ICS problem - a solutionmodel

[Jeje2]

intro

Hi,
I was talking with my friend (he is a CivII-fanatic) about the ICS problem and how SMAC tried to solve this.

So this is now his idea, but I liked it.
(If this idea has been said before, I'm sorry)

Defining the problem

He think's that making it harder to control more cities isn't the correct solution. When time goes on more cities will come and that is not that bad.

The problem is that in ICS the cities overlap each another and this is the big problem. You build cities to close to eachother.

Solution

Let's use the cities happiness-factor.

Each city has 21 squares. Now if there are overlaping squares between cities, it affects negatively to the happiness. (Animal tests have shown that beeing to close isn't comfortable for them. They gat stressed aso.)

So for each city the amount of overlaping squares is to be calculated and the number is to affect the citys happiness. This way 1-2 overlapping squares can be allowed, but 5 should have a very negative effect.

Final words

IMHO this could be a partial solution. I would like to see it combined with SMAC:s model of many cities.

[Evil Capitalist]

If I understand what you're saying cities close together should be unhappy. That isn't realistic- look at the Ruhr basin or New York. We value our space, but we don't need 2500 square miles.

[Jeje2]

Evil Capitalist:
Yup, got it right and made a good point also.


I didn't say that this model describes perfectly the situation today.

But if you go into history a bit you can find situations were cities too close to eachother caused unhappiness. (Just one exampls is ancient Rome and Carthago. OK, not same nation but the idea.)

No I don't think this is the truthful projection of reality, but it could maybe solve the ICS problem in Civ-genre games.

Ok, nuff said.

[Shadowstrike]

Didn't my Revolutions thread solve the ICS problem by making unwanted revolutions and schisms more common in bigger empires? I dunno about cities being too close cauing unhappiness though.

[Adm.Naismith]

Jeje2, I know your is only an example, still Rome and Carthago where quite far... two different continent, in fact.

They simply tried to exert their power over the same sea, Mediterraneum, hence their clash.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Ari Rahikkala]

Just be sure that anything you do to this stuff, ICS, especially when rationally used, is a formidable strategy that can be used in proper situations just like any other strategy.

Thank you for your (short) time.

[The diplomat]

In civ2, city improvements have a maintenance cost. My solution is for each city itself to have a maintenance cost (ie each city would require some gold). This maintenance cost for cities, which I call an "administration cost" would represent the cost of administering a city. The "administration cost" would vary depending on distance, pop, unhappiness (it is harder to administer an unhappy city compared to a happy one) and SE (the more totalitarian, the costlier since dictatorships require a firmer control on the pop).
What an "administration cost" would do is make ICS expensive. A player would have to make sure that he/she has enough money to build new cities. If there were a city that you could not pay the administration cost, then that city would get unhappy and probably revolt.

I think this would be a cool way to make ICS harder.
what you all think?

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[The Joker]

Shadowstrike's solution is of cause what would obviously solve ICS in a Civ2 type game.

But I would like many more features, like diseases and more advanced infrastructure, which would also make ICS less profitable.

I think that fixing ICS isn't enough. Firaxis must truly implement the rise and fall of great empires idea, which I and S.Kroeze introduced/developed some time in the last days of the old millenium (If I remember correctly) and which later became really popular, especially shown by Matthew's EC3 idea of the same name, which was the top vote reciever of the new ideas.

------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club

[Nemo]

Why not just start each city off with 1 square for 1 population, except allow that 1 square to be placed anywhere within the city radius (including ON the city). This, in turn, would eliminate the imbalance ICS'ing is based upon. See, nice and simple...no city limit, no unhappiness, or anything else that gets really annoying on large maps (city limits) or small maps (unhappiness)

[Youngsun]

At the beginning point of Civ, there are simply too much empty space waiting to be colonised by our settlers. Did American setters colonised the West without interaction/struggle with Indians?

Where the hell the local tribes go? to the goody huts? then Why is it so damn easy to subdue/pacify these local people?(one simple movement wipe out whole village)

Questions doesn't end there. Why conquered population simply switch its loyalty to the invaders(No garrison needed for that reason-happiness factor is another matter here)?

The world should be filled with different ethnic groups thus expansion should bring not only extra territorial gain but ethnic tension which will be extra burden/liability to your government.

However, an expansion is inevitable path of your grand campaigne and shouldn't be too detrimental(You have to finish the game anyway)which means as long as your empire remains powerful you won't have any serious problem but once your empire begins to cripple the hidden problems will cost you dearly.(former USSR is a perfect example)

ICS should bring both "gains" and "liabilities & forseeable risk" and the liabilities must be difficult tasks to be handled by novice players so only experienced players should be tempted to do that.

[Comrade Dan]

Hang on, hang on: who said that ICS is a PROBLEM at all?

Hell, I have fun creating factory nations out of continents! Civ gives you the ability to space out cities, or to pack them together.

Just leave the damn thing alone!

[Lord Silvi]

The diplomat:
Maintenance cost for cities is a good point.
Lets have city improvements build in a capital, which enables the civ to rule more cities! This capital city improvements could be called administations.
Later in the game one must build such administrations in far away cities (governors).
It would be fun to see a governor with a whole bunch of cities to break away from your civ!
Or: An administation city improvement has an ever growing maintenance cost. A growing bureaucracy wreaking a civ like USSR.
Lets have special units (only one per 400 years) which are able to cut down such bureaucracies, or to stop the break away of a governor.
An many many more things.

Ooops, I see, to much bureaucracy for the gamer.

[Shadowstrike]

Youngsun, I had a thread about that. the link is here:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001599.html