Ics?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Metamorph
The city will also need to be able to trace a road route back to your capital (so much for Communism ). Cutting someone's nation in half, therefore, looks like it holds the potential for a devastating blow to someone's economy. Better: isolate the capital itself, and the rest of the nation's natural resource supply is cut off. Bizarre.

I guess civfanatics.com is wrong in that respect. Firaxis´mini-tutorial may be misleading: It talks about roads connecting to your capital, but the capital is the civ´s only city in that tutorial.

AFAIK, a road link to your capital is only needed if you want to trade the respective resource with another civ.

[mactbone]

Roads are important for the simple reason that to make use of a resource (iron, silk, etc.), the city has to be connected to that resource somehow. Let's say I have Silk near one of my cities, in my border. Silk is a luxury and makes people happy. I have a city elsewhere and they aren't happy, they want Silk. How do I get them Silk? First I build a road from the resource to my city that will work it (I'm assuming you work that square? Whatever, doesn't matter), the city that's close to the resource. Now I can either build a road straight from that city to my unhappy city, I build a network of roads meandering through every city I have until I reach the unhappy city, or I connect them with airports or docks. I think an airport would work like this. I don't want to build an airport in my resource city, I already have one in a city not too far away. I plunk down a road between the two cities. Then I either build an airport at the unhappy city, or I connect the unhappy city, by road, to a city with an airport. Same deal with docks. Hope this clears up the whole "why do we need roads?" thing.

[Metamorph]

MacTBone: "Roads are important for the simple reason that to make use of a resource (iron, silk, etc.), the city has to be connected to that resource somehow."

Yes, but what I don't understand is the reference of having a city 'close to' a resource. What about when the resource is *in* the city's workable radius? Adjacent to the city, even? Do I still need to build roads, etc. in order to harvest the resource -- even though I can simply work the square as normal?

From the ICSer's point of view, if I'm going to spend resources of whatever sort in order to be able to harvest the natural resource in the first place (workers and colonies and roads and what-not), why not just simply plunk a cheese city right next to -- or on top of! -- the natural resource itself and forego all of that?

Granted, this won't let me *distribute* the resource to other cities in my empire until I finish a road network; but without such a network, do I still get some benefits related to possessing the resource, i.e. 'make use' of it? In that city, or in my nation as a whole?

- Metamorph

[Ozymandous]

Several people seem to be insisting, or at least implying, that having this 'road network' is crucial for play. Is there a principle of which I'm ignorant in this regard? Roads are nice and all; they generate trade, increase movement... but how is production limited in such a fundamental fashion by their conspicuous absence? I'm confused.

Actually roads are (supposed to be) vital because a city that is not connected via road to either a resource or another city that is connected to a resource will not be able to benefit from that resource.

For example, your civ discovers the wheel and you can now build chariots if you have a horse resource connected via road to the cities of your empire. If you have that resource within your worker radius or cultural radius it means nothing until it's connected via road.

In addition, let's say that you build another city (or 5 or 10 via ICS) but don't connect those cities via road, then none of the cities would be able to use those horses. Alternatively, let's say a barbarian or rival Civ cuts the road between cities or the road out to the horses (assuming an interwoven road network), then all or some of your cities would now not be able to use those horses.

Horses might be a bad example in that they have limited usefullness, but what if the resource in question is a luxury type? If your civ suddenly lost access to the two luxury resources that were keweping your citizens content it's not hard to see cities revolting because of the pillaging of one or two road squares.

Hopefully this will slow down ICs a little more because you now must have roads connecting your cities to be as productive as possible. Sure one lone worker can do all that but it might take them a long time, especially if you have many resources to try to connect to your empire.

Aside from being obviously counterintuitive (particularly since you could have disbanded the worker that represents the population of that colony back into the city and gotten the pop back anyway), I really don't see what purpose it serves for Firaxis to just obliterate the colony rather than absorb it. It's only one pop point, after all, toward a city which is obviously already big (its radius expanded, so it must be sizeable).

Hmm, why is this counter-intuitive? I do agree that the city should get the population point back, but that would be the game balance issue to keep people from making a ton of colonies and then being able to mass-expand once their culture is high enough. It should be a trade-off to go after those resources outside your sphere of influence, and it is, otherwise you end up with a city suddenly gaining population points back and suddenly having the ability to build more cities, etc.

It might be a drag to lose population from colonies, but look at all the good you got out of them while they were out collecting that resource beyond your borders. It's like paying $2000 for a computer that lasts 3 years (way back when), sure you pay a lot compared to now (small pop city making workers vs large pop city making workers) but you also got 3 years of value from the PC you wouldn't have had otherwise.

I hope all this makes sense.

