ICS Strategy complete

[Rasputin]

Have down loaded Daves ICS stargetgy from the Great library ,but found it was realy for the experts not amatuers, some basic information was missing such as

micromanagment in citys..
Where/when to build firts city...
what to do if you dont have horse tech after building warrior..
do you build citys close together straihght away or send settlers out to find resources then fill gaps later..
is horse tech more important than monarchy.


any one who can complete an amatuers guid eto ics , it would be appreciated ...

[Scouse Gits]

• micromanagment in citys.. when city reaches size 2 move workers onto high shield procucing squares - end of city micromanagement (one of the reasons I love ICS!
• Where/when to build firts city... the first key you press is b
• what to do if you dont have horse tech after building warrior.. start a settler, race for Monarchy, but as you are required by the game to get one junk tech on the route to Monarchy make sure that it's Horseback Riding
• do you build citys close together straihght away or send settlers out to find resources then fill gaps later.. Bang down those cities - I often play what I call 'geometric ICS' - unless there is a compelling reason to divert from the scheme my cities go down in a rigid city-gap-city-gap-city formation - I think it looks nice - so sue me!
• is horse tech more important than monarchy. no, but if forced to take a junk tech take Horse.

Originally posted by Rasputin
any one who can complete an amatuers guid eto ics , it would be appreciated ...

Hardly a complete answer, but a start - enjoy ...

[Rasputin]

thanks SG again... I am begiing to think you must be of same bloodline as my other friends from that area of the world , he too is very helpful ! Most other Scousers seem to care more for themselves

But you are giving a good name to the whole Scouse word .....

I didnt meant to imply Daves strategy wasnt any good, jsut missed those few points..

Usually I get a few free techs , but never horse , so usually i dont need to get horse before monarchy.. So most games i paly i builsd the settlers as you say. and i too like uniformity so build same pattern as you..

[DaveV]

Ras - starting techs depend on which civ you pick at the start, so you can greatly increase your chances of starting with Horseback by picking, for example, the Mongols. Most of the games I play out have no starting techs, so I have a wide-open tech tree at the start of the game. In that case, it works well to use a path of Horseback, Ceremonial, Alpha, Code of Laws, Monarchy. If you don't pick up horseback, it's not a big deal; you can do your exploring with warriors. The priority is Monarchy.

Capital city site will almost always be on one of the squares revealed at the start of the game. I'll move the settler a few squares to take advantage of whales, spice, wine, or river squares. No need to try for the center of a 4-special pattern, since your city won't grow beyond size two until the game is effectively over.

Barring other circumstances, I'll slap down my cities in a grid like SG1. However, other circumstances always seem to crop up: a tasty special or river square, a good defensive site for blocking the opposition, water interrupting the pattern. I want to emphasize the importance of rivers: I'll try to build as many of my early cities on rivers as possible. You pick up a defense bonus, a free bridge, and a crucial extra research beaker.

[Rasputin]

thanks dave, a few more tips for us amatuers who probably should spend more time in the Great library..

i will start a new game and implement your suggestion of civ choice and SGs points too

[Blaupanzer]

For serious ICS, build right on production/trade specials and next to food specials. This way, you get the benefits without having the cities runaway in growth. Any city bigger than two should be building a settler, and that should be rushed before the city grows to 4.

I generally build my cities with two squares in between and road them up fairly early, so I can shuffle the units with one movement point between cities and get the trade benefits of roading. I also let some cities grow based on location. Neither of these are "real" ICS tactics, and my late wins (19th or 20th century) show the wisdom of NOT emulating them. ICS at its purest is really a game-related strategy, and I like to get lost in the worlds I make (emphasis on history, culture, identification with my cities).

[Scouse Gits]

The great thing to remember about ICS is this.
When you see a settler - that is really a city on two legs!

[Eyes_Of_Night]

Geometric ICS??? What the **** is that? Are you a moron or something? You have to be. Were you dropped on your head as a child or what? There must be some sort of flaw because no normal human being could be so stupid. You just don't throw down a city anywhere. You have to build them in certain locations. And what kind of ****ing micromanagement is that? You don't know the first thing about city building. I could probably build 4 settlers in the time it takes you to build just 1 city. You put the resource on the forest first and always build on grassland. If you go for food production at a size one you aren't going to build very fast. And I'm not even going to get started on the other flaws. We need to play sometime so you can see what true perfection is. The first ICS strategy by dave or what ever the hell is name was is pathetic. Only a complete moron would do what he does. Like I said, the GL is run by rookies and newbies.

