Do you consider ICS to be a problem?

[smacksim1]

Its late for me (up all night, 8AM now), but what does doc:flex have to do with pop-booming?

Believers and ICS-->Boom!

[Green Econ: I'm mostly interested in extremely early-game ICS/pop-boom strategies that leverage turns the most effectively, so talking about Demo-Green-Wealth is more about the end of that period of initial expansion, not the mechanism for it.]

This may sound like a personal attack, but its not. I'm simply in disagreement about your black/white approach to these issues. You know I respect you binT : Pop booming and ICS are not discrete, and neither are they exclusive. Ideally one would ICS and pop boom for 27 (9+9+9 b-drone third limit on huge map) size 14 bases with any faction, not just the Believers. But the Believers are especially well suited to approach this nearly impossible goal:

1. You mention facilities as a reason to boom rather than ICS: Phooey! Early facilities are not nearly as important for them as others, but SPs are with this strategy. Ordinarily Believers are either played as a momentum faction, or, if attempting to build with a research-crippled faction, they are played somewhat like Yang, a faction which we have more community knowledge b/c he's such a damn popular guy. Anyways, if you compare with other factions, facilities do less for believers than many. They can easily use police, research bonuses are not yet important in the early game, and with a condensor-heavy strategy (WP) even Rec Tanks can be put off, especially under Planned where building is fast. Thus, there is very little temptation to facility-focus as there is with builder factions.

2. Believers can field 3 formers per base, early game. That is just incredible in terms of turn advantage for former heavy strategies. And both pop-booming and ICS are former-heavy. In fact, in most of my tech-stag huge-map games with Believers, I almost run out of terraforming to do in the core by 2160 or so. That is, a 3x3 (base-space-space-base) grid is entirely filled with condensor-borehole-forests and the occasional mine even before I get IA! Additionally, all new bases are built on sensors easily in a strict grid because I can for once pre-form in the early game. Formers are crucial to ICSing, second only to crawlers in importance, if one is not merely going to make 50 size 1 bases in the fungus. ICSing is so profitable (research/econ/psych wise) when the bases can grow to specialist size, not when they are twiddling around with a former and garrison and 3 minerals production (7 turns to go for that condensor!).

3. As you mention, Believers can run Democracy with some impunity, making pop-booming very attractive far before clean reactors/hybrid forests/engineers, etc.. I would hazard a guess that Believers with the Weather Paradigm are the most suited to pop-booming of all the factions, but I have not considered a few other factors yet...

The hardest part about getting the right SP's for the Believers is of course the tech. To challenge myself I play with some house rules:

A. No offensive probe actions until HSA (infiltration is fine)
B. No offensive combat other than border patrol until Gravships.
C. Huge tech-stagnation game with random faction leader personalities and agendas.
D. House-rules Ironman: No reload except upon screwing up movement or rush-build orders (easy to mis-click sometimes).

I suppose its time for a challenge! Some standard starting situation and see which faction ICS/booms the quickest all on their own. Believers may not be #1, but they are impressive in either venture, and often both.

-S-

[binTravkin]

Its late for me (up all night, 8AM now), but what does doc:flex have to do with pop-booming?

D:Flex has to do with Dem-Green-Wealth which means you won't be researching but trading and/or probing for tech..

3. As you mention, Believers can run Democracy with some impunity, making pop-booming very attractive far before clean reactors/hybrid forests/engineers, etc.. I would hazard a guess that Believers with the Weather Paradigm are the most suited to pop-booming of all the factions, but I have not considered a few other factors yet...

See?
Popbooming yields more if you can boom higher (meaning your bases are less tightly packed).

Heah, your challenge call is interesting, yet it would be too much affected by playstyle.

You see, I am a devout ICSer, but I've tried it with Believers and tried also the no-research 100%Econ probing approach.

At least I was able to do the second better than the first.
ICS is the matematically best approach, but in MP mathematics often are not 100% of the game.

