17-05-2005 18:53									#1
	Do you consider ICS to be a problem? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

From both sides, as a user and fighting against it, do you consider ICS to be a problem?

Its micromanagement heavy and sometimes makes me quit the game by 2250 having gained 1 turn techs and a former army that could probably wipe out hallf the other factions through self-destruct. The fiddling with specialists and supply crawlers don't do much for me either.
However, it also seems to be unstoppable and because I always try to play my hardest I can't not use ICS. My only non-ICS games now are a few PBEMs began months ago. ICS makes research, LOTS of money and lots of population through satellite use. Its also very easy to defend because of zone of control.

However, if we didn't have ICS then everyone would just be a pop-boomer. The game might have less variety.

Do you consider ICS to be a problem that should be removed or fixed, and if so what would you do to improve the game?

	17-05-2005 18:57									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I consider it just one of many strategies, as you point out, popbooming being another one.

	17-05-2005 19:46									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Firstly - ICS is not unstoppable.

If the opponent drops a couple of fusion PBs, your ICS is in ruin.


Secondly - some factions find booming much more efficent, the most obvious examples being Pirates, Cult and Sparta.


Thirdly - as Maniac already said, ICS is just one of many.

Actually ICS is not even a defined strategy if only in it purest form - ICS1x1.
If you put your bases 2x2 tiles away and then popboom working farms/condensers or even forests with TF + HF, you can consider it both ICS and booming.
So you can't define ICS as "true" or "false", you can only define "level" of ICS you're using with zero level being just founding first CPs you have and then trying to boost them up.

and negative level being OCC

Fourthly - there's no way you can eliminate the true prototype of ICS - "the mathematical approach".

Face it - each (at least strategy) game has its superbly calculated "mathematical approach" and if you try to eliminate it you can take away just so much of gameplay quality.


Besides I know 2 players whom I found "the best players I've ever met". And none of them uses ICS 1x1 or even 2x2 - they just go "practical base placement".
they are Buster and Shawnmcc

	17-05-2005 20:10									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

FYI, by ICS I mean 1x1 spacing. I would probably call 2x2 something like specialist-heavy pop-booming.

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin Firstly - ICS is not unstoppable. If the opponent drops a couple of fusion PBs, your ICS is in ruin.

Planet busters generally have that effect anyway, so unless you're hitting cities with secret projects I don't see it as a problem relative to building paradigms. The efficiency-immune aspect of ICS means it just grows like a cancer. The crawler wall means you might never get the shot you want, blowing out 9 bases.

quote: Secondly - some factions find booming much more efficent, the most obvious examples being Pirates, Cult and Sparta.

Sadly, the Pirates, Cult and Sparta are somewhat underpowered factions. The pirates can't even boom right :P
Why in your opinion is Sparta better as a pop-booming faction? I've recently had a pretty funky ICS conqueror with Sparta.

quote: Thirdly - as Maniac already said, ICS is just one of many. Actually ICS is not even a defined strategy if only in it purest form - ICS1x1. If you put your bases 2x2 tiles away and then popboom working farms/condensers or even forests with TF + HF, you can consider it both ICS and booming. So you can't define ICS as "true" or "false", you can only define "level" of ICS you're using with zero level being just founding first CPs you have and then trying to boost them up. and negative level being OCC Fourthly - there's no way you can eliminate the true prototype of ICS - "the mathematical approach". Face it - each (at least strategy) game has its superbly calculated "mathematical approach" and if you try to eliminate it you can take away just so much of gameplay quality.

I suppose I'd feel happier about it if ICS didn't bypass or abuse certain Civ game concepts; inefficiency, worker resource gathering and bonuses applied per base.

quote: Besides I know 2 players whom I found "the best players I've ever met". And none of them uses ICS 1x1 or even 2x2 - they just go "practical base placement". they are Buster and Shawnmcc

Let me guess, but are they both conquerors or perhaps they adopt an aggressive hybrid stance? War is war and conflict is actually a pretty good way to balance out any game.

A new question then on top of the rest: since the relative builder/conqueror strengths are dependant upon map size, is there an optimum map size at which SMAX is most balanced?

	17-05-2005 20:30									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I've recently had a pretty funky ICS conqueror with Sparta

Lemme guess, Single Player..
I tried it Multi and had to change my mind after I saw Hive ICSing 4 times faster near me - now Im aiming for boom.

quote: Let me guess, but are they both conquerors or perhaps they adopt an aggressive hybrid stance? War is war and conflict is actually a pretty good way to balance out any game.

Shawnmcc is a miracle builder, Buster is an agressive type but he does not fit his gameplay to it. Im in a game where he has been building and only building from the very start till 2173 (now). He has not managed to grab good SPs due to good cooperation of all other players, but he's rocking the field just by building.
His base placement is optimised for good early income -near and on the bonuses and he's now popbooming away.
He's PKs.