[Metamorph]

Ozymandous: You raise some good points. I suppose I keep falling into the trap of applying what are clearly Civ3 principles to the Civ2 environment. My knee-jerk reactions no longer [necessarily] apply.

I'll withhold further critiques on the micro-economics, therefore, until the game is in hand. (Translation: I'll stfu now. )

- Metamorph

[Edward]

Great discussion! I hope Civ3 tones down the ICS possibilities (as it seems like it will).

The whole reason ICS is attractive in the first place is that the city square is a "bonus" worked square. Not only do you work it for free but it has roads and irrigation for free. (The fact that is hard to stop a small city from growing if you tried while large cities take forever to grow ("We Love" excluded) is also a big factor.) Why didn't Civ3 eliminate this free bonus? Would new cities be too unproductive? Perhaps they should be.

Metamorph responding to lockstep
"OTOH I´m a newbie. Maybe I´ve ignored something."

It's been my experience that the newbies, generally, have a much more objective (and therefore perceptive) view of these sorts of games than some of the so-called, self-purported 'veterans' who turn out to merely be Sid lemmings.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few." - Shunryu Suzuki

posted by GP
Yeah...you're the guy who said you had tanks running around in the BC...And we finally pulled it out of you that you play on Prince!

Argument ad hominem. I think DaveV and others have proven ICS's power at Deity.

---

My understanding of city radii is the same as Skanky Burns's. Cities can always work all 21 squares regardless of how small and uncultured they are. (Special resources are another matter.)

Roads will be more important in Civ3 than Civ2, but my few ICS attempts have included intercity roads and I didn't feel set back by building them.

Assuming cities are connected with roads it'll be much easier to cut off a perfectionistic few-citied high-pop civ from needed resources than a many-citied low-pop one. In ICS all your cities are very close together. An enemy would have to march their pillagers right next to a city to block ICS roads. A normal or perfectionistic civ will have roads much further from it's cities. In fact, they would more likely be dependent on those fragile far-flung colonies, whereas an ICSer would certainly have a city right on top of the special resource. Also the ICSer's civ will likely posses 2 iron (or whatever) resources to every one perfectionist's iron by virtue of the ICSer covering so much land. And with nothing required to build settlers, I think the ICSer won't be hurt even if a lot of his cities didn't have access to special resources.

As for luxury resources, I guess we'll have to see how Civ3's happiness system works. In Civ2, ICS civs are NOT kept happy by luxuries or happy buildings. They avoid having large cities and really only contend with the riot factor. That factor is negated by wonders (and later by governments like communism). It'll be interesting to see if Civ3's small wonder/great wonder system makes it easier or harder to sedate your population with happiness wonders.

Overall, I think the 2 pop cost for settlers will be the biggest crimp on Civ3 ICS. Can't wait to play!

[Steve Clark]

Metamorph, it will be such a pleasure to have your presence in the upcoming Civ3-Strategy Forum.

[PGM]

What a great thread! This guy would make up a Wonder named The River if he could! Welcome Metamorph, I'm sure once you finish reading that page at CivFanatics, your opinions will prove invaluable to us all.

I'm still a bit surprised about ICS strategy, which I've only read about in this thread. I play CIV2 for some many years now, my goal has always been to build giant cities, and sharing tiles between them was always a no-no. It looks now as if I've been making a mistake on my basic strategy.
At first sight, it seemed to me that ICS would rarely be able to build important Wonders. Sure, 5 small cities work more tiles than a big one, but that single one would focus its entire capacity towards a single goal (a Wonder, for instance), while 5 small cities wouldn't be able to join their production to build the same Wonder. Also, is it better to build an Elephant in 10 turns and wipe out all those little cities, or to build 5 elephants in 50 turns after you're already dead? Or is it that the revenue of extra cities would allow you to buy the whole thing?
I'm probably wrong somewhere, no doubt, and I'd love to read more about it, if you have the time. Thanks and don't stop posting.

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by PGM
I'm still a bit surprised about ICS strategy, which I've only read about in this thread. I play CIV2 for some many years now, my goal has always been to build giant cities, and sharing tiles between them was always a no-no. It looks now as if I've been making a mistake on my basic strategy.
At first sight, it seemed to me that ICS would rarely be able to build important Wonders. Sure, 5 small cities work more tiles than a big one, but that single one would focus its entire capacity towards a single goal (a Wonder, for instance), while 5 small cities wouldn't be able to join their production to build the same Wonder.

I will admit that I'm not an ICS-style player in Civ2, but I don't see why you couldn't build Wonders at some point with the ICS strategy. You just need to be willing to dedicate the production of a few cities to caravans. Get 10 or 20 cities cranking out caravans, and you'll have those wonders up in no time.

