Play from the same start position, compare results

[Scouse Gits]

Vik - outstanding!! I would not have thought OCC was possible on that map particularly without wonders - But why did you feel that contact from the outset hurt you?

I have a nearly complete huge map challenge for you war-mongers - if I can get it done in the next couple of hours I will publish it here...

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor

[vik]

SG1 -- contact from the outset did *NOT* hurt me -- the fact that I didn't realize we had all the contacts until after 1 AD hurt me. It was my ignorance for not trying out the ole F3 key that really hurt. If I'd would have known from 4000bc that I had a chance to make alliances and ask for gifts at that early year, I could have gotten much more money and traded for early techs I needed.

KhanMan -- I re-read DaveV's post that began this thread. If DaveV's goal was to compare styles, letting players play any strategy they like, then it is my opinion that you really don't get an accurate comparison of the effectiveness of the OCC/ICS styles if you prohibit the wonders. That was the point of my earlier whining.

A "No Wonders" game is refreshing, but again, if the goal of this "competition" is to compare styles, the "No Wonders" game would lead to a flawed comparison.

[Graag]

As soon as I saw it was no wonders and contact from the start I decided to play conquest.

I killed each civ in turn, and ruled the world at 1320 AD. So do I win?

If I remember rightly I killed Indians, French, Persians, Egyptians then English, but I could have got the order mixed up.

This was a lot of fun to play, and I would have shaved quite a lot of turns off if I had got Navigation earlier, by treriemes took such a long time to get to the Persians, going all the way round the French.

Is this the best date so far? Anyway, I am just about to send the .savs to Paul now.

Graag

------------------
Summon my Ukrainian antipope!

[Graag]

Further details on my strat:

I only ever used knights in this game. I build no other offensive units and no diplomats.
I built 4 cities on the rock and rush built barracks in each, then rushed a load of vet. knights and treriems and kicked the Indians.
I then simply repeated this startegy.
After I had chivalry I ignored science completely, maxing tax and lux to keep cities happy and have money to buy units and temples.

Graag



------------------
Summon my Ukrainian antipope!

[KhanMan]

Vic-It would be interesting to do a totally even world for a general challenge: medium, mixed landmasses, no holds barred.

But I would also like to see some more no-wonders challenges. IMHO, that has the potential to be the next OCC...

I think most of us missed the contacts...I didn't realise we had contact until late in the game too...in fact, when I played again with the same strategy, at emperor instead of prince, and used the contacts, it mde up for the difference in diffulty...

With all that said, I'm impressed that it was even possible to do OCC without Collosus and Copernicus'...let alone on no-wonders!

-KhanMan

[DaveV]

Graag - you certainly beat me - I won in AD 1480. Like so many others, I didn't realize I had contact with everyone until about AD 400 (I've said before I'm not a scenario expert). I played a pure ICS game, building (or conquering) about 60 cities and hiring Elvis to keep order. I played a similar strategy to Graag's on tech research, except I went for Monotheism and built zillions of crusaders, then turned tech down to 30%. In retrospect, I built too many crusaders and not enough triremes. Probably more cities than I really needed, too.

[Graag]

I quickly had way too mnay cities. After a certain point every new city I build was so unhappy it needed a temple and two units to be happy at size 1, so I think I built too many cities as some just wasted money.

Anyone else have this problem?

Graag

------------------
Summon my Ukrainian antipope!

[KhanMan]

Quick question for anyone: what exactly does ICS strategy stand for?

Is it the same as basic war-mongering?

-KM
"Ie Jesu pro Temporae, sic semper Spiritus Dominae"

[Steve Clark]

Aw, gee, I quit. Total conquest by 1320?? Good job, Graag. Going directly at Chivalry to build vet Knights and then using them to conquer is a great strategy. I'm just beginning to learn about early conquest and this was a good lesson.

I downloaded Graag's game just to see how he was able to conquer so early. I think I hit upon a difference: We both started at the Indians at roughly the same time, however, it appears the Indians were more numerous and larger in my MGE game (as oppose to his 2.42). My problem was that I didn't throw enough units at them at one time.

One other thing, perhaps the biggest difference. By 2000bc, Graag had 13 techs, I only had 4. Didn't do the emissary thing until too late.
[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited March 05, 2000).]

[Graag]

Steve, I purposely played it on normal 2.42 not MGE bcause I knew the AIs would be easier to handle. And yeah I traded tech from the start. I also gave away a lot of tech to get maps, this is a good trick. Whenever you think you have enough power to wipe out a civ give them whatever they want to trade maps. For instance after breaking my cease fire with the English a couple of times to take cities I could see they weren't happy. I gave them 300 gold and most of my techs, they traded maps and a few turns later they didn't exist.

