ICS Question

[DaveV]

Settler support can be a problem in switching from monarchy to commie/fundy government. How I deal with the problem:

1. Most cities are only supporting one settler; usually I can rearrange workers to provide the extra food to keep that settler alive.

2. For cities suppporting more than one settler, or with very little food, you can run a food deficit as long as your food box doesn't go empty. As the food runs out, I look to (in order of preference):

a. Build cities with troublesome settlers.
b. Re-home troublesome settlers to cities with food surpluses (or with food in the box).
c. Add the troublesome settler to an existing city.
d. Disband the troublesome settler.

[Everyman]

I'm getting into this discussion late but I think the original question was about defending cities against barbs in the early game.

Here are some criteria I keep in mind for early defense, when shields are scarce. First of all, I try to build as many cities as possible on rivers. The defense bonus may enable you to get by with only a warrior for a few turns.

Second, if the city is on the outer perimeter, then I build a phalanx; if it's on the inner portion, then I'm more prone to build a warrior.

Third, I will definitely build a phalanx if the city is near the coast or close to the enemy.

Since I only play single-player, this is generally enough to get me through the early game.

[granite00]

Everyman,
Question: a warrior on a river still only has a defense factor of 1, doesn't it? 1 + 50%(river bonus) = 1.5...rounds down to 1?

[Richard Bruns]

I don't think these things are rounded down. The fractions do seem to make a difference. Besides, a fortified warroro on a river will have a defense of 2.

[Andz83]

and if he is a veteran? 2? or 3? or 2.5?

are you sure the values are not rounded?

[DaveV]

I'm convinced (based on other people's research and my own experience) that all of the defensive factors are multiplied, and rounded off to the next lowest .125. So a fortified vet warrior on a river would have a defense factor of 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 3.375. He should be able to withstand an attack from a barb horse (attack = 3 at Deity), but will likely lose to a barb chariot (attack = 4.5 at Deity). If the river square also contains swamp, woods, or jungle, the defense is increased by an additional 1.5, rounding off to 5.0 - enough to withstand a barb chariot or archer.

[Richard Bruns]

I just tested this and was very surprised. I had read elsewhere on this site that the bonuses were added up and then applied, so the total defense bonus for a vet warrior on a river would be 50%+50%+50%=150% added. In this case, the warrior would have a defense of 2.5

But when I tested it in cheat mode, nine Roman warriors fortified on a river survived attacks by Japanese chariots. Thus they all had defense higher then 3, supporting DaveV's number of 3.375

[Scouse Gits]

Returning, if I may, to the government transition thing. I am forced to ask what are all these settlers doing if they are causing this much mayhem - and the answer that I fear is, "Irrigating and Mining, of course".
For my money, (but I bow to DaveV as my mentor and master) when playing ICS in Monarchy a settler has only one job and that is founding - an occasional road can be forgiven - we do need internal transport systems and I must admit to having mined a grape or two very very occasionally - but the big problem - as has been stated above - is excessive city growth which we simply cannot stand in Monarchy so never ever irrigate until you go Fundy - my personal preference - I like medieval warfare so go Fundy - close down research (rely instead on trade for advances) - the stupid AI follows suit so you don't drop that far behind - and you will be conquering and buying most of your science anyway and with unhappiness a thing of the past - now you can grow your cities ...

I have a fun game going on a Giga map when I experimented with a Republican sleaze before going Fundy and buying the world - now that is fun - again inspired by DaveV's no wonder ICS scenario - it occurred to me that a strategy that can support ICS without wonders could support ICS with Republican growth if you cut the wonders back in - and it works!

Anyway - the watchword - "Do what works for you" - good civin'

ps added in edit: Should anyone have the slightest interest I could email a few selected saves from my republican Sleaze game - it's keeping me very happy, but I make no further claims for it. (sorry MP only)
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited December 08, 2000).]

[granite00]

Scouse Gits,

I am the one with the government transition problem. As I said above, it's a long way from the center of my empire to the fringes, even with roads. I have not irrigated or mined one square. All I've been doing is laying roads to new city locations and founding.

[Blaupanzer]

Rehome settlers to other cites for support as they move out. Do a LOT of founding just before the switch. Remember, ICS does not require ideal sites, just lots of them.