Shoot, you don't even really need caravans to do it. The basic warrior unit will work just fine. Just start cranking them out, send 'em to the city building the Wonder and disband 'em. No you can't get all of their production back. But you get some out. And with the numbers of cities that you might be dealing with by even mid-game, they should still go up quickly enough.

No telling yet how well it will go over in Civ3, but it will be interesting to find out.

[Father Beast]

Metamorph-

Thanks for this thread, it gives me a chance to rant...

the 2 pop settler and the resource model are band-aids to the possibility of ICS. Awfully big band-aids to be sure, but the blood will come seeping around, eventually...

The only true cure for ICS is to eliminate the free tile. new cities founded by a 2 pop settler would be size 2, and work the city square and one other tile. In other words- Each Tile Has To Be Worked By A Citizen. That was what I thought they were doing when they announced the 2 pop settler.

Looks like I was wrong, though. (sigh)

I predict that ICS will still make it's ugly head felt in Civ3. There still is the advantage to small cities because you don't have to feed the city tile producer, and the food box is smaller on smaller cities, making for faster growth. It will be slower than in civ1/2, but with enough room to get started, the effects will be seen.

As for the need for resources slowing you down, I don't think so. From everything they've said, it looks like any resource that is connected to your Capitol by road will be available to All your cities, provided it is within the cultural radius of a city or has a colony on it. I don't think you need to get a culture radius for most of your ICS cities, just build them on the resource, and connect it to your capitol. every new city gets access to the resource automatically.

I wish they could get DaveV or somebody like that to beta test their game. This band-aid won't hold the blood back for long.

I know I've said otherwise in other places, But I've had a while to think about it now.

[Metamorph]

And here I was thinking this thread had already up and died...

Edward: "Why didn't Civ3 eliminate this free bonus? Would new cities be too unproductive? Perhaps they should be."

Having stared for literal days at the Civ2 economic model, I can confidently tell you that simply eliminating the city tile production is not a viable solution. That free resource generator is an inherent component of the system. To really stab ICS through the heart, one would have to rewrite the entire model, including city growth, production, the whole nine yards.

This isn't inconceivable, of course. But Sid'n'Friends have obviously chosen to NOT do that. Instead, they're going to try and force the same silly ol' model to work. Thus the band-aid theory.

And band-aids, per se, aren't such a tragedy either. No game is ever perfect; and any new economic model they come up with is sure to have its subtle flaws as well. Rather than experimenting in the dark, wouldn't one rather that Firaxis work with materials with which everyone is familiar?

Assuming, of course, that the band-aids do the trick...

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few." - Shunryu Suzuki

Just so.

"Overall, I think the 2 pop cost for settlers will be the biggest crimp on Civ3 ICS. Can't wait to play!"

The biggest band-aid of them all. I agree with the rest of your points about ICS in finer detail.

Steve: "Metamorph, it will be such a pleasure to have your presence in the upcoming Civ3-Strategy Forum."

I appreciate that. It's great to be back under such hopeful auspices.

PGM: "This guy would make up a Wonder named The River if he could!"

LOL!!!

"At first sight, it seemed to me that ICS would rarely be able to build important Wonders."

ICS is, of course, a wonder-machine, if you'll pardon the pun. With nothing better to do, the ICSer suddenly finds a curious temptation to build not just *some* wonders (Bach's Cathedral, et al), but ALL of them! He bends the ridiculously powerful will of his nation toward building a zillion caravans in simultaneity. These caravans then all show up at the city capital (it's *most* efficient for the ICSer to build all of the wonders in the same city; the 'happiness bonus' for wonder presence is otherwise meaningless for such small cities, and it's easiest to defend all the Wonders if they're all in the same place). And the ICSer drops the wonder 'from orbit', building a Wonder the turn after its relevant technology is discovered.

*Plunk!*

"Also, is it better to build an Elephant in 10 turns and wipe out all those little cities, or to build 5 elephants in 50 turns after you're already dead?"

Heh. The careful ICSer (it does, as lame as it is, have some tactical merit) will put fortified phalanx in every city, eventually. These in turn becomes upgraded to Musketeer once gunpowder is discovered (which usually doesn't take long at all. [actually happens automatically once Leo's is *plunk*ed down]).

Alternately, the ICSer can build a zillion elephants himself, and roll over a nearby nation, should it suit his fancy. I tend for a combination; I defend the majority of my border cities, then pop out a few combat units (presuming I don't have enough from huts already) to annoy the crap out of my neighbors (pillaging, destroying new cities, etc). I rarely mobilize for war; it's so passe.

