The Ultimate ICS Thread: Revived (author: korn469)

[korn469]

ICS is not even really a strategy, it is the optimum way to take advantage of the game mechanics...ICS is not even really about expansion, it is just about having tons and tons of cities

the 2 pop settlers alone will cut down on the most aggressive ICS players, but it will still come down to the fact that 10 size one cities are much better than one size 10 city, because they can rapidly become ten size 4-6 cities, in just a few turns with the power of "we love" pop booming

i think that ICS has already caused a great deal of damage to the multiplayer aspect of civ2 because the game almost always boils down to a ICS slugfest...basically ICS is civ's version of the tank rush...the tank rush didn't do anything for RTS games, and they have been trying to solve the tank rush problem since C&C

the main reason that ICS CANNOT be defined as a strategy is because a few simple tweaks of the rules will stop ICS dead in it's tracks...you can still be an expansionist civ without using ICS, and tweaking game mechanics will not stop players from expanding in civ3 (nor should it)...however those game tweaks will stop ICS because it is an exploit and not a strategy

for example firaxis could change settlers to require 4 pop points, and this would not stop people from building new cities and expanding, but it would prevent them for building city after city, as close as possible, because the total number of cities (and not total population or infrastructure or anything else) would no longer be one of the keys to a successful empire (when built ICS style)

i really think that the firaxis team recognizes the problem of ICS (especially in multiplayer) and that they want to remedy it

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by korn469
ICS is not even really a strategy, it is the optimum way to take advantage of the game mechanics...ICS is not even really about expansion, it is just about having tons and tons of cities

i think that ICS has already caused a great deal of damage to the multiplayer aspect of civ2 because the game almost always boils down to a ICS slugfest...basically ICS is civ's version of the tank rush...the tank rush didn't do anything for RTS games, and they have been trying to solve the tank rush problem since C&C

the main reason that ICS CANNOT be defined as a strategy is because a few simple tweaks of the rules will stop ICS dead in it's tracks...you can still be an expansionist civ without using ICS, and tweaking game mechanics will not stop players from expanding in civ3 (nor should it)...however those game tweaks will stop ICS because it is an exploit and not a strategy

for example firaxis could change settlers to require 4 pop points, and this would not stop people from building new cities and expanding, but it would prevent them for building city after city, as close as possible, because the total number of cities (and not total population or infrastructure or anything else) would no longer be one of the keys to a successful empire (when built ICS style)

i really think that the firaxis team recognizes the problem of ICS (especially in multiplayer) and that they want to remedy it

No way. ICS is a gameplay strategy just like anyother way one plays the game. Everything you said can be applied to any other playing style. ICS (and Tank Rushs, etc) are they way they are because players experiment with new ideas and game strategys, and use them. By making new additions to the game, Civ3 is not destroying ICS, its mearly changing it.

[korn469]

ICS is a gameplay strategy just like anyother way one plays the game.

ICS is an exploit, just like building around a city so you can't be nuked...there is a difference between expanding your empire and using ICS, a big difference, the reason people do ICS is because it works, because of the adavanttages to having another city outweighs the benefits of building up your empire

ICS is great for fighting wars, because it allows for a huge military because of the way unit support is handled in civ, and because of all of the extra production you get from having all of those free squares...2 pop settlers and global support will more than likely end ICS (i hope) but it will not deter people from expanding or building lots of cities

if ICS was a real strategy it could stand a few changes in the rules and would still be viable...but since ICS is an exploit a few rule changes will virtually end it...i mean 2 pop settlers and global unit support are some huge nerfs from firaxis that will make building cities obsolete...but those changes alone could end ICS

i think you are confusing rapid expanion with ICS which it isn't...if you don't expand and do it quick enough in civ you should pay the consequences...but by expanding you don't have to ICS, you can pick good locations for your cities because growing them might actually be of some value now

ICS means that you don't need infrastructure in your cities (besides a very very basic few after you build lots and lots of settlers) because you don't plan on them growing...and this isn't a strategic choice...basically ICS is unbalanced to the point that by not adopting ICS you are putting yourself at a great disadvantage with no positives...strategic choices means you sacrifice one thing to gain an advantage in another area...with ICS this doesn't happen, either you exploit the rules or you needlessly make the game harder on yourself

if the firaxis team makes the correct choices they will destroy ICS, and that in my opinion will be for the good of civ3

[Hasdrubal]

Originally posted by korn469

then there comes wonders...

all of the wonders that simply "counts as buildingX in every city" breed ICS, bore the players, and are really less than wonderful

it is my dream that civ3 will NOT include any wonders that simply count as a certain building in every city (or even in a certain number of cities)

This is my favourite part of your already impressive post.



Firaxis has got one more means of stopping ICS: the Culture Model.

Though I'm still quite unaware of how this model will work, it is by no means sheer speculation that this could in theory be the most potent weapon against ICS. The sheer thought of the influence that even one huge, well-developed city could exert over a zillion tiny, ICS'ed enemy-villages should make all the ICS-ers out there tremble with fear.

I hope that the developers will look into this means of stopping ICS. It could be developed into a far more subtle, strategic counter-measure against ICS than a plain alteration of the rules.

