Civ3 tried to discourage ICS and failed

[Pembleton]

At least in the early game. It actually encourages you to use ICS. Here's why.

I played my first games on Chieftain and Warlord since I don't like using exploits and refuse to use such things that are "cheap" such as the wombat maneuver.

On Prince level and higher you get fewer content citizens (it is 2 on Regent and King whereas it's 3 and 4 on the previous levels). The way to make them happy in the early game is to make a temple, or an entertainer when your pop hits 3 (or have luxuries). So the best thing to do to prevent doing this is just to make another settler after you make military units when your pop hits 3.

The computer uses ICS. I'm disappointed. They haven't learned the lesson or they haven't stopped it enough.

I haven't played a game since yesterday because my last save including my last 2 autosaves got corrupted and I just made a lot of complicated diplomatic agreements (because of lack of coal for railroads in my territory) and the computer units were doing the minutes long go back and forth dance so I quit.

EDIT: changed "fewer happy citizens" in second paragraph to "fewer content citizens"

[Yolky]

What is ICS again? I forgot.

Davor

[Pembleton]

It's an strategy that people used in the Civ games called "Infinite City Sleaze" or "IC Sprawl". It's where the main priority in the game is to make as many cities as possible and as close together as possible without regard to city improvements. In the long run it is just more efficient and you just end up having more production, and everything else if you don't overdo it.

The computer does it *now* in Civ3. If you ever look at their cities they have very few improvements and someone even showed a screenshot of a computer city that had pop 2 and a settler finished (but can't be produced until the pop hits 3).

To me it's really boring, and I miss my old naive days where I didn't know about it or do it. Sometimes too much knowledge can ruin a game.

[natlampe]

Originally posted by Yolky
What is ICS again?

I've seen both Infinite City Sleaze and Infinite City Sprawl mentioned. The term describes the huge amounts of cities that were often created in CivII.

Edit: Gah. Beaten to it.

[TCO]

It's within the nature of the game to reward expansion.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by GP
It's within the nature of the game to reward expansion.

But at the cost of almost completely ignoring your infrastructure? The penalties should be more severe.

The complaints I've heard of corruption, which I believe was also included as a hindrance to ICS, was more of an annoyance than anything that has discouraged me from doing it.

[Leonid]

I never used ICS. Really ruins the game and makes it boring and unfun.

[yavoon]

I think u still open up w/ massive expansion in mind, which of course is best suited by lotsa bases very quickly and close together. but the infinite part has definitely been taken out. u bust past those corruption limits and ur empire just grinds to a hault.

[NakaNaka]

I haven't used it in my game I have fought really hard in several big wars to win some key strategic cities ... However the Persians in the game have a huge stretch of land (which was given to them on start and they only had to win a couple of minor battles) and they have a ton of cities and pretty close together.

The game I'm playing has turned pretty isolationist because of this everyone has their cities and their space, I'm the only one who has made any massive war movement in the last 400-500 years.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by yavoon
I think u still open up w/ massive expansion in mind, which of course is best suited by lotsa bases very quickly and close together. but the infinite part has definitely been taken out. u bust past those corruption limits and ur empire just grinds to a hault.

That doesn't happen until the late game. At that point you don't make cities, you "take" them from other civs. And it doesn't matter if they have corruption to the point of producing one shield in cities with 12 pop. The point is that the other civs NO LONGER HAVE THE CITY.

[Dida]

i think CTP has city limit, which each government type would only support a given amount of cities, if you exceed this, you will face very bad consquence (unhappiness). Maybe CivIII should inplement something like tha.t

[yin26]

Since Pemby here has me on ignore for his own silly reasons, I guess he'll miss this part: The AI is given you are great early game challenge. Adapt. Get used to it. It's fun. It gives the AI a chance.

