Possible Solution to ICS (both AI and Human)

[The Andy-Man]

Well, everyone knows the main gripes bout the AI 'ICS', but i have an idea (some may have seen me asking bout it in other forums) that may solve the AI expansion, and give colonies a use. And it should be easy to impliment.

Basically, restrict the sqaures that a settler can build a city on, so he can now only settle on grassland, plains and hills. All other terrain is unsettlerable (a new word!) unless it has been terraformed (forrests and jungles to grasland for example). also, other terrain dosnt produce food unless it has a resource on it (ie some Game).

This way, civs can only expand to the end of their greenland area, and civs with the misfortune to start on say tundra become a nomad race (so they settle much later and in effect become 'natives' for you to fight over). This then leaves all the resources in unsettlerable (my new word!) areas..... COLONIES!!!

With civs being grouped in ares with say 10 cities, they would ave to build colonies to get the new resources, thus making colonies important and worth building for the AI wont just stomp a city next to it. the colonies will also become vital and Civs may come to depend on them for the resources.

Of course, i also think that settlerable land should be editable in the editor.


This idea seems plausable and realistic to me (well, not totaly) because you very rarley see massive cities in the middle of the sahara, and it is also historicaly true that the nations that have advanced more swiftly were the ones that had plenty of grassland (ie Europe). It will also give more importance to terraforming.

[Martin Gühmann]

Origianlly posted by The Andy-Man
and it is also historicaly true that the nations that have advanced more swiftly were the ones that had plenty of grassland (ie Europe)

Actual that was a consequence of human presence here in Europe. That is the reason why you can find the oldest civs of the old world in Egyptain and Mesopotamia. Finally you can say that the Romans conquered Western Europe and colonized it. But it is true that the colonizators drained swampes at first and than it was possible to found cities.

-Martin

[The Andy-Man]

well, thats what i ment, the civilisations in europe flurished due to the conditions, where as in africa, they were (and in some places still are) bacwards medievil type nations. thats why europehad such easy goings colonising them. but thats not the point of this thread.

[crewealex]

Excellent idea. It would need some thought to implement properly but making restrictions on where you can build cities would bring a whole new dimension to the game.

I'm also impressed with the new vocabulary!

[volcanohead]

Good idea. However, I think that it would give a massive advantage to any civ starting in a favourable location, and they would be leaps and bounds ahead before less fortunate starters got going. Therefore it would not work well at all, IMHO.

V

[The Andy-Man]

well, that had occured to men, an i think i said it, these civs would just be like the native americans, alwasy seraching for a place to settle, when they get it they are wipped out. It would give a new aspect to the game for the real good player, to try and come out on top even though he has 2 underdeveloped cities for a lot of the game, and also add a new aspect to diplomacy, the little civ uses the big one to become stronger by being nice, or they get whipped out.

also, it may give importance to your small cities. so instead of churning out military like you have to in civ3, you would only have , say, 5 cities, all well developed plus alot of colonies. these cities would be super cities, with massive production, so it would be to hard tpo have 5 units per turn in the event of war.

the only problem is, that maybe to map designer thing that generates the map needs working on to make more grassland, otherwise, as stated by volcano head, you might get only 1 developed civ. maybe it will give mnap designers more to work on...

[Tarquelne]

Even in my arrogance I can work past my "rhetorical swagger" to agree with volcanohead. (That's heavy handed sarcasm based on comments in another thread, btw.) I like the idea, but I think the game would also have to be made to take more care in assigning starting positions, and _that_ might be difficult.

[The Andy-Man]

alas, it would be hard to have the startiong places better assined.

but as i said, being stuck on 2 tiles of grassland, for someplayers, may add a new challange. maybe an option when you start the game that says: Starting location: Hard; normal; easy, random.

hard being barley no, if any, settlerable (luv that word) and, normal being, there is a fair amount and easy being there is plenty (not to much though - the starting areas being only at limit local thing). the AI would have random.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

oops dp

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Europe north of the alps was heavily forested until people chopped them down and made grassland out of it. To reflect this somewhat in your idea, maybe just make forest clearing take fewer turns than in the standard rules.

Also, domestication of agricultural plants generally occured in hills, not lowlands. Maybe it would be okay to leave hills as food producing terrain. That would offer a bit more usable terrain, allowing more civs to actually make some progress as time goes on...

Heck, I'd be happy if I could just make desert and tundra unsettleable!

It sounds like a good idea, but is it implementable under the current game version?

[The Andy-Man]

well, the current version implemetation of is where i got the idea. firstly i thought, just have deserts, tundra, mountains and jungles produce no ffod, you could do this with the editor. but the AI will still buil;d there, and thus, still eat up your colonies.

as for hills, well i never suggested to take away its food bonus, but your right about the agriculture, thing just increase its food production (to say, 2 wheat, 4 once irrigated irrigated - or sumthin along those lines). this may also add more strategy - do i irrigate that hill or mine it for production?

[Pius Popprasch]

At the moment you cannot settle on Mountains. Similar it shouldn't be possible on Tundra.
In the real world some of the more advanced civs have little grassland and a lot of hills and forest anyways, e.g. Japan. The North American grassland in fact didn't lead to any advanced civilization. Tundra wasn't a good starting point on real Earth, though.

[The Andy-Man]

and isnt the only settlement in greenland like on the green bit?