Later game ICS

Father Beast · April 10, 2001, 15:09

OK, this isn't about the free tile, this is about being able to maunfacture basically endless cities at will by using WLtxD's in rep or Demo.
I can set a city with high production to cranking out settlers/engineers with the city in permanent WLTCD and as soon as the settler founds a city, I get my citizen back. repeated endlessly, I can send out a horde of settlers for almost free.

Does anyone else think that this strategy (and the "President's day sale" in general) is unbalancing to the game?

The President's day effect should be changed to something else, IMO. it's a gamebreaker.

Ralf · April 10, 2001, 16:44

quote:

Originally posted by Father Beast on 04-10-2001 03:09 PM

I can set a city with high production to cranking out settlers/engineers with the city in permanent WLTCD and as soon as the settler founds a city, I get my citizen back. repeated endlessly.

"WLTCD" Huh?

What do you mean by "get my citizen back"?

Then a 2-pop settler founds a new city, these 2-pops stays in that newly founded city, and the old city must regenerate its lost pop-points the hard way. Thats the whole point.

I suspect however Firaxis have more anti-ICS preventions up their sleeves, then just the "lost pop-points" idea. We simply dont have the full picture yet.

J.DeMobray · April 10, 2001, 17:13

We Love The X=Title Day.

In Civ2, Democracies in WLTPD gained one citizen per turn. The concern is that even 2 cost settlers will not be able to dissuade using this bonus to generate lots and lots of cities really quickly.

jglidewell · April 11, 2001, 11:24

Why not? Its called colonization. Once you discover the New World it will always be that way.

Typically though in the game you just put off placing cities because of other concerns, like putting down that militist nieghbor and securing your home cities.

markusf · April 11, 2001, 11:57

Anyone dumb enough to do that in a multiplayer game will lose badly. ICS as a end game solution hasn't been feasible for a LONG time. The supergrowth strat blows ics out of the water. I can do with 20 cities what a ics'r can't do with 120 cities.(good luck building that many) The only problem with end game is caravans to other civs... and the ability to buy spaceship parts. You can set up a ship chain to another civ, and by going 90% cash 10% luxeries and haveing one science specialist you can mass buy caravans and improvements. Then moving the caravans along the chain to the other civ's city you can get 1 turn a tech + 7000 gold a turn(assuming you have about 25 cities) and about 5 caravans/turn. After doing this for a while I have 30 cities with +40 trade routes each, Sometimes 50+/routes. This way each city in your empire produces about 300 science when going back to 90% science, with caravan/ship chaining your looking at 3 TECHS/turn. Along with 3-4k cash from caravans a turn. This strat is the be all and end all of civ end game strats. There is nothing that can come even close

Father Beast · April 12, 2001, 07:50

The "president's day sale" is an established strategy in civ, all the way from civ1. the increased pop booming turns your fair to middling city to a skyscraper giant in just a few turns. You didn't "pay" for those citizens by feeding them, you got them for almost free.
the strategy is so useful (like the old settler cheat), that established players do it regularly. turns you quickly from a struggling set of towns to a mighty band of cities.

is that a gamebreaker or not?

markusf · April 12, 2001, 10:48

well what do you expect, I don't see the the former east block as powerful as the usa. Thats because communisum just doesn't work. If you don't play as a democracy to increase your pop thats your own fualt. Every government in civ has advantages and disadvantages. nex thing we will hear from you is how unfair fundy is to democracy players.

Nemo · April 12, 2001, 15:03

in order to curb late game ICS what if the settler, when created, takes 2 pop (as it stands now), but when it makes a city, the city starts at 1 pop? at this point in time i have not seen anything saying that a newly found city is goind to start with 2 pop or 1 pop. but by starting it at 1 pop, it would make you reconsider your ICS'ing. and in reality the population loss could be constituted by disease, famine, or barbarians that plucked a few of teh settlers off enroute.

markusf · April 12, 2001, 16:08

This whole thing is stupid. I play with the best of the best civ2 multiplayer gamers. I have yet to just ONCE see this strat being effective. I have honestly never ever seen a single person using end game ics and get any kind of tangible results. Anyone who uses that strat as a end game strat really doesn't know how to play...
Now icsing at 2000 bc is another story.

airdrik · April 13, 2001, 00:32

Actually, there have been discussion on this in the civ 2 forums, and the end result was that all govs are generally equal, but each is strong in it's own aspects.

But according the the cgw site, fundy is out. So you won't have to worry about that.

Father Beast · April 13, 2001, 05:09

quote:

Originally posted by markusf on 04-12-2001 10:48 AM
nex thing we will hear from you is how unfair fundy is to democracy players.

Wow! You must have read my "fundamentalism is too powerful" thread in civ2 general.

