It's not ICS- it's REX!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Everyone who is saying that ICS is now in the game, ICS is all over the place, ICS is a must. I have to say this

We all know what ICS is. Its having a seemingly infinite amount of cities in the smallest area, all of them size 1 or 2, and who keep their size during the whole game

REX- Rapid Early eXpansion

This is where you have to build about 10-15 cities in very little time. Its different from ICS. In ICS you build your cities close, and don't have them develope. REX has building your cities at standard (4-6) distances. You build as many as you can to get a stake of territory. But now, instead of building more cities when you run out of space, you stop building cities, and start building improvements. These REX cities then become strong, size 20 cities later on. ICS cities never achieve that.

[Bakunine]

Couldn't agree more with you.

[saracen31]

In any event, we shouldn't need to expand so rapidly every game just to keep up. More variety needs to be shown by AI civs - some should expand rapidly at the beginning, some shouldn't. I'm tired of having to start my games the same way every time in an attempt to keep up.

[CygnusZ]

No offense, but a civilizaiton would have too be dumber than bricks not to want want a solid base of cities no matter what their style. Any complaint that would send the computer back to being timid in city founding would only make it weaker, there is no advantage in any way for the computer not to desire to set up a solid base of cities.

Sorry, but all this talk of stopping the inital "land grab" of Civilization III is just terrible. It might be allright if you could set a concrete number of cities that are allowed in the game, but otherwise this whole thing is just a big no-no.

[saracen31]

Some AI civs should do it, some shouldn't. Just as in real life civilizations.

Who said they shouldn't build up a solid base of cities? Some should be expansionist, some shouldn't. Gives us the players more variety & more strategies to have to combat.

[CygnusZ]

Go ahead and give me an exact strategy explaining how *NOT* gaining more cities will help a civilization.

BTW, for all this bellyachein' the enemy only really creates 7-8 cities during this phase.

[saracen31]

I don't care if they all do it in some games - or if in other games none of them do it. I just ask for more variety. As it stands now, we know there will be a mad dash to plop down cities all over the place.

Fine, I can handle that. But why box me in by having to play that same strategy game after game? The game should be about different strategic options every time I play. I don't want to know how every single civ will act in every single game before the game even begins. Where's the fun in that?

And by only making 5 or 6 huge cities and focusing on culture in the early game, which the AI currently does not do, they could put a hurt on me by building wonders & hurting me with their superior culture.

I'm not asking for elimation of REX, I'm asking for variety.

[yin26]

People who don't call this ICS or who don't see the problems: Again, what level of difficulty are you playing?

Second thing: I'm not asking for the AI to STOP its expansion. I'm asking for the player to have a reasonable way to deal with the AI violating your territory TO expand. In addition, I'm asking that colonies be used in the way they were intended: As a bit of a risk in order to grab a far-off resource. As it is now, we just build city after city (and I *do* build them Civ2 style over-lapping each other just as always). Contiguous City Borders along with Settler Deporation would really make the whole thing a lot more stragtegic and fun.

[TechWins]

Don't be so technical with terms.

[yin26]

Are you talking to me? What terms?

[saracen31]

I agree with your ideas, Yin. And would like to see some AI variety as well. I think the 2 things taken together would add to (at least for me) the enjoyment.

Sometimes I want an all-out land grab game - sometimes I want to focus on my infrastructure from the start and just build a few big cities with all the bells & whistles.

Both should be viable options. Currently there is only one viable option.

[TechWins]

Are you talking to me? What terms?

I'm talking to LOA; a term (ICS) doesn't need to be dissected to it's very core.

[yin26]

saracen31: Thanks. And I should clarify for people:

I actually *enjoy* and am *impressed* very much so with the AI's expansion ability. I think it's a great addition to the game. But when the player's borders become meaningless and, as a result, the player either must ICS (sue me if it's technically a little different, though it's the same in spirit) or go to war to preserve your land early on, then something is wrong.

I'm not saying disable the AI. Just give me more strategic tools to limit the AI from trappling across my territory to eat up more and more of the map. If I don't scout properly or don't have the units on-hand to deport the settler, then that's MY fault.

Tech: I see. I agree. While the pure definition of ICS is a bit different, in essence, all I did in my early game this time was fill virtually every conceivable space with only a passing thought to spacing out my cities. This is same in spirit if not virtually identical to ICS.

[freezuch]

just played the game on Regent level with 16 civs on Earth Huge Map. From 10 i discovered more than 13 towns had only Expansion civilizations. the rest were about 5-7 towns by 400AD. It seems pretty logical to me: expansionists try to expand.

[yin26]

What was your starting position relative to your neighbor. Do me a favor a play as China, normal random map. See if you don't start next to India and have him crawling all over you ignoring your borders etc.

I doubt that I'm just getting unlucky in my games.