Later game ICS

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Nemo on 04-12-2001 03:03 PM in order to curb late game ICS what if the settler, when created, takes 2 pop (as it stands now), but when it makes a city, the city starts at 1 pop? at this point in time i have not seen anything saying that a newly found city is goind to start with 2 pop or 1 pop. but by starting it at 1 pop, it would make you reconsider your ICS'ing. and in reality the population loss could be constituted by disease, famine, or barbarians that plucked a few of teh settlers off enroute.

Nemo,

That's the way I have read it and believe they are going to make settlers founding new cities in Civ III.

[Father Beast]

quote: Originally posted by TechWins on 04-14-2001 06:46 PM What's this Presidents Sale thing?

It's when you make republic and jack up your luxuries to have a "We love the President/Consul Day" for several turns and max out your population in your cities. go from having several size 5 cities to having several size 12 cities in a BIG hurry. Just make sure you have the funds to rush buy cathedrals and such

[Father Beast]

quote: Originally posted by Simpson II on 04-15-2001 11:44 PM WLTXD is not unbalancing, it's an important balancing component. Without it there would be absolutely *no* alternative to all-out expansion and warfare. If it's not included then Civ3 will be more of an ICS fest than Civ2, even with the 2-pop settler! The point in balancing a game is not to take away all powerful strategies, it's to make sure there are diverse powerful routes to victory.

AHHhh..., but Fundamentalism, the unstoppable war machine is out, so shouldn't they get rid of it's counterpart?

Wait a minute! are you saying that there should be SEVERAL game breaking absurd strategies to take?!? (never mind for the moment that the AI probably won't know how to use them)

No alternative. Bah. If they know what they're doing (and I think they do), there will always be advantages to building your cities instead of all out expansion. just a balance. the old "guns or butter" choice has always been a part of civ, and I suspect it always will be. to say because a choice doesn't give you overwhelming superiority throws the game out of balance is absurd.

[Father Beast]

While I'm here, let me offer an alternative. say that WLTxD's in demo or rep cause a PRODUCTION increase. Like every square producing a shield produces another one, or somesuch. As if happy people are more efficient.

What's the idea behind the pop increase, anyway. happy people (bleep) more?

[Simpson II]

*sigh* Basically, Father Beast, what you're saying is that playing like a newbie should be the be-all and end-all of strategy.

If there are several very - but still equally - powerful strategies then they are, by definition, not game-breakers; a gamebreaker is something which leaves no other viable choices. Powerful strategies provide choices, plus they help to cover up the unexpected killer-strats which the game-testers didn't think of.
True WLTXD can build an empire very quickly, but can it do it before an elephant rush takes your empire away? Or will it succeed only to be taken out immediately by knights/dragoons/spies? Will the map turn out to be more favourable to do early trade, then boom later? Maybe this game it's more beneficial to spend more turns expanding to cover your opponents specials; maybe not. These sorts of choices are why we play strategy games.
An early WLTXD doesn't give you overwhelming superiority until relatively late-game, after you've survived the rush. If builder-strats don't get a massive upper hand in the late game then they aren't worth doing, since you have every chance of loosing quickly; the compensation comes only when you avoid this. Hopefully there wil be points between the extremes, too, as in Smac (not that that was a paragon of game-balance!)

I suspect you're right about the rationale for WLTXD. Though you could say it's due to immigration, or somesuch.

[MrFun]

There could have been an easier fix on the part of players with ICS -- refrain from using it.