Proposals to Fix ICS in Civ3: Firaxis, please stop by...

[yin26]

Yes, that British invasion alone is worth the price of the game! I hear from other people, though, that it doesn't happen to often. I think in *that* area the AI might be *too* conservative. LOL!

[player3]

Yes, that British invasion alone is worth the price of the game! I hear from other people, though, that it doesn't happen to often. I think in *that* area the AI might be *too* conservative. LOL!

I have yet to suffer the wrath of the AI since I'm usually the one doing all the invading. From what I've read the AI can be pretty brutal when it decides the world would be better off without you in it. Your experience would seem to corroborate that theory

Well, at least we agree that the AI has no problem with waging warfare (even if it does tend to be a little passive most of the time). Hopefully it will continue to be a challenge 6 months from now.

[CygnusZ]

In my own experince, the AI *WILL* attack if it feels it can win. It won't attack if it feels that it'll lose.

That's why there are so many doldrums, but when the player is finally hit by the AI it's like a ton of bricks. However, if you keep up militarly they generally won't come after you.

[yin26]

Does that change on the higher levels? I am now playing on Monarch but just testing the first age this time around. On Regent, the AI seemed to do just that. Makes sense for Regent level, but I really hope Monarch and above have a more militaristically aggressive (but just as capable) AI.

That would be truly great.

[dennis580]

Yea ICS is just horrible on deity. Heck I have saw Civs settle on land that was nothing but desert. With thier killer production bonues on Deity the map quickly becomes one big mess of intertangled cities and boarders.

Firaxis should be embarassed this is a pathetic effort. How in the world is trying to produce a infinte amount of settlers fun. This crap gets boring fast along with your boarders being intertangled with other civs. This makes boarders a complete waste and totally useless and makes the programmers look like a bunch of morons.

Thiers so many other things i could complain about such as dimpomacy. Simply put Firaxis was lazy and decided to half-assed this game.

[teknokrat]

I like the way the civ ai works

i think its great that it tries to build cities a close to yours as it can and close to your resources. Just makes it that more difficult to build up your empire. If you don't like it go to war or wait for it to get assimilated into your culture.

As for trespassing I think a civ that does this repeatedly should suffer in reputation. Also the deporation idea is a good one. I also think that the civ should be alot more ready to trade such cities than one close to its capital.

later

[dennis580]

No Yin on Deity the AI has a killer production bonus which only makes it expand faster. It's simply impossible to keep up with. Also like I said by trading techs back forth the AI won't even attack even if it has 40 or 50 military units and you only have 3 or 4. It will rarely even demand tribute when you trade a lot with it.

[yin26]

I see. Well, on Deity I can forgive any number of sleazy tactics. It *is* Deity, of course. How about Emperor?

[The Templar]

Three big things to fix:

(1) An ICBM should obliterate everything it hits directly. Including cities.

(2) You should be able to eject other settlers entering your domain. You should also be able to issue the 'get out or declare war' ultimatum immediately.

(3) Let up a bit on corruption.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by yin26
Yes, that British invasion alone is worth the price of the game!

Hehe, so it is about time you pay for your copy, right?

[Trachmyr]

Ok, here are my ideas to fix the problems... I think they are rather simple:

1. A setteler can only cross another civs borders using a new command... RETURN -or- if a state of war exists. This command automates the settler to use the shortest route back to it's borders or if no borders exist, to the nearest naval transport at an accessable coast. This is the only time a settler can enter another's borders if the two civs are at peace, and it will do so only under automation. This order can NOT be cleared on another civ's land (auto-clears if war is declared with the civ). Otherwise a settler simply can't enter another land... no need for deportation. This would apply to both humans and the AI. You and the AI can still use boats however.

2. A new city can not be built if it would change another civ's borders unless there is a state of war.

3. The AI should have a rating system for cities (I'm sure something like this already exists). When it builds a new city, that city must have a min. rating (overlap w/ other cities and foriegn borders shouldn't be counted in this rating) compared to the civ's current total rating. The better the total rating, the higher the min. rating until it plateu's to a "fair" city rating. In other words, if a civ really needs more cities, or if there current cities aren't that good they'll be more likely to build in "bad" spots... but if it already has quite a few good cities, it's unlikely to tolerate such a city cite unless it has a luxury/strategic resouce it needs.


Well that my 2 cents... what do ya think?

[S. Kroeze]

As I have said a loooong time ago:

Most readers will realize that some well-known problems are the cause of the easy wins: the Infinite City Sleaze and the Eternal China Syndrome, both related to the 21-square city structure and the fact that 'heads' are counted instead of people. These structures ensure that the largest civilization with the greatest number of cities will almost inevitably win. So all these problems are the result of one essential flaw in the basic structure of the game.

Apart from demolishing the 21-square city structure I would suggest.....

from the EC3 Wish List: "Make the game a REAL CHALLENGE!!"

Another idea of me was the abolition of the settler unit, another radical but doubtless effective solution. Cities are hardly ever founded by settlers sent by some government to colonize an area.