The war on ICS

[MORON]

I do not understand the war on ICS. Because of ICS we now have all shorts of crap like culture boraders, 2 pop settlers and colonies that makes no sense.

I fail to see why expanding by building cities is such a bad thing and we have to start with 0 culture boarders and not be able to mine special resources in the 21 tile area.

Why can't we just give big bouses to big cities.

[Grumbold]

I think you are confusing the culture concept withthe anti ICS moves. Borders were wanted and now we have them. That the border extends further from a big important city than a newly founded one makes sense to me. Not automatically mining special resources in the 21 tile zone seem to be part of the colony concept, not an ICS issue, and I could even give you a plausible justification for it if you really want. The moves to halt ICS are partly the 2 pop settler and separating settler from worker. The rest we have not heard yet.

[KrazyHorse]

MORON, you're obviously an ICS fan. The problem with ICS is that it makes for such a boring game. There's no finesse in pumping out settler after settler. The whole process becomes one of clicking as fast as possible. That out of the way, I like the idea of colonies and of expensive settlers, even on its own merits. Founding a city is a big deal, and shouldn't be entered lightly.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by MORON
I fail to see why expanding by building cities is such a bad thing and we have to start with 0 culture boarders and not be able to mine special resources in the 21 tile area.

ICS (Infinite City Sprawl) is very destructive thing because it works so damn inflationary on the whole game-concept. You just found another city, and then another city, then yet another city - and it just goes on and on like that, with all these city-area overlaped closely packed cities. This repetitious and rather empire-ugly looking playingstyle alone also more or less castrates any hopes of a worthwhile AI-competition - and it does it without any real drawbacks, besides the added micro-management.

Besides: ICS have destroyed many mp-games.

I have more arguments against ICS, but I dont feel the need to convince you. The important thing is that the Firaxis-team seems to have been anti-ICS convinced from the word GO.
And boy, am I glad about that! Finally; quality before quantity - and bigger not always (and only) better anymore. Not a moment too soon.

[Inverse Icarus]

borders werent introducted to stop ICS, they were introduced to stop people from colonizing within someone else's empire (its now an act of war).

now a question:

if ure at war with a civ, can you build colonies in their territory, and harvest their resources?

[Lung]

Damn ! There goes one of my best excuses for going on the warpath!!

I always had a solution to those who insist on ICSing, with my motto - Attack early, attack often! If you're a sleazin', i'll come a knockin'! Of course, if you're lucky enough to be isolated, you can sleaze to your heart's content, but if you're near me, prepare to be visited!

That said, i think Firaxis' moves to discourage ICS is commendable, and promises Civ3 to be the best yet

[polypheus]

Originally posted by Ralf
...The important thing is that the Firaxis-team seems to have been anti-ICS convinced from the word GO.
And boy, am I glad about that! Finally; quality before quantity - and bigger not always (and only) better anymore. Not a moment too soon.

I definitely support the new settler model as it is more realistic and also slows down ICS. However, unless Firaxis implements "Rise & Fall of Civilization" features (such as a better civil war/secession model), then I do not see how the "bigger is always better" problem is truly solved as you suggest.

The real problem is the linear, evolutionary game mechanics of Civ. Because of lack of "rise & fall of civilization" mechanics, you are encouraged to build as many cities as possible as soon as possible like planting seeds in a garden which are guaranteed to ripen and bear fruit without any possible drawbacks later on.

So it costs 2 pop to get a settler instead of one. But the game mechanics still have not changed to suggest that expanding aggressively early on might not always work.

I know that in Civ2, I expanded as aggressively as possible as early as possible because this is what I needed to do to become powerful. And it always worked!

And in Civ3 I will still try to do this albeit at a slower rate because of need to wait for cities to grow to size 3 rather than size 2. But nothing has really changed to discourage me from trying to expand as aggressively as possible in Civ3 only that I can't expand quite as aggressively as before because so far, I still have not seen any reason to believe that this would backfire in Civ3 (it never does in Civ2).

That is why good civil war/secession models (and any other features needed to simulate rise & fall of civilizations concept) is key. That way even if you expand as fast as you can as early as you can, you are not guaranteed to become the most powerful. And ulimtately this is the only way to stop ICS.

