Fixing ICS

Chaos Theory · July 20, 2003, 18:44

Having been recently enlightened to the true power of ICS, I've played a few games that were decided purely by the amount of available, safe land. Note what I just said: no matter how much land one player had, if another had much more, that player won. Most strategies can only use so much land, but not ICS.

I'm wondering what could be done to reduce or eliminate the power of ICS, to encourage a variety of approaches to the game. I've thought of a few of my own:

1) Set a house limit on the number of bases a faction can build

2) Set a house minimum separation between bases of 3 tiles, instead of the game-enforced 2

3) Alter alphax.txt to change the production of the base tile from 2/1/1 to 2/0/1 or 1/0/1

Lazerus · July 20, 2003, 19:04

Wouldn't that just knock off the power/utterly cripple the expanders like the Hive and make everybody pick Zak or morgan and sit around with 10 super bases researching until transcend ??

Chaos Theory · July 20, 2003, 19:36

It might, so I came here for opinions. Regarding the base count limit, I figured something like 3x the 0 efficiency BD limit might be an appropriate number, enough to allow expansionist factions to spread some, but little enough that someone who wants to ICS can only take so much advantage of a huge landmass. The goal is to reduce ICS to the level of other strategies, not make it actively undesireable.

The key advantage of ICS is that every colony pod transforms a moderately productive worker (or drone) into a moderately productive worker + a base tile. You pay just as much as for a crawler, and get at least 4 resources (2/1/1) from it. The largest disadvantage is that it spreads your infrastructure and defense thin. On that note, I've thought of another possibility:

4) After the first X bases, no base can build a colony pod unless it has a certain minimum infrastructure (measured by buildings constructed and units produced). Certain buildings such as Rec Commons and Rec Tanks might not count. This minimum might rise with the number of bases already built. This would force diagonal growth instead of pure horizontal growth.

CEO Aaron · July 20, 2003, 19:41

ICS isn't broken, and there are plenty of other ways to get those kinds of results from your faction. I've looked over the game you submitted which brought up this query, and if you'd build a few boreholes in the territory you controlled, you should have been able to easily outproduce Dee with the relatively smaller number of bases. In addition, your tech rate and income were considerably higher than Dee, which means that you'll obtain Bio-Engineering first, and have the cash to upgrade every former you've built to clean, cementing your production advantage. Once you've built fusion labs, your energy and lab production spirals higher and higher, and sooner or later you'll be getting Genejack factories. At that point your produciton capacity should easily dwarf the cash and tech-strapped Gaians.

If, after all that, you still think ICS is a better strategy than the specialist boom, you can still try to beat the ICSers at their own game, if you're so inclined. With the Weather Paradigm, or Environmental Economics, you can raise all the landmass you require on which to build your ever increasing number of bases.

Finally, ICS, while it's a good trick for the Gaians and Consciousness, isn't really suited to factions without an innate bonus to efficiency, so I think your worries of ICS obliterating all other styles of play are unfounded.

Lazerus · July 20, 2003, 19:46

Anyways if you like playing the Hive (saw the game now aswell) you should be worshipping ICS

Chaos Theory · July 20, 2003, 19:55

I used ICS to great effect as Zak and Domai, the latter running Planned for quite a while.

Aaron: I did have boreholes in my territory, mostly along the shores, though I may not have had enough.

Raising land increases the amount of land available, but not the amount of safe land. Although the AI is rarely capable of conquering a player, it's very capable of disrupting one enough that another, isolated player pulls ahead.

Lazerus · July 20, 2003, 20:06

You didnt have enough boreholes, but i can see how it was tough being on a curved peninsula. Love it when i start off on a flat shore, 4 boreholes every 3 by 3 square

Thats why its useful to try and get an idea what techs the other human players have and the AI doesnt, if the AI starts nagging just let yourself be blackmailed so you can continue unhindered until you get to the stage they can be swatted without effort. If you like playing on maps that large aswell the AI will be of no bother at all, there will be a trickle of units every 10 years, a few rovers,ships or noodles will easily keep them pressed back.
Also means you can get those foil probes out on them and notch up a few of those useless techs that you blined past.

Chaos Theory · July 20, 2003, 20:44

The huge map was abnormal. Typically, we use large (44x90). That game in particular, all the factions were remarkably evenly spaced out.

I'm worried that ICS dominates other styles because I've seen the flexibility in the way I play decrease as I get better. Every time I learn a trick, everyone I play with learns it (because I tell them), and we all become dependent on it.

For example, I once armored some of my crawlers. Now, I usually have clean reactors among other useful techs before anyone can bother my shores. I once kept more of a garrison. Now, I can't unless I know damn well an army is coming, because if I do, and it's not, my opponent is spending his minerals to pull ahead, and my garrisons will become obsolete.

Mongoose · July 20, 2003, 20:59

It's a bummer to lose five or six bases to a single Fusion PB.

