what was ICS in CIV1

[squigg007]

hey guys, i just fired up my old 33 mhz laptop from the good old days (which has civ 1 on it) and started up a new game.

Now in CIV 3, i hear the roots of ICS was from civ 1, and it wa s supposedly an overpowered strategy.

I remember that you can build cities next to each other , so was the point to build a million cites crammed in for massive support in despotism, then crush everyone? Just curious..... (heh, i want to try it actually)

[Father Beast]

Just in case you don't get the basics of ICS, I'll quote DaveV's bit from the Civ2 ICS Guide:

The easiest way to win at Civilization II is to build lots of cities. The extreme form of this strategy is generally known by the acronym ICS, which stands for Infinite Cities Sleaze, Sprawl, or Strategy, depending on your viewpoint. Although some people hate this technique, it makes the game easier by decreasing the number of decisions you have to make. One thing that makes Civilization II difficult for new players is the staggering number of choices in the game. Do you build military units, settlers, trade units, diplomats, city improvements, or a wonder of the world? If you follow the ICS strategy, you eliminate one of the choices entirely, and can choose from the other options based on a simple pattern.

The cornerstone of this strategy is: don't build ANY improvements in any of your cities (with the exception of a few key Wonders). Build lots of small cities instead of a few big ones. Just keep building troops, settlers, and diplomats, and send them out to build new cities and take away your opponents'.

...
One of the reasons ICS works so well is that each city gets a "free" worker for the city square, that is, a size one city gets to work two squares. Also, corruption and waste are less for a small city. And, of course, no improvements mean you don't have to spend shields building them, pay maintenance for them, nor be concerned that an opponent might sabotage them. You can expand exponentially by building lots of settlers: your first city builds one, your two cities build two and your four cities build four.

That's from the great library in the civ2/strategy section, if you want to know more.

In Civ1, the Strategy is a LOT more powerful, because of several things they changed for Civ2.

1. in Civ1, there is no waste, just corruption. Your production never takes a hit.
2. In Civ1, you can build cities right next to each other if you like. standard ICS doctrine for Civ1 is, I believe, to build a city on every Grassland/shield or Plains square.
3. due to the lack of Riot Factor, No wonders at all are neccessary for a straight conquest game.
4. for a straight conquest game, nothing beats an endless horde of chariots.

One I have played out a number of times is to play as the americans, cover north america with cities and smother the world with chariots. Just before I have to ferry my guys to australia, I get the message that I can't build any more units.

Have Fun!