[TechWins]

Polypheus I agree with you. Although, Firaxis has said in one of their update things that a large empire doesn't neccesarily mean you'll automatically be more powerful than a smaller civ. I don't see how you wouldn't be more powerful. You'll get more resources, science, trade, land, exploration, diplomatic power, etc... the list goes on and on. I want something that is going to make me think twice about having a trememndous amount of cities.

I don't neccesarily find the rise and fall of empires has a great way too counter part ICS. It would just take too much work and ideas to make it work. It's kind of like that fun vs realism thing. I think that if your civ gets too big other nations should see you even more as a threat and try to gang up on you. I just that there are more ideas yet to be revealed to stop ICS and the huge benefactors of a large civ.

[LaRusso]

ICS....
does anyone remember 'tank rushing' in Red Alert? It virtually killed it online...
I really see no fun in micromanaging 100 cities every turn. Perhaps you have to be a Moron to enjoy it .

[Ralf]

Originally posted by polypheus
I definitely support the new settler model as it is more realistic and also slows down ICS. However, unless Firaxis implements "Rise & Fall of Civilization" features (such as a better civil war/secession model), then I do not see how the "bigger is always better" problem is truly solved as you suggest. [...]


And in Civ3 I will still try to do this albeit at a slower rate because of need to wait for cities to grow to size 3 rather than size 2. But nothing has really changed to discourage me from trying to expand as aggressively as possible in Civ3 only that I can't expand quite as aggressively as before because so far, I still have not seen any reason to believe that this would backfire in Civ3 (it never does in Civ2).

I sent a lengthy mail long ago (october 2000) to Firaxis about the AI problems of Civ-style games, and some general ideas to work around it. Heres what the they responded:

------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your email!

Many of your suggestions (though I can't say which ones) are already in the game and we will certainly think about the others.

Just so you know, I think we've finally fixed both the ICS problem and the Bigger-is-always-better problem.

Thanks for all of your input and for thinking about the game,

Chris Pine
Lead Programmer
Civilization III
------------------------------------------------------

Now admittedly, just writing a one-line statement that they have done something about the linear & 100% predictable "bigger is always better" game mechanics in Civ-games, is one thing. If they have implemented effective enough anti-BAB and Rise-and-Fall measures in Civ-3, that actually can stands the test-of-time, is perhaps quite another thing. Above short letter at least proves that they dont just ignore the problem.

I certainly have nothing against good Rise-and-Fall ideas - I welcome this with open arms, although some of the suggestions I made in the How do you want the "Rise and fall of empires" idea implemented... thread, perhaps where a little too drastic and clumsy, seen in retrospective.

Dont forget the anti-BAB measures though. While bigger empires always should give you an linearly predictable advantage when it comes to raw shield & resource-production; the economical support-cost for combat-units in each city + the economical administration-cost + the increasing trade-corruption cost should rise more sharply - infact it should rise so much that all the added trade-tiles for each new city + the added domestic/ foreign trade finally just cant keep even steps anymore.
This should lead to an effective upper rubberband max-limit, in how many cities its meaningful to found & conquer before the empire faces the risk of financial collapse (= deserting trops; no wages), which in turn leads to unpleasent self-feeding chainreactions = severe happiness problems; multiple city-revolts, leading to independence declarations.

An important anti-BAB detail, is also that big cities in smaller empires should be given a limited advantage, that equally big cities in huge empire-counterparts dont have.

My suggestion is to make the big city happiness-control gradually more easy, the smaller the empire is. So really HUGE city-populations should only be possible in really small empires with few cities in them. This means that the total costs of city-improvements and needed combat-units is less, while the big pop tax-income remains the same (= prosperous economics), compared with bigger empires. Also; since the libraries & universitys outputs benefits greatly from bigger populations, this also counteract the huge empire automatic science-advantage somewhat.

[TechWins]

Hey Ralf, do you still have that e-mail so we could read it? I doubt you do but it's worth a try.

[Rhuarc]

Wow Ralf! It sounds like you have this whole thing really thought out, but why not just increase the unhappiness after your empire becomes so large. I mean just reduce the governments allowed number of cities. THat way you could say for every city over the limit your empires happiness goes down 2 points, or something to that effect. I sure my theory has holes all over the place, so you are welcome to shoot it down, it is just a thought I had!

