The ultimate ICS thread: analysis and solutions

[The diplomat]

I think we can divide ICS into three sub-problems:

1) eternal expansion

To solve this problem I want to propose my own version of the "bureaucracy points" idea. It involves an administration costs. Put simply, each city (the capital city would be exempt), proportional to its population, would require a certain amount of money to be paid from the national budget. This administration cost would vary depending on the government type. The more totalitarian your gvt was, the higher the administration costs would be. Expansion should not be impossible but it would require careful planning. Also, administration costs would simulate managing an empire pretty well, so it would deal with the discussion about how to portray the rise and fall of empires. If you could not pay the cost for a city, that city's loyalty would decrease until you resumed payment or it would eventually revolt and declare independance.
(note: the specific amount for the administration cost could easily be changed by the user in a .txt file. You could increase it to make expansion harder, if you wanted a challenge, or even set the cost at 0 to "turn off" this rule)
The main advantage of this idea is that it is fairly easy to implement since it is similar to the maintenance cost for city improvements. And, it simulates empire management pretty well.

2) small cities being better than large ones.

The simplest way to make a village less "useful" than a larger city is through an accurate pop growth method. Let's say for example that each "farmer" citizen produces enough food for 1.5 citizens. This means that 2 farmers produce food for 3 citizens. This would mean that a city of pop 3, would have two citizens producing food and one citizen free to do something else (like building a city improvement). But a city of pop 2 could only produce food. Therefore, under this example, a city of 2 or less pop would be unable to produce things until it grew. So for example, 12 cities of pop 1 could only produce food for themselves, compared to 1 city of pop 12 which would have 4 citizens free to build something or wage war. So, a player would want to build up the population rather than just settle new cities. Especially that you could only send out a new settler once you had a "free" citizen. So, with the previous example, only a size 3 city could send out its first settler.
The number of people that one citizen could feed would increase with certain technologies. it might be 1.2 for example at the beginning of the game but in modern times it might 3.5 (one "farmer" citizen can feed 3.5 citizens). Like in reality, in modern times the percentage of your pop that has to produce food for the rest would be smaller and smaller.

3) supporting units

It has been said before but I think a unit should require food, gold and shields as support, not just shields. This is a realistic limit on unit production. Furthermore, the number of units a city can support should be limited by the total pop. How can a city have a larger army than its total population ?!


last, I think that disease should definitely be modeled in civ3. It could be a random event.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited February 27, 2000).]

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 02-27-2000 04:01 PM Also here is an idea for something you all have been discussing and seem to grasp better than I -- the problem with the population model. One word, really -- GERMS. I've been reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel," a book about why civilization evolved down the peculiar paths it did, and why North American Indians, say, did not discover Spain in 1492, rather than the other way around. Very interesting. But truly profound is the effect that germs have had on population growth and migration over the years. The title of the book is no accident -- germs are right there alongside guns for exactly the reason you would think.

So you finally got around to reading it, eh? I don't suppose you could do me a favor. Go to the MISCELLANEOUS thread and look over my Diseases & Plagues idea- and then apply what you learned from "Guns, etc." and tell me what you'd change (written before I read the book).

[Theben]

"I don't think giving advanced cities the possibility to build two things at the same time would solve anything."

If the city can buy the item(s) then the larger city can get 2 tanks in 1 turn.

[Dienstag]

Well, I spent a good long time writing my feelings on ICS, especially the population component of it, and then I spent a not-quite-so-long time reading the contents of the very next thread which deals exclusively with population and renders most of my post obsolete. So now I've edited it into a little explanatory note and I'm not entirely sure why, except to say that you guys have some really neat ideas and I'll get back to you when I've had time to think (and read) a little more. Sorry.
[This message has been edited by Dienstag (edited February 28, 2000).]

[MadWoodster]

Surely the easiest way to solve this problem is to take away the FREE WORKER.
THe free worker is where you have just built a city but have two workers, the one working in the "production centre" and the one working somewhere else on the map. This is where the main problem lies take away this and lower some of the values to balance it all and I believe you would reduce the problem big time.

[raingoon]

Theben, I still haven't FINISHED the book, but I've read enough of it -- and of your disease and plague section in the Misc. forum, to believe you pretty much are in line with what the book is saying.

