you grow, your research rate is at the slowest. So you won't be able to get a worker out and you won't be able to research the techs that make your worker able to produce farms and mines... and you'll get far behind in tech research.

Secundo your upkeep of ALL your cities go up everytime you found a new city - wich means even less $ spent on research and more on upkeep... see my point ? It was made pretty clearly in the Walkthrough of Sulla

[vee4473]

Thanks, I understood the point of more upkeep cost per city in your empire. But that was vague in Sulla's walkthrough and also is represented in previous civ games.

It almost (almost) seems as if the corruption from civ (which tried to limit city numbers by making them more and more useless the farther out) has been replaced by upkeep costs (the more cities you have, the more you pay, so don't build)..

I shall play and see.

[vee4473]

I didn't know about the research hit though.

[asleepathewheel]

research isn't effected when producing settlers.

ICS is killed because of maintainence costs after you hit a certain city mark become crushing when your tech level/infrastructure is very low.

I can't wait to read how people play as Hatshepsut and capture 10 cities using the war chariot only to watch their economy grind to a halt. Sometimes you have to keep sacking cities in order to fund research to where you can actually build a self-sustaining empire.

My last game was like this, I attacked and attacked, trying to get enough cash flow to get to currency (which is an early goalpost in fighting costs) My empire was on the verge of collapse, wiht units on strike and me completely broke, losing swordsmen due to not paying them, when a friendly AI traded me currency for a couple techs. Probably the only thing that saved me in that game. Then its shell mode for a while building up enough infra to raise my science rate back up to a reasonable level.

Great fun.

[Nailfoot]

I always liked the games that seem to be totally lost...to the point of wanting to just "start again". Then, just when you are ready to click the "Quit" button, something happens that turns the whole thing around! Or, you decide to plug away at it for a bit longer and pull off a wonderous recovery! This happened all the time to me in MoO2 right about the time the Guass Autocannon was researched.

Oh, and On Topic: If ICS is gone I will rejoice! But, I don't know that it is totally.

[Blake]

The cities not growing while building cities thing is just an act of mercy. It means there's no need to reassign workers and stuff while pumping out settlers.

[Grumbold]

I'm pleased that ICS city-spamming is dead, but I'm not so happy that players are restricted from having a large civilization of optimally placed cities. That is just the corruption mechanic sneaking in the back door. Nobody told Rome that conquering most of the known world was a bad idea, the taxes from all those far flung provinces made them the wealthiest, largest and most technically advanced nation in the world. I'd rather see the risk of overexpansion be instability via barbarians or local revolts rather than a fixed financial penaty.

[Harovan]

As far as I understand the previews and other sources, you still can have huge empires later in the game, when you built up your economy, like markets and banks, and researched some techs easing expansion, so you can afford the upkeep cost. You just can't expand like mad in the ancient age anymore, or build loads of micro-cities, and have a headstart in the game guaranteed.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
As far as I understand the previews and other sources, you still can have huge empires later in the game, when you built up your economy, like markets and banks, and researched some techs easing expansion, so you can afford the upkeep cost. You just can't expand like mad in the ancient age anymore, or build loads of micro-cities, and have a headstart in the game guaranteed.

Yeah. There are a couple of things at work which give you kind of an exponentially larger income once time goes by, which allows you to deal with the kind of exponentially higher maintenance. Your job is to find the right balance (not so easy the first few games...)

- cottages grow over time, up to towns, which considerably increase your base commerce per city

- at certain points in the tech tree you can gain more trade routes per city

- your cities grow, hence work more tiles

- the cities you trade to grow (both foreign and your own), so trade income from these cities increases

- certain civics become avaiable which help

- buildings both come available, plus are actually built in cities.

- because of higher food ratings, it's easier to run specialists. Merchants can be the result, and these in general provide a lot of cash (either a fixed amount enough to support your empire for many turns, or a continual amount)

- religion spreads. Later on, you most likely will have shrines if you've got holy cities (either your own, or conquered ones). The income from shrines is in many cases enough to cover your whole maintenance budget, allowing you to run at 100% tech at a surplus.

- trade... later in the game, there simply is more to trade, and more civs to trade to.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I'm pleased that ICS city-spamming is dead, but I'm not so happy that players are restricted from having a large civilization of optimally placed cities.

On the contrary: because you have less cities at first, you spend a lot more effort actually finding the optimal spots for them. A few optimized starting cities, can for instance mean that you can spread all over the globe by 1000 AD, without ever fearing maintenance. Place those first cities in a bad way, and it can mean that by the end of the game, you're still struggling with your finances.

DeepO

[DeepO]

BTW, I think the main initial complaint about the anti-ICS measure is not going to be that you simply can't settler spam early on because you go bankrupt, it is that you can't run 100% tech in a larger empire. If you look at the numbers (and I'm sure this will be done ), running at 40% tech in a larger empire can mean more bpt than running 100% tech in a smaller one. If you start running at 20%, you most likely do have a problem. Setting your own threshold will require experience...

Basically what I want to say, is that the tech slider looks like a good indication of how 'corrupt' your empire is, but it isn't in Civ4. The tech slider works differently in Civ3, and many people will make the mistake of assessing the wrong number. Do not get put off by this, it's just a transition from Civ3, and the Civ4 systems works a lot better.

DeepO

[vee4473]

Utilizing every tile per city seems most important now, as opposed to the overlapping city spacing that was a favorite strategy of many civ 3ers for packing in the cities.

I never liked overlapping tiles, so if this is true, I will love it.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by vee4473
Utilizing every tile per city seems most important now, as opposed to the overlapping city spacing that was a favorite strategy of many civ 3ers for packing in the cities.

I never liked overlapping tiles, so if this is true, I will love it.

It's actually stronger than that, with more variation. You don't want to use every tile, you want to use all the very good tiles. If you've got the space, this will leave a lot of open space between cities. If you don't have plenty of space, you will have overlap in cities, but done in such a way that each city has good tiles. Fisherman villages actually work, but in some cases are only worth the cost if they connect a resource.

DeepO

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by DeepO

It's actually stronger than that, with more variation. You don't want to use every tile, you want to use all the very good tiles. If you've got the space, this will leave a lot of open space between cities. If you don't have plenty of space, you will have overlap in cities, but done in such a way that each city has good tiles. Fisherman villages actually work, but in some cases are only worth the cost if they connect a resource.

DeepO

I agree thats what I saw yesterday.

ICS in its CIV III wrapper is dead. But intelligent growth is in.

If you can afford it, go ahead and grow, if you can';t afford it you wont. And the key I believe is going to be grabbing those "bonus tiles and working them early, then planning other pushes of expansion around your general build up and changes in your Civics options over time.