[War4ever]

the champion lashes out with a stinging right hook to the jaw, rocking the challenger and leaving him stunned. The round ends and we wonder what the challenger has left for round two

[DrFell]

lol althought eyes is beinga bit harsh there I do have to agree with some of what he says. I used to stick my cities anywhere, but I've found that basing them around the specials and better locations (eg forest and grassland) initially and maximising production produces much better results. Then again, I usually play 2x2x, 1x1x I use a 'perfectionist' trade based strategy so i'm not sure how ICS differs on 1x1x.

[DaveV]

So people aren't misled by Eyes's buffoonery, I'll consider a typical city newly built on grassland, with access to a shield grassland square and two forest squares. Assuming no waste (if you have waste, the initial food emphasis works even better):

In despotism:

If you put your worker on forest, you'll have a total of 3 food and 3 shields. It will take 20 turns to grow to size 2, at which point you'll have generated 60 shields.

If you put your worker on grassland, you'll have a total of 4 food and 2 shields. It will take 10 turns to grow to size 2 (accumulating 20 shields), then you can put both your workers on forest (for an additional 49 shields; the computer will always put your new worker on grassland). Total: 69 shields.

In monarchy:

You'll have 4 food and 3 shields if the worker is on forest. It will take 10 turns to grow to size 2, at which point you'll have generated 30 shields.

With the worker on grassland, it's 5 food and 2 shields. In 6 turns you'll have 18 food in the box; move the worker to forest so you don't waste a food (3 shields). Again, the computer will place your new worker on grass, so you produce 4 shields on the turn you grow. Two workers on forest after growing, for 5 shields. Total shields: 29, but you catch up to the forest city next turn when you can generate 5 shields and that city only produces 4. If you have a road or river on the grassland square, you've picked up an extra 6 arrows by working grass instead of forest; plus you have the flexibility of rush buying a settler after growing to size 2.

[SlowwHand]

I know Horses is an important advance, but what of taking writing as your "throwaway" discovery, thus setting the stage for Literacy, then Republic ?


Sorry, EyesOfNight, I just don't have the fantastic mind you have been blessed with, so I ask the question.

[Scouse Gits]

My opinion (as an Eyes certified moron no less) has changed over the last year - prior to that I put too little emphasis on exploration and thus did not actively pursue Horseback Riding, but rather the fast tech path facilitated by Writing -- however, I now believe that a fast explorer and a 'mobile defence' unit is more valuable -- still a close call though.

[War4ever]

The bell rings and the challenger's feet seem to be moving again. Dodging blows from the champion, the challenger rattles of an impressive display of combinations keeping the champion at a distance and off balance. Looks as though the challenger has regained his strength and composure and is once again looking to regain the heavyweight crown.

seriously though, horses are a key advance..... mobility in civ is key in the early game....for any strategy , whether that is defensive or offensive fast growth, or ics.

usually my first unit on a river is defensive..... if on other terrain, ie forest or flatlands i will build a horsie. of course this is after the initial two or three warriors are out and exploring.... i believe in quick early exploration with about five or six units in the field (depending on what kind of NONs i get and i use this strat in any style of play save maybe OCC where i dont' usually have that many units wandering , more like protecting

as for city placement..... i agree that as many cities on a river is important, and that building them around specials is also important, but you do need to take some care in plunking them down or you run the risk of starving your citizens.

[Blaupanzer]

War4, based on what these guys say, there is no danger of starving citizens. There aren't any citizens (2 per city and an army of settlers). Must be interesting to hit this horde with a couple of elephants.

Eyes, harsh language doesn't prove your point, which is reasonably valid. However, since the specials come in patterns, there is really no reason that cities can't be laid out that way too.

[SlowwHand]

You strike a good point about ICS.
At some point, and again this is my opinion, you have to develop a "feel" that somebody is reaching out as far as your are; that it's time to start defensing the cities.

[Smash]

While I despise ICS as a play style for me I was very impressed what a master ICSer like DaveV can do in 10-15 turns.Just awesome and very scary to take over for.That succession game he slapped down something like 70+ cities in 15 turns.1x1 settings....Thats insane!

Yes ICS is vulnerable early due to the closeness but later that becomes an advantage as units can be pulled from neighboring cities very quickly.Sheer numbers is the plan and it works.So do other strategies though...good idea to be familiar with ICS.One thing that is very good is it can be done successfully on the worst of land.Many MPers have ICS as a back-up plan in case of dirt and rocks.

[War4ever]

Originally posted by Smash
One thing that is very good is it can be done successfully on the worst of land.Many MPers have ICS as a back-up plan in case of dirt and rocks.

there is nothing wrong with ics...... but on a small map against agressive hut chasers you run the risk like fast growth does.... being overwhelmed...... but this is true for any strategy that is in it's infancy.

Good humans left unchecked (sound familliar like say THE AI) can pose a problem far greater than the artificial idiot could ever pose.