Im basically saying is that my early strategy for Mim is to pump out a good amount of scouts, then found bases on/near bonuses uncovered by those scouts.
Scouts also make up for lack of early growth (compared to ICS) because they allow to instabuild many nice things including costly units to be disbanded on WP or any other useful project later.
They are also very good at eliminating your tech disparity by finding other factions (read - trade,threat,thievery) and preparing path for probe actions (they need to know where to strike).

Later I build up a good infra with my boosted econ and boom.

And as I already said - Believers would lose to most other factions in ICS by the simple fact the ICS-beneficial SPs will be all caught out by the time Miriam starts to think about building them.

Think of a VW+PTS combo for Uni alone.

[smacksim1]

You don't seem to get what I'm going on about and reply only to the things you feel you can discretely demonstrate by comparing apples and oranges. I should leave it at that....however:

If the idea is to Win Big, you are correct in that tight 2x2 ICS with early probe actions wins [with any faction]. But to suggest that early-ICS is the same as mid-game ICS, to suggest that ICS is incompatible with booming, etc.., these are false conclusions. Factions are not better suited to pop-booming vs. ICS in a strict sense. Play a Tiny map and make that conclusion! Try ICSing without any SPs as Uni. Try any number of situations (early agressive neighbors comes to mind). Concluding: "ICS pwns!" is only the beginning of the story, not the end. Variations and arrangements are multiple. For instance, while I too can't resist a little ICS (I can resist 100s of bases though as thats simply boring to manage), I suggest a 3x3 spacing as still-powerful, but a little more fun to play, not to mention more flexible. Concluding from that that the Believers have more room b/c they are pop-boomers and not ICSers is wrong. I just play them that way to make a challenge, no?

As you yourself suggest, ICS is a stronger all-around strategy than booming alone. I suggest that ICS+booming is to be considered not made exclusive of each other. You hand out fine strategy points but draw your conclusions too rigidly I think. That's my point here.

Play any faction as a strict builder: No probe actions, tech trades, warmaking. At least for the first 100 years on a huge map, single player. Why compare this with 100% econ probe-heavy games? Of course the Believers will do better if they simply steal most of their technologies. The idea here isn't to win big, but to ICS and then turn Miriam into her own research powerhouse. That is challenging and I must say, quite fun!

I wonder if we'll get back on the general topic again?

[binTravkin]

Heah, Smack, I understand your points fully and if I don't answer to some things in them means I acknowledge it's true what you say.

The ones I answer are the ones I can put up an argument and arguments are.

Of course, in single player ICS is the pwner, BUT you can not say that something is the best if you have not done it in multi.
And in multi I can mention several things that not only makes ICS less profitable compared to MUCH (not 3x3) wider placement, but even distracts from it.

One of them is the 'early agressive neighbour' you talk about yourself - while it is easy to defend ICS by moving infantry pieces to neighbour base in single turn, it's practically impossible to do it if you've been ICSing with the usual early approach (no or very little garrisons, only formers, CPs, crawlers) and someone comes in with 4 impact rovers.
While you already have 10 bases (he has stalled at 4 while building rovers, but while rovers moved in he probably got to 6 or so), you can not put up defenses up quick enough and the close placement just means that the rovers can eat up bases extremely quickly.
Even 2 per turn per rover if they happen to come in unnoticed and the 2 bases are connected by road or river (which is also very often the case in ICSing due to pre built roads to get your CPs into position instantly).


And yes, ICSing vs Popbooming are not the opposite ends of some scale, I should phrase it as ICSing vs 'wider base spacement with more infrastructure focus which mostly results in earlier popboom or higher popboom if done later'.

Also, ICSing as Uni without any SPs is a pwner in SP, but not in MP - whomever got PTS and is ICSing in the same style can quickly overcome you even if his faction is inferior to Uni (I consider NN of uni a huge advantage which more often than not results in Uni being the most powerful faction not only on graph but practically as well).

The same is true with wide base spacement + (likely) specialist (developed infra) bases + 100%Econ + probes.
It is a risky yet very powerful strategy in MP and if bases are placed correctly (has 1+ bonus min and/or nut nearby) it will be keeping up with ICS (which often puts every second base in a position where it can only work forest for 1-2-1+) ealry quite well.


