Ics

[The Andy-Man]

people keep saying this is a game winning strategy etc etc. but i dont see it. I thought it was sensible to colonize your continent before an AI civ does it.

[Smash]

um..in ICS(Infinite City Sleaze or,as I like, Strategy, you not only colonize your land,,but every bit of land you can get your hands on.

Maybe you mean OCC?1 city...that is just a different challenge that is easier in that you only have to manage 1 city as opposed to a massive sprawling empire.

[The Andy-Man]

no. i know what i ment.

its just that it seems more feesabl; to me to have 20 cities with money/sci/production improvements and high pop then to have 50 with no pop etc etc.

or is this just me?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

It's not just you. Both perfectionism (few, highly developed cities) and ICS (lots of undeveloped cities) have advantages.

I guess the key to ICS (I'll get my 2 cents in before the ICS gurus weigh in) is that a lot of small cities need fewer improvements (happiness improvements, aqueducts, sewers, etc) to be effective than a few big cities do. So in ICS you spend all your time making settlers and military units to conquer with, rather than making improvements to keep your cities growing.

Also, to make a simple comparison - one size 5 city works 6 squares, while five size 1 cities work 10 squares. So having a lot of small cities (like 100) can be very productive, and you don't waste a lot of cash on upkeep.

STYOM

[Smash]

...seems more feasible to me also.I despise ICS as a play style but I have used it and it is good.It's not neccessarily THE way to play.Its A to play.Big, fat cities is another way to play.

It has pros and cons.To me a big pro is it works well for bad terrain.Works well with good terrain ..but you can get off to decent start on dirt and rocks.Bigger,perfectionist type cities want decent terrain and specials.Beyond that it is a quantity vs quality situation.

[Scouse Gits]

One reason why so many of us keep playing this game (6 years old next February) is the variety of ways to achieve success.

ICS is one way to win. There are many others. In my opinion the strength of the strategy lies in its massive production base. Suppose you find yourself at war. You instruct your empire to build Crusaders/Cavalry/Howitzers. The Perfectionist may get 8 - one from each city - whilst the ICS player gets 80. OK some of them will take longer to build - but you will have them.

Turn the coin over - make the goals peaceful. Make those offensive units caravans instead! 80 freights are more useful than 8! With more cities you are much more likely to find demanded commodities and so increase the gold/science boost to your nation.

Success in the game is often the single minded approach that you WILL stick to a plan and build 80 Knights.

This is the power of ICS. By no means invinicible as many have proved ... but awesome when used properly.

---------------

SG(2)

[The Andy-Man]

but a small (less then size 8) city ill only produce about 5 sheilds.

where as a size 20 will produce in excess of 80 - a battleship every 2 turns.
10 battleships every 2 turns beats 80 every 50.

[kcbob]

I would say that the advantage I find in ICS is that it provides a way to overcome the aggressive AI in the MGE version. Without that, there ain't no way I'd be able to compete at Deity level.

And here's my vote for 'Sleaze'.

[Smash]

well I guess the idea is that those small 5 sheild cities will provide enough horses to eliminate a city long before it was capable of 80 sheilds and battleships.Or enough gold to outright buy anything.

Another pro(more for mp) is that an ICS civ is not nearly as vulnerable to sabotage.This a very powerful weapon against large developed cities.It can be absolutely devastating.Trust me .ICS has little or no improvements at all.


maybe I should be playing this way

[The Andy-Man]

i spose it depends on your style of play, ie. warmongerer or perfectionist.

[Smash]

oh yes a perfectionist shudders at the site of an ics empire.I would definitely say ICS works best with aggression.Horsemen over phalanx.

Although the ICSer may say "Hey wait,I have covered the map perfectly.I am a perfectionist"

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by Smash
Although the ICSer may say "Hey wait,I have covered the map perfectly.I am a perfectionist"

Nooooooo - I'm a warmonger !

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
but a small (less then size 8) city ill only produce about 5 sheilds.

where as a size 20 will produce in excess of 80 - a battleship every 2 turns.
10 battleships every 2 turns beats 80 every 50.

