Is not following ICS a foolish startegy?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Trip

That's right. ICS and rushing will be the standard in competitive MP, and anyone who doesn't conform will lose because of the mighty Civ 2 MP gods like Ming.

Yet another reason I'm not in a rush to buy PTW.

[candybo]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
I got rid of ICS, by making all settlers cost 4 pop. :-D

This way, expanding just a little, and focusing more on developing cities (like building wonders) really pays off. Still, expansion is preferential, but other tactics have a good chance of winning as well.

I like this idea. Maybe modify it thusly: after a threshold # of cities, each settler becomes more expensive like that, and/or other support...

[GI Josh]

An easy way to limit ICS is to make each overlapping tile (or every 2 overlapping tiles) cost each city with the overlap 1 food. Calculate overlap not by tiles worked, but by the 21-tile city radius. Thus closely packed cities will be possible (and perhaps preferable) near grasslands and floodplains, but not so great on more food-marginal land (mirroring reality, at least til modern times). This will lead to spacing out cities naturally, while adding strategic depth to city placement.

I can't stand ICS - right now it's all benefits and no drawbacks. The fun parts to the games are where you have to strategically balance benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. I think this proposal should add some balance and strategic depth without unduly limiting player choice.

[DrFell]

ICS does have drawbacks. Just the benefits outweigh them. I personally don't like anything that restricts play, so 'ICS solutions' do nothing for me.

Anyway, you'd be suprised how fun close city spacing + rushing can be at times. And if you don't like rushing, play on archipelago maps (hopefully MP will be sorted out so that you don't start on the same continent as your opponent 90% of the time, as it seems in SP).

[Jawa Jocky]

I've never liked ICS, but it works to well to be ignored.

As a compromise I will pack cities around my core's. They are limited in growth by overlaps, but the early game advantages are huge. Less corruption=more military units per turn. With my other cities I generally aim for no overlap.

Since I started packing my core, I've been a much better player. So no overlapper are certainly handicapping themselves, IMO.


If they wanted to eliminate ICS, why did they make a penalty for 21+ cities?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by GI Josh
An easy way to limit ICS is to make each overlapping tile (or every 2 overlapping tiles) cost each city with the overlap 1 food. Calculate overlap not by tiles worked, but by the 21-tile city radius. Thus closely packed cities will be possible (and perhaps preferable) near grasslands and floodplains, but not so great on more food-marginal land (mirroring reality, at least til modern times). This will lead to spacing out cities naturally, while adding strategic depth to city placement.

I can't stand ICS - right now it's all benefits and no drawbacks. The fun parts to the games are where you have to strategically balance benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. I think this proposal should add some balance and strategic depth without unduly limiting player choice.

I like your idea. But this is what I'd do:

If two cities share the same tile(s), then neither gets to use those tiles. Also, the population is reduced by 1 for each tile that is overlapped (1 will still be 1 though). And to boot, the city that has such tile(s) are capped at size 12 (IF they can make that far).

This will teach all of your to play the right way!

[player1]

I don't know, but I always played Civ3 with cities at 3tile distacnce.

They can rise to 18-25 pop easily, in early game it gives me CLOSED borders, which helps gainst AI, it's quicker, etc...

It's surely better then 4 or more tile distance needed for "prefect 20pop citites).

3 tiles is way to go (and maybe somtimes 4 tiles if it feels to crouded, or 2 tiles if you realy need that resource).

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by player1
3 tiles is way to go (and maybe somtimes 4 tiles if it feels to crouded, or 2 tiles if you realy need that resource).

I wish Colonies were done better, then I could avoid putting a city there to avoid the colonies to be "cultured" by an enemy city that only has two or three NON overlapped tiles just to get the darn resource.

[WarpStorm]

First, Firaxis has corruption tied to the number of cities to combat rampant numbers of cities. People whined about how bad corruption was (you know who you are, I was one).

Then, Firaxis tones it down (a lot).

Now, people are whining about the fact that empires with lots of small cities are better than empires with a few good cities.

Maybe Firaxis should penalize players who build a lot of cities. Oh wait, they already tried that and people (myself included) whined.

Enough grumbling...

Like Player1, I usually shoot for a 3 tile spacing. In between the ICS and the maximum possible growth. Will this work in MP? Who knows yet (maybe Firaxis). It works fine in SP. It yields big productive cities in the late game and lots of cities in the early game. I vary it according to geography, of course.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DrFell
Anyway, you'd be suprised how fun close city spacing + rushing can be at times.

The key phrase in there is "at times".

In MP, 'competitive' players will do it every time, simply because they can win that way.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Trip
In MP, 'competitive' players will do it every time, simply because they can win that way.

Trip is right. It will happen. Like I mentioned above, all MP games I've play break down into clockwork. I tend to find the AI less prodictable then those idiot humans that live on a little green ball they call "Earth".


Firaxis should have a little button for the host that will punish players who overlap their own city tiles (I'm willing to give people a break when it comes to rival cities).

[DrFell]

Ironically, disabling ICS would probably make rushing the only viable strat. Tightly packed cities are great for defence.

By the way, I am a competitive player myself, and I plan on ICSing to win

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
I tend to find the AI less prodictable then those idiot humans that live on a little green ball they call "Earth".

That's the most something has tickled me in a while.
The worst thing is that you're completely right.

Even if I'm not the 'best' MP Civ 3 player out there, I won't care. I'm here to have fun and play Civ with people, not to exploit a bent/broken system that only favors one meathod of play.

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by DrFell
Ironically, disabling ICS would probably make rushing the only viable strat. Tightly packed cities are great for defence.

By the way, I am a competitive player myself, and I plan on ICSing to win

What is rushing in MP? I've only played SP games, so I haven't brushed up on MP strategies.

Please feel free to keep your answers short, or just leave a link.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by DrFell
Ironically, disabling ICS would probably make rushing the only viable strat. Tightly packed cities are great for defence.

By the way, I am a competitive player myself, and I plan on ICSing to win

Thanks for the forwarning... I WON'T be playing against you.