Ics?

[korn469]

Father Beast

in civ3 the 2 pop isn't the only safeguard against ICS, i think that global support if implemented properly will be a huge setback for an ICS player, and by properly i mean i hope that the number of free unit is set or determined by population

ie like all players in despotism no matter how many cities they have or how many people they have will get X number of units free...that would combat ICS in my opinion

the question is will the 2 pop settler, global support, culture, and resources be enough to make ICS no better than other strategies, we know that ICS was practically unbeatable in civ2, will that continue in civ3?

metamorph claimed that ICS slows all players down the same amount, and this isn't true, if you have a perfectionist player who doesn't build a settler till his city hits a population of five and then makes sure that there is four spaces between all of his cities his game would be slowed somewhat in civ3, but not nearly as much as the ICS player in civ3, but although the ICS player gets slowed down more, is it enough? we know the perfectionist would be toast in civ2, but will he have a chance in civ3?

hopefully granaries will get an overhaul in civ3, so that they aren't as powerful as a granary was in civ2 and population booms must be taken out of civ3, additionally let us hope that there isn't a civ-wide granary minor wonder (or major). these things will slow down ICS, but the way growth occurs in civ3 still makes it advantageous to have several small cities, compared to one large city, in a two player non-combat spaceship race in a civ2 MP game where one player used ICS and the other tried a OCC it wouldn't even be close, the ICS player would just have too much population, and that is because of the stupid expanding foodbox...this is one of the greatest causes of ICS, and a fixed size foodbox (30 or 40 food seems about right) would cripple ICS, especially when coupled with 2 pop settler, but i have little hope of firaxis making the change

as long as five size one cities can all grow to size two for the same amount of food it takes a single size nine city to grow to size ten, then the growth model in civ will continue to be a cause of ICS, however one thing that would slow the ICS player down slightly is if a settler now eats 2 food under despotism, and monarchy, and then eats 4 food under a republic, communism, and a democracy, but we haven't heard anything on this yet

[Skanky Burns]

One advantage of Non-ICS is that the new cities can 'pick and choose' from 20 potential squares where to harvest resources, practically guaranteeing they harvest the optimal resources, whereas an ICS's packed-in cities will have (initially) between half of its available land space, to a minimum of 3 squares to harvest. It may come down to how many decent resources are available whether an ICS strategy is worthwhile or not on a particular map.

[Kaak]

Metamorph, I remember when you first introduced me to ICS....but even so, things have changed a good deal, and ICS has proven to be effective, but on it's own virtue, not the most effective strategy. Try playing one of the more efficient players like myself or eyes using standard ICS, and we'll hand you your ass.....

[korn469]

One advantage of Non-ICS is that the new cities can 'pick and choose' from 20 potential squares where to harvest resources, practically guaranteeing they harvest the optimal resources

Skanky Burns

i disagree, just because I think that it would be easier for the ICS player to build a road to the resource and to engulf it in their territory, if an ICS player has a city beside of a resource (or on it) then it would only require one road to the resource and ten culture to grow the borders out one...it takes 100 culture to grow the borders out two, and 1,000 culture to grow the borders out three, then you also have to build a road out to that resource

btw when i say resources i am talking about strategic resources such as iron

[korn469]

Kaak

could you please outline the anti-ICS strategies that you use? also do you think ICS would have an impact on two average players of equal (if one used it and the other didn't)

i'm a SMAC player, and ICS based strategies are alive and well in it?

btw if Civ3 doesn't have MP until May, then for now we should be comparing the player to the AI and looking at the effect of ICS on that

[Kaak]

Korn, I don't know a whole lot about SMAC, but using ICS leaves inherent vulnerabilities in Civ2 that with proper techniques can be easily exploited.

**note - i'm not saying don't overlap, i'm not even saying don't sleeze. All i am saying is that if you try the old ICS strategy against me, you will lose, over and over. There is always a better way to go about things

[korn469]

Kaak

basically you are advocating using an ICS based strategy (not ICS but at least a cousin of it) that relies on brains and close attention to detail right?

however the AI isn't crafty or clever, or cunning, or even flexable, and i think that a player can exploit the game mechanics that cause ICS to abuse the AI every single game, so to me ICS is a larger problem in SP and it'd be nice if they fixed it

[OneFootInTheGrave]

What is the way?

Or ti is too hard to describe....

[Kaak]

korn, not exactly. The small and short of it lies with huts in civ2. The more huts you get the bigger advantage. When someone is straight ICSing, they don't put enough in to quick and vast territorial gain. I expand out very quickly, and later fill in the gaps. If that means overlapping, then it means overlapping.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by korn469
Father Beast

in civ3 the 2 pop isn't the only safeguard against ICS, i think that global support if implemented properly will be a huge setback for an ICS player, and by properly i mean i hope that the number of free unit is set or determined by population

ie like all players in despotism no matter how many cities they have or how many people they have will get X number of units free...that would combat ICS in my opinion

point taken. I wasn't considering global support. in previous versions, a player got so many free units per city, and changing that to per civ, may make it hard for ICSers.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by korn469
the question is will the 2 pop settler, global support, culture, and resources be enough to make ICS no better than other strategies, we know that ICS was practically unbeatable in civ2, will that continue in civ3?

