INTERESTING New Screenshots with ICS implications

[Harlan]

Seems this thread has fallen off. Can any of our more serious ICS analyzers comment? Between the recent Eisenstein and Madres shots, not to mention this shot:

http://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/a...801/oct10b.jpg

There's enough info out there to make solid number calculations about growth rates.

[Sarxis]

The whole problem with ICS in Civ2, and to an extent in SMAC was that you got a free population point with each newly established cities. I just can't see the controversy anymore with ICS, now that new cities require 2 pop points to found.

What is the issue then? And it can't be that ICS players will be hogging up the land, because corrutption plays a factor in this, and so does war (take that land will ya'? My Samurai may have something to say about that!).

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well on that screenshot there is a city size 24, with 2 food extra, and it can grow one pop in 15 turns, box is size 30 to fill with the granary improvement, and citizens consume 50 food per turn. Well from here it seems that it has all 20 tiles used, and the most food on the tile is 4. If you would have a city in grassland with all the tiles producing 4 food that would mean 34 food extra is max at this point. (21*4=84 -50 =34) For a size 20 city that would be 42 food extra

That would leave the old 41 citizens in the city limit as the max, but it seems that one could get there really fast if there is no other constrictions. From 20 to 26 citizens you could come within 5-6 turns with a max food city, plus up to 32 an if I am correct in next 12 turns. That could mean that it is more beneficial to have a big city growing fast than a lot of small cities producing settlers to expand as in Civ 2 ICS. The same migh be true even with medium sized cities, if you have enough tech to buld aquaducts/ hospitals. Once you get near 20 pop you can start to produce settlers as fast as you can, but this will hopefully be late in the game, and that woudl mean that the player who builds a city up to that size first will have significant advantage over the ones who are still coming up at that point even if they have more cities. (many more?)

The extra citizens in such a city should generate a lot more tech/ money as scientists/ tax-men, comparing to smaller cities. So it seems that the ramp up the settlers strategy could be left for late game. (perhaps cities sized 16-17) .

just for reference size 16 city with max food would have 17*4=68 food and 34 would be eaten which leaves 34 food for expansion. a bit too much isn't it. However it is rare to have max food cities at all, and it would depend on the government, tech if you could develop to those city sizes. Once you get trough these obstacles there is no reason not to ramp up the settlers production.

[Faboba]

We'll start with the maths and go from there. In the shot we see a city sorrunded by irrigation yet it is not irrigated, conclusion cities cannot be irrigated.

So as farmland does not seem to be in it anymore from the tech list screenshots the maximum possible would be for a city on grassland to produce would be 20*4 + 2 = (82) ( 2 less than you got nyaaaa )

Consider then that the screenshot shows that citizens eat 2 lots of food. This means that the absolute maximum size for a city would be 41 which is lower than the maximum in civ2.

Then factor in that you'll probably never get a perfect city location, rioting due to size, limits on size due to buildings like aqueducts and hospitals, and that you'll probably want to sell most of your extra food on the common market that your cities won't be growing that fast at all.

Also notice that the screenshots form the modern era and the city is only 24 size. So this means it's early stages might well not have been as fast as you make out if it's only grown to 24 by whats nearly the end of the game ( despite as we've found out fairly recently, the fact that the earlier game seems to have more turns in it. )

So..........

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
The whole problem with ICS in Civ2, and to an extent in SMAC was that you got a free population point with each newly established cities. I just can't see the controversy anymore with ICS, now that new cities require 2 pop points to found.

What is the issue then? And it can't be that ICS players will be hogging up the land, because corrutption plays a factor in this, and so does war (take that land will ya'? My Samurai may have something to say about that!).

Despite having to pay 2 pop for a settler (and thus, a new city), you still get the free worker in the city square. the worker eats no food, and does not need to be kept happy. so a 5 size 1 cities still way outproduce a single size 5 city.

BTW, I saw a screenshot of a city with around 25 citizens or so ( I didn't count). the food box was size 60!!

[Father Beast]

Oh, and the resources!

The ICSer has advantage also by being able to build cities right on top of needed resources, and just a few roads connect them to the capitol, where they are available to all your cities.

the gone, now ressurected luxury slider was previuosly eliminated (I think) to force people to rely on resources instead. now it's back, and the luxury resources are still there. with only 3 or 4 kinds of luxuries permeating your empire, you can keep the riot factor at bay in small cities with minimal policing. 5 or 6 luxury items circulating, and your people are kept content with size 3 cities, all black faced, no hanging gardens (which comes only with monarchy), and a single soldier.



