It's not ICS- it's REX!

[Lord Maxwell]

Originally posted by MxM
Has anyone else managed to win without REX on regent? I suspect that most of the players try REX because ICS was working very good in civII. But did you try another play stile in civ III. It worked for me, especially when you do not have much space per civ.

Nope, I never completed a game using ICS. I use "rex" because thin expansion has rocked in every single 4x game I ever played. Spread out as fast as possible, maybe chalk up the loss of one or two of the outermost cities when you overextend, and then solidify. Has worked for ever. In fact 4x games are geared toward this being the best start up. (Except in some really tight starts where you end up in someones lap from the start.)

[Ozymandous]

Amusing.

Players complaining about having to expand to be viable later in the game. Have you folks never played any other 4X type games, or have you become so lazy doing OOC with the broken Civ2 AI that you are unable to change strategies?

In every single 4X game si have ever played I have expanded as much as possible. Did I use ICS? No! Did I space my cities out so they recieved as much free land as possible to get as big as possible? Yep!

Early expansion or REX (good term) does NOT equal ICS!! Stop saying it does because you can easily expand early in almost ALL 4X games without having to build on top of your other cities/planets, etc.

Having to fund more cities in the early game does NOT mean you use the same strategy for each game, it simply means you spread out to have a solid base to use later in the game when you need it.

All 4X games have always dissolved into "he/she with the most cities wins" unless people break the game AI as in Civ2, so having to fund more early cities makes sense.

And for those who complain they can't build all culture early on with small cities, why not? You need something to fill in between the settlers, and those temples, graneries and barracks work fine. If you only build two settlers from each city then you usually have plenty of time to build culture.

[wheathin]

Ozymandous: Well stated! The AI is behaving exactly as Human players always have, and now folks are whining? Gimme a break. Look on the bright side: now you can have the MP experience in an SP game

Yin, I think you are being purposefully obtuse regarding an ICS-REX distinction. ICS has always been defined as a strategy that takes direct advantage of the "one free square" in Civ2. A player exploits that advantage to build dozens of cities that are never intended to grow beyond size 4. (See Metamorph's extensive discussions, among others, in the CtP forums and elsewhere) The REX strategy is just sound gameplay.

Moreover, it is very realistic. Civilizations have historically expanded rapidly into "unclaimed" or poorly defended territory in all eras. They expand to the limits of their political systems' ability to maintain order. Here, the AI is just probing for the easiest path to expand. If you want to be faced with realistic strategic choices, you've got one: build a military! If you aren't willing to defend your territory (and go to war to do so) well, I'm not sure what bit of history you've been reading.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


I have no problem with #ofcities causing corruption. But if I'm in England (with say 10 cities) & I notice SouthAmerica & Australia are open territory I should be able to put cities there without having Distance Corruption choke me to death.

I disagree with that statement. You should be killed by corruption attempting to build cities across oceans. They should be uncooperative and just about only good for delivering resources. Do you think it is any way reasonable that England could rule Australia in the same manner it rules London?

[narmox]

about the fact that there's nowhere left to "colonize" in the period where coloinzation took place in our own world... Think of it this way. When europeans set out across uncharted water and lands, they didn't find them empty. There were tribes already living there: Iroquois, Zulus, Sioux, etc... Just as in civ3, when you set out to colonize, you'll probably discover other civilizations. They may be more advanced, or less advanced - in the case of our world, they were found less advanced scientifically and some people took advantage of that, thus leading to the conquests and colonization...

Well, that's my take on it. The other points are valid too, it's refreshing to have a better AI

[HalfLotus]

What Ozymandus said.

[Barry Brenesal]

I think a rational degree of flexibility should govern approaches to building throughout the first two ages. For example: if you find you're sharing a large continent with a very expansive but non-threatening AI (like India), I'd suggest finding the most important luxury and strategic goods and planting cities there--no matter how far apart they are. If you're facing an aggressive AI, however, keep your cities pretty close together, cut off choke points, and take every inch of seacost. Don't give 'em a place to set up a city.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

At any rate, I'd like to see some solution to the problem, not because its unbeatable, but because its 1) ahistorical, 2) too cost effective and 3) boring to have to do the same strategy game after game. I thought one of Sid's cornerstone design principles is the risk/reward decision-making. When it comes to the early game 'land grab', there is no decision...do it or die.

