First time using ICS.

[JoeK]

All the times before when I would play CivII (the few times I would get the chance to play), I would play for the Civilization aspect. To play the story of my civ growing up and expanding through time.

I've never played the game as a game. Playing all the strategies to win the game as soon as possible. So when I came here and found all these strategies, and learned about ICS, I thought I'd give it a try to see what it's like. And last night I got a chance to play.

I started up CivII and quickly started up a game (no customizations, just hitting "OK" to all the options). With my first settler I founded Rome. Rome built a warrior to explore, and then built a settler. Sending the warrior off to explore I opened every hut (lots of mercenaries and techs), and discovered that I was on a large island/small continent (East-West winding land).

For the entire time I played (an hour or two) all I ever did was build cities (with the cities first building a phalanx for defense) and have those cities build nothing but settlers. Every city I built was as close to the others as could be (a space between them).

By the time I stopped playing it was around 900's BC. I had already became a Democracy (goaled to the tech) with a tech rate of a new tech every 8 turns. I didn't count how many cities I had, but the land is only half full of them. (And I still haven't met any other civs).

I continue the game to see how quickly I can "win", but for me, playing like that last night felt like cheating. When I usually play, the game has a personality for me. Each city and my entire civilization has a personality and feel. I create reasons for the city names (if their near or in a desert or at the edge of a bay) and I kinda make a story out of my civ's history and progress.

But playing it as nothing more than a game, playing it to quickly win... to me it just feels like cheating. The multitude of cities (by the time I stopped last night I had more cities than I usually have by the end of a normal game) were just faceless game icons with no uniqueness or personality.

It's was an interesting experiment for me (and I will finish the game to see how it goes), but I think I stick with playing for a story rather than playing to win.

Joe.

[Scouse Gits]

Each to their own poison, Joe. That's the beauty of Civ!

[kcbob]

As I look at the east coast of the United States or anywhere in Europe, it occurs to me that the human race is using ICS in real life. Cheating? Not really. I hope not, anyway. ICS is the only style I use these days.

[War4ever]

i used to be a classic ics'er not anymore though. I believe its a good idea to master many different styles of play in this regard because you never know what kind of land your going to find.

An ics start can save your butt if you have lousy land , and then when you find more hospitable territory you can use a fast growth strategy to balance things out

Its not the style of play that makes or breaks a game, i believe its not following through with your plan. You must stay on target with your goal or realize that it isn't in the cards and find another path right quick.

In SP, recovery time is like having the weekend after a night out at the bar, it doesn't matter, there are two days till work on Monday.

In MP, recovery time is less than 500 yrs (if your opposition is any good)

Still ics is a great way to learn the game. It relies on the HG or SOL and nothing more until then. If left alone ics is a menacing war machine capable or wreaking havoc by sheer numbers.

Good hunting folks.... and ics is in no way cheating

[Edward]

Originally posted by JoeK
The multitude of cities...were just faceless game icons with no uniqueness or personality.

Originally posted by kcbob
As I look at the east coast of the United States or anywhere in Europe, it occurs to me that the human race is using ICS in real life.

Yes, the East Coast embodies ICS. Cities covering every square of land and no personality. Very crowded and depressing.

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Each to their own poison, Joe. That's the beauty of Civ!

Agreed, SG! I'm with JoeK. Efficient does NOT equal fun for me.

[JoeK]

Originally posted by War4ever
and ics is in no way cheating

Nope, I didn't say it was, it just feels like it to me because of how I like to play for the story.

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Each to their own poison, Joe. That's the beauty of Civ!

That is surely is.

Joe.

[Rasputin]

the problem with ICS is that you dont have an army nor good defence . agaisnt the AI this is not so important, but try this agaisnt a reasonalby good MP player and you will soon find half you civ conquered in a turn.... While you are building 40-60 Citys with one defneder in each , he has probably built 15 citys with vet crusaders on their way...

also i beleive the ultiamte ICS person wouldnmt even build a single defender, but jsut build settlers.... even more risker

[War4ever]

Originally posted by Rasputin
the problem with ICS is that you dont have an army nor good defence . agaisnt the AI this is not so important, but try this agaisnt a reasonalby good MP player and you will soon find half you civ conquered in a turn.... While you are building 40-60 Citys with one defneder in each , he has probably built 15 citys with vet crusaders on their way...

also i beleive the ultiamte ICS person wouldnmt even build a single defender, but jsut build settlers.... even more risker

only on king level not on deity

but you raise a valid point.... if either the ics'er or the early republic civ has a chance to reach their objectives....... a struggle is on hand.

either way if one style reaches its peak before the other, certain doom can be expected but it takes an ics'er longer i think to reach that potential as the MP ers will tell you.

