The ultimate ICS thread: analysis and solutions

[TheLimey]

yin... you're right...

Big cities just need to be better performers than they are at the moment.

Given a few improvements that cost maintainence, but give a flat bonus per number of citizens & a percentile bonus on top, the big city becomes a better bet.

Coupled with a method of implementing unhappiness penalties for distant/oversized empires, players would soon abandon ICS if it did not benefit them.

[UltraSonix]

Thanks Yin, now that I actually know what ICS is, I realise why I've never really been very at the higher difficulties of civ2 - it seems that I've never ICSed!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Simpson II]

Err... to get into a debate 4 months stale that shouldn't evern be here, the learning in ancient China wasn't learning in the Civ II sense. People merely learned what others had writen before, and learned not to question it.. this was in no sense science, as there were no discoveries as a result of it. In fact it would represent tax spending, since it's purpose was to support the state infrastructure and uneducated merchant class.

Iterestingly, the two posters represented the two ways of thought. Urban Ranger is clearly well read, but he has weighed the evidence and come to his conclusions. S. Kroeze has quoted the experts verbatim, considering this to prove his point because he has provided sources... however, none of the passages he quotes refer to any original sources from ancient China themselves! Given the typical dissent between academics in the social :ahem: 'sciences' I wouldn't trust a single source from them about the time of day.

Oh yeah, ICS! Make settlers slightly more expensive and/or facilities cheaper, so that perfecting a city competes better. Then put in an unhappiness factor which goes roughly exponential with increasing empire size after about 60 cities, and a more sophisticated unhappiness system so that a citizen can be unhappy, double-unhappy, triple-unhappy, etc. etc. It's not an over-arching principle that needs fixing, it just needs better attention to game balancing factors.

[Ralf]

[quote]Originally posted by Simpson II on 10-22-2000 01:24 AM
Then put in an unhappiness factor which goes roughly exponential with increasing empire size after about 60 cities, and a more sophisticated unhappiness system so that a citizen can be unhappy, double-unhappy, triple-unhappy, etc. etc.[quote]

After about 60 cities!? Are you crazy?

I advocate an iron-limit of 6 cities under despotism; 12 cities under monarchy and a softer rubber-limit of 18 cities-limit under any modern government-type.

Under modern government-types you can (of course) expand more the that, but the unhappiness-factor rises steady and logarithmically according to the following suggestion:

18 cities = 1 unhappy face.
24 cities = 2 unhappy faces.
30 cities = 3 unhappy faces.
36 cities = 4 unhappy faces.

After about 42 cities the empire simply breaks apart, no matter what you do to prevent it.

Its all about having rules that encourage well-deloped quality cities over buckloads of undeveloped ICS-cities - and finally ban that damn ICS-problem (that i belive have destroyed so many multiplayer-games out there) - once an for all.

Theres one snag however: Its not fun playing alone surrounded with huge unhabitad wastelands. Therefore the Firaxis team must reduce the maps somewhat and also raise the maximal number of civs that can participate simultaneously, from seven to nine (human player included). Not more then that however, because it becomes to complicated for the AI to handle effectively.

[UltraSonix]

It'll be interesting to see what solution Firaxis has implemented to solve the problem...

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 10-19-2000 01:18 PM I sent a lengthy mail to Chris Pine about the AI problems of Civ-style games, and some general ideas to work around it. Heres what the man responded: ------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for your email! Many of your suggestions (though I can't say which ones) are already in the game and we will certainly think about the others. Just so you know, I think we've finally fixed both the ICS problem and the Bigger-is-always-better problem. Thanks for all of your input and for thinking about the game, Chris Pine Lead Programmer Civilization III ------------------------------------------------------ Here that guys! Both the ICS- and the BAB-problem is now finally squashed!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Simpson II,

Thank you for your kind words!

Just some questions to think about:

-What is in your opinion the essential point Urban Ranger and I were discussing?

-Why do you consider Iron industry and Naval expeditions no learning in the Civ II sense?

quote: Just two examples of knowledge/skills that actually did disappear in China because the government didn't support them any longer: -the Iron industry of the Northern China during early Sung -the Naval expeditions of Cheng Ho during the early Ming

-Are you comparing this Chinese learning, which you clearly hold in contempt, with our modern post-seventeenth century science or with contemporary European medieval and renaissance learning?

-Why is this Chinese civilization, supported by this ideology according to which 'people merely learned what others had writen[sic] before, and learned not to question it', generally considered the most advanced of all civilizations until about 1400AD?

-How many civilizations/political great powers do you know which -besides our Western civilization- play a dominant role in world affairs today! Do you have an explanation for this condition?

-Do you have a better solution for the Eternal China Syndrome?

quote: The Eternal China Syndrom centres on the question why a very large unified empire, like China for most of its history after 221BC, didn't dominate the entire world, because in Civ it would. It would have the most research points which gives it an enormous edge on its opponents. This makes the game less interesting since the final result, an easy victory for the largest Civilization, becomes inevitable. And this is not the way history works, as China clearly shows. Around 1000AD it was far ahead in all aspects of Civilization. But the small and politically divided Europeans clearly won, for the time being.

-Did you actually read this entire thread before posting your message?

Sincere regards and thanking you in advance!

S. Kroeze

By the way, on one point Urban Ranger and I clearly agree: the Removal of the Settler unit!