[rah]

Rhuarc, the main hole is the second major reason why CTPII sucked (1. being the ai)

I assume one of the victory condition will be world conquest.
In CTPII this made for a boring starving/disbanding city role.

I had one game were i had every happiness wonder every happiness improvement, and the sliders set for almost all happiness (basically no production, food, science) and still had happiness problems. You can't conquer the world that way without spending 75% of your time starving cities down to where you could disband them. Now some people would say it should be difficult to conquer the world. Fine, but it shouldn't be boring and tedious.

I really hope that this type of thing isn't in the game. It would kill it in my opinion. There has to be other ways to discourage ICS.
(I really don't think 2 pop points is going to do it)

RAH

[LaRusso]

difficult?
i'd say it is impossible....virtually. you can corner the market, be a hegemon, lead a coalition but there was no case so far that anyone conquered the whole world. ctp sucked simply because its AI was abominable and its tech tree and gaming pace were very uninspiring.

[LaRusso]

difficult?
i'd say it is impossible....virtually. you can corner the market, be a hegemon, lead a coalition but there was no case so far that anyone conquered the whole world. ctp sucked simply because its AI was abominable and its tech tree and gaming pace were very uninspiring.

[rah]

Originally posted by LaRusso
difficult?
i'd say it is impossible....virtually. you can corner the market, be a hegemon, lead a coalition but there was no case so far that anyone conquered the whole world. ctp sucked simply because its AI was abominable and its tech tree and gaming pace were very uninspiring.

Hmmm, that's the only way I could win CTP II, world conquest, did it at the intermediate setting and then at the hardest. After a few games I stopped playing (mainly because of the AI) but partially because I spent over half the game starving cities so I could conquer more. BORING>

[LaRusso]

well now i understand your point. it was so boring that you had to finish them off or the game would finish YOU off. in the process you had to finish your cities off nice

[rah]

BINGO

[N35t0r]

About the BAB issue:

If, for example, one tile of worked silk can supply 5 cities, you would need much more special resources for the larger empire and, as Firaxis said that these would not be availiable everywhere, it would be much more difficult to get lots of silk for the entire population for a larger empire than for a smaller one, whch would mean a lower luxury and higher tax and science rates.

[art_vandelai]

I htink the best way to combat ICS is to make settling new cities a more expensive proposition that reduces your ability to create a strong army or a wonder for example. CTPII tried to rectify this by making settlers cost approximately 3X the production of a warrior - perhaps it should be even 4 or 5x. That way, anyone who builds settlers to expand an empire via an ICS strategy should fall behind the other civs in military strength and culture and in building wonders and city improvements to improve happiness, growth and production.

Of course, by settling new cities, eventually the productive base of the civ should improve once the cities grow. But by only emphasizing settling and number of cities expansion in the early game, the civ should be at a huge military and production disadvantage vis a vis other civ's - especially around the time most civ's have explored a large art of the map and discovered one another. ICS should only work if by some stroke of luck the civilization employing that strategy were to be left alone by other civs for a longer than normal time.

The 2 pop requirement will have a huge impact - for example, if you have a city with 3 workers producing settlers, there will only be one worker left to produce units and improvements. Without expanding over a wider area and getting a full selection of tiles with resources in them, a civ would also be disadvantaged if the cities are built too close together.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
Hey Ralf, do you still have that e-mail so we could read it? I doubt you do but it's worth a try.

No, I have no saved copy of it left. I shall try to juggle my memory somewhat, and perhaps come back later for a summarized version of it later.

Originally posted by rah
I assume one of the victory condition will be world conquest.
In CTPII this made for a boring starving/disbanding city role.

I assume that too. But I think that complete Civ-2 style military world-conquerings should only be possible indirectly through alliances and clever use of vassals/ puppet-regimes. If you tries to control virtually everything by yourself, you should stumble into increasingly severe economical problems.

There has to be other ways to discourage ICS.
(I really don't think 2 pop points is going to do it)

Remember that both settlers and workers also is considered to be "mobile population-points". In this respect they are principally different from finance-supported combat-units. The -2 pop penalty (for settlers), and the -1 pop penalty (for workers) + the shield-production needed in order to produce these units, is not by it self enough.

