Ics?

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Father Beast
BTW, I recently read that you not only need to have a resource connected to your capitol to trade it, but your capitol needs to be connected to the other capitol, too.

Okay Beast, You may have me on that point. That i didnt know.

However, i realise it makes little difference to the ICS style of play. Building a handful of reusable workers doesnt slow the expansion down much compared to 2 pop settlers.

Also, as i pointed out earlier, with a grid formation, an ICS player can build a strong road network by placing 1 road between 4 cities, meaning that another player has to essentially capture some cities to disrupt the ICS road network, or cut the resource off from its source. Not the easiest thing to do.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Does anyone other then me feel that the new worker concept is forcing our hands to play with the "holding settlers back" strategy, that is keeping settlers walking around upgrading cities? I used to have them do two/three upgrades then run off to build their own city. Now, I can't even do that. I have to build a worker to upgrade. I expect that a lot of us will end up with tons of spare workers running around. At least we could drop them into a city's population, right?

Ahh... No. at least not me. the difference between having a settler do some improvements or go found a city will just be made in the city production instead of out in the field. Since settlers only found cities, the only reason to build one is to found a city. a single worker can do a lot of improvements, and is never in danger of being made into a city.

It could become a colony, though. there is that decision to be made...

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Does anyone other then me feel that the new worker concept is forcing our hands to play with the "holding settlers back" strategy, that is keeping settlers walking around upgrading cities? I used to have them do two/three upgrades then run off to build their own city. Now, I can't even do that. I have to build a worker to upgrade. I expect that a lot of us will end up with tons of spare workers running around. At least we could drop them into a city's population, right?

I think the pop point can be reclaimed after their tour of duty building roads and irrigation... However this idea of seperating "city builders" from "terrain improvers" isnt new - and worked quite well IMO in SMAC Think of it this way - you can now improve your terrain for half the regular price of a settler (population-wise)

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Hmm.

Originally posted by Metamorph
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).

Lets look at this closer.

Turn 1: both capitols will be producing military units to defend themselves. What about research? In Civ 3, the ICS'er will be forced to research Ceremonial Burial instead of a military advance because of culture.

Turn 11: Is the ICS'er going to produce more military units, or is going to build a temple? If he's not, he faces the risk of lagging in culture, which increases the chance of them joining a neighbour civ later on.

Turn 26: The ICS'er has a settler, but does he dare to use it to build a city, or will he want to wait for an escort? Losing 2 pop points to a wandering barbarian horde is lethal at this point.

It seems that the combined new measures is going to stop ICS quite effectively. No longer can a player ignore city improvements. No longer can a player use settlers to freely improve tiles before building cities. No longer can a player risk to have one of his cities undefended, particularly early in the game, for the loss will be too great to compensate. Rules on resources force players to develop culture and infrastructure.

[Father Beast]

Re: Re: Hmm.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Lets look at this closer.

Turn 1: both capitols will be producing military units to defend themselves. What about research? In Civ 3, the ICS'er will be forced to research Ceremonial Burial instead of a military advance because of culture.

Turn 11: Is the ICS'er going to produce more military units, or is going to build a temple? If he's not, he faces the risk of lagging in culture, which increases the chance of them joining a neighbour civ later on.

Turn 26: The ICS'er has a settler, but does he dare to use it to build a city, or will he want to wait for an escort? Losing 2 pop points to a wandering barbarian horde is lethal at this point.

It seems that the combined new measures is going to stop ICS quite effectively. No longer can a player ignore city improvements. No longer can a player use settlers to freely improve tiles before building cities. No longer can a player risk to have one of his cities undefended, particularly early in the game, for the loss will be too great to compensate. Rules on resources force players to develop culture and infrastructure.

Turn 1:I disagree. The ICSer will not be forced to choose a cultural advance because he can build his cities ON THE RESOURCE.