But I'm sure playing MGE and not knowing that you start with contact has a huge effect on your game, when did you win Steve? Next time use 2.42, I'm certain it shaved a thousand years or so off my conquest time.

Graag

------------------
"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

[vik]

Well, Khan Man, to be honest, I was hoping someone else would take your question about ICS. ICS is a very powerful playing system that can quickly wipe out AIs and MPs alike.

ICS is the near total opposite of OCC. Instead of "One City" you have "Infinite Cities" hence "ICS." The "S" in ICS stands for either "strategy" or "sleaze" depending on who you ask.

ICS is not as refined as OCC as far as a tech path goes. There is even a lot of opinion as to which wonders to build. I was hoping to get this refined and defined when I started the thread "Melancholy and ICS," now in the archives.

The general gist of ICS is this: you build one city as your Super Science City -- generally your capital. This is the only city that you really manage. You take the other settler and build another city. That city builds a warrior (or some other defense) and another settler, which forms another city. Basically, all your cities build another settler to go and form another city. All these other cities should not grow beyond size one or two. By keeping the city size down, you are able to put these cities one square away from each other. All these city squares generate a trade arrow or two, which, along with your "SCC," generate a lot of science.

But you drop your science production at a certain point.

One of the main themes is the race to discover democracy, allowing you to build Statue of Liberty and then switch to Commie or Fundy g'ments -- these are the best ICS g'ments because you can more easily control happiness (you will have 40-60-80-etc cities by the time you get democracy).

Other wonders that benefit ICS play:

HG -- helps happiness pre-SOL, probably a "must have"
GW -- city walls for all your 1-banger cities
JSB -- helps happiness
MC -- called a "must have" happiness wonder
SOL -- "must have" allowing g'ment change
SZWA -- quick vets
LW -- upgrades your units
GL -- to keep up with early tech

Now, imagine all these 40-80-120 cities of yours each building a cheap horseman or two. With SZWA and LW and a switch to fundy g'ment, you will have one heck of an army once you learn about Cavalry.

Additionally, all these cities could build a caravan or two. Along with helping your rate of science advance, you can easily rush-build any wonder you please.

The quick science rate you gain by all the caravans pretty much eliminates the need for Cop's Ob or I.N.C in your SCC.


I hope I've explained it well, but please anyone feel free to comment or add to it.

[DaveV]

Vik - nice writeup, but I have to chime in with my opinions. As you said, there's no agreed-upon best strategy for ICS, so this is strictly my viewpoint.

The strength of ICS is that each city works n+1 squares, where n is the city's population. So 10 size 1 cities can work 20 squares, while 2 size 5 cities can only work 12 squares. Additionally, you need to build improvements to support large cities, while small ones can be kept happy with wonders or Elvis.

I never build a science city in ICS. My goal is to reach a tech level where I can build a good attacking unit, then build dozens of that unit and wipe out the opposition. I build a few caravans for wonders, but none for trading (no point in setting up a trade route between two size 2 cities).

[Scouse Gits]

Dave V - I agree with your general strategy about ICS, but why don't you have the SSC?

When possible, I re-allocate a few caravans (for demanded goods) to the the SSC and send them overseas for the big trade bonus. Sure, some would say that was a cheat!
----------
SG (2)

[Carolus Rex]

Zulus, deity level, 4 cities, space race, version 2.42.

Just launched my 15-3-3-1-1-1 ship in 1895 AD, estimated arrival is 1910. Haven't finished yet so 1910 is not official.

Doesn't really matter because I, erhm..., reloaded once , so it's not a clean win anyway. I was very sleepy (Zzzzzzzz...) last night, didn't pay attention to the game and all of a sudden I was in anarchy... Yep, government collapse...

It's past 3 AM here, just some short info.

Quickly realised I was on an island, but didn't realise nearly as quick I "had" Marco Polo's from the start (not until probably well past 1 AD). Missed one of the whales. Had two alliances (Egyptians and Indians), but couldn't squeeze much gold out of them.

Saved regularly in the beginning, but quickly forgot about the "twenty turns rule". Continued to save throughout the game, but at random intervals.

As I said above, it's not over yet and I reloaded once...

"Let him who is without sin throw the first stone..."

Carolus

[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited March 09, 2000).]

[DaveV]

SG1 - I don't build a science city because I don't think the (huge) investment of resources is worth it. Give me more cities instead of the research wonders (or improvements), and I'll match your research rate for a while. By the time the SSC starts to kick in, I've discovered enough good military techs to go on the rampage, and I'm ready to turn off my science.

CR - maybe this is common knowledge, but the "contact from start" aspect of this game appears to be due to the Romans having built the UN before their untimely demise. Apparently the UN gives *all* civs (not just the builder) contact with all other civs.

As for throwing the first stone - well, my arm is kind of sore today, and the sun is kind of in my eyes...