ICS, changing old habits

[lord of the mark]

I first tried ICS "my own way" with a SSC capital, and with trade.
Didnt finish.


Ive read DaveVs guide and am trying a purist ICS approach

Tried as mongols on small real world map, the game started me alone on North America!!. Quickly dropped that.

Tried on a small random map. started alone
on small continent, what with triremes, and all, game got bogged down. Missed HG.

Tried as Indians on small real world map. Forgot to go for horseback riding tech right off, didnt pop enough huts, etc. Zulus destroyed everyone else, surrounded me. Fought my way out, but meanwhile, with no place to send settlers, and need for lots of archers, i let my cites grow, to point that i'm off ICS track.

Tried again, this time persians on small real world map. (deity, 7, RT,no restart) I seem to be getting the hang of it, expanding nicely, got HG, some good defensive wars. Hope to get Leos soon, and chivalry, and attack with knights before walls go up everywhere.

LOTM

[John-SJ]

Though I've been playing Civ since the original Civ days I'm also somewhat new to the ICS strategy.

I started a game recenly at deity and right from the start found myself in a dilemma. What should I do with the second settler? On the one hand it's a free unsupported unit that is a great advantage in the early game, but on the other hand if I establish a second city ASAP I accelerate the geometric expansion of the ICS strategy. Or, as a variation should I use the second settler to make the first road improvement for the first city and at the second city site before establishing the second city?

John-SJ

[Blaupanzer]

Starting alone on a continent is not a reason to abandon ICS. Just grow like crazy. Either they will come or you will generate a mighty invasion force and go to them. Either is fine.

As to the second settler, if you start with roadable/irrigable specials (e.g., buffalo or wheat), then it may be worth hanging on to him as a NON resource. However, as I read DaveV's wisdom, the goal is more, sooner. So sink roots and go for it.

Some time ago here was a debate whether to put down your 2. city ASAP or keep your NON-settler. IIRC the "two immediate cities" approach won at tests (though Ribannah might disagree )

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by Blaupanzer on 04-06-2001 01:06 PM As to the second settler, if you start with roadable/irrigable specials (e.g., buffalo or wheat), then it may be worth hanging on to him as a NON resource. However, as I read DaveV's wisdom, the goal is more, sooner. So sink roots and go for it.

Yes. Not building a city with the second settler halves the size of your potential empire. If I pick up a NON settler from a hut after I have half a dozen cities, I will probably keep him as for road construction. But early growth is the heart of ICS.

As far as "changing old habits", try to live without irrigation - that's the most common mistake of people trying ICS. If you build a city instead of irrigating a square, you can produce a unit and grow most of the way to size 2 in the time you would have spent irrigating. Irrigation also tends to make cities grow too fast, then you have to resort to the other ICS anathema, the temple . I've played many games without ever irrigating a single square.

[airdrik]

Oh, ye ICS'ers, beware: When civ 3 comes out you will find it hard to play ICS since settlers (for building cities only) cost double the population. I want to see someone be very successful at ICS when you have to wait until size 3 to build a settler.

Anyway that is civ 3. You can still play ICS on civ 2 if you want, there is nothing wrong with that. (Except that everyone else will be playing civ 3 )
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited April 06, 2001).]

[rah]

If you think that alone is going to stop ICS, you're in for a big surprise.
That will be a minor speed bump.


Let's just hope they don't do overkill like what was done in CTP2.
RAH

[airdrik]

Actually, it isn't me who is thinking that that will stop ICS, but the people at Firaxis. They are the ones who added that just for that reason.

Of course it is to be expected that the real civvers will find a way around every obsticle in civ 3 .

[rah]

A safe assumption

RAH

God, couldn't even do a two line post without screwing up. damn.
[This message has been edited by rah (edited April 06, 2001).]

[Scouse Gits]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-06-2001 04:35 PM Anyway that is civ 3. You can still play ICS on civ 2 if you want, there is nothing wrong with that. (Except that everyone else will be playing civ 3 ) [This message has been edited by airdrik (edited April 06, 2001).]

Well we will have to see the game first before we can make judgements like that. If it turns out to be a turkey, you might be the only one playing CIV 3.

-----------

SG(2)

[Eli]

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 04-06-2001 07:22 PM Well we will have to see the game first before we can make judgements like that. If it turns out to be a turkey, you might be the only one playing CIV 3.

nope...

Civ 3 can be the worst game ever, but we will all be playing it.