Turn 11: The danger of losing them to a neighboring civ is a valid point, but only if they overlap...

turn 26: since it takes 2 pop points to build a settler, there is time to build a military unit or 2 on the way, especially useful for martial law.

Turn 38: this model by Metamorph didn't even take into account that Mary has 2 size 2 cities, for 6 tiles being produced (with the free city tile) and Johnny has 1 size 3 city (or 4) producing 4 tiles (or 5).

in the future, Mary's second city builds a worker, while her first city builds another settler. another several turns, and mary has 3 cities size 2 (producing 9 tiles) and the second city is close to going size 3 and pumping out another settler, AND the cities are connected by roads. Johnny has a size 5 city (producing 6 tiles), and better drop his pop by building a worker if he wants to grow more.

A player can still ignore city improvements, and culture and resources do NOT force him to build infrastructure.

[Harlan]

Yet another factor to take into consideration. We know that many resources won't show up on the map until the proper tech is discovered. For instance, you won't know where Iron is until you discover Iron Working, Bronze until you discover Bronze Working, and so on. Given the large number of blank spaces in the early tech tree we've seen in the Ancient Age, I think many if not most resources need to be uncovered.

So, on this alone, there is a tension between building cities fast just anywhere, and waiting till you've gone through most of the Ancient Age techs and know where most of the resources are (even then, there are many that come later). You probably won't be able to build cities like a madman from the get-go, and always have them on sweet resource spots.

Also, we know that from time to time resource spots will disappear after being used up, and new ones will occasionally appear within worked city squares. So it pays to have a huge population (lots of worked squares) and large border areas.

Clearly there are too many new factors in the game for one to be able to say anything authoritative about ICS in Civ3 at this point. We don't even know if there is the extra starting square bonus in a new city, or not.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Harlan
You probably won't be able to build cities like a madman from the get-go, and always have them on sweet resource spots.

However, as UR pointed out, there will be plenty of time between building a settler and the city growing again to build another settler. An ICSer could build many military units between the first and second settler, or they could take some time out to build a single temple in each city. It would probably be done before the city grew back to size 3. If not, then after building the temple, that city could continuously pump out settlers till it was back to size 1.

The net effect of this is that each city will have at least a size 1 border. With each city only 2 squares from any other, this would mean that the entire ICS empire is within their border, and all resources are as well. All that would remain would be to build a road on each resource, and a road network. Finally, as each worker can be reused after building roads, only a handful would be needed for road-networking.

Clearly there are too many new factors in the game for one to be able to say anything authoritative about ICS in Civ3 at this point. We don't even know if there is the extra starting square bonus in a new city, or not.

Thats definately true, but as always, speculation is fun

[Harlan]

"The net effect of this is that each city will have at least a size 1 border. With each city only 2 squares from any other, this would mean that the entire ICS empire is within their border, and all resources are as well. All that would remain would be to build a road on each resource, and a road network. Finally, as each worker can be reused after building roads, only a handful would be needed for road-networking."

The point I was trying to make is, without already knowing a lot of technologies BEFORE building your cities, it will only be sheer luck if any of your cities are near any resources. The location of resources on the map you've already explored remains invisible until you get the tech to reveal them. And resources aren't just kind of nice like in Civ2, they're essential. Without Bronze, Horse and Iron early in the game for instance, you're unlikely to be able to build most early units.

And yes, in the system you describe you'll have all of a certain area within your borders, but it could turn out that is a very resource poor area. Its most likely a very small area compared to the entire map. I think players are going to need to build cities (and colonies) near resources much more than in Civ2, and not just any old spot on the map that can turn out a decent number of shields or food.

I imagine a strategy we're likely to see is a player builds a Settler, but holds back on using it until reaching the next key resource related tech, to get a better sense where a good spot for building the city will be. Or, you might build a new city only to find a few turns later that if you would have built it a few more tiles to the left, you're sitting on a ton of Iron.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: Hmm.