[Pyrodrew]

# of cities & distance from capital are currently the only 2 things which cause corruption, as Soren stated.

I think u still open up w/ massive expansion in mind, which of course is best suited by lotsa bases very quickly and close together. but the infinite part has definitely been taken out. u bust past those corruption limits and ur empire just grinds to a hault.

I agree the "infinite part" should stay out also. However that should be impacted much more on the # of cities one owns rather than distance from the capital. When it is vice-versa you still have ICS, but it is simply in a small area with cities packed tight. 2nd, heavy Distance Corruption means I can only expand 1 direction - slowly outward from the center of my empire. This heavy Distance Corruption forces who gets what land ALL THE TIME. If I'm in England & discover South America before you, who are in North America, I might as well kiss it goodbye & focus back on France because the Distance Corruption is FAR too high for me. ForbiddenPalaces are impossible to build at 1 shield/turn. Leaders are helpful, but very rare (as they should be). And the Forbidden Palace's impact to decrease corruption is very small compared to the power Distance Corruption has. 3rd, since the AI expands like crazy decreasing distance corruption would make the AI better (that's a good thing too)!

Soren listed some of things which impact corruption, I was glad to see culture wasn't included. Ideas for what else could have minor impacts on corruption, if they don't already:

Happiness# - If a worker isn't happy with the way their government it is more likely they will find ways around the rules or even break them. "We Love the King" Days only helps with shields & is a 1-time shot.

ResistancePeople - A city recently taken over from an enemy civ is less likely to follow it's rules, taxes, etc.

Republic - This government needs to be more useful. I rarely see people use/like this government. If you view the governments in the editor Democracy is in no danger of becoming weaker to Republic so helping the Republic would be good, especially since game balance is more important.

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
# of cities & distance from capital are currently the only 2 things which cause corruption, as Soren stated.

I should add that the distance part of the calculation is much easier to solve. IOW, the courthouses and government types affect distance corruption a lot more than they affect the # of cities corruption.

What I am trying to say is that bunching your cities together is not going to have an appreciable affect on your corruption if you take other steps to stop it.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by yin26
Since Pemby here has me on ignore for his own silly reasons, I guess he'll miss this part: The AI is given you are great early game challenge. Adapt. Get used to it. It's fun. It gives the AI a chance.

Well since this is *my thread* I read it.

And ICS is not a challenge. It's so easy a computer can do it. When did I ever say it was a challenge or hard.

I would like to use another strategy if possible. *That* would be fun. Doing the same strategy over and over is not fun.

And if you want to point out that there is another strategy and that I'm not skilled enough to find out what it is, fine. Someone else find it and tell me so I don't have to use it to guarantee a win.

And I know that arguing with you is just going to end up futile, but hey I'll see what happens. I will try to stop as soon as possible because I can't win an argument with you because you will always find a way to skirt the issue or refute some other point that I'm not even making.

EDIT: Grammatical errors and typos.

[Sarxis]

Expansion isn't really the same as ICS. ICS is for taking advantage of the 'free citizen' fluke from previous CIV games. That is not possible in CivIII.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Expansion isn't really the same as ICS. ICS is for taking advantage of the 'free citizen' fluke from previous CIV games. That is not possible in CivIII.

Um but it is. The cities get to pop 3 so fast it doesn't matter.

Before you get there you're better off building military units because a structure at this point is not efficient. And like I already pointed out, when you hit pop 3 you get your first unhappy citizen. What do you do? Waste it on an entertainer? If you don't you have civil disorder. You're better off building a settler to get rid of the unhappiness.

And mind you, this is early in the game. Later you start building the temples and what not. And this is what makes religious civs much stronger than people predicted.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Pembleton
It's an strategy that people used in the Civ games called "Infinite City Sleaze" or "IC Sprawl". It's where the main priority in the game is to make as many cities as possible and as close together as possible without regard to city improvements. In the long run it is just more efficient and you just end up having more production, and everything else if you don't overdo it.

