Anti-ICS measures

[Urban Ranger]

The Anti-ICS measures in Civ 4 seem to be either heavyhanded (e.g. can't build a city within 2 tiles of an existing one) or silly (no city growth when building settlers or workers). So this thread is for discussing more subtle or radical ways to counter the ICS stretagy. Perhaps for the next installment?

I have three suggestions:

1. Completely revamp the population growth and city formation models. This is the most radical of my suggestions. Eliminate the settler all togther. Instead, just provide a means for the player to "plant" the first city (capital). After that population grows according to the underlying model. When the population on some tile exceeds a certain threshold it becomes a city. It will be your city if it is close enough to you, taking into accounts factors such as culture and military strength.

A city grows not because of surplus food only, but should be based on a large number of factors. So a city grows in size when you put an effort in making it a better place to live than the surrounding areas.


2. Expanding city radius. A city should be able to work more tiles than the "fat cross" if it is big enough.


3. Make it that a city's production is not linearly proportional to the population, but increases at a higher rate. A large city can have multiple build queues. This way a size 10 city is more productive than 10 size 1 cities. Maybe not 100 times as good, but maybe 20 time or perhaps even 50 times better.

[petermarkab]

Hi UR,

From my perspective, anti-ICS measures are in place primarily to help the AI compete against the human player. If the game is to introduce more and more complex ideas behind nation-building, the AI must be able to understand and utilise these ideas successfully. However, I like your ideas and I don't think we should allow incompetant AI to stifle debate!

I think the idea of a population density on each tile as you suggest could be used for city founding, spread of disease, pollution and waste, crime, intellectual ideas; ie. both positives and negatives. So choose to build lots of cities close together, and these variables come into play.

The fat cross limitation has frustrated me over many games - i think this ought to be re-worked to allow for more flexible city placement.

Heres my contribution: by taking to extremes the food, production and trade yield of each tile there would be severe limits to where cities would be placed, or would 'spawn'. By allowing the transfer of resources between cities, eg food trading (supply crawlers in AC) cities could be placed in barren regions, or could could grow to a size far beyond what the 'fat-cross' could support. Rome imported most of its grain from Egypt, New York certainly isn't surrounded by fields of corn!

[Tattila the Hun]

I like that spawning idea, not sure if it can be implemented to current civ...

Were that many cities, historically, actually "founded"? I should think they sorta grew, on important trading locations, riverbanks... Tile's "trade" numbers should be an important factor in deciding, where a city plops up.

[petermarkab]

yeah tatilla, exactly, trading posts grew into towns, river crossings became places where people would meet and trade goods, choke-points in hills and mountains would be staging posts for journeys across those mountains.

[Kc7mxo]

I think a better solution to ICS would be to allow cities to grow more than the normal 2 tiles out.

mmm, imagine a city with a three square radius. . .

[asleepathewheel]

erm, ICS is limited in my games due to the effects on research ability, not the 2 tile or growth stoppages. I've had quite a few games, actually, where my my science rate plummeted to zero due to over expansion and capturing cities.

[AoA]

UR: I like the 3rd suggestion a lot. It favors builders and encourages large cities as opposed to a ton of little ones.

How about a removal of the freely worked center square? That free square itself likely plays the biggest role in the benefits of ICS. What would happen to the flow of the game if a size 1 city only had ONE tile to work?

[StarLightDeath]

Yes, lets further dumb the game down by yet further removing options from the game. Simply genius...as if this game wasn't totally made for 5 year olds in the first place. This game is like watching a cartoon...not that some cartoons are bad or anything. Needless to say the "ICS counter" imposed in this game has done nothing more than significantly lower the ceiling on the game and reduce the gap between better and lesser players to being non-existent.

[Jonah5]

Not bad ideas, but, I don't know.

[Odin]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
Yes, lets further dumb the game down by yet further removing options from the game. Simply genius...as if this game wasn't totally made for 5 year olds in the first place. This game is like watching a cartoon...not that some cartoons are bad or anything. Needless to say the "ICS counter" imposed in this game has done nothing more than significantly lower the ceiling on the game and reduce the gap between better and lesser players to being non-existent.

Actually, it does just the opposite. Civ3 just became an exersize of geting as many settlers pumped out as possible, no thinking invoved, just a simple formula for victory. Now having a massive, sprawling empire isn't the only way to compete.

[SpencerH]

I dont mind the no build within 2 squares and the no growth while building settler rules. What I do think has been overdone is the city maintenance costs. It can be a disaster to be on a continent alone with barbarian cities. You have to deal with them and it makes no sense to just burn em so you end up overextended and lowering your science to nothing - game over.

[Krill]

You have to deal with them and it makes no sense to just burn em so you end up overextended and lowering your science to nothing - game over.

Of course it makes sense to burn them, if not burning them causes you to lose the game. You burn them and stay in the game, instead of keeping them and losing.

[Jamski]

Yep, makes perfect sense to burn them, then plant cities there later, where YOU want them and WHEN you can support them.

[Last Conformist]

A modest application of genocide has always been a good tool for keeping barbarian tribes from becoming too unruly.

That said, I tend to play on fairly crowded maps, with the result that the chief annoyance I derive from the few barbarian cities that do pop up is when some pesky AI rival capture them before I do.

[Diadem]

In my experience barb cities often pop up in very good spots.

The latest game I played, I had a city spot singled out for later colonization at a certain spot. One of my troops passes through it and notices a barbarian city on exactly that spot, with only two warriors in it. Another barb city turned out to be on a spot I hadn't considered yet, but was also very good.

Building a chariot is a much easier way of founding a city than building a settler is.