Originally posted by Father Beast
Turn 1:I disagree. The ICSer will not be forced to choose a cultural advance because he can build his cities ON THE RESOURCE.

Turn 11: The danger of losing them to a neighboring civ is a valid point, but only if they overlap...

turn 26: since it takes 2 pop points to build a settler, there is time to build a military unit or 2 on the way, especially useful for martial law.

Turn 38: this model by Metamorph didn't even take into account that Mary has 2 size 2 cities, for 6 tiles being produced (with the free city tile) and Johnny has 1 size 3 city (or 4) producing 4 tiles (or 5).

in the future, Mary's second city builds a worker, while her first city builds another settler. another several turns, and mary has 3 cities size 2 (producing 9 tiles) and the second city is close to going size 3 and pumping out another settler, AND the cities are connected by roads. Johnny has a size 5 city (producing 6 tiles), and better drop his pop by building a worker if he wants to grow more.

A player can still ignore city improvements, and culture and resources do NOT force him to build infrastructure.

Turn 1: Not true, unless you start right smack on top of a resource square.

Turn 11: The thing about culture is you can't buy it. It must be accumulated slowly. Having a lot of small cities revolt to a smaller, but culturally highly advanced, neighbour is probably the nightmare of ICS'ers.

Turn 26: If the ICS'er chooses not to build a temple, he could have an extra warrior to escort the settler. Otherwise, he most likely has to wait.

Turn 38: The model also doesn't taken into account that civs with low cultures are more subjected to barbarian raids. Warriors can't stand up to a small horde. Having two thinly defended cities might not be such a wise idea.

In the future, building even more thinly defended cities could very well lead to barbarian encampments. Not smart all told.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
It would probably be done before the city grew back to size 3. If not, then after building the temple, that city could continuously pump out settlers till it was back to size 1.

The question is, will an ICS'er dare to have his settlers wandering about the landscape without escorts? If he doesn't, he is further slowed down to build military units. Now since upkeep will be paid by the national treasury, this can post problems. Also, an ICS'er can't really develop culture, which makes him more vulnerable to barbarians and highly cultured neighbours.

[korn469]

I think that ICS will still be a viable strategy in civ3; however, it will no longer be the overwhelming strategy that it was in civ2.

From what I understand, you now must spend two population points and an unknown number of shields (probably 40) to build a settler that still eats food and only has one function; that function being the ability to found cities. I assume that those cities will be size one cities. Players must also build workers, which cost one population point (and probably 20 shields), still eats food, and can found colonies, add one population to a city, and build tile improvements. Also the support system has been redone so that units are supported by the civ instead of by the city, and now support cost gold instead of shields. Resources will also force all players to defend their territory better, and there is one last counter to ICS and that is culture.

The question is how much does ICS need to be slowed down before it is of equal power to a normal expansionist player? We know that against humans a player cannot win with one city, but a player can be expansionistic without using ICS. Does civ3 reach the point where an expansionistic player can beat an ICS player of equal skill?

I think it gets close, very close, but we will just have to wait and see.

Does anyone here think that civ3 makes ICS worse?

[yin26]

I think ICS has been made now something closer to the Rush in Age of Kings: Now of course I'm not talking about rushing ASAP with units on attack but rather the similar risks involved.

A rusher in AoK must have the following going for him in order for his plans to work out (of course, a superior player can make up for a lack in any of these given time but will struggle more).