Father Beast · April 13, 2001, 05:14

quote:

Originally posted by markusf on 04-12-2001 04:08 PM
This whole thing is stupid. I play with the best of the best civ2 multiplayer gamers. I have yet to just ONCE see this strat being effective. I have honestly never ever seen a single person using end game ics and get any kind of tangible results. Anyone who uses that strat as a end game strat really doesn't know how to play...
Now icsing at 2000 bc is another story.

let's see, you've never seen anyone use a "president's day sale" to boost their pop and overall production in an MP game? Why do I find that hard to believe?

I've read accounts of people who forgot to have their year 0 presidents day sale and ended up this mediocre struggling civ by endgame So they went back and did it and became this massive superpower by endgame.

Comrade Tribune · April 14, 2001, 05:20

Father Beast, I´d say You are right.
I have always felt midgame Republics/Democracies are a bit too strong. My bets are, Firaxis has already realized -and fixed- that. But it was worth mentioning, just to be on the safe side.

TechWins · April 14, 2001, 18:46

What's this Presidents Sale thing?

Simpson II · April 15, 2001, 23:44

WLTXD is not unbalancing, it's an important balancing component. Without it there would be absolutely *no* alternative to all-out expansion and warfare. If it's not included then Civ3 will be more of an ICS fest than Civ2, even with the 2-pop settler!

The point in balancing a game is not to take away all powerful strategies, it's to make sure there are diverse powerful routes to victory.

tniem · April 16, 2001, 00:46

quote:

Originally posted by Nemo on 04-12-2001 03:03 PM
in order to curb late game ICS what if the settler, when created, takes 2 pop (as it stands now), but when it makes a city, the city starts at 1 pop? at this point in time i have not seen anything saying that a newly found city is goind to start with 2 pop or 1 pop. but by starting it at 1 pop, it would make you reconsider your ICS'ing. and in reality the population loss could be constituted by disease, famine, or barbarians that plucked a few of teh settlers off enroute.

Nemo,

That's the way I have read it and believe they are going to make settlers founding new cities in Civ III.

Father Beast · April 17, 2001, 05:43

quote:

Originally posted by TechWins on 04-14-2001 06:46 PM
What's this Presidents Sale thing?

It's when you make republic and jack up your luxuries to have a "We love the President/Consul Day" for several turns and max out your population in your cities. go from having several size 5 cities to having several size 12 cities in a BIG hurry. Just make sure you have the funds to rush buy cathedrals and such

Father Beast · April 17, 2001, 05:53

quote:

Originally posted by Simpson II on 04-15-2001 11:44 PM
WLTXD is not unbalancing, it's an important balancing component. Without it there would be absolutely *no* alternative to all-out expansion and warfare. If it's not included then Civ3 will be more of an ICS fest than Civ2, even with the 2-pop settler!

The point in balancing a game is not to take away all powerful strategies, it's to make sure there are diverse powerful routes to victory.

AHHhh..., but Fundamentalism, the unstoppable war machine is out, so shouldn't they get rid of it's counterpart?

Wait a minute! are you saying that there should be SEVERAL game breaking absurd strategies to take?!? (never mind for the moment that the AI probably won't know how to use them)

No alternative. Bah. If they know what they're doing (and I think they do), there will always be advantages to building your cities instead of all out expansion. just a balance. the old "guns or butter" choice has always been a part of civ, and I suspect it always will be. to say because a choice doesn't give you overwhelming superiority throws the game out of balance is absurd.

Father Beast · April 17, 2001, 05:58

While I'm here, let me offer an alternative. say that WLTxD's in demo or rep cause a PRODUCTION increase. Like every square producing a shield produces another one, or somesuch. As if happy people are more efficient.

What's the idea behind the pop increase, anyway. happy people (bleep) more?

Simpson II · April 17, 2001, 06:58

*sigh* Basically, Father Beast, what you're saying is that playing like a newbie should be the be-all and end-all of strategy.

If there are several very - but still equally - powerful strategies then they are, by definition, not game-breakers; a gamebreaker is something which leaves no other viable choices. Powerful strategies provide choices, plus they help to cover up the unexpected killer-strats which the game-testers didn't think of.

True WLTXD can build an empire very quickly, but can it do it before an elephant rush takes your empire away? Or will it succeed only to be taken out immediately by knights/dragoons/spies? Will the map turn out to be more favourable to do early trade, then boom later? Maybe this game it's more beneficial to spend more turns expanding to cover your opponents specials; maybe not. These sorts of choices are why we play strategy games.
An early WLTXD doesn't give you overwhelming superiority until relatively late-game, after you've survived the rush. If builder-strats don't get a massive upper hand in the late game then they aren't worth doing, since you have every chance of loosing quickly; the compensation comes only when you avoid this. Hopefully there wil be points between the extremes, too, as in Smac (not that that was a paragon of game-balance!)

I suspect you're right about the rationale for WLTXD.

Though you could say it's due to immigration, or somesuch.

MrFun · April 17, 2001, 09:01

There could have been an easier fix on the part of players with ICS -- refrain from using it.