Ics?

[Metamorph]

Hi, my name is Metamorph. Maybe you've heard of me. I coined the term 'ICS', which stands for 'Infinite City Sleaze.'

I have never, of course, purported myself to be the inventor behind the concept. This lesson was taught to me, painfully, during the early days of CivNet, when Chariot swarms roamed the world, and no one was safe. And the concept has lived, throughout the days of Civ I, Civ II, Civ IIb (you might know it better as 'Alpha Centauri'), Civ II.1 (ToT), and CtP I and I.5 (the rumors of there being a CtP II being highly exaggerated).

Not only lived; but thrived, dominated, utterly ruining whatsoever any miniscular hope in wrenching a decent game from the mire. Despite the hordes of lemming Sid-ites, ICS has always been an integral component in every Civ and Civlike game.

The strategy (sleaze, really) goes something like this:

Let's say Johnny has a city of size five. Mary, on the other hand, has five cities of size one. They each have an equal amount of population. And Mary, obviously, has been scurrying around making silly settlers, stunting her growth, while Johnny has been pumping out technological advances, terrain improvements, city improvements, and Chariots! Right?

Wrong.

First of all, Johnny is producing on six city tiles (the city, plus five surrounding tiles) while Mary is producing on a total of ten (five city tiles, plus five adjacent tiles). This is due to the fact that cities produce on their home tiles for free. Thus, Mary has an effective 66% (!) production edge on Johnny. Yes, really.

Now add on the fact that cities (in some of these games, anyway; pick whichever one you want) get an inherent terrain improvement of some sort in the terrain in which they're constructed -- free irrigation, free road, free shield, whatever.

Now add on the fact that Mary, who can place her cities anywhere in the area she wishes, can take advantage of every single 'natural resource' in the area. You know, those stupid bonus squares that produce extra food, trade, shields, and God knows what else.

Now add on the fact that Mary's population is growing *significantly* faster than Johnny's. In about ten turns, each of Mary's size 1 cities will be size 2 (total population 10 now, producing on 15 tiles!) whereas Johnny is still struggling to make his city size 6.

And let's not ignore the bazillions of huts Mary's been able to open with all of the settlers she's been pumping out. Free military units (to open yet more huts), free tech, free money (for more settlers), blah blah blah.

Now imagine applying this strategy not only with five cities, but with ten. Twenty. Fifty. A hundred. An exponential explosion in power in every respect. A ridiculously huge economic engine.

How huge, you ask? How does a space launch in 700 BC grab you? How about 1400 BC?

No, you cannot simply 'wander in with three spearchuckers' and take over this huge monstrosity. Any time she wants, Mary can switch from pumping out settlers nonstop, to pumping out Phalanx nonstop. Fortified Phalanx are stupidly powerful. Swarms of them are insurmountable. If it amuses her, she can make some offensive military units as well, and hurl them mindlessly at her opponents. And this, of course, only applies in the first few turns, before Mary starts blowing through the technology tree like confetti. (Of course, fortified Phalanx can hold their own even against Armor, so what's the difference?)

Difficulty level? Are you kidding? Difficulty level *helps* the ICSer. Low-population cities thrive in high difficulty settings; it's the big cities that are punished.

On, and on, and on. ICS is real. The creators of Civlike games acknowledge and embrace that it is real. "So just don't do that!" is a pointless, mindless retort; if the game is broken, then it is broken. It is up to the designers, not the players, to fix it.

Thus, I have poked my head out of my cave, one last time perhaps, to ask the Civlike gaming world one question. What of ICS? Has the insanely huge 'List' actually managed to ooze its way into Sid's brain? Will he finally, FINALLY get with the program, and address what is clearly the absolutely worst 'feature' of this game series?

Or will this game, too, disappoint its [non-lemming] fans five minutes after the box is opened?

- Metamorph

[lockstep]

Re: Ics?

Originally posted by Metamorph
Let's say Johnny has a city of size five. Mary, on the other hand, has five cities of size one.

With 2 population points to create a settler in Civ3, Mary has only three cities of size one. Both Johnny and Mary are producing on six city tiles.

