Civ3 tried to discourage ICS and failed

[TechWins]

In the game I'm playing right now (my first game because of previous technical problems with the game ) I established an embassy with the Romans around 10ad. At that point they had about 8 cities and in Rome they had only one improvement, which they really didn't build, and that was the Palace! Now that is what I would call ICS, not a lot of expansion.

I will have to admitt, though, that the beginning of the game seems to be much more challenging than what Civ2 was.

[Trifna]

Well I'd just say Pembleton found a flaw to Civ III. I guess it's the kind of things that will be for a next patch/expansion...

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Stromprophet
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.

How can a theory be crap when I'm just talking about playing against the computer? I don't care if it doesn't work against another player. I'm not saying it's the best strategy. It's just one that still works AGAINST THE COMPUTER.

[Lord Maxwell]

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

Sure you can. Two luxury resources and a road network is all it takes. If you garrison your new cities all you need is one luxury resource and a road.

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.

I outsprawl it on regent. (Where neither human nor AI gets a bonus.) The AI "intelligence" is the same on all difficulties, it just gets production/research/happiness bonuses on higher diffs. If you think this sucks you should get into AI research, because unless a genius appears soon we are stuck with this for another 30 years.

I don't think it gets a pop bonus, from watching it sprawl on Deity I'm almost sure it doesn't. (If my settlers had always been ready on hitting size 3 I would have been able to expand as fast, but I suffered a lost turn now and then. It was always ready with production when pop became availabe.)

[Bosh]

The best way around this is to make sure the map is crowded by having 16 civs and little good land to go around Its fun watching the AIs settlers futily wandering through jungle

[Rasputin]

the best way around this to play MP.. oh yeah they didnt include that !!!!

[GodSpawn]

How long does a typical Civ2 MP game last?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Pembleton
The computer uses ICS. I'm disappointed. They haven't learned the lesson or they haven't stopped it enough.

The problem in Civ-2 was that the AI-civs (except for the 1-2 strongest) simply "gave up" founding cities after a while - even though there was plenty of fertile no-mans-land left to conquer. In Civ-3, it seems that ALL the AI-civs do what they can in order to exploit/ fill up the map much more consistently - which is a good thing.

The original problem with ICS was that it was way too beneficial to found lots of cities very closely together, heavily overlapping each city-areas - when not prioritize city-improvements (the only civil improvements you prioritized was terrain-improvements). Because of the food/shield-sharing camel-unit, you could easily let all these undeveloped ICS-cities work together in order to produce Wonders, combat-units and more.

Above ICS-method is not possible anymore, it seems.

[cassembler]

Why the AI expands so fast...

(And this is just a theory)

I have noticed that the AI always seems to only have like 16 gold or so. I think it has the capability to micromanage rush buys (I assume only under Monarchy for example) to a very calculated degree. And maybe, just maybe, it gets a little nudge when it produces settlers- but I's have to test this.

If anybody really complains that Player ICS makes the game too easy, boring, or exploitable, then you need to play on a smaller map, buddy.

If anybody really complains that AI ICS makes the game too difficult, lopsided, or exploitative, then play Civ2.

Yin I got the game workin!!!
25 minutes of LONG DISTANCE tech support didn't help, but a thread in the HELP forum titled "can run editor but not the game" had a magic link...

[yin26]

"Yin I got the game workin!!!" Hey, GREAT! I wonder if you could start a new thread over there to make the fix more obvious in case other people are suffering? Cool, now you can join in with us.

My only complaint about the expansion is I can't understand the expasion PLUS units thing. If Soren or anybody could figure it out, I'd sleep better at night. LOL

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by GodSpawn
How long does a typical Civ2 MP game last?

depends on what form of the game you play.. many play only single session only games where they play for a few hours then decide the winner based on many factors inclduing the Power Grpaqh, the longest games are those defiend as 'Diplo' Games, the longest of these is still running after starting in February it plays for a few hours easch week.....

so all depends on your level of commitment

[Ecthy]

Re: Civ3 tried to discourage ICS and failed

Originally posted by Pembleton
...such as the wombat maneuver.

what is that?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by yin26
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 really hope not - that kind of cheating I dont like. The same rules for producing settlers, and the same time-constraints for moving settlers from A to B should apply regardless if its the AI or the HP that does it.

Originally posted by TechWins
At that point they had about 8 cities and in Rome they had only one improvement, which they really didn't build, and that was the Palace! Now that is what I would call ICS, not a lot of expansion.

8 cities is not that much - if they had 12-15 cities and the capitol still was undeveloped, then I would be worried. But I agree; at least a temple + maybe a granary one could have expect. Anyway, I hope that the AI-civs doesnt down-prioritize mid- and late game city-improvements (and over-prioritize combat-units) like they often did in Civ-2. The AI-civs must produce CI:s and Wonders because they wants to, and combat-units because the have to. At least the more non-aggressive of them.

[Pembleton]

Re: Why the AI expands so fast...

Originally posted by cassembler
If anybody really complains that Player ICS makes the game too easy, boring, or exploitable, then you need to play on a smaller map, buddy.

So I always have to play on a tiny or small maps? My first 2 games were on the standard map. Playing against 3 or 5 civs does not appeal to me.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Ralf
8 cities is not that much - if they had 12-15 cities and the capitol still was undeveloped, then I would be worried. But I agree; at least a temple + maybe a granary one could have expect. Anyway, I hope that the AI-civs doesnt down-prioritize mid- and late game city-improvements (and over-prioritize combat-units) like they often did in Civ-2. The AI-civs must produce CI:s and Wonders because they wants to, and combat-units because the have to. At least the more non-aggressive of them.

In something like 1850 or something, there was no granary in 2 capitals. Granaries aren't that important anyway as cities grow too fast in Civ3. Uh oh, I'm becoming like Yin in doing consecutive posts in my own thread.

As for the Wombat Maneuver, you can see a description of it in the first post in the following link where he describes how he beat Deity in Civ3, although he doesn't call it the Wombat Maneuver. It is the one of how he trades his cities for tech or something else, and then immediately attacks the city, and then immediately declares peace. So basically you get techs, cash or whatever for free.
Deity story