Civ3 tried to discourage ICS and failed

[Sarxis]

Expansion isn't really the same as ICS. ICS is for taking advantage of the 'free citizen' fluke from previous CIV games. That is not possible in CivIII.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Expansion isn't really the same as ICS. ICS is for taking advantage of the 'free citizen' fluke from previous CIV games. That is not possible in CivIII.

Um but it is. The cities get to pop 3 so fast it doesn't matter.

Before you get there you're better off building military units because a structure at this point is not efficient. And like I already pointed out, when you hit pop 3 you get your first unhappy citizen. What do you do? Waste it on an entertainer? If you don't you have civil disorder. You're better off building a settler to get rid of the unhappiness.

And mind you, this is early in the game. Later you start building the temples and what not. And this is what makes religious civs much stronger than people predicted.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Pembleton
It's an strategy that people used in the Civ games called "Infinite City Sleaze" or "IC Sprawl". It's where the main priority in the game is to make as many cities as possible and as close together as possible without regard to city improvements. In the long run it is just more efficient and you just end up having more production, and everything else if you don't overdo it.

The computer does it *now* in Civ3. If you ever look at their cities they have very few improvements and someone even showed a screenshot of a computer city that had pop 2 and a settler finished (but can't be produced until the pop hits 3).

To me it's really boring, and I miss my old naive days where I didn't know about it or do it. Sometimes too much knowledge can ruin a game.

I disagree that the computer uses it or anyone can use it effectively.

Partially because no one can get republic by 1AD, that might be something to see. So you can't city sprawl.

Question though, Did they change the rules for city size 3 IN Republic, any city rejoicing at size 3 or greater auto increases?

I've been playing my games in monarchy soley, cause Republic sucks for me in this game, I warmonger and that's no fun.

Second point, is that you can't city sprawl on regent, or king becuase you can't eliminate unhappy citizens.

Computer doesn't city sprawl, it just cheats, a lack of good programing here, I'm dissapointed, and a lot of game designers have been doing this. Substitute a good AI by making one that cheats.

There is no way they can sprawl like they do, if they have to pay 2 pop points for sets, and 1 for workers. Aside though, the AI is actually smarter and a little les forgetful.

3 point, I don't know how to city sprawl, or even get as many cities as I used to, I have to spend 3 pop points to develop 2 cites, worker plus set, for road set up.

Example of somthing cool, I signed a right of passage with England, set my armies next to them wiped them out in a few years. I say ok I'll do that to the romans, and then the romans call me on it and say no right of passage treaty, which was very cool I thought.

Plus when I finally foought Romans, I cam rocking in with Cavs, Muskets, Cannons, And was doing nicely, but the try to get my workers, or try to get to cities I have taken that I leave with few defenders. That's pretty good. Plus the computer tries to take the best strategic points, like mountains and such they just don't lie down.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Stromprophet

Second point, is that you can't city sprawl on regent, or king becuase you can't eliminate unhappy citizens.

Computer doesn't city sprawl, it just cheats, a lack of good programing here, I'm dissapointed, and a lot of game designers have been doing this. Substitute a good AI by making one that cheats.

Um, it's easier and more effective to sprawl at those levels. I already pointed this out. It's better to build a settler at pop 3 because of the unhappy citizen than to use it as an entertainer. This is the third time I've repeated this. How many times do I have to point this out?

And the computer doesn't cheat up to regent. And I haven't played a game above that level yet.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Um but it is. The cities get to pop 3 so fast it doesn't matter.

Before you get there you're better off building military units because a structure at this point is not efficient. And like I already pointed out, when you hit pop 3 you get your first unhappy citizen. What do you do? Waste it on an entertainer? If you don't you have civil disorder. You're better off building a settler to get rid of the unhappiness.

And mind you, this is early in the game. Later you start building the temples and what not. And this is what makes religious civs much stronger than people predicted.

Ok, Expansion isn't exactly the same as ICS.
But all the same, I can't say that an ICS/expansionistic playstyle in CivIII is a game breaker like it was in previous civ games- the AI seems to expand like crazy too, and there are a lot more reasons to build big cities (cultural and defensive) as opposed to littering the world with small towns.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Ok, Expansion isn't exactly the same as ICS.
But all the same, I can't say that an ICS/expansionistic playstyle in CivIII is a game breaker like it was in previous civ games- the AI seems to expand like crazy too, and there are a lot more reasons to build big cities (cultural and defensive) as opposed to littering the world with small towns.