Here are a few ways to play the beginning of the game.

You can REX and keep you culture low, or you can build 3-4 cities, build up your culture and hope that the AI civs cities will lap against your borders and you can take them over culturally.

A few things I find to be problems

REX-ing means that you will have hardly any culture, but a larger chance of having resources in your borders (many of which are not yet revealed). But this doesn't really matter since the AI won't have any either!
Build 3-4 cities means that you will have high culture, but less of a chance of having luxeries and strategic resources in your territory until you assimilate those AI cities. It could be dangerous at the beginning, although other civs might be in awe of your culture and won't declare war on you.

[Shaka II]

[SIZE=1]

REX- Rapid Early eXpansion

Well, I thought Civ II expansion was about right. In Civ III, the need for REX is pretty extreme, but it is probably the most fun part of the game for me. Present game, I am isolated on separate continent with Romans (I am Greeks).

Damned if they didn't fill in the few cracks I left between or on the edges of my cities. I tried to block them a few times, covering the fertile land with units, so they proceeded to build on a mountain and another on a glacier!

I took great pleasure in seeing that same mountain city defect to my side, because of my great culture! So, maybe this AI tendency is not necessarily a bad thing. I am hoping that I can take over a few more (peacefully) as time goes on.

Regent is hard! Probably about the same as deity in CivII, although I'm sure it will get easier once I learn some of the new tricks.

Overall, I am impressed with AI, although some things may warrant a patch in the future.

[Mnus]

I think I have to agree with Ozymandous and Wheathin.

In most of the games I've played ( typicaly large continental maps with 8 other Civ's) The map fills VERY fast. I haven't had a need to build a settler past about 500 B.C. They become completly useless. This IS historically accurate - any CIV, given the land, food, growth, and political stability to expand, will do so. History is full of less than desirable places that have, nonetheless, been settled by humanity - Iceland, siberia, the Andes, African jungle, etc. Some of these cultures never, errr, how should I say this......well, they never had a shot at becoming PARIS, but they had thier unique attributes nonetheless.

I think the argument is that the abilities of COLONIES and EXPLORERS in the game aren't historically accurate. This is true, to an extent. I certainly haven't used any of them. I think explorers could possibly be nice for gaining short range intelligence in enemy territory, but they would probably be toasted by cavalry short into thier exploration. Still, this shortcoming hasn't stopped me from enjoying the game.

And yet, I still managed to pull a form of, how I see it, historically accurate 'colonization' - without these units. Instead, what brought it on was the discovery of MAGNETISM. Their were 3 rival Civs in my Game that no other Civ had yet to even meet. I was the first Civ, by a pretty safe margin, to gain the use of Galleons/Frigates, And quick Sea exploration explained shortly where these "mystery Civs" were. Each was completely stranded on thier own medium sized Island. None had so much had the technology to cross the sea and meet one another, let alone make it to the main continent. So, when I "pulled a Cortez" and landed cannons and cavalry on thier islands, they couldn't ask for help from other Civs. I took over a few of thier cities, but left some (cuz I'm such a nice Ruler! ).

Now, I realize this had a lot to do in plane luck in the way the land was shaped, but it still made me smile.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i don't use colonies either. There's no point in wasting a pop point.

[CubsFan915]

Originally posted by yin26
What was your starting position relative to your neighbor. Do me a favor a play as China, normal random map. See if you don't start next to India and have him crawling all over you ignoring your borders etc.

I doubt that I'm just getting unlucky in my games.

I read somewhere (manual? strategy guide? civilopedia?) that the game tends to start real-life geographical neighbors together - for example, the Chinese/Japanese/Indian, or the Europeans, or the North/South American civs... so, if you play as the Chinese, you will tend to have the Indians and the Japanese nearby more often than not.