• Good resources: A rusher depends on getting the necessary resources ASAP. A missing boar or inefficiently harvested sheep can really throw things off. In the same way, I think an ICSer will need a pretty good starting seed to ensure himself early on.
• Good map: Similar to good resources, but a good map for a rusher is one that he can't be walled out on or one that doesn't have him looking for the enemy in a rather odd position, thus throwing off his scouting and early building placement. In the same way, an ICSer will have to play close attention to how soon and from how many directions an enemy can reach him early on. Huge maps will likely ENCOURAGE ICSers while smaller ones will make him be very careful and scout like crazy.
• Luck: Ah, luck. Now, a solid player makes his own luck, so I don't want to overplay this hand...but in the same way that having your forward builders killed by wolves can totally wreck your rush, having that early settler discovered by the enemy could spell doom for the ICSer.
• Flexibility: Finally, I think the mark of any great player using an extreme strategy is one who can look at his available resources, map and luck so far in the game to determine an optimum strategy. In so far as it looks like Civ3 has made these elements far more important for the success of an ICSer, I'd say things are going to be much more interesting.

PREDICTION: For the first few weeks of play, ICSing will still work like a charm because most players won't be trying to counter it. They'll stay close to home...this giving the ICSer that early build time he needs. However, after people stop crying that the game is still broken, better players will make it a point to scout the ICSer from the first turn. If the ICSer is playing it too cocky, he'll lose a settler and really be screwed early. And now if the anti-ICSer is pressing his advantage, he'll keep up this pressure and really bottle-up the ICSer early on.

This will then beg the question: Why not ICS and prepare a counter? Two ICSers going head-to-head could be a lot of fun. The finesse required will be substantial. But an ICSer who prepared a counter that never came could be throwing himself needlessly of his game and negating somewhat the early advantage he was trying to gain. So seeing that, he might throw caution to the wind and go 100% ICS again to catch up...only to see even better enemy units show up in better numbers.

And be warned: Many a prediction from Yin has proven true!

[korn469]

he'll lose a settler and really be screwed early

is there any proof to the rumor about being able to capture workers? does the same hold true for settlers?

plus lets say a barb kills a settler now, or any other thing happens when you unexpected lose a settler...the time to replace that settler is greater now

then how about nationality...if your culture is strong enough, and the perfectionist will have massive culture, then as the weak culture ICS player takes the well developed perfectionist cities they will revolt and go back to the perfectionist

again another counter to ICS

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Harlan
And yes, in the system you describe you'll have all of a certain area within your borders, but it could turn out that is a very resource poor area. Its most likely a very small area compared to the entire map. I think players are going to need to build cities (and colonies) near resources much more than in Civ2, and not just any old spot on the map that can turn out a decent number of shields or food.

And my point is that an ICSer will fill the entire area of a map, from coast to coast, with cities. As many that will fit without being next to another city. Therefore, any resources on that appear *anywhere* on the continent will be, at most, a distance of 1 square from a city.

Its true that players who play 'as Sid intended' will need to be more careful of city placement in relation to resource squares, but not for an ICSer.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The question is, will an ICS'er dare to have his settlers wandering about the landscape without escorts? If he doesn't, he is further slowed down to build military units. Now since upkeep will be paid by the national treasury, this can post problems. Also, an ICS'er can't really develop culture, which makes him more vulnerable to barbarians and highly cultured neighbours.

My belief is that the ICSers cities will have *plenty* of time between building a settler and growing enough to build another settler. This time would be used (initially) to build a military guard or three. They may not be the best units, but they are some protection for the settler. Besides, theres a much smaller chance of a settler getting attacked moving 2 squares to found a city than moving 5 squares which a perfectionist player (like me) would need to.

Originally posted by Yin26 the Pessimistic
Many a prediction from Yin has proven true!

I agree, this is one prediction that i see coming true (when MP is included )

EDIT: Fixed quote tags

[yin26]

Ah, I forgot to add: The AI is probably programmed to be conservative...and scouting the enemy without cheating is a nightmare for the AI. So unless the comp cheats and knows where to scout early, ICSing will still work against the comp. same as always just a bit more slowly early on.

In that sense, I don't think ICS for SP has been fixed at all. Aside from the occasional mishap and lucky computer move, ICS will be alive and well. This is significant, I think.

As always, it will be MP play where the true challenges come. Unfortuately...well, we have enough threads on that topic.