ICS is back with a vengeance

[frenzyfol]

It would be interesting to hear from the multiplayer community as to whether this strategy is a game winning strategy or not.

[Sir Og]

Hmm, I think this thread is going nowhere. The original ICS strategy, given that name when it was published as an article, was as MxM described it. This thing you are calling ICS is not the exploit that ICS was, it's the viability of an aggressive growth strategy. I am very happy that an aggressive early growth strategy and a conservative build-up strategy are both viable in this game.

The definition is not so important but anything that leads to the map being filled with lots of small cities is ICS.(because you build cities infinately)
Also ICS is way more powerfull than consrvative build up.
Two size 4 cites are way more powerfull than one size 8. They get twice the free food from maritime CS, twice the city tile production from liberty, commerce and order, twice the happiness and culture from liberty. They also require two colliseums whith a combined hammer and maintanace cost which is way lower that what you would need for two happiness buildings in a size 8 city. Also two small cities can run 4 scientist with just two libraries. And as a bonus two small cities grow a lot faster than one big city. The only negative is the -2 happiness for new city, and that is very easy to offset.

There is zero balance here. I don't know what the developers were thinking. There is almost no incetive to go with big cities. They grow very slowly, the higher level buildings don't make any sence and there is a mechanic that gives you a ton of free stuff for each new city.

[binTravkin]

There is zero balance here. I don't know what the developers were thinking. There is almost no incetive to go with big cities. They grow very slowly, the higher level buildings don't make any sence and there is a mechanic that gives you a ton of free stuff for each new city.

QFT.

And MxM, I didn't see any contradiction in my post, I think you should read it again.

[MxM]

And MxM, I didn't see any contradiction in my post, I think you should read it again.

The contradiction was about tight packing.

Would you comment on how would you differentiate REX vs ICS and what do you think the game-play sample in OP is?

On more pure "theoretical" discussion.

If ICS on empty infinite map give you possibility to build only one city in 100 turns, would you call that ICS is back in the game?

Civ II had increasing ICS, which is city building would increase geometrically, or even exponentially as time goes. Civ V theoretically has linear ICS - you can build cities on infinite map without competitors, infinitely, but because of the happiness constrains you can do it only with constant rate, otherwise you run into negative happiness.

I think that for ICS to become valueble danger of the game, it has to be the "geometrical" ICS. Linear ICS, is simple expansion until you hit the borders with the neighbors, and than, there is a big question if you want to super pack your cities or grow them with bonuses that large cities give to you. If the second is true, then there is no problem with ICS, and the game functions as designed.

[MxM]

Two size 4 cites are way more powerfull than one size 8. They get twice the free food from maritime CS, twice the city tile production from liberty, commerce and order, twice the happiness and culture from liberty. They also require two colliseums whith a combined hammer and maintanace cost which is way lower that what you would need for two happiness buildings in a size 8 city. Also two small cities can run 4 scientist with just two libraries. And as a bonus two small cities grow a lot faster than one big city. The only negative is the -2 happiness for new city, and that is very easy to offset.

There is zero balance here. I don't know what the developers were thinking. There is almost no incetive to go with big cities. They grow very slowly, the higher level buildings don't make any sence and there is a mechanic that gives you a ton of free stuff for each new city.

These are valid points. However, the growth part is irrelevant to this discussion (you can not have ICS in Civ V if they continuously grow. The ICS is with 4 size cities). Same goes to maritime SC). And while you listed lots of positives, you miss the main negative. If you want to have good manufacturing (mill, forge), good military (barracks, etc), good science (meaning university, school, etc) one city can have it, two can not! They only can have good commerce (because the commerce buildings are free), but it would take forever to build stock exchange in size 4 city, so even that does not impact the game much.
A single +50% science building, worth much more than additional tile that two size 4 cities have.

So I think, in the beginning of the game fast expansion does make sense, because it takes time to build all those buildings in the city, and without buildings, 2 size 4 cities are better. But at the end of the game, single size 8 city is better, or single size 12 city is way better than 3 size 4 cities.

Civ V is good for REX with fast war following it and early win (if the map is small). But if you do not make this early war/win, then at the end of the game you will stuck with bunch of lvl 4 cities and without much science or culture or social policies.

Well, at least this is my current impression of the game is.

[MxM]

The definition is not so important but anything that leads to the map being filled with lots of small cities is ICS.(because you build cities infinately)

You actually give quite good definition of ICS. The question is if it is the best strategy. Just being one of the strategies and not the best one, is OK. And at least the example shown gives no impression of "lots of small cites". His REX ended at turn 100 with 5 cites and admittance that he is out of happiness, so that he can not expand more.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yeah, that's exactly what I am trying to do.

Cheer up man. If you do disagree, just say so, and argue your position. That's why these are DISCUSSION boards. There would be very little discussions if everyone agreed with everyone else. Argumentation is part of the fun being here.