Now that is the question.

Originally posted by korn469
hopefully granaries will get an overhaul in civ3, so that they aren't as powerful as a granary was in civ2 and population booms must be taken out of civ3, additionally let us hope that there isn't a civ-wide granary minor wonder (or major). these things will slow down ICS, but the way growth occurs in civ3 still makes it advantageous to have several small cities, compared to one large city, in a two player non-combat spaceship race in a civ2 MP game where one player used ICS and the other tried a OCC it wouldn't even be close, the ICS player would just have too much population, and that is because of the stupid expanding foodbox...this is one of the greatest causes of ICS, and a fixed size foodbox (30 or 40 food seems about right) would cripple ICS, especially when coupled with 2 pop settler, but i have little hope of firaxis making the change

as long as five size one cities can all grow to size two for the same amount of food it takes a single size nine city to grow to size ten, then the growth model in civ will continue to be a cause of ICS, however one thing that would slow the ICS player down slightly is if a settler now eats 2 food under despotism, and monarchy, and then eats 4 food under a republic, communism, and a democracy, but we haven't heard anything on this yet

hmmnn... Keeping the food box the same size would cripple ICS badly, but this runs into other problems. under any gov but despotism, a city with improved land gets more and more surplus with more pop. and pop increase would go through the roof - until you hit the aqueduct barrier. then you could crank out settlers until you got construction... if some sort of balance could be found.....

settlers eat food... that would slow things down, somewhat. a settler under despotism eating 2 food would halt growth in the host city until it founded a new city. the same applies to non ICSers, and for longer since they space their cities.
no, that really wouldn't help much, if at all....

[korn469]

Kaak

so a game of civ2 basically boils down to whoever gets the most huts wins? i hope there is an option in civ3 like in SMAC where you can turn huts off

Father Beast

well i could propose something that firaxis wouldn't listen to at all or i could actually propose something useful

without granaries in Civ3 i think that ICS won't be a very powerful strategy

with granaries that work like they did in civ2 then ICS will be a workable strategy

so that means granaries need to be toned down some, so instead of working like a granary in civ2 i hope that a granary works like a children's creche in SMAC, in that it cuts the food box size, instead of leaving it half full, and a 30% reduction would propbably be appropriate along with taking away WLTKD pop booms and replacing them with another bonus

with a 30% reduction to the food box, then the player would need 35 food for a two pop settler (14 for the first pop point and 21 for the second) compared to 25 food if the granaries in civ3 worked the exact same way they did in civ2 and compared with 20 food for a one pop settler from a city without a granary in civ2

i think that this would make it take 18 flat turns for a city to build a 2 pop settler in civ3, instead of the smaller and smaller frames it takes to build a one pop settler in civ2 or a 2 pop settler in civ3 if granaries work like they do in civ2

what do you think?

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Father Beast
OK Korn, If there really isn't a luxury slider, then "We Love" days won't make that big a difference, since they will be danged hard to get.

ACK!!!

according to the newest domestic advisor screenshots (21 sep) there IS a luxury slider.
"We love" days will be used to boost pop lost from building settlers.

ICS lives!!!

Arrgghh!!!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Father Beast
according to the newest domestic advisor screenshots (21 sep) there IS a luxury slider.
"We love" days will be used to boost pop lost from building settlers.

OTOH, 'we love the leader' days could have a different effect in Civ3. No pop boosting but additional shields and trade (a la 'golden age', but only for that specific city).

[Xmudder]

40 food to grow

Umm, guys... every screenshot I have seen of a city view has had a food bin that is 40 large. There is no more "large cities take proportionately longer to grow" as there was in CIV II and SMACx.
I have yet to see a size 1 or 2 city view screenshot, but the size 11 and 12 cities over at civ3.com (screenshots 17, bottom left of page 3, and 20, upper right of page 4) both have food bins that are 40 large. I'd welcome someone wandering around the available screenshots and seeing how many other cities have a size 40 food bin. 40 food to grow in size, 20 with a granary. Growing your city now takes only 10 or 20 turns.
This is why so many screenshots have grasslands with mines on them - to give you +1 shield on grassland squares w/o a naturally occuring shield. The need for super food (irrigating grasslands) is far less important in this game. Add in that military units cost gold and not shields, and we'll likely see a higher production per city (and more waste).
ICS still allows greater production in small cities, especially if you take Industious (likely +1 shield in city center) and commercial (likely +1 commerce in city center). And they do grow faster (2 cities growing at the same rate of 1 city grow twice as fast). But the differences are far less.
Of course, this makes OCC (one city challenge) that much easier.
Rivers have changed too - they go between tiles, so you can't move along them, but they add a trade boost to both sides of the river.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by korn469
btw when i say resources i am talking about strategic resources such as iron

Nah, when i was talking about resources, i meant the normal harvestable resources, like grassland or plains. A non-ICS city will likely have many grassland squares that produce a shield, whereas ICS cities might only have hills, forests, plains, tiles that limit their growth.

Btw, i agree with what you said about ICS being able to get strategic resources.