Do you consider ICS to be a problem?

[Senethro]

From both sides, as a user and fighting against it, do you consider ICS to be a problem?

Its micromanagement heavy and sometimes makes me quit the game by 2250 having gained 1 turn techs and a former army that could probably wipe out hallf the other factions through self-destruct. The fiddling with specialists and supply crawlers don't do much for me either.
However, it also seems to be unstoppable and because I always try to play my hardest I can't not use ICS. My only non-ICS games now are a few PBEMs began months ago. ICS makes research, LOTS of money and lots of population through satellite use. Its also very easy to defend because of zone of control.

However, if we didn't have ICS then everyone would just be a pop-boomer. The game might have less variety.

Do you consider ICS to be a problem that should be removed or fixed, and if so what would you do to improve the game?

[Maniac]

I consider it just one of many strategies, as you point out, popbooming being another one.

[binTravkin]

Firstly - ICS is not unstoppable.

If the opponent drops a couple of fusion PBs, your ICS is in ruin.


Secondly - some factions find booming much more efficent, the most obvious examples being Pirates, Cult and Sparta.


Thirdly - as Maniac already said, ICS is just one of many.

Actually ICS is not even a defined strategy if only in it purest form - ICS1x1.
If you put your bases 2x2 tiles away and then popboom working farms/condensers or even forests with TF + HF, you can consider it both ICS and booming.
So you can't define ICS as "true" or "false", you can only define "level" of ICS you're using with zero level being just founding first CPs you have and then trying to boost them up.

and negative level being OCC

Fourthly - there's no way you can eliminate the true prototype of ICS - "the mathematical approach".

Face it - each (at least strategy) game has its superbly calculated "mathematical approach" and if you try to eliminate it you can take away just so much of gameplay quality.


Besides I know 2 players whom I found "the best players I've ever met". And none of them uses ICS 1x1 or even 2x2 - they just go "practical base placement".
they are Buster and Shawnmcc

[Senethro]

FYI, by ICS I mean 1x1 spacing. I would probably call 2x2 something like specialist-heavy pop-booming.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Firstly - ICS is not unstoppable.

If the opponent drops a couple of fusion PBs, your ICS is in ruin.

Planet busters generally have that effect anyway, so unless you're hitting cities with secret projects I don't see it as a problem relative to building paradigms. The efficiency-immune aspect of ICS means it just grows like a cancer. The crawler wall means you might never get the shot you want, blowing out 9 bases.

Secondly - some factions find booming much more efficent, the most obvious examples being Pirates, Cult and Sparta.

Sadly, the Pirates, Cult and Sparta are somewhat underpowered factions. The pirates can't even boom right :P
Why in your opinion is Sparta better as a pop-booming faction? I've recently had a pretty funky ICS conqueror with Sparta.

Thirdly - as Maniac already said, ICS is just one of many.

Actually ICS is not even a defined strategy if only in it purest form - ICS1x1.
If you put your bases 2x2 tiles away and then popboom working farms/condensers or even forests with TF + HF, you can consider it both ICS and booming.
So you can't define ICS as "true" or "false", you can only define "level" of ICS you're using with zero level being just founding first CPs you have and then trying to boost them up.

and negative level being OCC

Fourthly - there's no way you can eliminate the true prototype of ICS - "the mathematical approach".

Face it - each (at least strategy) game has its superbly calculated "mathematical approach" and if you try to eliminate it you can take away just so much of gameplay quality.

I suppose I'd feel happier about it if ICS didn't bypass or abuse certain Civ game concepts; inefficiency, worker resource gathering and bonuses applied per base.

Besides I know 2 players whom I found "the best players I've ever met". And none of them uses ICS 1x1 or even 2x2 - they just go "practical base placement".
they are Buster and Shawnmcc

Let me guess, but are they both conquerors or perhaps they adopt an aggressive hybrid stance? War is war and conflict is actually a pretty good way to balance out any game.

A new question then on top of the rest: since the relative builder/conqueror strengths are dependant upon map size, is there an optimum map size at which SMAX is most balanced?

[binTravkin]

I've recently had a pretty funky ICS conqueror with Sparta

Lemme guess, Single Player..
I tried it Multi and had to change my mind after I saw Hive ICSing 4 times faster near me - now Im aiming for boom.

Let me guess, but are they both conquerors or perhaps they adopt an aggressive hybrid stance? War is war and conflict is actually a pretty good way to balance out any game.

Shawnmcc is a miracle builder, Buster is an agressive type but he does not fit his gameplay to it. Im in a game where he has been building and only building from the very start till 2173 (now). He has not managed to grab good SPs due to good cooperation of all other players, but he's rocking the field just by building.
His base placement is optimised for good early income -near and on the bonuses and he's now popbooming away.
He's PKs.