The part that's hard to really appreciate until one sees it for one's self (I was exacxtly the same way) is how insanely fast the ICSer really does get ahead in the game. It's exponential growth in every respect. At one point your Civ will be making *thousands* of gold; inventing a new tech every turn (I once invented two advanced techs in *one* turn!!!); and still growing, covering every single square inch of land you can come across. Having every Wonder helps a lot, too, particularly since your [computer] opponents won't have any.

Ridiculously enough, the generation of shields is pretty useless to an ICSer. There are no meaningful buildings that need to be built in cities, aside from some of the ones that cost 1 maintenance (eventually 0 with some Wonder or other); but they're all cheap as dirt. No military units are needed; one defensive unit or two per city, a few roving bandits, and you're set. Eventually, your nation will be so big that building settlers will only be done by the outer edges. Most of those cities eventually get turned toward capitalization -- once you have enough caravans standing around to build some of the various Wonders.

But in the earlier stages of the game, while you're producing settlers, you can, any turn you want, and in any cities you want, swap the production of a settler over to a military unit. There's no production penalty for this, and the very next turn *every single city in your nation* that was working on a settler instead pops out a cheaper (many units cost significantly *less* than a settler), technologically advanced (ICS absolutely crushes in technology right from the start of the game) swarm of military units. Plunk, indeed.

Bleyn: "Shoot, you don't even really need caravans to do it. The basic warrior unit will work just fine. Just start cranking them out, send 'em to the city building the Wonder and disband 'em."

Though far less efficient, this has been done in the past in a particularly close Wonder race, yes. I have to admit, though, that Wonders rarely loom large in the ICSer's worldview; if it comes down to a choice between sacrificing a significant portion of my nation's growth for a few turns and losing a Wonder race, I tend to go for plan A. But the point, one which I believe we share, is that this is up to the ICSer, and not his opponents.

"No telling yet how well it will go over in Civ3, but it will be interesting to find out."

Indeed.

Father Beast: "Thanks for this thread, it gives me a chance to rant..."

Ranting is my middle name!

"the 2 pop settler and the resource model are band-aids to the possibility of ICS. Awfully big band-aids to be sure, but the blood will come seeping around, eventually..."

The potential for a vastly appropriate analogy.

"The only true cure for ICS is to eliminate the free tile. new cities founded by a 2 pop settler would be size 2, and work the city square and one other tile. In other words- Each Tile Has To Be Worked By A Citizen. That was what I thought they were doing when they announced the 2 pop settler."

As I mentioned previously, the current model would not survive such a slash; the game would have to be reworked on a fundamental level. Do we really trust Firaxis to the job?

"I predict that ICS will still make it's ugly head felt in Civ3. There still is the advantage to small cities because you don't have to feed the city tile producer, and the food box is smaller on smaller cities, making for faster growth. It will be slower than in civ1/2, but with enough room to get started, the effects will be seen."

Arrogant as I am, I admit I cannot perceive what the ramifications of this change will be when coupled with the various other alterations, upgrades, and fixes that have been implemented in Civ3. One saving grace, however, is that Firaxis *claims* that they made this change (among others) for the explicit purpose of thwarting ICS. From this, I dare to infer that they are beta testing with ICS in mind.

A stretch? Perhaps. But at this point, I'll eat anything.

"As for the need for resources slowing you down, I don't think so. From everything they've said, it looks like any resource that is connected to your Capitol by road will be available to All your cities, provided it is within the cultural radius of a city or has a colony on it. I don't think you need to get a culture radius for most of your ICS cities, just build them on the resource, and connect it to your capitol. every new city gets access to the resource automatically."

Someone on this thread purported that cities disconnected from the 'main hub' would not be able to use capital-supplied resources. Thus, cutting the capital off from the nation would be akin to cutting the head off of the snake. There seems to still be some equivocation on this point, admittedly; I've yet to get it all straight.

"I wish they could get DaveV or somebody like that to beta test their game. This band-aid won't hold the blood back for long."

God forbid. There are actually quite a number of loyal fans who hang around in this forum and others who would make for excellent beta testers. If I worked for Firaxis (and I haven't killed myself yet ) I would ask MarkG to construct a list of those forum members he deigns worthy of a beta test CD, and FedEx 'em.

But what could we possibly know? We're just the players, right?

- Metamorph

[tniem]

Originally posted by Father Beast
The only true cure for ICS is to eliminate the free tile. new cities founded by a 2 pop settler would be size 2, and work the city square and one other tile. In other words- Each Tile Has To Be Worked By A Citizen. That was what I thought they were doing when they announced the 2 pop settler.

Yeah but have they said that?