Andy ... I don't dispute your analysis, but your cities producing 80 shields require considerable investment. (The 80 shield level is the OCC player's goal - a Spaceship Structural each turn! This is not always easy to achieve)

Let's examine the infrastucture you may have to build: (Playing at Deity)

Temple
Market Place
Colosseum
Aqueduct
Sewer System
Cathedral
Factory
Power Plant
Offshore Platform
Mass Transit

That lot is way over 1000 shields per city - but for the sake of neat arithmetic say 1000. For the ICS player that's 20 caravans or 25 Crusaders.

And when the upkeep of all those city improvements is taken into account ....

.... that is the case for ICS!

---------------

SG(2)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Thake a look on the ICS thread in Civ III forum... ICS is an overwhelming strategy.. as long as you have your happiness sorted out... that is it... your productions, science grows exponentially as ICSer as opposed to linear growths to the perfectionist... You just have to be dediucated to building settlers and minimal improvements, army. Build the wonders with caravans... etc... AI has no chance... on Prince level it is possible to launch the spaceship just after 1 AD... so here you go.. this is probably most effective Civ II strategy, but it sucks.. since it undermines the concept of the game... that is just taking advantage of game weaknesses (like free tile improvement for the city)

[The Andy-Man]

about the cost:

10-20 hioghly developed cities (in a republic/democracvy) each with a market place, bank and stock exchange = about 300 income per turn (on King level). With Adam Smiths, about 100 expenditure.

PLenbty cash and we love the babe in charge days so :P, and its more fun this way in my opinion.

[The Andy-Man]

i forgot to mention. i can fairly easily get a production of 55 in most cities once i get factories.....

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
... and its more fun this way in my opinion.

This is the crux of the matter. This is a game that we play for fun. You like building laundrettes, I prefer laser rifles - the wonderful thing about Civ is that we both get to enjoy the same game in our own (rather different) ways ...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

This is the crux of the matter. This is a game that we play for fun. You like building laundrettes, I prefer laser rifles - the wonderful thing about Civ is that we both get to enjoy the same game in our own (rather different) ways ...

that is the point! ICS ruins the game... and that is the reason it should not be the best winning (preferably not even good) tactic in Civ III as it was in civ II.

[kcbob]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


that is the point! ICS ruins the game... and that is the reason it should not be the best winning (preferably not even good) tactic in Civ III as it was in civ II.

Au contraire, mon frere! The point is that ICS is simply another way to enjoy the game. I choose that way, you choose the road less travelled. And I've gotta tell you, without ICS, my winning percentage (and hence my enjoyment) would be abyssmal.

[Jaguar]

ICS cities are easier to bribe...

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
that is the point! ICS ruins the game... and that is the reason it should not be the best winning (preferably not even good) tactic in Civ III as it was in civ II.

It sounds to me that you have just had a visit from 120 vet Crusaders and found that even city walls and Alpine troops cannot stand against such a tide ...
I suspect that if you had found your adversary 500 years earlier you could have sent a couple of knights through the whole unwholesome mess - or perhaps you did find them and dismissed them as unworthy of your concern
Each style of play has its strengths and weaknesses and almost as a concomitant its windows of opportunity. From the ICSers point of view their strongest time is in the middle game where most representative governments are going through the doldrums of having to rush improvements in order to support their growth spurt - inevitably leaving them weak militarily - this is when the ICSer must strike - or else the economic power of a mature Democracy will oftimes prove too powerful. From the point of view of a perfectionist - ICS spawn should be found and punished early whilst they have little or no defense and absolutely no economic base. If this proves impossible the growth phase should be delayed whilst substantial defenses preferably at choke points are established to cover that period of weakness that is about to occur. Once the mature economy has been established race ahead in tech and send your armour pouring through their wattle walls.

