Barbarian Strength = 1/Cultural Density: The solution to ICS! - Page 2

KrazyHorse · June 29, 2001, 23:43

Communism works in real life too! The Cuban people get better food, health care and education than any of the Latin American "democracies". That being said, I'm still a socialist.

JamesJKirk · June 30, 2001, 02:44

Well there's always the oft-pointed-to-at-least-around-here example that there hasn't been a country that has been communist in any sense of the word, other than that they dub themselves that or others do in order to demonize them.

About Rome:

Even centuries before it fell, the overwhelming bulk of its military force were "barbarians," guys from conquered cities. In Civ3 terms, these cities would have a lower culture rating, and be easily captured, and we all know what happens to units when their home city is captured, so the cultured parts of the Empire (mainly Italy and Greece) would have had major problems if most of their army disappeared. And if you look at it like that, Rome didn't get through it ALL that bad, the Byzantine Empire flourished for centuries

Rasputin · June 30, 2001, 03:11

I thought Rome was destroyed by that DamnFarmer who became a General who became a slave who became a GLadiator who became a hero !!!!

J/K

Inverse Icarus · June 30, 2001, 08:23

no nation has ever been a ture socialism. communism is a wicked twist of socialism, adding a dictator to the top of the society.

socialism is entirely classless.

To_Serve_Man · June 30, 2001, 11:46

Ah jeez guys, read your Communist Manifesto and 1844 Manuscripts by Marx. You all think of communism as a government, but its really a way of life. All the 'communist' countries today are barely what Marx calls, 'Raw Communism'. There is another type, 'Ultimate Communism' which is truely (supposedly) classesless. Where humans do not worship the Money-God and the people produce things forthemselves

. Like I said, it only works on paper.

Everyone totally skipped the last part of my post! I feel that there are other parts of the game that have been added (from what we all have read from previews and what not) will be strong combators against ICS. With the addition of Culture, one needs to build librarys, temples, markets, etc. One cannot just build settlers continiously. Also, a player will need that cultural border to gain resources. Without those resources, your people will be unhappy and possably revolt? A player aslo needs those resources to build units and city improvements. So this addition, to me is a much stronger, and less discriminating to ICS.

In theory this is a nice idea, i'm not trying to hurt anyones feelings. I just wouldn't like to see something like this, discriminate against the way a person is playing a computer game. We should think Black&White, there really is no real Right way to play the game, so is with Civ. With the addition of Culture, we mearly add a direction for the game to go for all players, equaly. Not a ban on all those grimmy, icky, sub-human ICS players

TechWins · June 30, 2001, 16:44

Hey guys could you talk about communism in another thread. In fact I'll start one for you.

Polypheus to tell you the truth I like your original formula more. While your second one slow down ICS even more. With your first one it would slow down ICS and even add a slight disadvantage to bigger is always better idea.

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 17:48

What discrimination? To the majority of players it is an inherent weakness in the game that ICS is so easy, yet so powerful. We're allowed to want a game where this isn't so.

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins
Polypheus to tell you the truth I like your original formula more. While your second one slow down ICS even more. With your first one it would slow down ICS and even add a slight disadvantage to bigger is always better idea.

No it doesn't. The first idea just averages out the culture points of your cities and makes you subject to attacks based on this. BAB doesn't say that your cities are undeveloped; it just says that 20 cities is better than 5.

TechWins · June 30, 2001, 18:03

Quote:

No it doesn't. The first idea just averages out the culture points of your cities and makes you subject to attacks based on this. BAB doesn't say that your cities are undeveloped; it just says that 20 cities is better than 5.

The more cities you have (no matter how good of culture) the more you're subdued to a barbarian attack with the first formula.

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 19:32

Quote:

The more cities you have (no matter how good of culture) the more you're subdued to a barbarian attack with the first formula.

Your strong point isn't math, evidently. Let's say temples are worth 2 culture points and libraries are worth 1. If I've got 20 cities, each with a temple and a library, then my total culture points are 20*(2+1)=60, so my "Culture Density" is 60/20=3, so "Barbarian Strength" = 1/3. If I've only got five cities, each with a library and a temple, then my total cuture points are 5*(2+1)=15, so my "Culture Density" is 15/5=3, so "Barbarian Strength" is 1/3.

TechWins · June 30, 2001, 19:41

Quote:

Your strong point isn't math, evidently. Let's say temples are worth 2 culture points and libraries are worth 1. If I've got 20 cities, each with a temple and a library, then my total culture points are 20*(2+1)=60, so my "Culture Density" is 60/20=3, so "Barbarian Strength" = 1/3. If I've only got five cities, each with a library and a temple, then my total cuture points are 5*(2+1)=15, so my "Culture Density" is 15/5=3, so "Barbarian Strength" is 1/3.