The computer does it *now* in Civ3. If you ever look at their cities they have very few improvements and someone even showed a screenshot of a computer city that had pop 2 and a settler finished (but can't be produced until the pop hits 3).

To me it's really boring, and I miss my old naive days where I didn't know about it or do it. Sometimes too much knowledge can ruin a game.

I disagree that the computer uses it or anyone can use it effectively.

Partially because no one can get republic by 1AD, that might be something to see. So you can't city sprawl.

Question though, Did they change the rules for city size 3 IN Republic, any city rejoicing at size 3 or greater auto increases?

I've been playing my games in monarchy soley, cause Republic sucks for me in this game, I warmonger and that's no fun.

Second point, is that you can't city sprawl on regent, or king becuase you can't eliminate unhappy citizens.

Computer doesn't city sprawl, it just cheats, a lack of good programing here, I'm dissapointed, and a lot of game designers have been doing this. Substitute a good AI by making one that cheats.

There is no way they can sprawl like they do, if they have to pay 2 pop points for sets, and 1 for workers. Aside though, the AI is actually smarter and a little les forgetful.

3 point, I don't know how to city sprawl, or even get as many cities as I used to, I have to spend 3 pop points to develop 2 cites, worker plus set, for road set up.

Example of somthing cool, I signed a right of passage with England, set my armies next to them wiped them out in a few years. I say ok I'll do that to the romans, and then the romans call me on it and say no right of passage treaty, which was very cool I thought.

Plus when I finally foought Romans, I cam rocking in with Cavs, Muskets, Cannons, And was doing nicely, but the try to get my workers, or try to get to cities I have taken that I leave with few defenders. That's pretty good. Plus the computer tries to take the best strategic points, like mountains and such they just don't lie down.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Stromprophet

Second point, is that you can't city sprawl on regent, or king becuase you can't eliminate unhappy citizens.

Computer doesn't city sprawl, it just cheats, a lack of good programing here, I'm dissapointed, and a lot of game designers have been doing this. Substitute a good AI by making one that cheats.

Um, it's easier and more effective to sprawl at those levels. I already pointed this out. It's better to build a settler at pop 3 because of the unhappy citizen than to use it as an entertainer. This is the third time I've repeated this. How many times do I have to point this out?

And the computer doesn't cheat up to regent. And I haven't played a game above that level yet.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Um but it is. The cities get to pop 3 so fast it doesn't matter.

Before you get there you're better off building military units because a structure at this point is not efficient. And like I already pointed out, when you hit pop 3 you get your first unhappy citizen. What do you do? Waste it on an entertainer? If you don't you have civil disorder. You're better off building a settler to get rid of the unhappiness.

And mind you, this is early in the game. Later you start building the temples and what not. And this is what makes religious civs much stronger than people predicted.

Ok, Expansion isn't exactly the same as ICS.
But all the same, I can't say that an ICS/expansionistic playstyle in CivIII is a game breaker like it was in previous civ games- the AI seems to expand like crazy too, and there are a lot more reasons to build big cities (cultural and defensive) as opposed to littering the world with small towns.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Ok, Expansion isn't exactly the same as ICS.
But all the same, I can't say that an ICS/expansionistic playstyle in CivIII is a game breaker like it was in previous civ games- the AI seems to expand like crazy too, and there are a lot more reasons to build big cities (cultural and defensive) as opposed to littering the world with small towns.

The small towns that you litter grow really fast if you play right. I get to pop 6 without aqueducts or 12 without hospitals *way* before those techs are available. So there really is no point to trying to get there as fast as possible when they will get there eventually. It's better to siphon off the pop which evetually become the large cities later.

So you end up with more large cities later than fewer that were sitting at pop 6 and 12 for a long time.

[Sarxis]

Multiplayer will be the real test of these theories.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Multiplayer will be the real test of these theories.

I don't play multiplayer. Never have in Civ and never will.

I am not a patient person. It already takes a really long time to play single player. Why would I torture myself with multiplayer?