Tying disease to climate is a singularly smart idea and right on the money. It's just one of those things that should be in the game, somehow. It really happened that way and nobody realizes how important it really was to civilization's development (or lack thereof).

I think the criticism that you've got a bit much complexity for what is gained is a valid one. But it's a rough draft. Have you made your nominations yet? I'd second a Disease and Plague nomination for sure. If nothing else, "Guns, Germs and Steel" ought to be required reading at Firaxis.

[korn469]

i have been thinking about the base square and i think i have the solution...

a base square generates nothing on its own, but it would add a matching amount of resources up to 3-3-3

here is what i mean

if you have a person working on a 0-0-0 square the base square would produce 0-0-0

if you had a person working on a 1-0-2 square the base square would add 1-0-2

if you had two people working on a 1-2-1 and a 3-0-1 square respectively then the base square would produce 3-2-2

if you had 20 population each working a 5-2-3 square then the base square would add 3-3-3

that system would solve lots of problems...i will put up a new summary later tonight with most of the new ideas incorporated into it

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]

[Xin Yu]

OK. If we set the city square to be 0-0-0 and use 2x production we should end up with the same results? Just set a limit that 2x prod can not give more than 3+3+3+.
[This message has been edited by Xin Yu (edited February 29, 2000).]

[The diplomat]

korn469: your idea is very innovative but could you tell me how it reflects real- life? It seems very abstract to me.
I do have a counter-suggestion: how about a city of pop 1 would only have a worker in the base square, a city of pop 2 would have a worker in the base square + a worker in another tile, pop 3 would have base square + 2 workers on tiles etc... It seems simpler, less abstract and would also solve the problem you mention.


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[korn469]

Xin Yu

could you explain your idea better? i do not understand what you mean when you say 2x production do you mean on a per square basis? even if you did cap the per square productivity at 3-3-3 this could lead to two problems...

one is that if productivity was capped at 3-3-3 per square all of the squares would become very similar and civ3 would suffer from SMAC's big problem...that you basically only need one set of tile improvements (forests)

the second problem is that while the base square is needed, a big ramp up in total base output is not needed

the diplomat

my idea has as much to do with the real life as any civ game does...absolutely nothing

the basic problem is that the base square is needed for little cities to do anything

the goal of this thread is to solve the problem of ICS but not introduce a new problem...namely that the super city strat would become best

ok if a worker works the base square, and it only yeilds 2 food, then a city could never grow...if it yeilded three food, then every size one city would grow at the exact same rate, in fact if every first worker had to work the base square then every single size one city would be identical...which should not be the case

the best part of my idea is that the way it works, there are some locations that could not support cities at first until some form of irragation takes place...my idea would introduce a great deal of variety in size 1-3 cities, much more than either having a normal base square like in civ2 or having the base square being worked by the first worker

here is an comparison of my idea to SMAC (i forgot how much a base square in Civ2 produces) and to the diplomats idea

the wastelands: each square produces 0-1-0

my idea, a worker produces 0-0-0, the base square produces 0-0-0, the city will die of starvation

SMAC, the worker produces 0-0-0, the base square produces 2-1-1...the city experiances no growth

the diplomats idea, the worker produces 2-1-1, the city experiances no growth

the badlands: each square produces 1-1-1

my idea, the worker produces 1-1-1, the base square produces 1-1-1, there is no growth

SMAC, the worker produces 1-1-1, the base square produces 2-1-1, the city will grow in 40 turns

the diplomat's idea, the worker produces 2-1-1, the city experiances no growth

green pastures: each square produces 2-2-2

my idea, the worker produces 2-2-2, the base square produces 2-2-2 the city will grow in 20 turns

SMAC, the worker produces 2-2-2, the base square produces, 2-1-1 the city will grow in 20 turns

the diplomats idea, the worker produces 2-1-1, the city experiances no growth

the fertile cresent: each square produces 3-3-3

my idea, the worker produces 3-3-3, the base square produces 3-3-3, the city will grow in 7 turns

SMAC, the worker produces 3-3-3, the base square produces 2-1-1, the city will grow in ten turns

the diplomat's idea, the worker produces 2-1-1, the city experiances no growth

my aim is not to base my solution on real life, but it is to base my solution to ICS on good game play fundamentals...