Chaos Theory · July 20, 2003, 21:51

It is, but assuming ICS is dominant, your opponent shouldn't be able to do that without taking the same risk. And even if you lose 6 bases to a well placed PB, that's only as bad as if a normal player had lost 2-3 bases.

Gufnork · July 21, 2003, 00:03

ICS has a weakness. Any early neighbour could quite easily nab quite a few of your bases since it's much harder to defend them all. And once someone is in your structure they can strike at your bases without being forced to walk in the open. It works very well if you're left alone, but that almost only happens on large and huge maps. Not to say that it can't be effective on smaller maps as well, just not as overpowered as you describe it.

dmm1285 · July 21, 2003, 00:57

I'm almost positive crawlers dont need any support, so upgrading them to clean is pretty pointless

Curiosity · July 21, 2003, 06:31

Ah, now I find myself on the other foot than in the previous thread; arguing that ICS isn't really so strong.

If you compare ICS with a standard-type REX strategy for a similar amount of land, then ICS has a real phase of ascendancy while someone switches from REX to preparing for the first pop-boom. At the point the REXer has filled his continent, the ICSer has only half-filled his. Before the REXer has boomed, the ICSer has filled his continent up, and has double the population of the REXer.
After the first boom to size 7 the REXer is in a similar position to the ICSer, as his bases should be working almost all the tiles on his continent. The ICSer has better cash-flow, due to not needing to support any facilities. If he's in FM/wealth, then energy from the base square puts him squarely ahead, energy-wise.

After the second boom to size 14, the REXer is clearly ahead. They now have around double the population of the ICSer, and huge cash and science income from specialists. They're playing catch-up, but they're doing it in style. Once they get nodes etc. down, they're a lot better off than an ICSer. Productivity is about the same, assuming forests and borehole terraforming.

Once Orbital Spaceflight comes along, the ICSer can launch a load of sky hydroponics labs and boost his population with specialists. This is where he can really catch up with the REXer, though facilities should keep the REXer ahead.
The exception is where the ICSer can find a patch or land to lay down nutrient crawlers; a big fungus bank is ideal, especially for the Gaians. However, crawlers can always be killed off.

Militarily, the ICSer is in a strong position while the REXer is preparing to boom. If they're in police state, then they not only have high productivity, but also huge support. It really suits Yang.
Post-MMI, they're probably in trouble. Drop troops will slice them apart, and unless they get the cloudbase academy they haven't much hope of stopping them.

What screws things up, is if the ICSer can hit orbital spaceflight while they're still expanding. This requires huge amounts of land and a very fast tech-rate, i.e. the University starting next to the rainforest on the huge map of planet.

Regardless, with unlimited space ICS is a killer.

Th only reason I would consider ICS to be a little unbalanced is that it's relatively unskilled. Putting together a good pop-boom takes a lot of practice, whereas ICS can be used straight out of the box.

Anyway; to tackle the issue at hand, if you want to stop ICS, I suggest you play with low land mass. If an ICSer stalls at 30 bases then it's pretty much over.

Lazerus · July 21, 2003, 06:43

Quote:

ICS has a weakness. Any early neighbour could quite easily nab quite a few of your bases since it's much harder to defend them all. And once someone is in your structure they can strike at your bases without being forced to walk in the open. It works very well if you're left alone, but that almost only happens on large and huge maps. Not to say that it can't be effective on smaller maps as well, just not as overpowered as you describe it.

Not true for Yang and he is the main ICS'er , all of his bases will have atleast 1 unit as police, maybe 2 if its large, add that a perimeter defense, then multiply this by the fact theres prob 5 nearby bases and trying to get a foothold is really tough. Switch the role and if he nabs one of your bases, +3 insdustry (wealth,planned) and no real support probs they'll just keep coming once you've shown weakness.

Curiousity is exactly right with the phases a normal payer and an ICS'er go through. A normal player needs to get choppers and orbital about 15yrs before the ICS and really get in some damage before the tech gets caught up. On the other hand the ICS'er has anytime before that, or very late game in which his industry will make short work of any slight tech difference.

Lazerus · July 21, 2003, 06:54

Quote:

I'm almost positive crawlers dont need any support, so upgrading them to clean is pretty pointless

I think he meant he has the tech for clean reactors

ie, a huge military.

Quote:

Anyway; to tackle the issue at hand, if you want to stop ICS, I suggest you play with low land mass. If an ICSer stalls at 30 bases then it's pretty much over.

unless he starts raising land early / takes to the seas (high nut+energy bases, add in coastal borehole)

Curiosity · July 21, 2003, 09:21

Laz,

Hmm, raising land is a pretty interesting idea. I guess as the Hive, given you might well have 2 formers/base, you could make a good go of it. You'd pretty much have to have the WP to do it early. I'll have to try it out.

Sea bases, though, uck!

Only your coastal bases are going to be able to build them, and until fusion is available they're going to take their sweet time about it. I would have said building sea bases would favour a standard strategy more, since they're so easy to boom up and use as specialist centres.