I always believed that your two pop settler would found a one pop city. Otherwise their is no reason to have two pop cities. So when you build a city you are losing a pop point. It is gone. It forces you to think about building that city and weighing the costs.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Metamorph
"As for the need for resources slowing you down, I don't think so. From everything they've said, it looks like any resource that is connected to your Capitol by road will be available to All your cities, provided it is within the cultural radius of a city or has a colony on it. I don't think you need to get a culture radius for most of your ICS cities, just build them on the resource, and connect it to your capitol. every new city gets access to the resource automatically."

Someone on this thread purported that cities disconnected from the 'main hub' would not be able to use capital-supplied resources. Thus, cutting the capital off from the nation would be akin to cutting the head off of the snake. There seems to still be some equivocation on this point, admittedly; I've yet to get it all straight.

Ok, ill attempt to explain it First, the resource square. In this example, the resource is iron. This either needs a colony on it, or it is inside your cultural influence with a road on it. The iron is now being gathered by your civ. (Note: This square doesnt need to be 'worked' by people in a city, gathering food/shield/trade from the square - in city production and 'gathering iron' are two seperate things)

Now that the iron is being gathered, it needs to be connected to places that can use it - your cities. If the iron is connected to a city, then that city can use the iron - build legions or whatever. Even if your capital is not connected, the cities connected to the iron can still use that iron. This iron can also travel between cities that have airports and/or harbours.

There is a special case for resources - that is when you trade them. To be able to trade the iron with another civ, the iron must be connected to your capital. If there is only one iron connected to your capital via the road/air/sea network, and you want to trade it with another civ, then no cities can build units requiring iron. If you have 2 iron resource squares connected to your network, and trade one, then all your cities connected to the network can build units requiring iron.

Hope that clears things up a bit

[Father Beast]

Okay Burns, You may have me on that point. I had thought that any cities connected to the resource by road, airport, harbor could use the resource, Or connecting a resource to your capitol could provide to all your cities. My bad.

But it makes little difference. just have a worker or 2 running around building roads between your dinky zillion cities (which are built on resources, needing no culture to access them), and go to town.

BTW, I recently read that you not only need to have a resource connected to your capitol to trade it, but your capitol needs to be connected to the other capitol, too.

[Shadowstrike]

Does anyone other then me feel that the new worker concept is forcing our hands to play with the "holding settlers back" strategy, that is keeping settlers walking around upgrading cities? I used to have them do two/three upgrades then run off to build their own city. Now, I can't even do that. I have to build a worker to upgrade. I expect that a lot of us will end up with tons of spare workers running around. At least we could drop them into a city's population, right?

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Father Beast
BTW, I recently read that you not only need to have a resource connected to your capitol to trade it, but your capitol needs to be connected to the other capitol, too.

Okay Beast, You may have me on that point. That i didnt know.

However, i realise it makes little difference to the ICS style of play. Building a handful of reusable workers doesnt slow the expansion down much compared to 2 pop settlers.

Also, as i pointed out earlier, with a grid formation, an ICS player can build a strong road network by placing 1 road between 4 cities, meaning that another player has to essentially capture some cities to disrupt the ICS road network, or cut the resource off from its source. Not the easiest thing to do.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Does anyone other then me feel that the new worker concept is forcing our hands to play with the "holding settlers back" strategy, that is keeping settlers walking around upgrading cities? I used to have them do two/three upgrades then run off to build their own city. Now, I can't even do that. I have to build a worker to upgrade. I expect that a lot of us will end up with tons of spare workers running around. At least we could drop them into a city's population, right?

Ahh... No. at least not me. the difference between having a settler do some improvements or go found a city will just be made in the city production instead of out in the field. Since settlers only found cities, the only reason to build one is to found a city. a single worker can do a lot of improvements, and is never in danger of being made into a city.

It could become a colony, though. there is that decision to be made...

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Does anyone other then me feel that the new worker concept is forcing our hands to play with the "holding settlers back" strategy, that is keeping settlers walking around upgrading cities? I used to have them do two/three upgrades then run off to build their own city. Now, I can't even do that. I have to build a worker to upgrade. I expect that a lot of us will end up with tons of spare workers running around. At least we could drop them into a city's population, right?

I think the pop point can be reclaimed after their tour of duty building roads and irrigation... However this idea of seperating "city builders" from "terrain improvers" isnt new - and worked quite well IMO in SMAC Think of it this way - you can now improve your terrain for half the regular price of a settler (population-wise)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Metamorph
Turn 1: Johnny and Mary plunk down a city someplace lovely. Plunk!

Turn 11: Johnny's city is size 2. Mary's city is size 2. Ordinarily, Mary would be able to produce a settler now; but by this new rule, she can't. So therefore...

Turn 26: Johnny's city is size 3. Mary's city is size 1, and she has 1 settler.