S. Kroeze

quote: Do you have an opinion about the Eternal China Syndrome? You can find it here

Well, you people seem to have covered the topic very nicely. I would add that university, and library should decrease or eliminate the science drain....
Thus, cities without these educational facilities would drain already-known tech proportional to its population.
This is to simulate the fact that in big empire with lot of territtories, lot of knowledge is lost because the person who discovered could not properly record/teach others without an extensive education institution in the area.

Also, to repeat what others said, farther the city is, higher the corruption should also lead to higher chance of rebellion and turning into a minor civ. This is to simulate the historical point that big empires have "ambitious governors."
In Democracy, this danger could eliminated and replaced instead with extreme inability to assmilate conquered cities. (U.S. for example, would not be able to annex countries without severe diplomatic and domestic repercussions).

But, I think similar ideas have been worked out, so...
Cheers.

[Grumbold]

I'm not a great reader of history but the Infinite China Syndrome seems to be more a problem of complacency than anything else. If tech research needs some form of stimuli to prompt advances then it could be possible for a large nation to stall from lacking the required impetus. Of course, modelling that in a Civ game is going to be almost impossible because after a few plays the gamer will know what situations they need to contrive in order to progress. A simple model would just have war techs harder to research in times of peace and vice versa.

Large stable nations would not innovate new means of warfare but the arts would flourish. Evil dictators would be rushing to complete biological and atomic research while ignoring basic medicine for their populace. Unless checks and balances are in place a skilled gamer will just whipsaw between governmental forms and states of peace to achieve their aims, putting them at even more of an advantage against the AI than before.

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 12-12-2000 11:29 AM A simple model would just have war techs harder to research in times of peace and vice versa. Large stable nations would not innovate new means of warfare but the arts would flourish. Evil dictators would be rushing to complete biological and atomic research while ignoring basic medicine for their populace. Unless checks and balances are in place a skilled gamer will just whipsaw between governmental forms and states of peace to achieve their aims, putting them at even more of an advantage against the AI than before.

So we make a penalty for changing governments. X amount of unhappy heads per x amounts of turns. Heads go away gradually. Maybe 1 head every 10 turns. But I like the idea.

[Grrr]

I don't know if this idea has come up before, as I only joined Apolyton yesterday.
If the tiles a city could use would be unlimited rather than having the maximum of 20, then more food could be produced by perfectionist societies.
I think a city should only be able to use the tiles adjacent to it, and then the ones adjacent to those, and then to those and so on. This would mean a small city of size four or less, MUST use the tiles adjacent to it (NE, N, NW, SE, S, SW, E, W) before being able to gain resources from the next layer of tiles (2 tiles from center), which would also need some form of infrastructure to have access. This could let size 50 cities have a larger than normal city radius, making them megalopolises. In this manner small cities cannot gain the resources which are quite a long way away from the city centre.
It would also make it a MUST to build at least some form of infrastructure. ICS cities will be made to work 'pathetic' tiles such as Glaciers and Tundra, forcing them to either change or improve the terrain. This would also lead to perfectionist Megalopis cities having vast amounts of goods and resources.
To further limit small cities, I think there should be a minimum size to build certain improvements and wonders. If a city had to be at least size 9 to build an ancient wonder, and even larger to build a renaisance or modern wonder, then ICS civilizations would lose all of their chances to grow faster. As I play in an ICS manner, I have found wonders such as the Pyramids and the Hanging Gardens useful.
In Civ II, an ICS nation, under fundamentalism, with Michaelangelo's Chapel, and JS Bach's Cathedral, gives an enormous source of money and happiness. I have found this incredibley useful to convert from a medium ICS to a massive perfectionist society. Fundamentalism MUST go!!! Once a player has achieved this in Civ II, they have won the game.
Large city solutions:
Production waste: I really like Korn469's concept of multiple build lines for improved cities. This removes the waste of production incured when building cheap things. Is'nt it annoying to build a barracks in a city which produces twice its cost every turn.
To many Elvises and Einsteins: Large cities often have unnecessarily large amounts of specialists, who often do unnecessary work. In my theorem above I have shown how large cities will be able to utilize more than twenty tiles.
Food Shortages: By giving large cities extra room, more food can be produced each turn.
Unhappiness: Large cities should have 'facility bonus happiness' in which each improvement gives one happiness, and each wonder gives 5 happiness. The scale for this should start around be 0 for ancient times, -15 for renaissance time -30 for modern times, and -45 for future ages. So that the improvement happiness equation is (age unhappiness+1 happiness per improvement +5 happiness per wonder)In this manner, unimproved cities become majorly unhappy in each new era.
Limiting improvement building in small cities by size would greatly limit selective building (I usually only build a Library and University in a city). This could be done by making the minimum sizes as such:
Ancient Improvement Size 3
Renaissance Improvement Size 9
Modern Improvement Size 27
Future Improvement Size 54
Wonders:
Ancient Wonder Size 9
Renaisance Wonder Size 27
Modern Wonder Size 54
Future Wonder Size 81
In this way small cities would have to be, at least in part, perfectionistic.

Please comment on this idea.
I have also posted this as a new thread

[This message has been edited by Grrr (edited December 12, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Grrr (edited December 12, 2000).]

[Grrr]

Sorry, this is supposed to go by city age.
-15 for every age advanced past build date.

quote:

Originally posted by OreoFuchi on 12-12-2000 07:51 PM
I've seen other ideas that let you have more than 1 person work a square, though with less production than the first one. I prefer this to the ever-increasing radius. and your unhappiness idea makes it impossible to build new cities.