The war on ICS

[rah]

Originally posted by LaRusso
difficult?
i'd say it is impossible....virtually. you can corner the market, be a hegemon, lead a coalition but there was no case so far that anyone conquered the whole world. ctp sucked simply because its AI was abominable and its tech tree and gaming pace were very uninspiring.

Hmmm, that's the only way I could win CTP II, world conquest, did it at the intermediate setting and then at the hardest. After a few games I stopped playing (mainly because of the AI) but partially because I spent over half the game starving cities so I could conquer more. BORING>

[Fidel]

well now i understand your point. it was so boring that you had to finish them off or the game would finish YOU off. in the process you had to finish your cities off nice

[rah]

BINGO

[N35t0r]

About the BAB issue:

If, for example, one tile of worked silk can supply 5 cities, you would need much more special resources for the larger empire and, as Firaxis said that these would not be availiable everywhere, it would be much more difficult to get lots of silk for the entire population for a larger empire than for a smaller one, whch would mean a lower luxury and higher tax and science rates.

[art_vandelai]

Combatting ICS in CIV II

I htink the best way to combat ICS is to make settling new cities a more expensive proposition that reduces your ability to create a strong army or a wonder for example. CTPII tried to rectify this by making settlers cost approximately 3X the production of a warrior - perhaps it should be even 4 or 5x. That way, anyone who builds settlers to expand an empire via an ICS strategy should fall behind the other civs in military strength and culture and in building wonders and city improvements to improve happiness, growth and production.

Of course, by settling new cities, eventually the productive base of the civ should improve once the cities grow. But by only emphasizing settling and number of cities expansion in the early game, the civ should be at a huge military and production disadvantage vis a vis other civ's - especially around the time most civ's have explored a large art of the map and discovered one another. ICS should only work if by some stroke of luck the civilization employing that strategy were to be left alone by other civs for a longer than normal time.

The 2 pop requirement will have a huge impact - for example, if you have a city with 3 workers producing settlers, there will only be one worker left to produce units and improvements. Without expanding over a wider area and getting a full selection of tiles with resources in them, a civ would also be disadvantaged if the cities are built too close together.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
Hey Ralf, do you still have that e-mail so we could read it? I doubt you do but it's worth a try.

No, I have no saved copy of it left. I shall try to juggle my memory somewhat, and perhaps come back later for a summarized version of it later.

Originally posted by rah
I assume one of the victory condition will be world conquest.
In CTPII this made for a boring starving/disbanding city role.

I assume that too. But I think that complete Civ-2 style military world-conquerings should only be possible indirectly through alliances and clever use of vassals/ puppet-regimes. If you tries to control virtually everything by yourself, you should stumble into increasingly severe economical problems.

There has to be other ways to discourage ICS.
(I really don't think 2 pop points is going to do it)

Remember that both settlers and workers also is considered to be "mobile population-points". In this respect they are principally different from finance-supported combat-units. The -2 pop penalty (for settlers), and the -1 pop penalty (for workers) + the shield-production needed in order to produce these units, is not by it self enough.

ALL population-points (whether it is "mobile", "colony-living" or a "city-dwelling" one), needs food-support as well (just as in Civ-2, by the way). I dont think that the increased pop-penalty is instead for the Civ-2 style settler food-support. Instead the increased pop-penalty have been added on top of the still existing original food-support.

So my bottom line is: Perhaps the -2 pop reduction together with above food-maintainance is going to do it nevertheless.

Originally posted by HsFB
If, for example, one tile of worked silk can supply 5 cities, you would need much more special resources for the larger empire and, as Firaxis said that these would not be availiable everywhere, it would be much more difficult to get lots of silk for the entire population for a larger empire than for a smaller one, whch would mean a lower luxury and higher tax and science rates.

Good point!

[rah]

"I dont think that the increased pop-penalty is instead for the Civ-2 style settler food-support. Instead the increased pop-penalty have been added on top of the still existing original food-support. "

As you've stated, the food support already exsisted and is not factor. Settlers are only mobile for a few turns, then they're producing food as a new city. At best the 2 pop cost will just slow down the start of ICS. Once you get rolling it will have minimal effect. Over the entire span of the game the startup is a tiny sliver of time. ICS will still be an easy viable strategy unless something else is done. And I'm afraid that "WHAT ELSE" will impact negatively in game play elsewhere. (like the Happiness crap in CTPII)

RAH

[Ralf]

Originally posted by rah
ICS will still be an easy viable strategy unless something else is done. And I'm afraid that "WHAT ELSE" will impact negatively in game play elsewhere. (like the Happiness crap in CTPII)

I really dont agree with the viewpoint that ICS seems to be an "easy viable strategy" in Civ-3.

The pop-penalty have been raised from -1 pop to at least -3 pops (most players will need terrain-improving & colony-founding workers as well). Also, its much more important that you build city-improvements early on, and also combat-units & Wonders of course. For that you need a bigger population for more effective production, which definitely cant be achieved if you keep on sending away too many pop-costly settler & workers.

This deals with the early & mid-part of the game.

For the mid- and end-part of the game, they can easily add some clever finance-burdening administrative/ bureaucracy/ corruption factors that takes away the desire of ICS-ing late-game cities all over the place.

Above together with the fact that the AI:s ability to embargo/ redirect trade-routes both is much easier then in Civ-2 and have more immediate & severe consequences - especially if the AI-civs establish trade embargo-pacts against you. Having too many administration-costly ICS-cities, with a similar expensive-to-support large army in order to guard all these cities, can then be very dangerous strategy indeed.

If you suddenly dont have enough money to support your troops, they will most probably desert you, or just sitting tight; refusing to follow your orders, inless paid properly.