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

Hello Korn

You really raised really fundamental problem of all civ-style game and we all think the ICS problem should be solved. with you!

What about we approach this matter from different angle. Why did Roman empire stopped to expand? Romans did not want to take any more military liability for its client state and they knew exactly what point they should stop its expansion at maxium benefit of trade under the cover of Pax Romana.

One thing that bothers me is that current civ-style game does not offer any human inhabitants on the globe but only pikced civs themselves. What about the Barbars from goody huts? No! they are temporary they make one sweep and disapear. We need more interaction with those goody huts like the Indian tribes of Colonisation.

We might counter countless number of primitive or nomadic tribes in that way. Just think about how many goody huts we can have!
Historically, many civs interacted with tribes like Romans and Numidian.

What am trying to say is that most of habitable land should be occupied with some local tribes. So when we expand, a struggle with that locals should be inevitable. Many players will have to think about thier proper defense against its tribal neighbours thus they simply have to build more military units rather than building another settler.

Building a simple military unit like warriors would not solve the defense dilemma against tribal neigbours since they(locals) can have similar mil unit or perhaps more advanced(horsemen)one. A city which has proper infra should be able to do all the sophisticated production or research then the production of more advanced units will be possible.

So easy expansion after the production of few phalanx or legion? Maybe easier than with warriors but that still shoudn't be like walking in the park because the locals learns from You. See all the Indian tribes mounted and armed with rifles after some interaction with whiteman.

No more empty land filled with dead goody huts! No more easy settlement! We need alive goody huts which can represent a tribe that can talk,get angry,be happy and form even military alliance with us.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was thinking... look at the Sid Meier's Dino Diary #5 (just came out). They have a great plan to contain ICS (watering holes). Perhaps they can use the watering hole idea to keep ICS from being the great problem by restricting civs from growth because of food supply problems.

[Paul]

Korn, to answer two of your questions: in Civ2 the base square produces what the underlying terrain would produce. The base square automatically gets irrigation and roads which are upgraded to farmland and railroad when the appropriate technology is discovered.

2x production is an option in Civ2 Multiplayer to speed up the game by having all food, production and trade that are produced on a square being doubled.

[MadWoodster]

Dipomat : You've got my point exactly.

Korn: I know that some balancing would be needed. If we keep to the system whereby irrigation is automatically added in. Then grasslands will produce 3 food allowing for growth in 40 turns. Then after this there would be differences between size 1 cities. Of course if we could have the terrain slightly more complex allowing for a + or - of upto 0.5 for each terrain square, decided at the beginning of the game but not known to the player. This would represent the fact that you don't know how fertile the land is to begin with. There could of course be someway to find this out. The programmers would probably multiply all values by 10 as this allows integer maths rather than slow floating point maths so in the example below I will do the same.

City 1 on grassland (automatically irrigated) that happens to be very fertile so has 35 food produce. One citizen requires 20 food so 15 is available for growth and 400 food is require for growth. So thats about 27 turns required.

City 2 on grassland that happnes to be normal so has 30 food produce. 10 food available for growth and 400 food is required. So thats 40 turns

City 3 on grassland that happnes to be less fertile so has 25 food produce. 5 food available for growth and 400 food is required. So thats 80 turns

Of course 1 and 3 would be extreme rare cases and values between 28 and 32 more normal.

[supremus]

Well, Well, very good stuff here. Firstly we should know if civ 3 will be historically inspirated like civ 2 or will be a free assumption of the future (very good assumption btw) like SMAC. If it will be historically accurate I see no wrong with ICS. When europeans started the american collonization, they did ICS a lot. Spanish defined the occupation of California coast founding one city per distance of a horse walking day. There's no wrong with this strategy to dominate a terrytory and you can use it in Civ II or SMAC. The problem is the disadvantage of a perfeccionist strategy and I think it is a real problem, but, maybe, It could be solved with money $$$$$$. Yes, the larger cities could have an additional amount of money per turn to compensate that.
I think it is simpler and remain ICS as it is now, what I think is good. And it is accurate too, when compared to real world. And with money you can do what you want (make faster improvements in your city, buy more units, go faster to a Wonder etc. etc.).What do you think ?