OTOH I´m a newbie. Maybe I´ve ignored something.

[Metamorph]

Hmm.

"With 2 population points to create a settler in Civ3, Mary has only three cities of size one. Both Johnny and Mary are producing on six city tiles."

Hmm. This is certainly promising. It significantly stunts the exponential growth of the classic ICS model; so much so, that I'm tempted to believe that it renders it impotent.

Let's see what happens when I pull some numbers out of my ass...

Turn 1: Johnny and Mary plunk down a city someplace lovely. Plunk!

Turn 11: Johnny's city is size 2. Mary's city is size 2. Ordinarily, Mary would be able to produce a settler now; but by this new rule, she can't. So therefore...

Turn 26: Johnny's city is size 3. Mary's city is size 1, and she has 1 settler.

Turn 28: Johnny's city is size 3. Mary's first city is size 1, and she now has a 2nd city of size 1, 2 squares away. (Side question: is 2 still the 'minimum safe distance' for cities?)

Turn 36: Johnny's city is size 3. Mary's first city is size 2, and her second is size 1. We'll hold off analysis until...

Turn 38: Johny's city is still size 3 (edging up on 4, though). Mary has two size 2 cities.

At this point, we have 3 squares of production vs 4. Noting, of course, that Mary is also receiving an extra, free city-tile bonus (free road or shield or some such nonsense), plus is harvesting an extra uber-tile (whale, buffalo, whatever).

But this has taken a loooong time, far longer than it normally takes to achieve the same goal. In the meanwhile, Johnny can be pumping out military units -- and with that much time on his hands, Johnny can pose a much more significant military threat.

This analogy seems to hold throughout the (still, admittedly, exponential) production curve. ICS growth is violently stunted. Very interesting...

It's only a band-aid, but it's a huge mother of a band-aid. I lack the ability to foresee its ramifications; I'll have to idiot-test it. And I'm the best idiot for the job!

"OTOH I´m a newbie. Maybe I´ve ignored something."

It's been my experience that the newbies, generally, have a much more objective (and therefore perceptive) view of these sorts of games than some of the so-called, self-purported 'veterans' who turn out to merely be Sid lemmings. Part of me is tempted to assess this to the natural human compulsion for vindication; the other part of me is tempted to believe they're just morons. But who am I to judge?

Thanks for your info.

- Metamorph

[lockstep]

Re: Hmm.

And it took you only 19 minutes to write all this stuff down? I´m quite impressed.

BTW, here´s the link that provided the original info: http://www.civ3.com/asktheteam_040601.cfm. Also note the sentence: 'Making the settler cost 2 population points was also a conscious design consideration aimed at preventing players from winning by utilizing the ICS ("Infinite City Sprawl") strategy.'

[Inverse Icarus]

metamorph, also, the enroaching culture model will hamper ICS, whereas bigger, developed cities can peacefully "subvert" less cultured enemy cities.

also, the unit support form central gold supply.

and the neccessity of roads makes it so you have to work a bit harder developing/protgecting your road / resource network.

[Metamorph]

Curiouser and curiouser

lockstep: "And it took you only 19 minutes to write all this stuff down? I´m quite impressed."

Nah, no biggie. I type 140wpm (or more; haven't been rated in a few years) and this stuff's been on my brain for quite some time now. I used to rant about ICS regularly, back in the day. Nobody listened, but I ranted nonetheless.

'BTW, here´s the link that provided the original info:" [snip]

Aha. I missed that article -- well, actually, it didn't look like it contained the information I was looking for, so I skipped it. I'm glad to see that my prayers have been answered, and at least a genuine *attempt* was made at addressing ICS. Whether it works sufficiently remains to be seen, but I'm more confident now than I've ever been -- which, I assure you, is saying something.

UberKruX: "metamorph, also, the enroaching culture model will hamper ICS, whereas bigger, developed cities can peacefully "subvert" less cultured enemy cities."

