No announcement yet.

Melancholy & the Infinite City Sleaziness

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Melancholy & the Infinite City Sleaziness

    Okay, guys, I've read through the archives, perusing the threads that interest me. Lots of good stuff back there, including Paul's new OCC record: NINETEEN-oh-three.

    One subject I didn't get enough of was the ICS model of playing.

    Basically, I picked up you build a City, build defense for that city, build a settler. That settler goes to form another city and so on. Only your capital gets city improvements, and you designate the capital as your SCC. No improvements are bought in the other cities.

    I tried it last night and it was hard to manage! I haven't gotten Mike's Chapel yet, which seems to be a must. And it is really hard to keep all these 2 or 3 population cities I have out of discontent. It seems I am bogged down because when I build a settler, the city now starves.

    I know at some point you buy a lot of carvans, but I'm not sure when.

    This style of play is very foriegn to the way I usually play civ (so is OCC, for that matter), so I would like some tips and hints and strategies.

    Specifically, what do you do with that 2nd settler--build another city or improve SCC's city radius? Also, what's the best method for keeping the cities out of civil disorder before MiChap is built (other than playing on Prince level)? Hanging Gardens doesn't exactly do it for me.

    Any other tips/theories/goals would be appreciated, because I want to experience this style of play.

    And, sorry if I'm bringing up a sore subject with some of you guys. thanks.
    The only way to stop a terrorist, is with a bullet.

  • #2
    I think there are as many flavors of ICS as there are practitioners. Here's how *I* do it (at Deity vs. AI):

    Build two cities as fast as possible. The ideal city site has access to a square yielding 1+ trade and 2 food, and two squares yielding 2 shields. Use the high-food square to grow to size 2, then switch to the high-shield squares. Each city builds a warrior, a horsemen, and a settler. The horsemen go out exploring, tipping huts and threatening the AIs. The settlers build enough roads to provide a food/trade square and connect to the capital, then build cities. Build the same units again. I build Hanging Gardens when happiness becomes a problem (after 8 cities, usually). Then I go for Leo's Workshop and Statue of Liberty. Statue of Liberty allows the two perfect ICS governments: Communism and Fundamentalism. I use Communism until I've discovered Leadership and Theology. Then I build Mike's Chapel, and Bach's Cathedral, switch to Fundamentalism, and sweep the map clean with Musketeers and Dragoons.

    I build cities with one square in between. I never build any improvements in my cities, and very rarely mine or irrigate with my settlers. I'll build a city on top of a good special (wine, spice, buffalo), and love to build cities on rivers.

    Research goals are: Monarchy, Invention, Democracy, Leadership, Theology.

    There are several advantages to this style - the strategy is very straightforward, you don't have to think much about what to research or build next. You will rocket to the top of the powergraph and stay there, so the AIs will all be afraid of you and cough up lots of tribute. You can win the game at a much earlier date than building a spaceship.

    The big disadvantages: moving vast numbers of units around the map, and managing dozens (or hundreds) of cities.
    [This message has been edited by DaveV (edited January 20, 2000).]


    • #3
      And you probably dont want to play that way.
      I tried it and it kills the fun. One tile apart!! Something like when cities are too large. You can play a relaxed game, with good expansion and no cities overlaping and still beat the computer before gunpowder.
      So in my opinion this utilisation of the fact that city square has production is just a game killer. You can name your cities 1,2, that civ?
      I read it works in multiplayer though


      • #4
        I used to like to use a mixture of ICS and perfectionist. But I still hate having to manage over 40 cities.
        These days I tend to limit myself to maybe 10-20 cities because its more fun.


        A man could not be in two places at the same time unless he were a bird!
        I have discovered that China and Spain are really one and the same country, and it's only ignorance that leads people to believe they are two seperate nations. If you don't belive me try writing 'Spain' and you'll end up writing 'China'."
        Gogol, Diary of a Madman


        • #5
          Vet Legion -

          It may be you that doesn't like this, i find ICS very fun. It's a great way to go to war with someone. And you're not really having to take care of ALL the cities, most of the time just about 10 per turn. I have close to 100 cities, and normally the only decisions i make after i hit the "b" key is which unit to build, and after that i won't touch again (that is, if i am at war).


          "Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a qtip"
          -Homer Simpson

          "Ecky eck ecky!"
          "It's just a flesh wound!"
          - Monty Python and the Holy Grail


          • #6
            Please, my intent for this thread was not to discuss the merits of ICS.

            It's decided. I'm going to learn how to play ICS.

            What I was hoping for here was to get some finer points, because I don't fully understand it. Is the goal truly to wipe out the other civs really early, say, before the discovery of flight? Or are you trying to rush to AC like arii in 1075? Or both? And what do you make all those 1 and 2 pop cities build, anyways? More settlers for more cities? Caravans for rush-science and rush-wonders? Military units? I just don't understand the method you use this style of play for. I'd like some theory, such as in DaveV's post describing how he gears his efforts to winning the game with calvary units.

            When I begin my multiplayer career and put my undefeated record on the line, I need to know the type of systems potential opponents may use. By gritting your teeth and playing each way (with an open mind), I feel you get a better understanding of the ins and outs of each method. So please, don't try to decide if it's good or reasonable or likeable here -- in my mind that debate is already over.

            thanks, and I really don't mean to sound abrasive.
            The only way to stop a terrorist, is with a bullet.


            • #7
              Being a perfectionist, I have never tried ICS but would like to learn more.

              What is the appropriate city size in ICS? If your initial city square is on a grassland or river, it comes irrigated to start with. You get +3 food, which allows you to work three other high shield/special squares. So I am guessing that you should grow that city to size three, then switch to max production (or whatever special is available). This should result in +7 shields per turn, assuming there are no units to support. Is HG happiness sufficient to support a size three city without a martial law unit? If you are stuck in a plains area, you get +2 food to start with, so do you let that city only grow to size two?

              Old posters never die, they just f.a.d.e..a..w..a..y . . .

              Old posters never die.
              They j.u.s.t..f..a..d..e...a...w...a...y....


              • #8
                Adam Smith,

                In the early game, with Monarchy, HG, and lots of cities, you have to keep your city size at or below 2 (except your capital). Most cities can produce settlers fast enough to keep from growing to size 3; the others will have to rush-build their settlers or hire Elvis. Rush-building is usually not a problem, since you're not spending any money on maintenance.

                After SoL, Communism allows a size 3 city with one garrison unit (4 with HG). Fundy cities, of course, have no happiness problems.


                • #9
                  I didnt mean to preach either Just that I dont like it. And for technique I agree with most what DaveV says. Actually I am writing this in a middle of a MP game where I have a very bad start. Maybe I try ICS...


                  • #10
                    ics is great for the bad start.... i sometimes use it to switch stats ..... play the same way and you are beaten

                    They call me Mr. Fierce

                    icq 30200920
                    Boston Red Sox are 2004 World Series Champions!


                    • #11
                      The way I play it in that 1075 cannot really be called ICS. My cities were more than 2 squarres appart and I was not only building settlers and doing some irrigation. The key to that strategy in deity is to build the happiness wonders (HG, MC, JSB) as quickly as possible (just like in MP at deity level). This allows you to expand and fully utilise your numerous cities without the civ size unhappinness penalty and switch to democracy as soon as you have it. The building power of all the small cities is used to build caravan for the SSC and settlers to further expand.
                      This is just 1 way to play that seems to be very good for your science output. Other strategies are better for different goals.