Turn 28: Johnny's city is size 3. Mary's first city is size 1, and she now has a 2nd city of size 1, 2 squares away. (Side question: is 2 still the 'minimum safe distance' for cities?)

Turn 36: Johnny's city is size 3. Mary's first city is size 2, and her second is size 1. We'll hold off analysis until...

Turn 38: Johny's city is still size 3 (edging up on 4, though). Mary has two size 2 cities.

At this point, we have 3 squares of production vs 4. Noting, of course, that Mary is also receiving an extra, free city-tile bonus (free road or shield or some such nonsense), plus is harvesting an extra uber-tile (whale, buffalo, whatever).

Lets look at this closer.

Turn 1: both capitols will be producing military units to defend themselves. What about research? In Civ 3, the ICS'er will be forced to research Ceremonial Burial instead of a military advance because of culture.

Turn 11: Is the ICS'er going to produce more military units, or is going to build a temple? If he's not, he faces the risk of lagging in culture, which increases the chance of them joining a neighbour civ later on.

Turn 26: The ICS'er has a settler, but does he dare to use it to build a city, or will he want to wait for an escort? Losing 2 pop points to a wandering barbarian horde is lethal at this point.

It seems that the combined new measures is going to stop ICS quite effectively. No longer can a player ignore city improvements. No longer can a player use settlers to freely improve tiles before building cities. No longer can a player risk to have one of his cities undefended, particularly early in the game, for the loss will be too great to compensate. Rules on resources force players to develop culture and infrastructure.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Lets look at this closer.

Turn 1: both capitols will be producing military units to defend themselves. What about research? In Civ 3, the ICS'er will be forced to research Ceremonial Burial instead of a military advance because of culture.

Turn 11: Is the ICS'er going to produce more military units, or is going to build a temple? If he's not, he faces the risk of lagging in culture, which increases the chance of them joining a neighbour civ later on.

Turn 26: The ICS'er has a settler, but does he dare to use it to build a city, or will he want to wait for an escort? Losing 2 pop points to a wandering barbarian horde is lethal at this point.

It seems that the combined new measures is going to stop ICS quite effectively. No longer can a player ignore city improvements. No longer can a player use settlers to freely improve tiles before building cities. No longer can a player risk to have one of his cities undefended, particularly early in the game, for the loss will be too great to compensate. Rules on resources force players to develop culture and infrastructure.

Turn 1:I disagree. The ICSer will not be forced to choose a cultural advance because he can build his cities ON THE RESOURCE.

Turn 11: The danger of losing them to a neighboring civ is a valid point, but only if they overlap...

turn 26: since it takes 2 pop points to build a settler, there is time to build a military unit or 2 on the way, especially useful for martial law.

Turn 38: this model by Metamorph didn't even take into account that Mary has 2 size 2 cities, for 6 tiles being produced (with the free city tile) and Johnny has 1 size 3 city (or 4) producing 4 tiles (or 5).

in the future, Mary's second city builds a worker, while her first city builds another settler. another several turns, and mary has 3 cities size 2 (producing 9 tiles) and the second city is close to going size 3 and pumping out another settler, AND the cities are connected by roads. Johnny has a size 5 city (producing 6 tiles), and better drop his pop by building a worker if he wants to grow more.

A player can still ignore city improvements, and culture and resources do NOT force him to build infrastructure.

[Harlan]

Yet another factor to take into consideration. We know that many resources won't show up on the map until the proper tech is discovered. For instance, you won't know where Iron is until you discover Iron Working, Bronze until you discover Bronze Working, and so on. Given the large number of blank spaces in the early tech tree we've seen in the Ancient Age, I think many if not most resources need to be uncovered.

So, on this alone, there is a tension between building cities fast just anywhere, and waiting till you've gone through most of the Ancient Age techs and know where most of the resources are (even then, there are many that come later). You probably won't be able to build cities like a madman from the get-go, and always have them on sweet resource spots.

Also, we know that from time to time resource spots will disappear after being used up, and new ones will occasionally appear within worked city squares. So it pays to have a huge population (lots of worked squares) and large border areas.

Clearly there are too many new factors in the game for one to be able to say anything authoritative about ICS in Civ3 at this point. We don't even know if there is the extra starting square bonus in a new city, or not.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Harlan
You probably won't be able to build cities like a madman from the get-go, and always have them on sweet resource spots.

However, as UR pointed out, there will be plenty of time between building a settler and the city growing again to build another settler. An ICSer could build many military units between the first and second settler, or they could take some time out to build a single temple in each city. It would probably be done before the city grew back to size 3. If not, then after building the temple, that city could continuously pump out settlers till it was back to size 1.