That sounds like an interesting principle as well, not to mention realistic (for once ). I'm skeptical that this alone would have had any significant impact upon ICS, as the ICSer tended to get vastly farther ahead of his enemies in short order, city size notwithstanding. Given the above, however, this too does seem to pose an impact on the scenario, as the ICSer will take longer to accomplish his goals.

"also, the unit support form central gold supply."

This actually would strike me as something that would help the ICSer rather than hinder him. Having to turn toward the military was an annoyance to the ICSer for some government types, since supporting those units cramped the efforts of every single city. With a central gold supply, however, the ICSer could simply bend a few cities toward trade, keep up the supply requirements, and still have the rest of his cities 'sprawling', to coin Sid's phrase.

"and the neccessity of roads makes it so you have to work a bit harder developing/protgecting your road / resource network."

I'm not sure what you mean here. In a careful ICS scheme, a settler could spend an extra turn or two sticking roads here and there before building a city, guaranteeing that *every* worker in the entire country was harvesting on a trade square, without significantly hampering the exponential growth. This yielded tremendous cost effectiveness as pertains to scientific achievement. Is there a deeper level to the Civ 3 economic model that gives the principle you named more weight than I'm seeing? I'm very curious.

"if you expect the worst, it only gets better."

That's pretty much been my angle on Civlikes games since as far back as I can remember.

- Xaxyx

[Bleyn]

Uhmm... Wouldn't building the worker unit needed construct the roads also cost a city 1 pop.? And am I right in thinking that the settler unit will not be able to construct roads?

Admitedly someone need only build one or two workers, but that could also help slow down ICS.

[General Ludd]

Re: Curiouser and curiouser

Originally posted by Metamorph
I'm not sure what you mean here. In a careful ICS scheme, a settler could spend an extra turn or two sticking roads here and there before building a city, guaranteeing that *every* worker in the entire country was harvesting on a trade square, without significantly hampering the exponential growth. This yielded tremendous cost effectiveness as pertains to scientific achievement. Is there a deeper level to the Civ 3 economic model that gives the principle you named more weight than I'm seeing? I'm very curious.

Settlers no longer work the land, a seperate unit called a 'worker' does this now. Workers also cost population to produce, I'm not sure if it is 1 or 2, though.

[TCO]

Yeah...you're the guy who said you had tanks running around in the BC...And we finally pulled it out of you that you play on Prince! How come we never see your tough ass in any of the challenge game discussions in Civ2 Strategy?

[Skanky Burns]

Assuming that there is a minimum 2 distance between each city (as in Civ 2), it really wouldnt be too hard to build roads between each city. And once this network is up, almost impossible to destroy.


.X. .X.

.X. .X.



- An ICS city
- Unoccupied terrain
X - A road connecting up to four cities together.

In this example, you only need four roads to connect a total of 9 cities... Even getting 2 roads destroyed would still have 7 cities connected. But hopefully the *other* measures will kill ICS sufficiently

[tniem]

Skanky,

You will have amazing overlap in that example. You will be getting like three squares of production. Not possible in the new way of playing.


Metamorph,

Firaxis appears to have done so good things to curb ICS. Settlers cost 2 pop and cannot do any tile work. That takes a one pop worker. Than on top of it you only get 8 squares to start with a new city that slowly expands. And because culture is important to defending your nation than you need more developed cities.

ICS is taking a beating.

[yin26]

Metamorph:

I promised you waaaaaay back (remember my pleading e-mail to you about 2 years ago?) that if you gave me your best arguments against ICS, I'd make sure that they got considered very carefully for Civ 3. Of course, when I made that promise, I was writing checks I knew I probably wouldn't be able to cash...but it looks like you have, at long last, been listened to.

My friend, many thanks for your ICS help on the List. That ONE thing may well have revolutionized this game. Let us hope.

