Barbarian Strength = 1/Cultural Density: The solution to ICS!

[Ralf]

Barbarians should appear more often if the player choose a more risky empire expanding-style.

That is, if he found new cities without bother to build connecting roads in advance, and without accompany the settler with a guard-unit for immidiate city-protection. The AI-programmers should tweak the game to recognize this risky HP-behaviour and tease him a little more, with increased barbarian-harassments.

I think above is enough, to disfavour a risky & sloppy expanding-style (although sometimes it can be wortwhile).

[To_Serve_Man]

KrazyHorse, that example you gave is perfectly acceptable. The game supports it. The game also supports ICS. I think.. and its just a theory that people still fear that Civ2 ICS will fall into Civ3 ICS. But there are so many new things that will not destory ICS gampley, or your example. They will instead support and promote gameplay in a certian way. And, IMHO, that direction is away from ICS. But I don't like the idea of having special rules that are a direct and obvious attack on ICS and ICS only. Instead and idea much like some of the new additions to Civ3 that we have heard, (Culture, Lux. Items, Colonies, etc) will instead, not just be a direct embargo on ICS, but will change, distort, and promote all different types of gameplay through out the whole of Civ3.

[Juggernaut]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
KrazyHorse, that example you gave is perfectly acceptable. The game supports it. The game also supports ICS. I think.. and its just a theory that people still fear that Civ2 ICS will fall into Civ3 ICS. But there are so many new things that will not destory ICS gampley, or your example. They will instead support and promote gameplay in a certian way. And, IMHO, that direction is away from ICS. But I don't like the idea of having special rules that are a direct and obvious attack on ICS and ICS only. Instead and idea much like some of the new additions to Civ3 that we have heard, (Culture, Lux. Items, Colonies, etc) will instead, not just be a direct embargo on ICS, but will change, distort, and promote all different types of gameplay through out the whole of Civ3.

heh...couldn´t agree more...

[JamesJKirk]

It's just adding an extra challenge to ICSers, and thus making it more realistic. If you want to ICS, you'll have to have a strong military to back it up, and that in turn will hinder your science and commerce. If this was the only built it mechanic to discourage, or make ICS a real(istic) challenge, then I'd be very content

[Juggernaut]

If this was the only built it mechanic to discourage, or make ICS a real(istic) challenge, then I'd be very content

i´d go with skipping the rule of "max one unit production per city at the same turn"-rule, to KEEP it is so unrealistic it should be a crime. then i´d be very content.

[KrazyHorse]

This only becomes an issue late in the game, anyway. It really wouldn't have an effect on ICS, as the ICS advantage really makes its appearance around 0 a.d.

[To_Serve_Man]

This only becomes an issue late in the game, anyway. It really wouldn't have an effect on ICS, as the ICS advantage really makes its appearance around 0 a.d.

(Also for JamesJKirk)And Resources will probably be an ever greater issue throught the game, and being the greatest of all issues during the industrial age. As I see it, an ICSer will already have to combat with; Settlers taking 2 pop units (which i'm still dont fully feel comfortable with), building city improvements to gain culture points thus expanding border, building military units to defend (this is optional of course) creating Worker Units that are seperate from Settlers to make roads, irrigation, mines, etc, Find and obtain Luxuary Items/resources to keep citizens happy, as well as Random barbarians. Isnt this enough!? If ICS booms around 0 a.d. in Civ2, maybe it will boom in 1700 a.d. in Civ3. And By then the games almost over.

Personally, some ideas on how to make the end game interesting instead of a mad rush for a certian technology and then just steamshipping ahead of the pack to victory is much more needed than this simple ICS game style. Let ICS live. It has its pros and cons just like any other game play style. I agree with the 'At first this was fun, but now its just sad' thread... The ideas that are coming in, are becoming very pin-pointed and aimmed at something very very specific, that may not need fixing or at something that is personally ditasteful to their gaming. Now sometimes thats good, and i'm not trying to put people down and say their ideas are bad, but if fellow forumers could think of revolutionizing ideas, like Culture, Luxuary items, these boards would be more useful to its purpose.

Well enough with my ranting i just needed to let some steam of and get that off my chest you can ignore some of that last paragraph.. its just my little version of 'common sense' for Civ forums.

[KrazyHorse]

Sorry; I was referring to uncle_funk's suggestion when I said that.

[To_Serve_Man]

oh...

well.. its for the others then I guess...

[polypheus]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
Personally, some ideas on how to make the end game interesting instead of a mad rush for a certian technology and then just steamshipping ahead of the pack to victory is much more needed than this simple ICS game style. Let ICS live. It has its pros and cons just like any other game play style.

The problem, at least in Civ2, was that ICS had no cons and only pros. In fact it was the optimum strategy to employ all the time. In other words, it always worked!

If this is indeed fixed so that ICS strategy becomes risky, then that is fine. However, if this is not the case, then programming babarian hostility based on ICS would add in this risk so that ICS no longer becomes the optimum strategy that one would use all the time. Instead ICS would be a possible strategy but one with a great deal of risk and one which is not necessarily optimal.

Playtesting will be key in this regard and it is imperative that veteran, expert ICSers should try and see if indeed ICS works as well as it did in Civ2. If yes, then re-programming the barbarians would be a good counter-balance.

[To_Serve_Man]

Not true polypheus... ICS has Pros and Cons. I wouldnt call myself the know-all from ICS, hardly. But here is what I do know..

Pros:
Lots of money and technology
lots of cities


Cons:
Little defense against other players both AI and human
In civ3 (as I see it) ICS will not have much culture
Low culture = small # of resources(also a Civ3 delima as I see it)

Well that might not be the most convicing arguement... but its there. But you, yourself mention "at least in Civ2" which is key. And thats were the arguement is.

har har har and a bottle of rum!

[Urban Ranger]

The problem with ICS is, since a player can build huge number of cities, and that a city gives free support to a number of units (at least it is that way in Civ 2), a player can generate a huge horde of low tech units with which to overrun his perfectionist players.

Even with resources, etc., an ICS player can still expand recklessly, only stopping to develop a couple of cities that would bring him the resources required.

As a matter of fact the only way to counter ICS is with ICS.
It's harder to use ICS now that a settler costs 2 population points in Civ 3. However I'm not sure how big the impact will be.

[KrazyHorse]

It's just a question of slowing down ICS enough. If it costs enough to expand, then unlimited expansion will be beatable by a steady expansion along with city buildup.