[Sarxis]

Oh well- you are missing out on some really great gaming.

[yin26]

Well, since I consider the past "the past," I always move on with people. Some people, however, don't seem to move on. That's fine.

My problem is not with the supposed ICS of the AI. As I said, the rapid AI expansion is an AWESOME expansion to the game. Also keep in mind, that the AI's expansion gets him into trouble when he tried to put cities far from his capital and close to your borders ... only to get eaten up by your culture influnce. So I find trying to balance a cultural/militaristic counter VERY fun and challenging. The early game actually has some tension to it now.

Great work on that, Soren!

HOWEVER: How in the world does the AI manage all that expansion AND the number of units it pumps out? I'm talking about my experience on Regent level.

Is the AI not getting the 2-pop settler penalty or something? That part has me suspicious.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by yin26
My problem is not with the supposed ICS of the AI. As I said, the rapid AI expansion is an AWESOME expansion to the game. Also keep in mind, that the AI's expansion gets him into trouble when he tried to put cities far from his capital and close to your borders ... only to get eaten up by your culture influnce. So I find trying to balance a cultural/militaristic counter VERY fun and challenging. The early game actually has some tension to it now.

Well I actually *want* to be wrong. That's why I posted this. I *want* to have fun.

I am glad that the AI expands. But there is some balance and ICS is not as abusive as it was in Civ2 and I'm probably just frustrated that the early game still seems so mechanical rather than reactive, even though there's more tension as you say. It's late now so I don't have time to respond to everything carefully now but I may continue this later unless I get really hooked on the game I'm starting tomorrow morning.

[yin26]

I agree with you that there are some issues with it. I also wonder how much of it is my not understanding how I have to use a new play style myself. To be honest, I haven't had enough time to decide if it's a fun challenge or a predicable bore. So far, of course, I like it ... though there are burning questions.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Um, it's easier and more effective to sprawl at those levels. I already pointed this out. It's better to build a settler at pop 3 because of the unhappy citizen than to use it as an entertainer. This is the third time I've repeated this. How many times do I have to point this out?

And the computer doesn't cheat up to regent. And I haven't played a game above that level yet.

It's not City sprawl though. You can't pop out to 8. There's no way. It takes long enough to get to republic anyway in order to even try anything. And without roads it would be hard to ICS, so you have to spend an extra Settler. It's definitely not ICS. IN order to use ICS you had to have some pretty important stuff, Hanging and Mikes, you could do it without it, but it was pretty tuff to get all your unhappies to go away, and keep the rest rejoicing.

Maybe the AI doesn't cheat, but it's possible they counter based on what you do. Most likely they went with the same system as in Civ 2 where they get to build everything for far less than you do. But the computer in my Regent game went faster than I've seen a lot of humans go in MP. And on King it was ridiculous.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Pembleton


I don't play multiplayer. Never have in Civ and never will.

I am not a patient person. It already takes a really long time to play single player. Why would I torture myself with multiplayer?

I'd like to point out that if you have never played Civ online, these theories are crap. No theory holds up in MP. Multiplayer is a true test of human against human.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by yin26
Well, since I consider the past "the past," I always move on with people. Some people, however, don't seem to move on. That's fine.

My problem is not with the supposed ICS of the AI. As I said, the rapid AI expansion is an AWESOME expansion to the game. Also keep in mind, that the AI's expansion gets him into trouble when he tried to put cities far from his capital and close to your borders ... only to get eaten up by your culture influnce. So I find trying to balance a cultural/militaristic counter VERY fun and challenging. The early game actually has some tension to it now.

Great work on that, Soren!

HOWEVER: How in the world does the AI manage all that expansion AND the number of units it pumps out? I'm talking about my experience on Regent level.

Is the AI not getting the 2-pop settler penalty or something? That part has me suspicious.

I was suspicious as well. Since I never lost to the AI before. However, I suppose they are getting an extreme value discount on building costs.