Personal attacks, on another hand are not fun or constructive or giving anything to anyone, not to you, not to me.

I am having a discussion, I am having a discussion with Wiglaf, somebody with whom discussions are much more interesting than with you.

By the way, Wiglaf is always angry. He's also the most hilarious member of this board, so a word of advice: criticizing his writing style is just massive trollbait.

Finally, disagreeing for the purpose of having an argument was in a Monty python sketch. If you really want to emulate that, feel free to become laughingstock. Otherwise you should probably try to take defensible positions in debates.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

How about if you send multiple settlers at the same time with a worker? At some point you'll have an abundance of workers so this process goes quicker on a forward moving basis. The settler finds a spot with a new luxury, the worker builds the improvement. Six turns later you should have churned out another few settlers.

When you run into a lack of new happiness resources, you can be less selective. Provided you have ample cash, you can settle, and instabuild a colloseum. Core cities should provide this cash basis.

If you operate based on these new constraints you can still expand at an ever increasing rate.

Seems to me that infinite is relative to the shifting maximum constraint of your adversary, which is identical to yours. In other words, the new ICS game is focused on hitting that maximum faster than your opponents. ICS could become based on stepwise progression: 1) luxury locations (10 or so) , 2) commerce/production locations (infinite).

Considering you need to field an army which can defend each of these locations within a few turns, the relative benefit decreases per city. The progressive added benefit of pure commerce/production locations deteriorates over time, as upkeep increases on a relative basis. In other words, the absolute benefit per additional city becomes lower as new locations require happiness buildings and defence. I don't see why the benefit would ever drop below zero though.

There's a catch to all this: if you manage to take down the core cities of your opponents, they're left with just a bunch of below-par cities. Also, the cash dependence implies that one cannot attend to non-sprawling purposes, which is another weakness. Furthermore, you're dependant on maritime city states. If a smart MP opponent notices your ICS strategy, they can out-buy their allegiance, which cripples your empire. Myself, I like these catches. Means you need to keep thinking

[Hauldren Collider]

Now, onto the actual substance, the fact that ICS is possible is obviously correct. Since all the disadvantages are linear with the number of cities, this necessarily implies that they do not grow with respect to the number of cities. If there were a way to eliminate these advantages for each city, AND THERE IS, then infinite cities is clearly ideal because benefits are also linear with number of cities.

[Jaybe]

I am having a discussion, I am having a discussion with Wiglaf, somebody with whom discussions are much more interesting than with you.

By the way, Wiglaf is always angry. He's also the most hilarious member of this board, so a word of advice: criticizing his writing style is just massive trollbait.

Finally, disagreeing for the purpose of having an argument was in a Monty python sketch. If you really want to emulate that, feel free to become laughingstock. Otherwise you should probably try to take defensible positions in debates.

VERY informative post! Someone has a way too developed sense of humor ... to actually discuss with the wig for purposes of enjoyment.
My sense of humor is, unfortunately, underdeveloped.

Which Monty Python sketch? Do you remember?

[DaveV]

Which Monty Python sketch? Do you remember?

[Jaybe]

Thank you SO much, Dave. Next time I'm in need of a REAL argument, I'll know which clinic to go to!

[jobe]

It would be interesting to hear from the multiplayer community as to whether this strategy is a game winning strategy or not.

City spam is the norm in MP right now. I end 110 turn limit games ffa games with 5-6 6 people on small sized maps with 15-20 cities I built myself + conquered cities. If you´re not spamming, you are basically either rushing or defending against a rush, both of which are only viable in MP and with the mechanics Civ5 brings (like citie´s shooting) that´s not the best idea.

It doesn´t help that France is greatly overpowered compared to anything else and ICS is heavily suppored by France´s trait. I miss Civ4 where you had to expand very carefully in MP :/.

[MxM]

I am having a discussion, I am having a discussion with Wiglaf, somebody with whom discussions are much more interesting than with you.

So, your publicly posting "MxM is just trying to promote his image as the most stubbornly murky-thinking member of this board." is just a discussion with Wiglaf?

By the way, Wiglaf is always angry. He's also the most hilarious member of this board, so a word of advice: criticizing his writing style is just massive trollbait.

I do not have any problem with him being angry, I do however have problem if somebody calls me buffoon. If you saying that I should not object to that because of the danger of troll-thread, I can not agree with it.

Finally, disagreeing for the purpose of having an argument was in a Monty python sketch.

Can you possibly misinterpreted more what I said? All I am saying that there is a way to have intelligent discussion without name calling if you want to and enjoy it. If you do not want to have those discussions, then don't. But please avoid personal attacks, nobody wins from that. And it is against forums rules.

[MxM]

City spam is the norm in MP right now. I end 110 turn limit games ffa games with 5-6 6 people on small sized maps with 15-20 cities I built myself + conquered cities.

Out of those 15 sites, can you estimate how many you build yourself in 110 turns? Because the example that was provides shows just 5 sites start at turn 100.