So in this you're wrong.

is there an optimum map size at which SMAX is most balanced

I believe it's "Great map":

Great planet,                 52, 104

This mapsize was found the best a couple years ago by some CMNs including Buster and Dreifels.

[Senethro]

Originally posted by binTravkin


Lemme guess, Single Player..
I tried it Multi and had to change my mind after I saw Hive ICSing 4 times faster near me - now Im aiming for boom.

If you're going to be like that, then when has Sparta ever been a viable choice vs the Hive between players of a broadly similar skill level? :P A pop-booming Sparta still loses to the Hive.
How often would you say the Hive wins vs. Sparta across all possible starting situations? 6-4? 7-3?

Shawnmcc is a miracle builder, Buster is an agressive type but he does not fit his gameplay to it. Im in a game where he has been building and only building from the very start till 2173 (now). He has not managed to grab good SPs due to good cooperation of all other players, but he's rocking the field just by building.
His base placement is optimised for good early income -near and on the bonuses and he's now popbooming away.
He's PKs.

So in this you're wrong.

Fine, so Buster has taken a SPECIFIC SITUATION and turned it to his advantage. That situation is dependant upon his starting position. Its the mark of a good player that hes able to exploit it to the extent you say he has but I don't think it invalidates what I've been saying.

I believe it's "Great map":

Great planet,                 52, 104

This mapsize was found the best a couple years ago by some CMNs including Buster and Dreifels.

Thanks, I'll take a look at that.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Senethro
Sadly, the Pirates, Cult and Sparta are somewhat underpowered factions. The pirates can't even boom right :P
Why in your opinion is Sparta better as a pop-booming faction? I've recently had a pretty funky ICS conqueror with Sparta.

Sparta can control large bases very cheaply by their extra Police, especially with Non-lethal methods.

I don't understand either why binTravkin calls the Pirates good for popbooming though.

Originally posted by Senethro
A new question then on top of the rest: since the relative builder/conqueror strengths are dependant upon map size, is there an optimum map size at which SMAX is most balanced?

Originally posted by binTravkin
I believe it's "Great map":

Great planet,                 52, 104

This mapsize was found the best a couple years ago by some CMNs including Buster and Dreifels.

Why's that??
Many people currently consider the warmonger factions such as Sparta, Cult & Believers underpowered. Yet you consider a 'Great map' - which is even bigger than 'Large map' AFAIK an often used map size for PBEMS - the best balanced between builders and conquerors?

[binTravkin]

Pirates are good for popboom if you max out their energy output.
However it's not likely to be early.

Great map is the standard mapsize of CGN tournament games.

Great map "stands on a border" for some things - bdrone limits and techcosts.
It is big itself but still has reasonable tech costs and b-drone limits are close to huge map (I suppose due to rounding).

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by binTravkin


Shawnmcc is a miracle builder...

Define miracle builder. I'm interested, since I've replaced him in a PBEM game.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Pirates are good for popboom if you max out their energy output.
However it's not likely to be early.

That's the problem with the Pirates. They need lots and lots of technologies to reach their full potential. Fun for a single player game where you gradually gain more abilities, but in multiplayer the lost turn advantage is disastrous I'd assume.

Great map is the standard mapsize of CGN tournament games.

Great map "stands on a border" for some things - bdrone limits and techcosts.
It is big itself but still has reasonable tech costs and b-drone limits are close to huge map (I suppose due to rounding).

I don't see why that's better than other map sizes though. It just favours certain game strategies and factions over others.

Regarding a bigger b-drone limit, this means the ability of some factions (eg Spartans, PKs, Drones, Hive) to control more drones easier than other factions becomes less useful.

A bigger b-drone limit would also make it easier to popboom with Golden Age. I guess this could favour factions like the Hive, CyCon, Morganites and Pirates, though in general every faction running FM and able to produce lots of psych.

And of course, the bigger the map, the harder for early warmongers to get to any possible target, and the later contact will be established. Again bad for early naval factions such as Sparta or the Pirates.

In general I'd say it favours builders over conquerors, while I believe in most PBEMs conquerors are already put at a disadvantage due to large map sizes, boosted starting positions and extra starting units.

[binTravkin]

Maniac, you review which map is better for which makes me smile.

People have been discussing over this thing years ago.
Just go to CGN and see the initial threads where they discussed which map would be the best for 4 player tournament.

It is always easy to say that some map has advantages/disadvantages and they surely are.
But if you speak about balance you compare the advantages and disadvantages and make some kind of a delta between them. The map which has the biggest delta (advantages-disadvantages) is the best balanced map.

And your point about builders being much more competitive over large maps is falsed just by looking at the ACDG3 Sparta.