This - as I already mentioned in a previous reply - can lead to very unpleasent happiness-problems, leading to down-spiraling revolts & independence-declarations. You can enforce martial laws of course, but what if the AI-civs (or your mp-opponents) also strangles your special resource-import, because they want to thwart your annoing ICS-attempts?

Then you cannot easily re-produce/ replace the combat-units that has deserted you. What a mess.

[rah]

"The pop-penalty have been raised from -1 pop to at least -3 pops "

Not as I understand it. All I read is a -2 pop instead of -1 pop. And if pop growth is similar to the old game (just an assumption) IT takes just as long to go from size 1 to size 3 as size 3 to 4 (at least it is the same number of bushels. (and with similar cheats, like the settler from capital at no loss and proper bin management, it shouldn't slow you down much)
And as long as there is one free worker a city, I don't think food or troop support is going to make one wit of difference. I personally hope I'm wrong, because I'm not a fan of ICS. I do use a combo develop/growth strat, but it is not straight ICS.

Please remember that even in ICS there is a core of developed cities, the sprawl just keeps continuing out.

RAH

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by LaRusso
ICS....
does anyone remember 'tank rushing' in Red Alert? It virtually killed it online...
I really see no fun in micromanaging 100 cities every turn. Perhaps you have to be a Moron to enjoy it .

Ah, ICS, civ's answer to the RTS tank rush. no brains, no strategy, no real way to combat it.

I remember someone reviewing Tiberian Sun, complaining how they still haven't fixed this problem. he indicated that he set up several games, and his opponent was unable to stop him even though he KNEW what he was going to do. that's how powerful it is.

ICSing is very similar, in that respect.

somebody said on this thread that they can't imagine how sprawling out wouldn't automatically make them more powerful, even with the 2pop settler making it slower.
I can
when you put more resources into sprawling, your cities don't get as much development. less overall gold, research, production.

the main imbalance with ICS is that you give one pop for a settler, and get 2 tiles worked for it in return.
when you have to pay 2pop for your 2 tiles worked, that becomes more balanced.

you can still sprawl, but you pay for it in production. one of those choices things that sid and co. are very good at. do I go for developing my existing cities, or spread out and grab more territory, knowing that my kingdom of 10 villages might be overrun by that more powerful kingdom of 4 cities.

If they can pull off that sort of balance, then this game will get really good.

maybe it will take longer before we break it - again!

[TechWins]

If you found a city with your 2pop settelr does the start off with a 2pop or 1pop? If Firaxis has said or not, I don't think they have. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[rah]

"Ah, ICS, civ's answer to the RTS tank rush. no brains, no strategy, no real way to combat it. "

There is one way to beat ICS, find them early and destroy the virus before it multiplies.

And a very true statement..
"If they can pull off that sort of balance, then this game will get really good.

maybe it will take longer before we break it - again!"

I'm just a little worried about how the balance will be attained.
And you're right, we will break it, it's just a matter of time. There are way too many really bright people that will be trying.

RAH

[Ralf]

Originally posted by rah
Not as I understand it. All I read is a -2 pop instead of -1 pop.

Well, you need to produce workers as well, dont you. And each produced worker (also the first one) cost you -1 pops. There are no free workers, and no free settlers either, besides the initial wandering 1-2 settlers + (perhaps) 1-2 workers that is given to you before you found your capital city. After that; each and every produced settler & worker cost you expensive pop-points, without any exceptions. Why should there be any? You can always tweak the Rules.txt file, of course - but thats another thing.

(and with similar cheats, like the settler from capital at no loss and proper bin management, it shouldn't slow you down much)

That one was unknown to me. Anyway, why dont you suggests a prompt removal of this "cheat" in Civ3?

And as long as there is one free worker a city

What makes you think that there will be one free worker to each city?? I know about the resource mini-tutorial, but since it pictures a capitol-city (Rome), that worker-unit could be an first-city-only exception.

It seems to me that you build your case on assumptions, rah. You assume that the capitol city will be able produce settlers at no loss, and you assume that each new city will be able to produce its very first worker at no loss.

Why not instead suggest that above shouldnt be possible? If theres any additional ICS-boosting "backdoors", or "cheats"; its much more constructive to discuss their removal openly, instead of just passively assume that they simply cannot be changed, or removed in Civ-3.

PS: I also assume a lot of things then I writing my replies, of course. But at least I try to see things from a glass half-full point of view. If a suggested measure isnt enough; then suggest an added tweak that will make it enough.

[Inverse Icarus]

i bet i could handle a 50+ city empire in civ 3.

just gimmie some time

[rah]

Damn, Ralf, chill a bit.

Of course it's built on assumptions, the darn game isn't even out yet. And I'm sure some of the things they've showed us will still be changed before the game is released.

That Worker unit everyone is referencing is one that goes out and builds roads and irrigation, not the worker that you place in your city screen. You don't need worker units to build settlers. (unless I've thoroughly misread everything, which is possible for an old man like me )

1. My point is, I don't think that will discourage it enough. (opinion)
2. I'm really afraid that they're going to copy the city count happy model from CTP II, which will ruin the game. (opinion)

The cheats I've mentioned are reasonably common knowledge for the people that pay attention and have been documented (FACT) and I pray they were paying attention to those.

So please cut me some slack while i express my fears.
AND my OPINION that the -2 pop will not be enough to discourage ICSing. The people that I play with are pretty darn smart and will find any loophole in the programming. And I will too.

RAH
I would like to know what I said that caused your outburst, I don't believe I insulted anybody. I was just stating opinions.
If I did insult you, I apologize. And if you think they're still coming here to look for improvements, I've got a few bridges to sell