The net effect of this is that each city will have at least a size 1 border. With each city only 2 squares from any other, this would mean that the entire ICS empire is within their border, and all resources are as well. All that would remain would be to build a road on each resource, and a road network. Finally, as each worker can be reused after building roads, only a handful would be needed for road-networking.

Clearly there are too many new factors in the game for one to be able to say anything authoritative about ICS in Civ3 at this point. We don't even know if there is the extra starting square bonus in a new city, or not.

Thats definately true, but as always, speculation is fun

[Harlan]

"The net effect of this is that each city will have at least a size 1 border. With each city only 2 squares from any other, this would mean that the entire ICS empire is within their border, and all resources are as well. All that would remain would be to build a road on each resource, and a road network. Finally, as each worker can be reused after building roads, only a handful would be needed for road-networking."

The point I was trying to make is, without already knowing a lot of technologies BEFORE building your cities, it will only be sheer luck if any of your cities are near any resources. The location of resources on the map you've already explored remains invisible until you get the tech to reveal them. And resources aren't just kind of nice like in Civ2, they're essential. Without Bronze, Horse and Iron early in the game for instance, you're unlikely to be able to build most early units.

And yes, in the system you describe you'll have all of a certain area within your borders, but it could turn out that is a very resource poor area. Its most likely a very small area compared to the entire map. I think players are going to need to build cities (and colonies) near resources much more than in Civ2, and not just any old spot on the map that can turn out a decent number of shields or food.

I imagine a strategy we're likely to see is a player builds a Settler, but holds back on using it until reaching the next key resource related tech, to get a better sense where a good spot for building the city will be. Or, you might build a new city only to find a few turns later that if you would have built it a few more tiles to the left, you're sitting on a ton of Iron.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Father Beast
Turn 1:I disagree. The ICSer will not be forced to choose a cultural advance because he can build his cities ON THE RESOURCE.

Turn 11: The danger of losing them to a neighboring civ is a valid point, but only if they overlap...

turn 26: since it takes 2 pop points to build a settler, there is time to build a military unit or 2 on the way, especially useful for martial law.

Turn 38: this model by Metamorph didn't even take into account that Mary has 2 size 2 cities, for 6 tiles being produced (with the free city tile) and Johnny has 1 size 3 city (or 4) producing 4 tiles (or 5).

in the future, Mary's second city builds a worker, while her first city builds another settler. another several turns, and mary has 3 cities size 2 (producing 9 tiles) and the second city is close to going size 3 and pumping out another settler, AND the cities are connected by roads. Johnny has a size 5 city (producing 6 tiles), and better drop his pop by building a worker if he wants to grow more.

A player can still ignore city improvements, and culture and resources do NOT force him to build infrastructure.

Turn 1: Not true, unless you start right smack on top of a resource square.

Turn 11: The thing about culture is you can't buy it. It must be accumulated slowly. Having a lot of small cities revolt to a smaller, but culturally highly advanced, neighbour is probably the nightmare of ICS'ers.

Turn 26: If the ICS'er chooses not to build a temple, he could have an extra warrior to escort the settler. Otherwise, he most likely has to wait.

Turn 38: The model also doesn't taken into account that civs with low cultures are more subjected to barbarian raids. Warriors can't stand up to a small horde. Having two thinly defended cities might not be such a wise idea.

In the future, building even more thinly defended cities could very well lead to barbarian encampments. Not smart all told.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
It would probably be done before the city grew back to size 3. If not, then after building the temple, that city could continuously pump out settlers till it was back to size 1.

The question is, will an ICS'er dare to have his settlers wandering about the landscape without escorts? If he doesn't, he is further slowed down to build military units. Now since upkeep will be paid by the national treasury, this can post problems. Also, an ICS'er can't really develop culture, which makes him more vulnerable to barbarians and highly cultured neighbours.

[korn469]

I think that ICS will still be a viable strategy in civ3; however, it will no longer be the overwhelming strategy that it was in civ2.

From what I understand, you now must spend two population points and an unknown number of shields (probably 40) to build a settler that still eats food and only has one function; that function being the ability to found cities. I assume that those cities will be size one cities. Players must also build workers, which cost one population point (and probably 20 shields), still eats food, and can found colonies, add one population to a city, and build tile improvements. Also the support system has been redone so that units are supported by the civ instead of by the city, and now support cost gold instead of shields. Resources will also force all players to defend their territory better, and there is one last counter to ICS and that is culture.

The question is how much does ICS need to be slowed down before it is of equal power to a normal expansionist player? We know that against humans a player cannot win with one city, but a player can be expansionistic without using ICS. Does civ3 reach the point where an expansionistic player can beat an ICS player of equal skill?

I think it gets close, very close, but we will just have to wait and see.

Does anyone here think that civ3 makes ICS worse?

