ICS is back with a vengeance

[Ming]

Gee... ICS beats all
Gee... Horsemen rushes never lose
Gee... The CS strategy is unbeatable

And people are claiming the game is broken because of a single strategy... yet people have already claimed that there are three killer strategies. And I'm sure we will continue to hear more strategies that pwns all others...

[One_more_turn]

I said months ago that I was not optimistic about this game. It seems that my fears turn out to be true. Well, I'll just keep playing BTS and busting SODs.

[Sir Og]

Gee... ICS beats all
Gee... Horsemen rushes never lose
Gee... The CS strategy is unbeatable

And people are claiming the game is broken because of a single strategy... yet people have already claimed that there are three killer strategies. And I'm sure we will continue to hear more strategies that pwns all others...

Ming what you are saying comes not from the existence of many balanced strategies but from the fact that the AI is very incompetent in combat and you can win in a lot of different ways. I bet you can win with a number of self imposed restrictions but that doesn't prove anything.
Compare your production science and money output using ICS to any other strat and then talk about balance.

[binTravkin]

Yesterday I tried to ICS with France on Deity.
I was seriously distracted by my neighbors (Bab and Ger), but here is the summary:

1. The build trend for cities was like
Warrior (not for cap)
Worker
Settler
Collosseum
Settler
Worker
Circus (if available)
Settler
Worker
(repeat Settler+Worker until next available happiness building)

With an odd work boat for coastals.

2. I didn't use Trading Posts at all, instead:
Farms wherever fresh water is near
Mines on hills
Lumber mills in forest (I had to chop some forests, which I was not planning to initially, due to my dumb neighbours DoW)

3. I managed to grab these luxuries:
Gems
Marble
Ivory
Silk
Cotton
Spices
Whales
Didn't manage to trade any in.

4. In SPs I went:
Liberty (for settler build speed)
Citizenship (for worker work speed)
Meritocracy (for extra happiness for trade routes)
Honor
Discipline
Warrior Caste (for extra happiness on garrison)

It was a quick speed game and even with the serious distraction I was founding my 10th city around 600AD.
My happiness was most of the time 10+, except during war when a couple of my luxury improvements were razed.

By the endgame (600-something AD) I was first in score, rapidly catching up in tech, best in GDP and 2nd or 3rd in other ratings.
I didn't conquer nor raze any of my neighbour cities since I was not sure how would I manage them and the happiness hit and also because they are a walkover and I would get an advantage that would be gained outside ICSing.
I was researching towards Printing Press for Theatre happiness building and was just two techs short.
My next b-line would be Mass Media with Stadium building, but that would take a lot more time.
I noted the fact that unlike cIV you can't b-line for some tech skipping many others - eventually you still need to backfill.

The ICS was kind of slow one due to Colloseums and Circuses being somewhat expensive and slow to build, but from my SMACX experience I can relate to building Recreation Commons (or whatever they were called) being somewhat similar (Under Free Market it was impossible to use police units which were much cheaper).
In general I feel that the limiting factor actually was lack of production (not happiness), partly from the fact I started in a quite plain area with little production-improving resources around.
Also I didn't set "production priority" for my cities, which, I reckon, was a mistake.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to note - CS were set to 0 in this game, so there was no magical food

[Ming]

Ming what you are saying comes not from the existence of many balanced strategies but from the fact that the AI is very incompetent in combat and you can win in a lot of different ways. I bet you can win with a number of self imposed restrictions but that doesn't prove anything.
Compare your production science and money output using ICS to any other strat and then talk about balance.

The point of the game is to win. There are MANY ways to do that. ICS is just one strategy, but it isn't the only strategy for an easy victory. I cruised to all the different victory conditions at Deity never using the ICS approach. Try winning a culture victory with the ICS approach

I'm not saying the game is perfect... I'm not saying the AI knows how to fight beyond simply putting as many units on the field as possible... the game still needs a lot of work. I've had no problem with production, science, or money using other strategies than ICS, and still can win without many problems.

