It's not ICS- it's REX!

[War4ever]

can you build forts under a colony first..... ie start building the fortress and then plop a city or colony down...this made your defences much better in civ2.....

sheesh..get that civ 2 strategy out of your head

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Talenn

What I find most disturbing about the current system is that all Civs (including the player) expand like mad in the extremely ancient era of the game and that by the time of the historical 'land grabs' and mass colonizations in the real world, there is practically no unoccupied land (on default maps/Civs) etc.

Not really. All the places which were "colonized" were already occupied by other people whom were Conquered (or wiped out) by European expansion. If you want something like the Land Grabs you refer to go raze a bunch of Native American cities and watch the ensuing land grab. That's closer to being historically accurate.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MxM
Has anyone else managed to win without REX on regent?

I am playing the Romans on Regent, built 4 cities, then Legions and Horsemen, and rolled over the Egyptians. Worked like a dream. I am now in the Late Middle Age, and leading. Attacking early is a good alternative to Rex in some games.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ttacking early is a good alternative to Rex in some games.

THis is definatly true, especially if you have an eraly UU which can rock the world.

[cultureshock]

What I like doing is building a city on the edge of another civilizations territory (as close to one of their cities as I can get)and just let my culture grow and envelope the other culture's city. So for me, the settlers are still usefull later on. Just place them on the edges of your cultural borders and watch the defections roll in.

To be honest I haven't tried it at the higher levels so if any body does let me know how it goes.

Also, later in the game I also speed up the building of city improvements (in these outer cities) that generate cultural points by just buying them outright. Usually I'll have a democracy and lower the science for awhile to generate 150-250 gold per turn. It's worked for me so far.

[madmario]

Many people are complaining about the "need to rex."

Other people complain about the "crippling corruption of large civilizations."


My question is, which is it? Can't be both.

REX all the way baby.

-mario

[nato]

"REX" pretty much exactly describes how I played Civ 1 & 2 and all other games like this. I have no trouble with the big land grab, since I always played like that. I was amazed to see the AI keep up with me though. I've played all my games on Monarch so far.

I like having a term for it ... I always wondered whether I was really an ICSer ... I expanded fast and had lots of cities, but didn't think ICS really described me. I feel there is a difference, though they are closeby.

Anyway I'd be surprised if there are many other good ways to play in Civ3 or any other game like this. It all comes down to having the good land and the most cities.

Seriously, besides an early war like described above, how else did you ever play Civ2? Did it ever work?

I agree that "colonization" is totally, sadly missing from this game, but I don't see how else you would play a Civ type game without a big land grab at first.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

There are many ways to start.

(1) REX-ing
(2) Build four or five cities, build up culture then let the AI borders lap against yours. Then you assimilate those cities with culture
(3) Build two or three cities, then send out your jaguar warriors and beat the hell out of everyone else (got it hate them )