[yin26]

I think ICS has been made now something closer to the Rush in Age of Kings: Now of course I'm not talking about rushing ASAP with units on attack but rather the similar risks involved.

A rusher in AoK must have the following going for him in order for his plans to work out (of course, a superior player can make up for a lack in any of these given time but will struggle more).

• Good resources: A rusher depends on getting the necessary resources ASAP. A missing boar or inefficiently harvested sheep can really throw things off. In the same way, I think an ICSer will need a pretty good starting seed to ensure himself early on.
• Good map: Similar to good resources, but a good map for a rusher is one that he can't be walled out on or one that doesn't have him looking for the enemy in a rather odd position, thus throwing off his scouting and early building placement. In the same way, an ICSer will have to play close attention to how soon and from how many directions an enemy can reach him early on. Huge maps will likely ENCOURAGE ICSers while smaller ones will make him be very careful and scout like crazy.
• Luck: Ah, luck. Now, a solid player makes his own luck, so I don't want to overplay this hand...but in the same way that having your forward builders killed by wolves can totally wreck your rush, having that early settler discovered by the enemy could spell doom for the ICSer.
• Flexibility: Finally, I think the mark of any great player using an extreme strategy is one who can look at his available resources, map and luck so far in the game to determine an optimum strategy. In so far as it looks like Civ3 has made these elements far more important for the success of an ICSer, I'd say things are going to be much more interesting.

PREDICTION: For the first few weeks of play, ICSing will still work like a charm because most players won't be trying to counter it. They'll stay close to home...this giving the ICSer that early build time he needs. However, after people stop crying that the game is still broken, better players will make it a point to scout the ICSer from the first turn. If the ICSer is playing it too cocky, he'll lose a settler and really be screwed early. And now if the anti-ICSer is pressing his advantage, he'll keep up this pressure and really bottle-up the ICSer early on.

This will then beg the question: Why not ICS and prepare a counter? Two ICSers going head-to-head could be a lot of fun. The finesse required will be substantial. But an ICSer who prepared a counter that never came could be throwing himself needlessly of his game and negating somewhat the early advantage he was trying to gain. So seeing that, he might throw caution to the wind and go 100% ICS again to catch up...only to see even better enemy units show up in better numbers.

And be warned: Many a prediction from Yin has proven true!

[korn469]

he'll lose a settler and really be screwed early

is there any proof to the rumor about being able to capture workers? does the same hold true for settlers?

plus lets say a barb kills a settler now, or any other thing happens when you unexpected lose a settler...the time to replace that settler is greater now

then how about nationality...if your culture is strong enough, and the perfectionist will have massive culture, then as the weak culture ICS player takes the well developed perfectionist cities they will revolt and go back to the perfectionist

again another counter to ICS

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Harlan
And yes, in the system you describe you'll have all of a certain area within your borders, but it could turn out that is a very resource poor area. Its most likely a very small area compared to the entire map. I think players are going to need to build cities (and colonies) near resources much more than in Civ2, and not just any old spot on the map that can turn out a decent number of shields or food.

And my point is that an ICSer will fill the entire area of a map, from coast to coast, with cities. As many that will fit without being next to another city. Therefore, any resources on that appear *anywhere* on the continent will be, at most, a distance of 1 square from a city.

Its true that players who play 'as Sid intended' will need to be more careful of city placement in relation to resource squares, but not for an ICSer.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The question is, will an ICS'er dare to have his settlers wandering about the landscape without escorts? If he doesn't, he is further slowed down to build military units. Now since upkeep will be paid by the national treasury, this can post problems. Also, an ICS'er can't really develop culture, which makes him more vulnerable to barbarians and highly cultured neighbours.

My belief is that the ICSers cities will have *plenty* of time between building a settler and growing enough to build another settler. This time would be used (initially) to build a military guard or three. They may not be the best units, but they are some protection for the settler. Besides, theres a much smaller chance of a settler getting attacked moving 2 squares to found a city than moving 5 squares which a perfectionist player (like me) would need to.

Originally posted by Yin26 the Pessimistic
Many a prediction from Yin has proven true!

I agree, this is one prediction that i see coming true (when MP is included )

EDIT: Fixed quote tags

[yin26]

Ah, I forgot to add: The AI is probably programmed to be conservative...and scouting the enemy without cheating is a nightmare for the AI. So unless the comp cheats and knows where to scout early, ICSing will still work against the comp. same as always just a bit more slowly early on.

In that sense, I don't think ICS for SP has been fixed at all. Aside from the occasional mishap and lucky computer move, ICS will be alive and well. This is significant, I think.

As always, it will be MP play where the true challenges come. Unfortuately...well, we have enough threads on that topic.