BTW, Korn, what is the danger of army laundering when units no longer have home cities?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

oops this was an earlier accident

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Yes the food box is size 60, but granary halves it, so you only need 30 food to go one pop up. But that was just an idea that might make you want to grow big cites which will than have higher yields in tech/ econ, rather than smaller cities that will have much smaller yields, and will not have time to catch up. Ie a size 30 city will be able to produce settlers quickly, build pop back quickly and expand. Size 4 city will need much more time to build the same, and it loses 2 pop points. Which I think makes it too early to start ICS. I think size 10 maybe 9 is about right, since than you will be able to switch the workers between food producing and shield producing tiles, in order to optimize for expansion. However it may be that not producing settlers until you grow to size 15-16 is more effective, since you will not have to wait so long for 2 pop to appear back. And than size 20. since you have workers on all fields. And if you need to wait for 10 turns to size 25 you might just wait for that too???


I think that we need to know at which size does the 40 food box turn into 60 (It might be the traditional size 12) . As well as the cost of granary. Settlers cost 60 shields and 2 pop, and cannot build roads, you need a worker for that.

So If you are a civ with pottery, and get a granary at the start.1 settler = 1 town on grassland with 10 grassland 5 plains 3 hills and 2 unusable (mountains/swamp/desert)
START
1 free tile + 1 worker tile. =4 food (+2), 2 shields, 2 gold

turns--------no of workers------no of shields------------gold

20------------------ 2-----------------------40 ----------------- 40

3 tiles worked= 6food (+2) 3 shields 2 gold

I guess that a granary could be built by now (for 80?), and cut the pop time in a half. (only 20 food now)so the granary would be built on turn 34. and the city would be size 3 on turn 37 with 6 shields and I will ignore gold from now on.


turn 37 size 3; tiles 4; food (+2) shields 4/turn (+6left)
producing settler.

In 10 turns I will get another pop, and now rioting factor could be an issue on higher levels. (already at size 3) but lets assume that there is none for a city size 4.

turn 47 size 4, tiles 5, food +2, shields +5.

turn 50 settler built.

city goes back to size 2 with a granary now, 6 food in the box. Growing at +2 (no food lost for settler support) with +3 shields.

The settler2 will take 2 turns to settle and another 50 to create another one.

the original settler (settler1) will now need 10 turns to get the pop up, and lets see.

turn 60 city1 size 3 food +2, shields +3( 30)

turn 70 city size 4 settlers built, and city is back to size 2, and it took only 20 turns to build the second settler -Settler3. So at

turn 90 settler 4

turn 100 settler 5(from settler2)

turn 110 settler 6... and whoa they are breeding like rabbits.


HOWEVER THERE IS A FLAW IN THIS CALCULATION that I noticed. There is no free shields now! So you might get one at the beginning in the city, but there is no +2 food and +3 shields. Or is there. Graslland field with a mine gives +2. What about those free shields on the screenshot on the tiles with 4 food and 2 gold? Either way if you spend some time to build a worker you can easily ram up the production than and settlers will be done ion 20 turns. Which leaves ICS as a winner?

What did I miss?

Well this leaves a bit sour taste. But I haven't checked this really well there might be problems in my model other than possible shields missing. However with so small food boxes the weight would go back to number of shields produced as the determining factor for ICS in Civ III.

So shields will slow the whole thing hopefully there is no free food and shields when you build a city on resources. That should help a lot. Now we need this model checked and a 'normal' development model.

One more non-ICS thingy is the riot factor might be big enough to stop the expansion of the cities early on too.

So we have
1. the lack of shields
2. riot factor on harder levels.
3. could be the fast growth once a city reaches 15+ size, which goes together with 2 pop and 60 shields for the settler initially.
4. culture?


But it does not look promising on lower levels with low rioting factors.

[korn469]

Father Beast

since they have completely removed the home city aspect from the game, then army laundering is no longer a problem

however what we all must realize about ICS is this

ICS is only a problem when it creates unbalance in the game, though ICS will most likely be in Civ3 it doesn't require a fix unless it is overpowering like it was in Civ and Civ2...while the fixed size food box will encourage population growth and numerous cities, it makes it much less advantageous to have numerous small cities instead a few large cities, especially with 2 pop settlers...the biggest problem created by the small fixed size food box is that there might be many more cities than in Civ2, however if the AI city govenors are halfway decent this wont be a problem

if not then ICS will be limited not only by corruption, but by the players patience

as for why the city of Madras wasn't starving i hope we will find that out soon