If ics were still the rage more would be successful with it in MP.... which clearly isn't the case anymore.

But strategies come and go...... and in civ 3 we are likely to see a whole new array , which should add a twist.

[Rasputin]

although i must agree with joel.. playing SP ICS is so very boring,, even at MP it makes a boring game, i too love the civ development, the naming of the citys , the role playing aspect,

I know i know, i need to get a life !!!

[Eyes_Of_Night]

Ras what the hell do you know? You don't need defenders unless it's for happiness control.

[Edward]

(warning: I've never played MP)

War4ever has a very good point. In all-out warfare, the first civilization that is geared up for war ("reached its peak") has a definite advantage. As Rasputin notes, this isn't of great importance in SP. In the early part of a SP game, I can get any AI to make peace after a couple turns of their aggression, so I'm never faced with an AI pressing it's first-to-reach-peak advantage over me. I can leisurely persue either ICS or a science path and stike whenever I'm ready.

EyesOfNight is basically correct in his assessment of ICS. Once you reach your peak and are conquering the world, you don't need defenders in your cities. Your defense is a vast horde of attackers bubbling out from your borders. (You're only building attackers so you have a lot of them.) If an opponent does capture a city, twice as many attackers are on their way to reclaim it.

Apparently, a MP ICSer will get eaten in his pre-horde days while he's still young and spreading out.

[rah]

We play most of our MP games on small worlds, Deity, raging. This has been enough to reasonably discourage pure ICS. Everyone is found early by other civs or barbs. It may still be a race for land, but land runs out awfully quick on a small world.

It also encourages conflict. There is nothing worse than playing on a large map and everyone spits out settlers for 1000's of years, and no one ever meets.

RAH

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by kcbob
As I look at the east coast of the United States or anywhere in Europe, it occurs to me that the human race is using ICS in real life. Cheating? Not really. I hope not, anyway. ICS is the only style I use these days.

Lets see New york with no cathedrals? what happened to st. patricks and st John the divine? No temples? how about Temple Emanuel on 5th avenue? No stock exchanges? Wall st must be awfully quiet. No Banks- does citibank know about this? No mass transit- farewell, IRT? No libraries- gone is the great outpost of civilization at 5th and 42nd? No universities- Columbia and NYU gone?

Indeed even the sprawl outside the great cities is not devoid of improvements - New Jersey has Rutgers and Princeton Univs. not to mention superhighways!!!

No the east coast of US (and i suspect any other alleged real world examples of ICS) is not ICS. ICS is not just lots of cities. Its barren cities without improvements.

This is not to say there is anything wrong with playing ICS - civ2 is just a game after all, and there are plenty of other strats that take advantage of "gamey" things - could i really succeed with "more realistic" perfectionist strat if the AI was not so stupid militarily? And without wonders? Just to deny the assertion (made by others as well) that ICS actually represents a realistic model of civ building.

LOTM

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Ras what the hell do you know? You don't need defenders unless it's for happiness control.

Obviosly Barbarians set to village only,, and you are counting on finding your opposition before they find you, using your clever Demographics stuff you can do this , but most other palyers cant or dont hve time, so to protect themselves i would think a defender would bew necessary, otherwise how do you prevent losing citys to horses from enemiies ????

[Blaupanzer]

On Deity, raging, restarts=yes, no defenders equal unacceptable risk and guarenteed unhappiness. You will lose nine times out of ten. As ICS game progresses, inner cities can keep only one defender, but most cities are coastal when using random maps, so one is the minimum. A lot of folks, even in "modified ICS" (ICS early, more development at the expense of settlers later), keep a few attackers and a diplo or two in the rear to deal with weirdnesses.