Ok, so maybe I didn't think what I said through. Actually math is one of my strong points in school. In my math class this year I got 100 percents on all my tests except for two, where I got a 89% and a 93%. On my 2 semester finals I got a 94% and a 98%.

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 19:49

Well, mine's still bigger than yours is.

As long as we're playing this game, I just got an joint Honours Degree in math&physics from McGill U.

To_Serve_Man · June 30, 2001, 21:06

I agree TechWins, we shouldn't talk about communism in these threads. I was just making a refrense to it.

Quote:

What discrimination? The majority of players it is an inherent weakness in the game that ICS is so easy, yet so powerful. We're allowed to want a game where this isn't so.

Its not a weakness. Its a type of gameplay. What i'm trying to say, is that I dont like the idea of being punished or hindered because I dont expand my culture. The barbarians should be random, and if they happen to fall on some ICS player, then let them. Having special formulas to fiqure out whos the sucky player and then making a rule to kick him when hes down isn't my idea for fun gameplay. If the person wants to ICS, let him, there are more ways to combat ICS without making these special formulas to force players into doing something.

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 22:04

Let's say I don't like being punished because all I build are warriors. I like my luxuries at 60% and my taxes at 40% because I hate the beaker icon. Wait...Civ 2 punishes my style of play! I find it difficult to win! [/facetiousness]

Any change in the rules from Civ2 to Civ3 will necessitate a change in playing strategies. The Civ team learns by their mistakes, and they've learned the ICS lesson from Civ1 and Civ2. They're attempting to design a game that's fun and interesting for the Civ crowd and for the general public, and one of the complaints of the majority of Civvers is that ICS was too easy and too powerful. Beating ICS is possible, but doing so takes a great deal of skill. In the end, ICS is too much like the "one best way" to approach the game. Playing to win often means playing ICS, and most people don't enjoy ICSing. Why should the barbarians be random, any more than anything else in the game? Should tech discovery be random? The greater the layers of complexity in a game, the richer the strategies will be and the more replayable the game will be. This isn't a stab at any ICS players; those who sleazed were simply finding a workable strategy given the rules of the game. They're welcome to try and find the game-breaking strategy this time 'round as well.

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 22:11

TechWins, it's bad form to start an entire thread in the wrong forum. If you'll note, the discussion hasn't even close to gotten out of hand. An extraneous matter was brought up, and everyone who was interested posted just once on the subject. It went no further. If you wanted to start such a thread, it should have gone in the OT forum. If the rest of you hadn't figured out yet, don't post in TW's new Commie thread. It'll drop off the front page quickly enough.

Ralf · July 1, 2001, 01:42

Barbarians should appear more often if the player choose a more risky empire expanding-style.

That is, if he found new cities without bother to build connecting roads in advance, and without accompany the settler with a guard-unit for immidiate city-protection. The AI-programmers should tweak the game to recognize this risky HP-behaviour and tease him a little more, with increased barbarian-harassments.

I think above is enough, to disfavour a risky & sloppy expanding-style (although sometimes it can be wortwhile).

To_Serve_Man · July 1, 2001, 11:48

KrazyHorse, that example you gave is perfectly acceptable. The game supports it. The game also supports ICS. I think.. and its just a theory that people still fear that Civ2 ICS will fall into Civ3 ICS. But there are so many new things that will not destory ICS gampley, or your example. They will instead support and promote gameplay in a certian way. And, IMHO, that direction is away from ICS. But I don't like the idea of having special rules that are a direct and obvious attack on ICS and ICS only. Instead and idea much like some of the new additions to Civ3 that we have heard, (Culture, Lux. Items, Colonies, etc) will instead, not just be a direct embargo on ICS, but will change, distort, and promote all different types of gameplay through out the whole of Civ3.

Juggernaut · July 1, 2001, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
KrazyHorse, that example you gave is perfectly acceptable. The game supports it. The game also supports ICS. I think.. and its just a theory that people still fear that Civ2 ICS will fall into Civ3 ICS. But there are so many new things that will not destory ICS gampley, or your example. They will instead support and promote gameplay in a certian way. And, IMHO, that direction is away from ICS. But I don't like the idea of having special rules that are a direct and obvious attack on ICS and ICS only. Instead and idea much like some of the new additions to Civ3 that we have heard, (Culture, Lux. Items, Colonies, etc) will instead, not just be a direct embargo on ICS, but will change, distort, and promote all different types of gameplay through out the whole of Civ3.

heh...couldn´t agree more...