Contrary to your comment - it is generally agreed on these boards that ICS is NOT the most powerful or most successful manner of play - a well managed representative government will normally defeat ICS - so why do you accuse us of 'ruining the game' just because we get our rocks off in a different way to you?
This sounds somewhat ICSist to me ...

[Akron]

I just finished an easy deity ics conquer the world game (I'm usually a perfectionist). But it was simply too much micromanagement, just not my style. I was moving some 50 dragoons per turn and mindlessly attacking cities.

IMO, it just wasn't as fun as having 10 supercities.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well OK, in MP human can beat an ICSer if there is not enough room for the ICS'er to expand, or ICSer gets attacked early... every strategy has its weaknesses, but the point is that ICS is just a tactic that abuses the game weakneses. To me it is more like cheating, going trough walls in CS etc...

You can say why... the game lets you do it, not that you alter the code. Still having cities next to each other, taking away planning, city management, and having the only focus to build as many settlers, or units as possible. Improving only one city in the empire... it is not much fun to me.

But the main point about civ III is if you can defeat the AI straight on deity in SP with ICS, that sucks, just takes away from all the potential that the game has. (if your goal is to win) I would prefer some more interesting way of winning the game, that is sure.

[DaveV]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
... the point is that ICS is just a tactic that abuses the game weakneses.

As opposed to We Love days, ship chaining caravans across the map for outrageous delivery bonuses, robbing the AIs blind on the diplomacy screen, etc., etc., etc.?

The game is set up to give the AIs lots of advantages at deity; I would go so far as to say that every successful strategy has an abusive element in it.

[Smash]

No I wouldn't say its cheating or anything sinister.It just uses what is available.

I would agree with DaveV on that.Like my caravan/freight re-homing in "Laugh at SG"...which then boarded a nice shipchain to sail halfway round the world and deliver on the same turn they are built
...or moving defenders out of size 2s when the Gardens and riot factor start acting up.
or storing up caravans for 1 turn wonders
or the bomber stack
or airbases for food
on and on it can go...
The mood of the manual(for what its worth) is quite encouraging with their "save often and reload if you don't like it" strategy.They seem to say if it benefits your civ then it is good.

As far as MP goes..well that is what it is all about.A clash of good strategies and techniques.It would be rather pointless if we all played like the AI.

[Father Beast]

I just started my first try at this. I read DaveV's guide from the GL, and started a game on deity.

Man, I have never had anyone pay me tribute on deity before! by 1 AD I had 16 cities, and 4 more settlers making their way on to new sites. the riot factor is really getting to me, though. does it get easier when you switch to communism?

it's a feat of micromanagement. some cities at size 2 have a red face and a black face, and some have two black hairs. he ones with 2 black hairs need one warrior, while the ones with one red, one black need two.

I'ma a little lax about the tribute, too. I forget to demand a lot of turns

[Messer Niccolò]

mmmh...
definitely if I want to win I prefer to use ICS.
However moving on 120 vet crusaders is not my favourite way to win.

... Civilization winner shouldn't be Civilized?

(even you can ask what's the meaning of the word Civilized... )

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Father Beast
the riot factor is really getting to me, though. does it get easier when you switch to communism?

Like you wouldn't believe. Under communism, the first citizen is content no matter how many cities you have, and you'll never see a black hat. Plus, martial law makes two citizens content.

Communism really puts the "infinite" in ICS!

[Akron]

Fundamentalism is even better! 8 free units supported, no unhappiness, thites, much less corruption than earlier gov'ts, and all you need to do is build the Statue of Liberty or capture it and the game is over!

[Father Beast]

I was thinking of doing a ICS-OCC mixed game. ICS at start, but find a good OCC spot to build your capitol. then treat you capitol like an OCC city, and disband any cities actually in it's radius, while all your other cities ICS till doomsday. Build Ming Gardens, and then Collossus of Rah, Ribannah's Observ., and Shakespeare, taking a break in there to build Oedo. outer cities fight wars, inner cities build camels. I predict early AC

For blowing up the city with WLT*D's just switch to republic while it's going on, and let your other cities riot.