[Madine]

Yeah colonies are very temporary.

I've noticed the AI likes to build cities on the fringes of my continent, right between my borders and the ocean. I would think cultural takeover would mitigate this somewhat, but I haven't had many cultural takeovers even when my culture was superior.

Is there anyone that knows the exact (or close to exact, heheh) mechanisms of cultural takeover?

[War4ever]

Dont know the precise data on cultural takeovers but do admit a smile emerged from my face when i took over a city becuase of my high culture

However the cities must need to be close as i only ever took one city from each civ that was beside me......

Perhaps when a cultural takeover happens its a sign that the rival empire is weak....and we should be attacking a city nearby the newly acquired one.......

slow systematic and cultural takeover..... its the new form of bribing........ and you guyz said you took dips out of the game

[Txurce]

It does seem as if colonization will prove to be an under-utilized aspect of the game. But given the occasional desirability of razing a captured city for tactical or management reasons...

Would it sometimes make sense to found a well-defended colony near a resource left behind after the city is razed? Among the advantages would be an imperviousness to cultural takeover.

[War4ever]

can you build forts under a colony first..... ie start building the fortress and then plop a city or colony down...this made your defences much better in civ2.....

sheesh..get that civ 2 strategy out of your head

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Talenn

What I find most disturbing about the current system is that all Civs (including the player) expand like mad in the extremely ancient era of the game and that by the time of the historical 'land grabs' and mass colonizations in the real world, there is practically no unoccupied land (on default maps/Civs) etc.

Not really. All the places which were "colonized" were already occupied by other people whom were Conquered (or wiped out) by European expansion. If you want something like the Land Grabs you refer to go raze a bunch of Native American cities and watch the ensuing land grab. That's closer to being historically accurate.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MxM
Has anyone else managed to win without REX on regent?

I am playing the Romans on Regent, built 4 cities, then Legions and Horsemen, and rolled over the Egyptians. Worked like a dream. I am now in the Late Middle Age, and leading. Attacking early is a good alternative to Rex in some games.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ttacking early is a good alternative to Rex in some games.

THis is definatly true, especially if you have an eraly UU which can rock the world.

[cultureshock]

What I like doing is building a city on the edge of another civilizations territory (as close to one of their cities as I can get)and just let my culture grow and envelope the other culture's city. So for me, the settlers are still usefull later on. Just place them on the edges of your cultural borders and watch the defections roll in.

To be honest I haven't tried it at the higher levels so if any body does let me know how it goes.

Also, later in the game I also speed up the building of city improvements (in these outer cities) that generate cultural points by just buying them outright. Usually I'll have a democracy and lower the science for awhile to generate 150-250 gold per turn. It's worked for me so far.

[madmario]

Many people are complaining about the "need to rex."

Other people complain about the "crippling corruption of large civilizations."


My question is, which is it? Can't be both.

REX all the way baby.

-mario

[nato]

"REX" pretty much exactly describes how I played Civ 1 & 2 and all other games like this. I have no trouble with the big land grab, since I always played like that. I was amazed to see the AI keep up with me though. I've played all my games on Monarch so far.

I like having a term for it ... I always wondered whether I was really an ICSer ... I expanded fast and had lots of cities, but didn't think ICS really described me. I feel there is a difference, though they are closeby.

Anyway I'd be surprised if there are many other good ways to play in Civ3 or any other game like this. It all comes down to having the good land and the most cities.

Seriously, besides an early war like described above, how else did you ever play Civ2? Did it ever work?

I agree that "colonization" is totally, sadly missing from this game, but I don't see how else you would play a Civ type game without a big land grab at first.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

There are many ways to start.

(1) REX-ing
(2) Build four or five cities, build up culture then let the AI borders lap against yours. Then you assimilate those cities with culture
(3) Build two or three cities, then send out your jaguar warriors and beat the hell out of everyone else (got it hate them )