JamesJKirk · July 1, 2001, 17:24

It's just adding an extra challenge to ICSers, and thus making it more realistic. If you want to ICS, you'll have to have a strong military to back it up, and that in turn will hinder your science and commerce. If this was the only built it mechanic to discourage, or make ICS a real(istic) challenge, then I'd be very content

Juggernaut · July 1, 2001, 17:30

Quote:

If this was the only built it mechanic to discourage, or make ICS a real(istic) challenge, then I'd be very content

i´d go with skipping the rule of "max one unit production per city at the same turn"-rule, to KEEP it is so unrealistic it should be a crime. then i´d be very content.

KrazyHorse · July 1, 2001, 21:33

This only becomes an issue late in the game, anyway. It really wouldn't have an effect on ICS, as the ICS advantage really makes its appearance around 0 a.d.

To_Serve_Man · July 1, 2001, 23:08

Quote:

This only becomes an issue late in the game, anyway. It really wouldn't have an effect on ICS, as the ICS advantage really makes its appearance around 0 a.d.

(Also for JamesJKirk)And Resources will probably be an ever greater issue throught the game, and being the greatest of all issues during the industrial age. As I see it, an ICSer will already have to combat with; Settlers taking 2 pop units (which i'm still dont fully feel comfortable with), building city improvements to gain culture points thus expanding border, building military units to defend (this is optional of course) creating Worker Units that are seperate from Settlers to make roads, irrigation, mines, etc, Find and obtain Luxuary Items/resources to keep citizens happy, as well as Random barbarians. Isnt this enough!?

If ICS booms around 0 a.d. in Civ2, maybe it will boom in 1700 a.d. in Civ3. And By then the games almost over.

Personally, some ideas on how to make the end game interesting instead of a mad rush for a certian technology and then just steamshipping ahead of the pack to victory is much more needed than this simple ICS game style. Let ICS live. It has its pros and cons just like any other game play style. I agree with the 'At first this was fun, but now its just sad' thread... The ideas that are coming in, are becoming very pin-pointed and aimmed at something very very specific, that may not need fixing or at something that is personally ditasteful to their gaming. Now sometimes thats good, and i'm not trying to put people down and say their ideas are bad, but if fellow forumers could think of revolutionizing ideas, like Culture, Luxuary items, these boards would be more useful to its purpose.

Well enough with my ranting

i just needed to let some steam of and get that off my chest

you can ignore some of that last paragraph.. its just my little version of 'common sense' for Civ forums.

KrazyHorse · July 1, 2001, 23:12

Sorry; I was referring to uncle_funk's suggestion when I said that.

To_Serve_Man · July 1, 2001, 23:28

oh...

well.. its for the others then I guess...

polypheus · July 2, 2001, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
Personally, some ideas on how to make the end game interesting instead of a mad rush for a certian technology and then just steamshipping ahead of the pack to victory is much more needed than this simple ICS game style. Let ICS live. It has its pros and cons just like any other game play style.

The problem, at least in Civ2, was that ICS had no cons and only pros. In fact it was the optimum strategy to employ all the time. In other words, it always worked!

If this is indeed fixed so that ICS strategy becomes risky, then that is fine. However, if this is not the case, then programming babarian hostility based on ICS would add in this risk so that ICS no longer becomes the optimum strategy that one would use all the time. Instead ICS would be a possible strategy but one with a great deal of risk and one which is not necessarily optimal.

Playtesting will be key in this regard and it is imperative that veteran, expert ICSers should try and see if indeed ICS works as well as it did in Civ2. If yes, then re-programming the barbarians would be a good counter-balance.

To_Serve_Man · July 2, 2001, 21:15

Not true polypheus... ICS has Pros and Cons. I wouldnt call myself the know-all from ICS, hardly. But here is what I do know..

Pros:
Lots of money and technology
lots of cities

Cons:
Little defense against other players both AI and human
In civ3 (as I see it) ICS will not have much culture
Low culture = small # of resources(also a Civ3 delima as I see it)

Well that might not be the most convicing arguement... but its there. But you, yourself mention "at least in Civ2" which is key. And thats were the arguement is.

har har har and a bottle of rum!

Urban Ranger · July 3, 2001, 01:31

The problem with ICS is, since a player can build huge number of cities, and that a city gives free support to a number of units (at least it is that way in Civ 2), a player can generate a huge horde of low tech units with which to overrun his perfectionist players.

Even with resources, etc., an ICS player can still expand recklessly, only stopping to develop a couple of cities that would bring him the resources required.

As a matter of fact the only way to counter ICS is with ICS.
It's harder to use ICS now that a settler costs 2 population points in Civ 3. However I'm not sure how big the impact will be.

KrazyHorse · July 3, 2001, 03:28

It's just a question of slowing down ICS enough. If it costs enough to expand, then unlimited expansion will be beatable by a steady expansion along with city buildup.