Miracle builder is a builder which can build twice as fast as everyone else. That was exactly what Shawnmcc did in Girls Night in and I suppose in TGAU as well. (I heard he was building habdomes around 2190).
In GNI he grabbed all the early SPs near me who was ICSing(1x2 or somesuch). He was Morgan and no-ICS.
Of course there are people around who'd give him a challenge but the only one who could beat him in building I know is Buster.

[Senethro]

Originally posted by binTravkin
And your point about builders being much more competitive over large maps is falsed just by looking at the ACDG3 Sparta.

Without knowing the specifics of the game I can't really say anything about that. But what is the probability of Sparta doing that well? Is SParta's performance the norm or the exception? And doesn't the ACDG3 lack the Hive/Uni/Drones?

Miracle builder is a builder which can build twice as fast as everyone else. That was exactly what Shawnmcc did in Girls Night in and I suppose in TGAU as well. (I heard he was building habdomes around 2190).
In GNI he grabbed all the early SPs near me who was ICSing(1x2 or somesuch). He was Morgan and no-ICS.
Of course there are people around who'd give him a challenge but the only one who could beat him in building I know is Buster.

If I hadn't seen the transcendance speedrun I would have said that was impossible.

But you're still talking in terms of specifics. Shawnmcc is just a good player; general rules and trends don't apply to him because such people circumvent them.

But consider this: In an experimental universe where I am god I take 100 Shawnmccs and divide them into two groups, one who plays ICS and another freestyle non-ICS. If they all played 10 games on a variety of maps that are considered suitable for MP, who would win the most?

(Obviously, this situation is ridiculous as even in this controlled environment there will be too many unaccountable variables introducing error into the results, but bear with me.)

[binTravkin]

(Obviously, this situation is ridiculous as even in this controlled environment there will be too many unaccountable variables introducing error into the results, but bear with me.)

Your remark demonstrates that even you yourself are not so sure ICS is unstoppable..

Without knowing the specifics of the game I can't really say anything about that. But what is the probability of Sparta doing that well? Is SParta's performance the norm or the exception? And doesn't the ACDG3 lack the Hive/Uni/Drones?

You see the general point that many players are missing is that bigger maps benefit momentum/hybrid factions in one particular way.
PODS.
In the ACDG Spartans have popped so many pods that they themselves have made Sparta powerful.
They can than MCC a lot for that, but even without MCC it's a brilliant execution of a strategy most builder players are almost unable to execute at that efficency because of FM.

Also the much earlier contact of all factions is a very big benefit if you know what 'diplomacy' means.


A lone Gaians having a fleet of some 6-8 foils can make it multiply so fast that after some 20-30 years they're ruling the sea and have popped all sea pods (which gives great income indeed).
Capturing IoDs is a way to go.

[Senethro]

Ok, this is becoming badly derailed. The balancing of Sparta and to a lesser extent Pirates and other hybrid styles against pure builder over large map through use of pod popping is an entirely separate issue (one I would like to address, but not today.)

Your remark demonstrates that even you yourself are not so sure ICS is unstoppable..

BTW, my definition of unstoppable is winning 66% of the time, all other factors equal. Winning 60% of the time I would consider to be pragmatical maximum imbalance permittable. (i.e, in the ideal world the difference between the Drone and the Cult.)

I was actually thinking of the situation with regards to my scientific training. I actually did wonder how it would be possible to control for likely maps generated by the worldbuilder, results of pod-popping, how many opponents should my shawnmccs face: 1 or 6, meta-game considerations like diplomacy, lack of one player performance feedback route (if I force my shawnmccs to play one style, what if they decide that the other style would be more suited for this situation? This would result in shawnmcc playing less than his best), do I instruct the use of popular factions or all factions, are my players well hydrated etc.

The answer is you can't account for all those variables. If you did so by making a flat unchanging map then ICS is obviously going to win because its the mathematical approach.

Non-ICS spacing works because in that situation, it is the mathematical approach. It achieves more than the comparable ICS because of nut/min/ec bonuses, whatever.

Question rephrased: Is ICS, that is, 1x1 spacing 50% condensers, 25% boreholes, 25% bases an acceptable/desirable/permissable mathematical approach?

And you still haven't given me a straight answer

Does anyone think it a good idea that Specialist gathered econ/labs (not psych) should be subjected to inefficiency calculations?

[Flubber]

Re: Do you consider ICS to be a problem?

Originally posted by Senethro

and a former army that could probably wipe out hallf the other factions through self-destruct.

Formers cause no damage to anyone by self destruct

The formula is weapon multiplied by reactor value divided by two equals the number of hitpoints damage an adjacent unit will take.

So formers and crawlers are useless for this unless you have found a way to mount weapons on them.

Armour is irrelevant on both the destructing units and its victims. Units inside bases are immune to the self destruct effects