Plus there are other strategies besides the mentioned Rover Rush and MaxEcon-Probe approach, which are well in fighting against ICS.

This is kinda rock-paper-scissors - while ICSing you give up the defensive edge, on the assumption that there wont be anyone so close so early, for a superior economy.

Probably someone else meanwhile gives up his economy for a risky move to build advanced mobile mobility which is practically the best thing against an early ICS..


And regarding my rigid points - it might happen they are truly rigid, but I dont ever insist on something as absolute, I mostly talk about guidelines and tendencies.
I aknowledge the power of ICS, yet there are factors in game that dont let ICS to become a problem.

There are even a factor out of game - the micromanagement - you can often get confused and lose track on what strategy you wanted to execute while making huge ICSes.
I speak from expierence in CGN 21 where I made Hive into an empire of almost a hundred of bases (and I had space for and was building CPs for some 50 more), and several hundred units ranging from formers to choppers and droppers.

[smacksim1]

What I mean about 'try University without any SPs' is that it is interesting to compare the University with other factions without any additional advantages. Like I suggested previously: No probe actions, wars, tech trades, SPs, etc.. Obviously some of these things are critical to certain factions coming out ahead, but by limiting them we can get at 'who's got what advantages towards ICS strategies?' more clearly.

In most games the Uni can get crucial projects because its researched them first, but as an all-around player one must consider circumstances where exterior advantages (not faction intrinsic) are taken away. But more to the point, because of turn-advantage it is interesting to note that the traditional builder factions are actually not the most suited towards ICS and/or early popboom, both of which have their clear advantages.

It does sometimes seem that ICS has historically been a strategy of non-builder factions to get some parity with the builders (specialists, strength of numbers). That is, ICS is a building strategy, not a conquering one, obviously. Yes, after one ICS's awhile its quite easy to field 10000 bazillion units, but typically the point isn't war but other forms of power, at least initially.

As pure ICSers, its actually the warmaking factions (sans Sparta) that come out on top. Support/Industry/Police give crucial advantages in terms of overall speed. While true that Morgan can rush-buy CPs and Rec Commons along the way, he cannot field 3xbaseNumber formers concurrently like Miriam can. There is some case for doing little research initially in either the 'strict builder/isolationist' (as I outline) mode of play, or in a real all out game to crush the AI as quickly as possible (or other humans for that matter). By forgoing anything but token efforts at research, but still maintaining just enough to get key techs at key moments, a player can make use of powerful industry (Planned and/or Planned/Wealth) to multiply the effects of warlike factions bonuses: Namely, support.

As Vel once said in discussing Zak strategy (I think its in his guide actually), there's no use in technology unless you make use of it. That can be Zak's weakness, and certainly Morgan's (low support), and is always something good to keep in mind.

Examining ICS again more critically from a tech point of view: What makes ICS work best? What techs and/or SPs are critical or beneficial? The interesting thing is that while tech continues to add to the power of ICS, its really only dependant on 2 units: The former and colony pod, one facility unless Yang: Rec Commons, and is most magnified by 4 projects: HGP, WP, VW, and PTS, all early game and reachable by any faction.

Of those four, I think the WP is most overlooked as a possibly huge bonus for high support factions.

Hmm maybe another comparison? Hive with PTS vs. Uni with VW and Believers with WP and HGP and look at total population and base#s after 100 years in a slow isolationist game. I think I'll try that. Or maybe give all three factions all four projects and see. That would be more fair, obviously.