ALL population-points (whether it is "mobile", "colony-living" or a "city-dwelling" one), needs food-support as well (just as in Civ-2, by the way). I dont think that the increased pop-penalty is instead for the Civ-2 style settler food-support. Instead the increased pop-penalty have been added on top of the still existing original food-support.

So my bottom line is: Perhaps the -2 pop reduction together with above food-maintainance is going to do it nevertheless.

Originally posted by HsFB
If, for example, one tile of worked silk can supply 5 cities, you would need much more special resources for the larger empire and, as Firaxis said that these would not be availiable everywhere, it would be much more difficult to get lots of silk for the entire population for a larger empire than for a smaller one, whch would mean a lower luxury and higher tax and science rates.

Good point!

[rah]

"I dont think that the increased pop-penalty is instead for the Civ-2 style settler food-support. Instead the increased pop-penalty have been added on top of the still existing original food-support. "

As you've stated, the food support already exsisted and is not factor. Settlers are only mobile for a few turns, then they're producing food as a new city. At best the 2 pop cost will just slow down the start of ICS. Once you get rolling it will have minimal effect. Over the entire span of the game the startup is a tiny sliver of time. ICS will still be an easy viable strategy unless something else is done. And I'm afraid that "WHAT ELSE" will impact negatively in game play elsewhere. (like the Happiness crap in CTPII)

RAH

[Ralf]

Originally posted by rah
ICS will still be an easy viable strategy unless something else is done. And I'm afraid that "WHAT ELSE" will impact negatively in game play elsewhere. (like the Happiness crap in CTPII)

I really dont agree with the viewpoint that ICS seems to be an "easy viable strategy" in Civ-3.

The pop-penalty have been raised from -1 pop to at least -3 pops (most players will need terrain-improving & colony-founding workers as well). Also, its much more important that you build city-improvements early on, and also combat-units & Wonders of course. For that you need a bigger population for more effective production, which definitely cant be achieved if you keep on sending away too many pop-costly settler & workers.

This deals with the early & mid-part of the game.

For the mid- and end-part of the game, they can easily add some clever finance-burdening administrative/ bureaucracy/ corruption factors that takes away the desire of ICS-ing late-game cities all over the place.

Above together with the fact that the AI:s ability to embargo/ redirect trade-routes both is much easier then in Civ-2 and have more immediate & severe consequences - especially if the AI-civs establish trade embargo-pacts against you. Having too many administration-costly ICS-cities, with a similar expensive-to-support large army in order to guard all these cities, can then be very dangerous strategy indeed.

If you suddenly dont have enough money to support your troops, they will most probably desert you, or just sitting tight; refusing to follow your orders, inless paid properly.

This - as I already mentioned in a previous reply - can lead to very unpleasent happiness-problems, leading to down-spiraling revolts & independence-declarations. You can enforce martial laws of course, but what if the AI-civs (or your mp-opponents) also strangles your special resource-import, because they want to thwart your annoing ICS-attempts?

Then you cannot easily re-produce/ replace the combat-units that has deserted you. What a mess.

[rah]

"The pop-penalty have been raised from -1 pop to at least -3 pops "

Not as I understand it. All I read is a -2 pop instead of -1 pop. And if pop growth is similar to the old game (just an assumption) IT takes just as long to go from size 1 to size 3 as size 3 to 4 (at least it is the same number of bushels. (and with similar cheats, like the settler from capital at no loss and proper bin management, it shouldn't slow you down much)
And as long as there is one free worker a city, I don't think food or troop support is going to make one wit of difference. I personally hope I'm wrong, because I'm not a fan of ICS. I do use a combo develop/growth strat, but it is not straight ICS.

Please remember that even in ICS there is a core of developed cities, the sprawl just keeps continuing out.

RAH

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by LaRusso
ICS....
does anyone remember 'tank rushing' in Red Alert? It virtually killed it online...
I really see no fun in micromanaging 100 cities every turn. Perhaps you have to be a Moron to enjoy it .

Ah, ICS, civ's answer to the RTS tank rush. no brains, no strategy, no real way to combat it.