However that all said..... in MP its easier to race through the tech tree via fast growth thus taking the important wonders away from the classic ics'er.... this is all based on equal land of course.

ICS easily overwhelms the ai, not quite as easy to do against the skilled


still, i enjoy a quasi ics style blended with fast growth... i find this method quite successful and enjoyable

[Eyes_Of_Night]

DaveV a good player? lol Don't make me laugh!!! I'll end this little argument right now. PLay me 1 on 1 and lets see how long you can last. You try your little ICS and I will rip through you with just a few horsemen. At the same time I will have twice as many cities as you within the first few turns. I guarantee you won't be able to last past 2000BC. There has never been anyone out there to challenge my throne and there never will be.

[War4ever]

The champ lashes out one more time at the end of round two and clips the challenger and then taunts him as if to say "look pal take that weak sh!t out of here".

Sp far we have the fight even after two rounds, looks like we have a rumble on our hands

Las Vegas odds have EyesofNight as the 7/2 that eyes will defend his crown. Place your bets folks were in for a doozy

[Smash]

Poor EoN seems to have deteriorated to the peanut gallery.Empty insults don't constitute more than a weak probing jab.

[reds4ever]

is this where challengers squabble on for 30 or so posts about dificulty, map size, 2x2x or 1x1x or 2x1x and then resolve not to play each other?

playing an ICSer on a small map on king 2x2x is one thing, but on a large, diety 1x1x your in trouble

[War4ever]

Originally posted by Smash
Poor EoN seems to have deteriorated to the peanut gallery.Empty insults don't constitute more than a weak probing jab.

obviously we have two judges here Now i see why boxing has its problems

[War4ever]

Originally posted by reds4ever


playing an ICSer on a small map on king 2x2x is one thing, but on a large, diety 1x1x your in trouble

While i agree with you to some degree..... the only way an ics'er would win on a large map is if he is able to take the warmongering wonders.

Fast growth rips apart the tech tree faster than ics. Now if both make it to their respecitve sizes at the same time, you still have to launch that war machine and this takes time....

if close together, i would take the ics'er based on sheer numbers , but with distance and equal opportunity getting to their respecitive goals, i am willing to bet that the ics'r wont' build leos, suns, SOL, and HG before the perfectionist builds the SSC mikes and one of the warlike wonders.

i think fast growth beats ics to the important wonders thus hampering ics chances for a blitzkrieg unless they are close together.

but i have seen both strats win numerous times so it becomes a game of land and luck...

i will still take fast growth over ics though

[reds4ever]

i'll bow to your superior knowlegde War, seing as you kicked my arse BIG time about 4 weeks ago. BTW, nice one for having a chat about strats and not gloating afterward

[War4ever]

The key reason to be humble is to not fall victum to the "i can kick your ass any game syndrome"

No one ever doubts your ability to run away with a game that gives you tremendous hut luck, favorable land, and a few early barb kings.

Do all that in reverse and still take the lead...... or at least keep it competitive, and then your a good player.

I am always looking to talk strat, whether its with newbies or experienced players. The best thing in civ is to have many different playing partners preferably with varying playing styles.

Even playing the best players isn't enough. People become stagnant with their styles and often become victum of "same style" of play every week.

While this may help against the players you play, when you meet unchartered waters, it can hold you back just as easily as helping you win..... i think as civvers we forget that.

As for your playing style reds4ever, i would suggest aggressive expansion and take it from there.

Real estate can make up for crappy initial land, but you need to find some decent land as quick as possible in order not to fall to far behind.

And duels are the most lopsided games when they get out of reach....often there is no chance of coming back which isn't true nearly as often in MP games

[reds4ever]

i know my playing faults War, and you're not far off the mark, i've played since Civ1 and 1994 on the Amiga but until the last year internet connection costs,(i'm in the UK) kept me from playing MP, as a result i tend to be 'happy' with a certain ammount of space then defend and develope, it' works against the AI and some players but i tend to come unstuck against really good players as you discovered

all of a sudden the 9 cities i've got defended with Phx, building happy wonders are getting attacked by Vet Crusaders, like i say, i k now i'm too insular but i can't help it

[War4ever]

that strat is ok if your building alot of trade routes......if not your in trouble against aggressive empires... but thats the beauty of civ...so many different ways to win

[SlowwHand]

True. Every game is different, and thats before you throw the 1x 2x into the equation.

[DaveV]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
DaveV ... PLay me 1 on 1 and lets see how long you can last. You try your little ICS and I will rip through you with just a few horsemen.

This lesson should be administered at the settings for which the strategy was designed: 1x1x, raging hordes, deity, standard riot factor. And an "equal start" map supplied by a 3rd party, unknown to both players. No huts.

I can play from 12:00-13:00 Monday through Friday.