The small towns that you litter grow really fast if you play right. I get to pop 6 without aqueducts or 12 without hospitals *way* before those techs are available. So there really is no point to trying to get there as fast as possible when they will get there eventually. It's better to siphon off the pop which evetually become the large cities later.

So you end up with more large cities later than fewer that were sitting at pop 6 and 12 for a long time.

[Sarxis]

Multiplayer will be the real test of these theories.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Multiplayer will be the real test of these theories.

I don't play multiplayer. Never have in Civ and never will.

I am not a patient person. It already takes a really long time to play single player. Why would I torture myself with multiplayer?

[Sarxis]

Oh well- you are missing out on some really great gaming.

[yin26]

Well, since I consider the past "the past," I always move on with people. Some people, however, don't seem to move on. That's fine.

My problem is not with the supposed ICS of the AI. As I said, the rapid AI expansion is an AWESOME expansion to the game. Also keep in mind, that the AI's expansion gets him into trouble when he tried to put cities far from his capital and close to your borders ... only to get eaten up by your culture influnce. So I find trying to balance a cultural/militaristic counter VERY fun and challenging. The early game actually has some tension to it now.

Great work on that, Soren!

HOWEVER: How in the world does the AI manage all that expansion AND the number of units it pumps out? I'm talking about my experience on Regent level.

Is the AI not getting the 2-pop settler penalty or something? That part has me suspicious.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by yin26
My problem is not with the supposed ICS of the AI. As I said, the rapid AI expansion is an AWESOME expansion to the game. Also keep in mind, that the AI's expansion gets him into trouble when he tried to put cities far from his capital and close to your borders ... only to get eaten up by your culture influnce. So I find trying to balance a cultural/militaristic counter VERY fun and challenging. The early game actually has some tension to it now.

Well I actually *want* to be wrong. That's why I posted this. I *want* to have fun.

I am glad that the AI expands. But there is some balance and ICS is not as abusive as it was in Civ2 and I'm probably just frustrated that the early game still seems so mechanical rather than reactive, even though there's more tension as you say. It's late now so I don't have time to respond to everything carefully now but I may continue this later unless I get really hooked on the game I'm starting tomorrow morning.

[yin26]

I agree with you that there are some issues with it. I also wonder how much of it is my not understanding how I have to use a new play style myself. To be honest, I haven't had enough time to decide if it's a fun challenge or a predicable bore. So far, of course, I like it ... though there are burning questions.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Um, it's easier and more effective to sprawl at those levels. I already pointed this out. It's better to build a settler at pop 3 because of the unhappy citizen than to use it as an entertainer. This is the third time I've repeated this. How many times do I have to point this out?

And the computer doesn't cheat up to regent. And I haven't played a game above that level yet.

It's not City sprawl though. You can't pop out to 8. There's no way. It takes long enough to get to republic anyway in order to even try anything. And without roads it would be hard to ICS, so you have to spend an extra Settler. It's definitely not ICS. IN order to use ICS you had to have some pretty important stuff, Hanging and Mikes, you could do it without it, but it was pretty tuff to get all your unhappies to go away, and keep the rest rejoicing.

Maybe the AI doesn't cheat, but it's possible they counter based on what you do. Most likely they went with the same system as in Civ 2 where they get to build everything for far less than you do. But the computer in my Regent game went faster than I've seen a lot of humans go in MP. And on King it was ridiculous.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Pembleton


I don't play multiplayer. Never have in Civ and never will.

I am not a patient person. It already takes a really long time to play single player. Why would I torture myself with multiplayer?

I'd like to point out that if you have never played Civ online, these theories are crap. No theory holds up in MP. Multiplayer is a true test of human against human.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by yin26
Well, since I consider the past "the past," I always move on with people. Some people, however, don't seem to move on. That's fine.

My problem is not with the supposed ICS of the AI. As I said, the rapid AI expansion is an AWESOME expansion to the game. Also keep in mind, that the AI's expansion gets him into trouble when he tried to put cities far from his capital and close to your borders ... only to get eaten up by your culture influnce. So I find trying to balance a cultural/militaristic counter VERY fun and challenging. The early game actually has some tension to it now.

Great work on that, Soren!

HOWEVER: How in the world does the AI manage all that expansion AND the number of units it pumps out? I'm talking about my experience on Regent level.

Is the AI not getting the 2-pop settler penalty or something? That part has me suspicious.

I was suspicious as well. Since I never lost to the AI before. However, I suppose they are getting an extreme value discount on building costs.