Lazerus · July 21, 2003, 10:23

its easy to get a coastal base to 25 minerals with crawlers and a borehole, then producing a pod takes (at a guess 4 turns) after that if you want to help speed up the bases growth (poor Hive cant pop boom) build a few sea crawlers and rehome them to that base and have them work nuts, once the sea base has a childrens creche thats +5 growth and plenty of nutrients. 3nuts/4energy (i think?) per square while they're growing means they're not far behind a specialist base, and once the pop is high enough you can easily switch. If you've got alot of coastal bases doing this (you will with small land) then it can be quite useful.

I know what you mean with sea bases though, i hate them aswell, nowhere near enough minerals for my liking.

If im playing the Hive ill pull all stops to get the WP >2135 and if somebody else gets it that still doesnt stop me trying to get it

Gufnork · July 21, 2003, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazerus

Not true for Yang and he is the main ICS'er...

I know. Fighting Hive early =

Then again, you should reach D:AP before the hive, meaning you could strike then.

Lazerus · July 21, 2003, 13:49

Yes i said above, a decent tech player has the advantage for about 10years (maybe more) where they need to press home the early air power. Once the Hive gets its hands on that tech then industrial power takes the front seat again.

I love starting next to morgan/zak/aki

great for removing the no1 tech players from the game or even forcing them into a pact.

CEO Aaron · July 21, 2003, 17:32

Quote:

Originally posted by dmm1285
I'm almost positive crawlers dont need any support, so upgrading them to clean is pretty pointless

You upgrade your FORMERS to clean, not your crawlers. The only reason to upgrade crawlers to clean is to turn cash into shields more efficiently for rush-building SPs.

Archaic · July 21, 2003, 17:58

Quote:

and have the cash to upgrade every crawler you've built to clean

You might want to go back and change this line of yours then, before it confuses a few other people.

Lazerus · July 21, 2003, 19:18

Quote:

I'm worried that ICS dominates other styles because I've seen the flexibility in the way I play decrease as I get better. Every time I learn a trick, everyone I play with learns it (because I tell them), and we all become dependent on it.

Isn't this a reason why people enjoy the challenge of thinking up new ways to beat each other rather then playing the AI ?

CEO Aaron · July 21, 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
You might want to go back and change this line of yours then, before it confuses a few other people.

Oops. Fixed.

Chaos Theory · July 21, 2003, 19:37

If one strategy is dominant, everyone is pressed to use it, and the game is monotonous. Somewhat better is if three strategies exist in a rock-paper-scissors configuration, but that still gets boring quickly. Some very basic games don't fall into these traps, such as Go. I wonder if SMACX has enough material variation to allow for that kind of endless variety in strategies...

Lazerus · July 21, 2003, 19:52

Whats Go ?

CEO Aaron · July 21, 2003, 20:40

Google is your friend:

http://www.mindsports.net/Arena/Go/AboutGo.html

CEO Aaron · July 21, 2003, 20:52

CT, in a simple game like Go, it's very easy to balance factors such as opportunity cost, position, turn advantage, etc, to make a dynamic and balanced game, but as the game increases in complexity, it becomes nearly futile to attempt to achieve this kind of balance.

SMAX is a wildly unbalanced game, in that respect, since an infinitessimal advantage early on, even one based purely on circumstance, can translate into huge advantages later in the game. For a simple example, two factions start out with more or less equal terrain, but one pops an early pod to discover a monolith, while the other finds worms. Due to the increased alacrity with which the now monolith-blessed faction can plant new bases, their research, production and population growth will be commensurately larger throughout the majority of the game, provided both factions follow the exact same strategy.

I'll post a couple of games to illustrate my point as soon as I get the chance.

Chaos Theory · July 21, 2003, 23:48

Certain factors act to counter this, however, such as the slow growth of large bases, and the increased tech cost for being in the lead. Drones are intended to hinder both vertical and horizontal expansion. With enough checks, in principle, "noise" variations in the strength of a faction would damp out, and only constant effects, such as quality of play, would have a lasting effect.

I wonder if making "super drones" act in every respect like two drones would help hinder excessive expansion... not that it's easy to implement that. Also, all-specialist bases would need special costs.

Curiosity · July 22, 2003, 02:06

I would have to say that I don't find my strategy converging, as such. For example, in my game with Flubber I'm playing 3 factions in 3 distinctively different styles. Each style is a reaction to both the faction's innate bonuses and the terrain I've been given.

Maybe I'm just not good enough, to play one style regardless.

Snowflake · July 22, 2003, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
For a simple example, two factions start out with more or less equal terrain, but one pops an early pod to discover a monolith, while the other finds worms. Due to the increased alacrity with which the now monolith-blessed faction can plant new bases, their research, production and population growth will be commensurately larger throughout the majority of the game, provided both factions follow the exact same strategy.

Oh yes, that's exactly what happened in my very first PBEM. I popped two pods one within base radias one one square farther only to find worms and my first base is now sitting in a bare land with nothing.