I remember someone reviewing Tiberian Sun, complaining how they still haven't fixed this problem. he indicated that he set up several games, and his opponent was unable to stop him even though he KNEW what he was going to do. that's how powerful it is.

ICSing is very similar, in that respect.

somebody said on this thread that they can't imagine how sprawling out wouldn't automatically make them more powerful, even with the 2pop settler making it slower.
I can
when you put more resources into sprawling, your cities don't get as much development. less overall gold, research, production.

the main imbalance with ICS is that you give one pop for a settler, and get 2 tiles worked for it in return.
when you have to pay 2pop for your 2 tiles worked, that becomes more balanced.

you can still sprawl, but you pay for it in production. one of those choices things that sid and co. are very good at. do I go for developing my existing cities, or spread out and grab more territory, knowing that my kingdom of 10 villages might be overrun by that more powerful kingdom of 4 cities.

If they can pull off that sort of balance, then this game will get really good.

maybe it will take longer before we break it - again!

[TechWins]

If you found a city with your 2pop settelr does the start off with a 2pop or 1pop? If Firaxis has said or not, I don't think they have. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[rah]

"Ah, ICS, civ's answer to the RTS tank rush. no brains, no strategy, no real way to combat it. "

There is one way to beat ICS, find them early and destroy the virus before it multiplies.

And a very true statement..
"If they can pull off that sort of balance, then this game will get really good.

maybe it will take longer before we break it - again!"

I'm just a little worried about how the balance will be attained.
And you're right, we will break it, it's just a matter of time. There are way too many really bright people that will be trying.

RAH

[Ralf]

Originally posted by rah
Not as I understand it. All I read is a -2 pop instead of -1 pop.

Well, you need to produce workers as well, dont you. And each produced worker (also the first one) cost you -1 pops. There are no free workers, and no free settlers either, besides the initial wandering 1-2 settlers + (perhaps) 1-2 workers that is given to you before you found your capital city. After that; each and every produced settler & worker cost you expensive pop-points, without any exceptions. Why should there be any? You can always tweak the Rules.txt file, of course - but thats another thing.

(and with similar cheats, like the settler from capital at no loss and proper bin management, it shouldn't slow you down much)

That one was unknown to me. Anyway, why dont you suggests a prompt removal of this "cheat" in Civ3?

And as long as there is one free worker a city

What makes you think that there will be one free worker to each city?? I know about the resource mini-tutorial, but since it pictures a capitol-city (Rome), that worker-unit could be an first-city-only exception.

It seems to me that you build your case on assumptions, rah. You assume that the capitol city will be able produce settlers at no loss, and you assume that each new city will be able to produce its very first worker at no loss.

Why not instead suggest that above shouldnt be possible? If theres any additional ICS-boosting "backdoors", or "cheats"; its much more constructive to discuss their removal openly, instead of just passively assume that they simply cannot be changed, or removed in Civ-3.

PS: I also assume a lot of things then I writing my replies, of course. But at least I try to see things from a glass half-full point of view. If a suggested measure isnt enough; then suggest an added tweak that will make it enough.

[Inverse Icarus]

i bet i could handle a 50+ city empire in civ 3.

just gimmie some time

[rah]

Damn, Ralf, chill a bit.

Of course it's built on assumptions, the darn game isn't even out yet. And I'm sure some of the things they've showed us will still be changed before the game is released.

That Worker unit everyone is referencing is one that goes out and builds roads and irrigation, not the worker that you place in your city screen. You don't need worker units to build settlers. (unless I've thoroughly misread everything, which is possible for an old man like me )

1. My point is, I don't think that will discourage it enough. (opinion)
2. I'm really afraid that they're going to copy the city count happy model from CTP II, which will ruin the game. (opinion)

The cheats I've mentioned are reasonably common knowledge for the people that pay attention and have been documented (FACT) and I pray they were paying attention to those.

So please cut me some slack while i express my fears.
AND my OPINION that the -2 pop will not be enough to discourage ICSing. The people that I play with are pretty darn smart and will find any loophole in the programming. And I will too.

RAH
I would like to know what I said that caused your outburst, I don't believe I insulted anybody. I was just stating opinions.
If I did insult you, I apologize. And if you think they're still coming here to look for improvements, I've got a few bridges to sell