[Kataphraktoi]

advanced mobile mobility

that wasnt intentional im guessing but i like it


I feel this talk is like trying to understand 2 quantum physicists talking back and fourth, so to get this back on subject heres my take on ICS and why its not a 'problem'

i view the game as being stages as it now stands.get your bases up to effic limit,do crawlers, then expand CP to your core homeland asap and begin devoloping,get the eco techs,then begin a pop boom to get bunch of cities to size7 and either pwn with choppers or keep devoloping with habcomps.

in the games im in,there really isnt any way to get much more CP out,there is room,but so far away from the cp's position. infact the decline of returns versus more devolopment basicly prohibits it imho.

however i would point out a imbalance later in the game. with CBA,cloning vats and alot of satelites you can just spam down CP,and use modern techs to get them where they need to go(drop or otherwise),this allows insane growth and in short order such player is beyond catching no matter what.

every CP you make has decreasing returns, when you can make crawlers,all sorts of juicy stuff,etc. i dont think constant 1x1 works at all. i would go so far to say that with perfect adaptive placement( even 1x1 if it works at that place) is the only way to go.i know i cant hold it up as an example for all 1x1 but im very unimpressed by your cgn23 gaians bT....i would take KK's civ anyday.its certainly not overpowered. and my 1x1 i bet you didnt get onto the jungle intiul recently,so you passed up a good oppurtunity(although i dont know if thats true)

senethro refuses to send me a game since my sav was ''invalidated'' i still have yet to see the goldlike ICS

[Kataphraktoi]

Hmm maybe another comparison? Hive with PTS vs. Uni with VW and Believers with WP and HGP and look at total population and base#s after 100 years in a slow isolationist game. I think I'll try that. Or maybe give all three factions all four projects and see. That would be more fair, obviously.

huh and let the AI play? or do it yourself in succesion turns. i would be interested to see the results in that case

[smacksim1]

The latter. Just multi-play three factions myself. I'd use the scenario editor to give all the projects to all factions. I think I'll try it but wince at managing not 1, but 3 ICSing factions. Anyone suggest another faction besides the 3 mentioned? What other factions are typical ICSers? Morgan comes to mind. Could I give up Yang and do Morgan instead? Hmm...

[Mart]

I tried multiplayer playing all humans myself. A lot of time input. ... And I always know what that sneaky "other human" wickedly plots behind my back...

[smacksim1]

This would really be a scenario though, not a game. Just the 3 human factions and no tech trading, probing, war at all. Just the first 100 years.

I too tried playing factions against each other, but it is neigh-on impossible to 'forget' the other player. Far better to do the play-faction-A for 50 years then switch thing.

Edit: Further refinement: I think I'll give all 3 factions all the early projects in 2150, which is reasonable for an SP game on a slow map. Ideally I'd have each faction 'build' each project itself, but that won't work if they're already taken.......hmm......

SP City: Starts the HGP (or whatever)
SP City: Allowed to finish normally if no other faction has finished it. If another faction has finished it, it's gifted the SP upon mineral completion and the minerals wasted by switching to units/fac/sp/unit/fac/etc..

[binTravkin]

..1x1 but im very unimpressed by your cgn23 gaians bT....i would take KK's civ anyday.its certainly not overpowered. and my 1x1 i bet you didnt get onto the jungle intiul recently,so you passed up a good oppurtunity(although i dont know if thats true)

Heah, Cata, you've opened the worst of my games and try to compare?

I can send you a sav of CGN 21 for impression..

1x1 or 2x2 as Smack calls it simply ROCKS! and there is no diminishing returns problems to get there or anything like that
In fact
CPs get settled in the VERY same turn theyºe built thus I didn't pay any support for them.

Save in your box.

[binTravkin]

Also please note SPs of Uni in CGN 23 and compare to Gaian.
Now take SPs off.. Puff.. No power anymore..

[Senethro]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
senethro refuses to send me a game since my sav was ''invalidated'' i still have yet to see the goldlike ICS

Cata, comparing a 2 colony pod start to a 2CP and size 2 base start doth not a fair comparison make, especially when you cheated and built huge blocks of boreholes side by side :P

[binTravkin]

Cata, comparing a 2 colony pod start to a 2CP and size 2 base start doth not a fair comparison make, especially when you cheated and built huge blocks of boreholes side by side :P

I would like to see a file of this.
Senethro?

[Senethro]

Originally posted by binTravkin


I would like to see a file of this.
Senethro?

Don't worry BinT, they were just 2 single player games. I expect that the borehole blocks were made in a pre-patched game.