[yin26]

Some List "Best Moments":

ICS solutions
The problem of ICS, meaning one city size, has been discussed heavily over the forums. Mainly, the problem relies on the fact that small cities, usually one pop size, are more profitable then large cities, making it unprofitable to spend money on expanding, beyond hampering realism. One, or a few, of the following solutions could be used:
13.1) Increasing the production ratio of workers at a geometrical rate. For example, the first pop gives 10 labor, second 20, third 30, etc. So, a 3 pop size city would produce 60 labor, instead of 30. This is fitting to the fact that the level of population in real numbers also increases geometrically. If this incremental increase seems to steep, maybe 10-15-20-25 system is better used. Like the above idea except increasing trade profit. 1 pop city produce 10 trade, 2 pop city produce 30, etc, etc, etc...
13.2) The city center tile won't produce anything, just give a +1 food/+1 prod/+1 trade to all surrounding hexes.
13.3) The effects of specialists (which are usually only used on large cities) should be much bigger.
13.4) You can put several workers on the same tile, but it with reduced efficiency (up to a max of 3 workers per tile). This will allow big cities to put more people to work, and further increase their power.
13.5) The number of population that can be put on tiles is city size -1. Meaning, a size 1 city would just work on the city center tile production, size 2 city would only have 1 worker, not 2, etc.
13.6) The maximum number of production increasing buildings that can be built is the size of the population. So, a size 1 city could only support 1 market/factory/bank, making bigger cities more profitable.
13.7) World-wide wonders that give "+1 happy citizen per city" unbalance things in favor or the smaller nations. Maybe it could be replaced by "+10% happy citizens in city".

ICS Problem
In the context of Civ 2: "Infinite City Sleaze" was the term for the infamous strategy of mass producing cities in order to overwhelm the opposition. Solutions for ICS abound, and many were discussed throughout the Radical Ideas thread. They can be found here under "Population and Migration," and elsewhere. Like in this discussion here (the benefits being obvious):
Discussion: "¡¦Maintaining a large empire, especially in ancient times, should be a difficult, yet not impossible, task in Civ 3." Here is a series of increasingly severe penalizing effects designed roughly according to what historical Rome experienced. For the more cities you own:

¡¤ increased unhappiness [starts when # of cities goes over limit]
¡¤ increased corruption = less science, money, production
¡¤ low military unit morale
¡¤ chance of spontaneously falling to anarchy = civil war, or throne war, can happen several times
¡¤ increased military unit costs = military service less appealing to populace
¡¤ chance of massive barbarian hordes invading = they are looking for an opportunity to plunder a weak, overextended empire; may happen several times and they may found their own civilization if they capture your city.
¡¤ chance of empire breaking up [may occur when you have more cities than three times limit]

Also the strength (or chance) of each effect would increase with increasing number of cities. New inspiring ideologies (and religions) and more advanced forms of government would increase the city limit and thus reduce or perhaps finally eliminate the penalizing effects.
There are those who believe the above proposal would rule out global conquest as an option until late in the game, which isn't desirable.

[yin26]

In the end, it looks like Firaxis' decision was (in the Sid tradition) a very simple and elegant one. However, as many of us suspect, this might represent a band-aid solution...and we might yet need some of those two-year old List solutions in upcoming patches.

[Harlan]

Also regarding ICS, wasn't there something in one of the previews about building Temples that had an impact? I vaguely remember thinking "hey this will really help stop ICS" but I'm not sure on the details!

If the hazy memory is correct, it goes like this. When a city is built, it only uses the tile it is on. To even gain the benefit of tiles one away, you need to have 10 culture points. To do that, the city needs to build a Temple. So the city is pretty much dead in the water, and slow growing (the second and third pops are useless until you can use that next ring of tiles), until the Temple is built.

Therefore, you'd want to build a Temple first thing. Unless you're rush buying all your Temples, that means your city is going to be undefended for a while (and by the way, wasn't there some info to the effect that rush buying doesn't really work anymore - you can speed up production but you can't build something in a turn?). So new cities are less able to grow on their own. You need to bring a unit to defend it, and central resources to speed up production.

Also, with a city able to eventually work the land five tiles away, cities are going to need to be farther from each other to be able to grow, more than ever before (even more so than in CTP).

A huge question to me, though, is if government types will have natural limits the way CTP did or even if there's increased unhappiness with more cities like Civ2 (but hopefully better implemented). If there are natural limits like that, then I think ICS is well on its way to the scrapheap.