Multiplayer config option: rigid ICS house-rules

[Ralf]

The POLL above is about IF 100% rigid (but completely optional) last ditch ICS-preventions, should be implemented in MP-games only .

Both suspenders and belt, so to speak. Just in case. Frugal_Gourmet suggested it originally under the topic Minor suggestion... (City limits).

The initiating gamer simply configure his MP-setup to only allow a variable stiff max-amount of founded cities per player - and the players, if they want to participate, is forced to accept that.
Lets say he configured a max-amount of 25 founded cities per player. Then the indevidual player have founded his 25:th city, the settler-unit becomes unavailable to build, and all already built settlers gets automatically sold-out for that player alone. Those players who havent "hit the roof" yet, still got access to that settler-build choice, of course.

------------------------
Edited: above text have been changed somewhat in order to outrule some misunderstandings below.
------------------------

You can still always conquer your way too larger empires, of course (how else could the "conquer-the-world" victory-condition be meet?). But the ICS-style foundation-method is now 100% closed.

[SerapisIV]

I like that option, it'll make games go quicker. Though I think there should be two options, game city cap, for all civs, and then a per civ city cap.

ie. universal - 15 cities per map
ie. per civ - 10 cities per nation (not including conquered cities, you can only found 10)

[KrazyHorse]

This could be a really valuable option. Perhaps in the rules.txt?

[Gramphos]

It is to good to just be in the rules.txt, and it is almost as easy to make it in the rules.txt as create a option for in tin the Multiplayer Setup screens.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
I like that option, it'll make games go quicker.

Good point! It gives the MP-setup player some additional means (besides map-size & number of allowed players) of controlling the general length & scope of the game, as well.

ie. universal - 15 cities per map
ie. per civ - 10 cities per nation (not including conquered cities, you can only found 10)

Im not sure I follow. If each player (lets say there are 6 of them) hit the roof with max 10 cities each (6 x 10 cities = 60 cities). The global max city-limit of 15 cities seems very low, by comparison. Anyway, I think I prefer the max-limit per empire only - but please, explain further.

Originally posted by Krazyhorse
This could be a really valuable option. Perhaps in the rules.txt?

Originally posted by Gramphos
It is to good to just be in the rules.txt, and it is almost as easy to make it in the rules.txt as create a option for in tin the Multiplayer Setup screens.

The idea is that they should add it to the multiplayer setup screen, first and foremost.

The Rules.txt file? You mean for single-player games, playing against AI-civs? Well, is it strictly needed? You can avoid single-player ICS simply by not play the game that way. If it nevertheless should be implemented, the game-default should be set to "Rigid city-limits OFF".

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Ralf
Im not sure I follow. If each player (lets say there are 6 of them) hit the roof with max 10 cities each (6 x 10 cities = 60 cities). The global max city-limit of 15 cities seems very low, by comparison. Anyway, I think I prefer the max-limit per empire only - but please, explain further.

Would it be better to allow each civ to buil as many cities as they want, 15-20, or limit it to 6 and therefore exploration, development of limited cities, conflict over limited production areas takes importance. Also, by limiting number of cities per civ, you don't have one player who undergoes rapid early expansion getting 20 cities, while a civ that got hit with an early barbarian invasion only having 10 before the map city-max is hit. It levels the playing field.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Would it be better to allow each civ to buil as many cities as they want, 15-20, or limit it to 6 and therefore exploration, development of limited cities, conflict over limited production areas takes importance. Also, by limiting number of cities per civ, you don't have one player who undergoes rapid early expansion getting 20 cities, while a civ that got hit with an early barbarian invasion only having 10 before the map city-max is hit. It levels the playing field.

Original quote:
"The initiating gamer simply configure his MP-setup to only allow a variable stiff max-amount of founded cities per player - and the players, if they want to participate, is forced to accept that."

Comment:
If you type "15" - each indevidual player that join your MP-setup game, is now forced to accept that he can only found max 15 cities (or less). If he want to expand his empire further then that, he must conquer by force.

You can type "0": that means there are no rigid MP-expansion limitations (= MP default). You can type any input-number of your choice; 10, 20, 30 or whatever.

Also, the settler-unit only becomes unavailable to those players who have "hit the roof", so to speak. The player who havent reached the max-limit yet, still have access to that settler-unit, of course

[Theben]

Nope, can't say I like it.

Say 2 civs get 25 cities, then 1 conquers 3 of the others. 28-22, and the 22 city-civ can't build any more to try to catch up. Now he's permanently behind, unless he manages to catch the 1st guy off-guard. It lends too much toward early, rapid expansion and then development and a player stuck in a situation where his/her potential growth comes later (FE, stuck on a small island but has a huge, empty resource-full continent nearby) is at a great disadvantage.