[korn469]

Hasdrubal

you are right...culture could have been specifically created to counter ICS, we don't know all of the ins and outs of culture so it's only a theory right now, but we do know that a strong culture, which would come from having cities that are highly developed, have a direct corelation to a civ's borders, and that culture alone can cause small boder cities to switch alliances

culture could have a number of other uses, one of which is ease of special resource gathering which is required for producing most military units, all of which could combat ICS, especially when you add in 2 pop settlers and global unit support

sometimes like this i get excited when i realize that civ3 will be a significant upgrade from civ2...so as we learn more i'm sure we'll be able to theorize with increasing accuracy

hopefully an upgrade that will make ICS an exploit of the past

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by korn469
we do know that .... culture alone can cause small boder cities to switch alliances

I really would appreciate anyone posting a link to anywhere this is stated by a Firaxian.

[campmajor!]

What is ICS really about?

If you just build settlers, will you not be weak for attacks?

In my opinion you must build some military units as well, because if you don't your cities are to vulnerable....

But my strategy is also to expand as fast as possible, just a little bit more balanced. The old cities in the middle of your empire take on other tasks, like building Wonders, but my cities on the bounderies of my empire all build settlers to expand!

I cannot understand perfectionist people who say they only need 10 cities.

So why is ICS bad?

[korn469]

Grumbold

check out this link

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3infocenter.shtml#culture

and here is a screenshot from the culture advisor

http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest//newnews/openpic.php3?id=7-7-2225.pjpeg

[dennis_caver]

realism is better then balance

Yes, Firaxis did slow down ICS to the point of a poor strategy, but
it is more realistic to pay more for workers and settlers.

But it does make the beginning 4000-00 B.C. very slow and actually
boring. I personally would rather play with ICS. I like those Elephant
raids and building a Empire early in the game with conquest. Also if
everybody is doing it , including the AI, then ICS is less effective, but
it is not realistic.



Now back to realism. During the B.C. time frame, Empires were built
and small civilizations disappeared from history. These empires were
created by building new cities, but primarily they were expanded
by conquest and SUBJUGATION. For realism and empire expansion,
subjugation should be part of the Civ III diplomancy. When a large
civilization encounters a small one, one of the choices of the large
civ is to attempt to coerce the smaller to join the great empire.
Something like this happened alot in history. The coercion may
actually start out as a attack but a negotiated surrender could
include subjugation.

I think this would be more realistic and bring back the fun in the
beginning of the game.



Cavin forever,

Dennis

[yin26]

Yes. I think this 'fix' will make the early game horribly slow, which is something I detested about CtP. Perhaps Korn should pay those guys a visit to get a much better solution?

[korn469]

ok a city harvesting a 2 food square will take 12 turns to grow, and it will be able to build a settler on turn 13, which will then found a new city using ics about turn 16...a city harvesting 2 food on all squares will hit size 3 at turn 27 and will be able to make a new settler on turn 28 and will found a new city about turn 33...so in civ3 this means you will have about half the cities at turn 100 that you would have in civ2, and it might be less than half, because of the workers poaching some of your pop points

except for one little thing...the number of shields, and not pop points is usually the limiting factor for building settlers early game, so maybe it wouldn't slow you down as much as you think...just going to estimate and say that in civ3 using ICS you'd have about 2/3rds the number of cities you'd have in civ2, and not using ICS but just expanding you'd have about 3/5ths the number of cities as an ICS player would have in civ2

so would that in and of itself make the game horribly slow yin?

though one non ICS way to speed up the begining of the game would be to start with 2 or maybe even three settlers, a worker, and a military unit

dennis

i'm all for more diplomatic options

[yin26]

Well, according to your calculations, I'd say: 1/3rd slower! (for ICSers). This is a serious consideration: Has this 'fix' come at the price of game pacing? If so, have we traded a negative for a double negative?

Ultimately the game design itself will determine whether there are things sufficiently interesting enough to do while you plod through the 1/3rd slow-down time. I can't imagine what that might be, though, since the game really starts once two or more civs contact each other...and now that contact will come much slower...

[Rasputin]

seems to me that we reaaly ahve to wait till Civ 3 appears before we will be able to judge whether ics is fixed or not.. ICS i beleive was never in syds original concpet, it is jsut players discovering the basic programming in civ 2 didnt encourage city development just city building. ...

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by korn469
Grumbold

check out this link

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3infocenter.shtml#culture

and here is a screenshot from the culture advisor

http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest//newne...7-7-2225.pjpeg

Thanks Korn. I would point out that civfanatics admits to having "gathered from numerous previews and articles, both official and unofficial" so its not straight from Firaxis. While this remains a strong arguement it is possible it is just as much local myth there as here at Apolyton since it all comes from the same early previews, not from the culture details on Firaxis website.

I have reservations about some of their culture "facts" and certain others e.g. "Civ 3 will have contoured maps" are plainly not supported by the most recent information released. I suspect they are only reporting whatever thoughts were (mis)interpreted from a Firaxian interview and any mechanism for how hard and far a cultural border can be pushed is likely to remain open to change until late beta anyway.

It's a little early to be treating culture push as a fact and I'm very sceptical about its reliance on the nearest city's ratings. You don't see Switzerland encroaching into France because Geneva is nearer the border than Paris! Having it affect how fast one culture is absorbed by another after capture is another matter entirely and I applaud that concept.