Is not following ICS a foolish startegy?

[Artifex]

Well I just typed a long essay and my zone alert internet lock kicked in, so it wouldn't post..

Man I hate it when I click back and this damn forum erases your entire message body when you click back on your web browser..thats rude. argh. *sigh*

Anyway.... now I am gonna make it short and sweet..

It seems from what I have read here that the superior strategy is size 6 cities 2 spaces apart? ICS? Well, I don't play that way but was wondering.

I like minimizing city overlap and when bad terrain like desert even skipping the tiles and letting culture cover them when the 2 cities reach 100 rating.

It seems most here like small cities and alot of them? due to WLTK day? From the few posts I read this seems to be superior strategy? Like size 6 2 spaces apart? and tons of them?

How bad is one handicapping oneself by minimizing overlap and building big cities with alot of land coverage? I always play this way and win more than not on monarch at least. I wonder how bad I am handicapping myself by playing this way though...

Is the big city minimum overlap proven to be bad strategy compared to ICS?

I thought they had tried to fix ICS in Civ3 but it is still alive and well, no?? Or am I seeing things?

[candybo]

I agree with you, Artifex. I don't care for ICS, on an aesthetic basis. I've always meant to try it, but when given the opportunity, just don't have the heart for it. This could be set up as a grand debate. I hereby issue a call to the CivGiants (tm) to play devil's advocate, as I am unworthy. Can anyone make a case for the viability of ultracities on the higher difficulty levels? Thanks.

[NeoStar]

Think of it in Civ2 terms. In the lower levels you can afford to space your cities properly and concentrate on quality but as you get higher overlapping is needed to win in the direct way.

If you chose minimum overlap in such a case odds are you wont be dominating early and possibly may have to look at a non domination victory. If you play on a large map with fewer opponants than normal - obvoiusly there is more time to position.

The tactics of total ICS are really used to win as fast as possible and the measures Firaxis put to stop this have slowed it slightly, (eg - 2 pop for settler) but in no way gotten rid of it.

If you want to play higher levels and not use ICS I wouldn't call it foolish at all - but from my experiance dont bet everything on being able to take over the world with your military (at least for a long while)

[Artifex]

This is for your basic standard maps with continents on Monarch and Emperor level.

I don't play huge or large maps.

[Ethelred]

ICS isn't needed to win in single player anyway. Who knows what will happen in MP at the moment. The main problem with ICS is that you will the city quantity corruption limit fast. The main advantage of it is the city gets production PLUS one pop working a tile and you limit the effects of corruption by distance till you spread out.

ICS is good for early wars and high scores. Aeson's 63,000 point Deity win shows this. However I find I can win on Emperor at least with my cities spaced with a minimum overlap. I might bet better results though planning cities that are limited to twelve population due to overlap. This will still give high production cities in the core and help produce WLTKD. I suspect that this technique or even tighter spacing is going to needed for MP.

While ICS isn't a neccessity in single player REX is. You must expand rapidly early because the AI will what ever you do.

[DrFell]

Heavy ICS will probably be THE strat for MP. In MP few games will reach the industrial age, which is the point when bigger cities become useful, and in any case you can easily disband some of the cities to make space for big productive cities.

[Artifex]

Seems like ICS is the only way to go sadly. Or settle for second best. Too bad it had to be that way since that play style isn't too fun for me at least.

[Inverse Icarus]

thats why i played civ2 with a bunch of my friends with a set of "house rules". Playing people like eyes of night just wasn't fun.

[Thrawn05]

When ever you enter the world of multiplayer, everyone falls into the same drum beat.

AvP GE with all the players wanting to play Alien
Q3 with everyone just sticking with Rockets
JkII with everyone just using Lightsabers
Force Comander with everyone playing as Empire
Total Annihilation with everyone flash rushing and commander bombing


Now the fall of Civ3 MP will be ICS.

[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.

[Ming]

ICS may the way to go... or maybe the rush strategy will be the best. Who knows at this point. It really will depend on the size of map and the victory conditions for the game.

We will just have to see what works the best

[Jon Shafer]

Ming, you're so unimaginative.

Yes, ICS will be best for MP, unfortunately. ICS and rush. *yawn*

Let's get some house rules ready guys.

[Ming]

Nahhh.... I reserve judgement until we start playing MP.

The strategies used when Civ II MP was first released are far different than the what wins now. Until we see it in action, it's hard to say what will and will not work.

Just being honest here

[Artifex]

So I am handicapping myself by not playing a style I feel to be unfun. I guess there is no use in playing a game handicappoing yourself? That's kinda like passing go and not collecting 200 bucks in Monopoly..

*sigh*

grr sid...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Artifex
So I am handicapping myself by not playing a style I feel to be unfun. I guess there is no use in playing a game handicappoing yourself? That's kinda like passing go and not collecting 200 bucks in Monopoly..

*sigh*

grr sid...

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.