------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

"The length of a minute depends on which side of the toilet door you're on"

[Scouse Gits]

quote: Originally posted by Eli on 04-06-2001 07:36 PMCiv 3 can be the worst game ever, but we will all be playing it.

Yeah -- like we all shifted to CtP ...


------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[Eli]

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 04-07-2001 06:09 AM Yeah -- like we all shifted to CtP ...

No, CtP is a different game, not a sequel.


You'll see.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 04-06-2001 02:09 PM Yes. Not building a city with the second settler halves the size of your potential empire. If I pick up a NON settler from a hut after I have half a dozen cities, I will probably keep him as for road construction. But early growth is the heart of ICS. As far as "changing old habits", try to live without irrigation - that's the most common mistake of people trying ICS. If you build a city instead of irrigating a square, you can produce a unit and grow most of the way to size 2 in the time you would have spent irrigating. Irrigation also tends to make cities grow too fast, then you have to resort to the other ICS anathema, the temple . I've played many games without ever irrigating a single square.

Yes current game is going well because i have steadfastly refused to irrigate, despite the temptation. (i have also refused to mine - am i taking things too far?) No temples - only improvements have been walls, and those sparingly. WOWS - HG, Leos, STWA. Hoping for SOL and Mikes soon.

Have elimiated the nasty Mongols with knights, both vet and green. Russians stole a tech, so i took Kiev, then ceasefire. Its now me, (with most of Asia) Russians (europe and africa and at least 2 cities left in trans ural) and aztecs (developing alone in North America). I intend to get at finish leadership (currently researching) before taking on Russians again. Meanhwile i still have land in NE asia, and Australia to settle.


LOTM

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-06-2001 04:35 PM Oh, ye ICS'ers, beware: When civ 3 comes out you will find it hard to play ICS since settlers (for building cities only) cost double the population. I want to see someone be very successful at ICS when you have to wait until size 3 to build a settler. Anyway that is civ 3. You can still play ICS on civ 2 if you want, there is nothing wrong with that. (Except that everyone else will be playing civ 3 ) [This message has been edited by airdrik (edited April 06, 2001).]

Im playing ICS in hopes of improving my deity level game before civ3 comes out. Given that it wont be out before November at the earliest, and i will probably not be the first to purchase, thats plenty of time to master ICS, and shift back to more prefectionist.

[Scouse Gits]

LotM - when you get Leadership, try closing down research completely and switch to all gold -- the AI will slow its own research to almost a standstill and you maximise the length of the windoe of opprotunity when your four footed friends can wreak their damage across the globe, at the same time your diplo corps is buying anything that moves with all that spare cash ....

Fun, fun, fun, until Firaxis take the ICS awaaayyy!!

------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 04-07-2001 03:56 PM thats plenty of time to master ICS

Are you sure?
IMO you should ask Dave.
But AFAIK he is busy fighting against the Rome scenario (someone told him it was possible to win in less than 100 years and he was eager to verify whether that was bragging ).


------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[Edward]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-06-2001 04:35 PM Oh, ye ICS'ers, beware: When civ 3 comes out you will find it hard to play ICS since settlers (for building cities only) cost double the population. I want to see someone be very successful at ICS when you have to wait until size 3 to build a settler.

Does this mean that when you build a settler in Civ3, that city loses two populations points (instead of just one like you do now in Civ2)?

I'll have to agree with rah - this will not be enough of a limit on ICS. It will still be a very viable strategy. If they really want to limit ICS, then they should make the riot factor even more nasty than it is now, or better yet, fix the double black unhappy bug. Of course the surest way to end ICS would be to eliminate it's reason for existence - the "free" use of the city square.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by La Fayette on 04-09-2001 08:15 AM Originally posted by lord of the mark on 04-07-2001 03:56 PM thats plenty of time to master ICS Are you sure? IMO you should ask Dave. But AFAIK he is busy fighting against the Rome scenario (someone told him it was possible to win in less than 100 years and he was eager to verify whether that was bragging ).

well i dont mean mastering it enough to beat the experts in multiplay, just to know how it works and improve the rest of my game.

I finished my game described above, winning by conquest in 1778 AD. Using a pretty much pure ICS. And you know what? Im not real keen to keep playing that way. It somehow feels "uncivish" to have all those cities and not a single library, temple, or marketplace. So now i will either try to move to less pure ICS, perhaps ICS with trade, or with an SSC, or perhaps use the lessons to start smaller closer cities at the very beginning, or maybe just go back to the saved game you commented on.

LOTM