I don't like ICS, but this isn't the way to fix it.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Theben
Say 2 civs get 25 cities, then 1 conquers 3 of the others. 28-22, and the 22 city-civ can't build any more to try to catch up.

Lets say two boxers fights against each other in a match. Suddenly, boxer A manage to hit boxer B with a couple of really hard punches. Now, boxer B - at least temporaily - find himself in a position there he maybe can't find enough strength to catch up.

Now, the question:

Is this boxing-match suddenly "unfair"? Shall the boxing-judge immediately and prematurely hit the gong-gong, because of no other reason that boxer B is in a position where he cant quickly replace his lost strength, before the next pause (or next return-match)? No - of course not. You can very well find yourself "leaning against the rope" taking some heavy pounding. Its the name of the game, Theben.

Except for in Civ-3 its easier; you can always pursuade another MP-civ to attack the bully in the back, in order to relieve the pressure.

I don't like ICS, but this isn't the way to fix it.

Who says its a replacement "fix"? Its a complementary, and completely free-to-choose MP setup-screen "just-in-case" option. I say: let the guy who setup a MP-session decide for himself. If he dont like it - fine: he just dont choose it.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Theben
Nope, can't say I like it.

It lends too much toward early, rapid expansion and then development and a player stuck in a situation where his/her potential growth comes later (FE, stuck on a small island but has a huge, empty resource-full continent nearby) is at a great disadvantage.

But, in Civ-3 you cannot "expand rapidly", in the same way you could in Civ-2. You must build both city-improvements, units and some early Wonders in between - especially city-improvements, in order to expand your culture-borders. Also sending floodways of settlers, Civ-2 style (and also workers, mind you) is bound to drain your city-growth pretty severely.

It seems that you lending arguments from the Civ-2 reality. Thats not viable anymore. Civ-3 is a very different game in this respect.

[TechWins]

I really don't see a reason why not to include this option. Yeah, I probably won't use it (me or the other people I play against don't use ICS) but who's to say other people won't. It's just like the civ unique units option. Just because somebody won't use that option doesn't mean somebody else won't. The more options the merrier.

[MORON]

If I have to use this in Civ3 at any time, I don't buy it. Period.

[BorderPatrol]

With Civ III the designers at Firaxis made sure to kill the ICS stategy by making it cost 2 population points to build a settler.

This idea would be a nice idea to add to civ2 however.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
Just because somebody won't use that option doesn't mean somebody else won't.

Agree. In multiplayer-games the software always play by the mandatory game-rules/ conditions the initiating player (the host) have setup. It doesnt matter if some of the joining players have tweaked the Rules.txt files (or the MP setup-screen) differently. The MP-game software always enforces the conditions it can find in the initiating players Civ-directory on to everybody else, whether they like these conditions or not.

Heres a quote from the "Civ-2 ultimate classic collection" multiplayer-manual:

"If you're setting up a multiplayer-game, your are the host. As host you have control over how the game will behave. (You have no control over how the other players will behave.)" My underlining.

Now, the "rigid city max-limit" MP-setup option is just such an example of a mandatory host game-rule.

Originally posted by MORON
If I have to use this in Civ3 at any time, I don't buy it. Period.

You dont have to use it. Its mostly an MP-feature, and if you choose to setup and announce a game (being the host), you can just go along with the game-default "rigid city max-limit" = 0 (meaning NO rigid max-limits). Period.

I dont think you understand how frustating it can be for a host MP-setup player, to announce "no ICS- or world conquest before 1 AD playing-styles, please" - just to discover halfway through the game that some compulsive quantity-before-quality player/-s have ignored him totally, and used these inflationary & boring playing-styles nevertheless. This option perhaps doesnt help against the "conquest before 1 AD" players, but it at least it gives a strong play-style vindication, and such players are not likely to join in (which is good).

Originally posted by BorderPatrol
With Civ III the designers at Firaxis made sure to kill the ICS stategy by making it cost 2 population points to build a settler.

This idea would be a nice idea to add to civ2 however.

You mean Civ-3 - anyway I agree: this is mostly a "both suspenders and belt" option, but it also give the host some (optional) additional means (besides map-size & number of allowed players) of controlling the general length & scope of multiplayer-games, as well.

Almost for the latter reason alone, this option is worthwhile to implement.

[Inverse Icarus]

could you still bribe enemy settlers?

or get them from huts (i hope they take that out)