[Hauldren Collider]

The point of the game is to win. There are MANY ways to do that. ICS is just one strategy, but it isn't the only strategy for an easy victory. I cruised to all the different victory conditions at Deity never using the ICS approach. Try winning a culture victory with the ICS approach

I'm not saying the game is perfect... I'm not saying the AI knows how to fight beyond simply putting as many units on the field as possible... the game still needs a lot of work. I've had no problem with production, science, or money using other strategies than ICS, and still can win without many problems.

Playing the AI is one thing...what about for multiplayer?

[notyoueither]

If you have time and space it might work. A lot of the time you'd get stuffed while working on your settlers and happiness buildings, unless you can toss your collosseum at the invading army.

[MxM]

yes with 1 worker per civ it may be worth to play it... but as it is, ICS it is, if you want the "winning" strategy...

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/liberteordre2.html

[q]With another twenty turns of reckless expansion, the benefits of the mass city strategy were really starting to make themselves felt.

Quite interesting game play example. I think while Civ V does have something like ICS, it is quite different from Civ II. In Civ II ICS available from turn 1. In Civ V it is available at around turn 200. In the game example provided, it has started around turn 180, which is well in the middle of the game.
Also, important distinction, you want available territory expand to, because it does not make too much sense to put city in-between you original sites, that become quite large by the time you ready. In that example it was made so by game setup - low sea level makes lots of available space.

It is good strategy and game wining one. I would call it DICS - Delayed ICS.

[Ming]

Playing the AI is one thing...what about for multiplayer?

In multiplay, it's a whole different story. All players can adopt the same or different strategies. ICS is one... but an early rush could deal with that. Balance is completely different in MP. The civs, special units and powers are more an issue, as well as simul combat.

[MxM]

And to be honest this DICS (delayed ICS) is an interesting choice in the game. I think it should be toned down somehow (say, colleseums could be build in cize 8 cities only), but it could give you interesting chose at around turn 200 - you either go all for DICS or continue exploit social polices...

[Hauldren Collider]

In multiplay, it's a whole different story. All players can adopt the same or different strategies. ICS is one... but an early rush could deal with that. Balance is completely different in MP. The civs, special units and powers are more an issue, as well as simul combat.

I haven't tried multiplayer yet, is it as sucky as GameSpy in Civ IV?

[Hauldren Collider]

And to be honest this DICS (delayed ICS) is an interesting choice in the game. I think it should be toned down somehow (say, colleseums could be build in cize 8 cities only), but it could give you interesting chose at around turn 200 - you either go all for DICS or continue exploit social polices...

No, the correct solution is to have maintenance costs for cities that is nonlinear with your number of cities and eliminate maintenance costs for buildings. What this means is that a high-pop city is valuable as it overcomes the deadweight of having the city itself. The lack of maintenance costs for buildings eliminates the disincentive to raise the hap cap and food cap.

In civ IV having a high pop city was hard because slavery was so damn useful, but without whipping and with gold being so useful (probably too useful as you can buy almost anything) high pops are more valuable.

[MxM]

No, the correct solution is to have maintenance costs for cities that is nonlinear with your number of cities and eliminate maintenance costs for buildings...

That would be a solution, and the most obvious one (I mean, Civ IV had just that). Or it could be happiness cost increasing, not maintenance, whatever. However, I do not like this. I do not like that the player artificially constrained to an empire of particular size. Not only it is unnatural, but also it will limit flexibility of the game to be played on different maps, because that limitation would need to be adjusted depending on map size, number of players, sea/land ratio and so on. Plus it is like making a rule: you empire has to be this size - it kind of removes opportunities and strategies and flexibility of gameplay. There should be valuable strategies of more or less equal strength with small and large empires.

I would rather intrinsically make more beneficial to have large city as oppose to two cities half the size each, and that should not depend on your empire size or anything artificial like that. May be happiness penalty per city should be twice higher...

[Hauldren Collider]

You're not artificially constrained, you fool. You're constrained to making cities that are valuable to your empire as opposed to cities that are just there to be there and have another city. Jesus, if that's an "artificial constraint" to you, then what you are saying is that you WANT the ICS problem to remain in Civ V.

Halving the hap cap would just make it a little harder to do ICS, but the fundamental problem would remain in the game. Cities would just be slightly less profitable.

[binTravkin]

MxM doesn't it sometimes seem to you that you are arguing just to argue?