So in this you're wrong.

quote: is there an optimum map size at which SMAX is most balanced

I believe it's "Great map":

code:

Great planet,                 52, 104

	17-05-2005 20:58									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin Lemme guess, Single Player.. I tried it Multi and had to change my mind after I saw Hive ICSing 4 times faster near me - now Im aiming for boom.

If you're going to be like that, then when has Sparta ever been a viable choice vs the Hive between players of a broadly similar skill level? :P A pop-booming Sparta still loses to the Hive.
How often would you say the Hive wins vs. Sparta across all possible starting situations? 6-4? 7-3?

quote: Shawnmcc is a miracle builder, Buster is an agressive type but he does not fit his gameplay to it. Im in a game where he has been building and only building from the very start till 2173 (now). He has not managed to grab good SPs due to good cooperation of all other players, but he's rocking the field just by building. His base placement is optimised for good early income -near and on the bonuses and he's now popbooming away. He's PKs. So in this you're wrong.

Fine, so Buster has taken a SPECIFIC SITUATION and turned it to his advantage. That situation is dependant upon his starting position. Its the mark of a good player that hes able to exploit it to the extent you say he has but I don't think it invalidates what I've been saying.

quote: I believe it's "Great map": code: Great planet, 52, 104 This mapsize was found the best a couple years ago by some CMNs including Buster and Dreifels.

Thanks, I'll take a look at that.

	17-05-2005 21:00									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Senethro Sadly, the Pirates, Cult and Sparta are somewhat underpowered factions. The pirates can't even boom right :P Why in your opinion is Sparta better as a pop-booming faction? I've recently had a pretty funky ICS conqueror with Sparta.

Sparta can control large bases very cheaply by their extra Police, especially with Non-lethal methods.

I don't understand either why binTravkin calls the Pirates good for popbooming though.

quote: Originally posted by Senethro A new question then on top of the rest: since the relative builder/conqueror strengths are dependant upon map size, is there an optimum map size at which SMAX is most balanced?

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin I believe it's "Great map": code: Great planet, 52, 104 This mapsize was found the best a couple years ago by some CMNs including Buster and Dreifels.

Why's that??
Many people currently consider the warmonger factions such as Sparta, Cult & Believers underpowered. Yet you consider a 'Great map' - which is even bigger than 'Large map' AFAIK an often used map size for PBEMS - the best balanced between builders and conquerors?

	17-05-2005 21:15									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Pirates are good for popboom if you max out their energy output.
However it's not likely to be early.

Great map is the standard mapsize of CGN tournament games.

Great map "stands on a border" for some things - bdrone limits and techcosts.
It is big itself but still has reasonable tech costs and b-drone limits are close to huge map (I suppose due to rounding).

	17-05-2005 21:26									#9
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin Shawnmcc is a miracle builder...

Define miracle builder. I'm interested, since I've replaced him in a PBEM game.

	17-05-2005 21:31									#10
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin Pirates are good for popboom if you max out their energy output. However it's not likely to be early.

That's the problem with the Pirates. They need lots and lots of technologies to reach their full potential. Fun for a single player game where you gradually gain more abilities, but in multiplayer the lost turn advantage is disastrous I'd assume.

quote: Great map is the standard mapsize of CGN tournament games. Great map "stands on a border" for some things - bdrone limits and techcosts. It is big itself but still has reasonable tech costs and b-drone limits are close to huge map (I suppose due to rounding).

I don't see why that's better than other map sizes though. It just favours certain game strategies and factions over others.

Regarding a bigger b-drone limit, this means the ability of some factions (eg Spartans, PKs, Drones, Hive) to control more drones easier than other factions becomes less useful.

A bigger b-drone limit would also make it easier to popboom with Golden Age. I guess this could favour factions like the Hive, CyCon, Morganites and Pirates, though in general every faction running FM and able to produce lots of psych.

And of course, the bigger the map, the harder for early warmongers to get to any possible target, and the later contact will be established. Again bad for early naval factions such as Sparta or the Pirates.

In general I'd say it favours builders over conquerors, while I believe in most PBEMs conquerors are already put at a disadvantage due to large map sizes, boosted starting positions and extra starting units.

	17-05-2005 21:46									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Maniac, you review which map is better for which makes me smile.

People have been discussing over this thing years ago.
Just go to CGN and see the initial threads where they discussed which map would be the best for 4 player tournament.

It is always easy to say that some map has advantages/disadvantages and they surely are.
But if you speak about balance you compare the advantages and disadvantages and make some kind of a delta between them. The map which has the biggest delta (advantages-disadvantages) is the best balanced map.

And your point about builders being much more competitive over large maps is falsed just by looking at the ACDG3 Sparta.

Miracle builder is a builder which can build twice as fast as everyone else. That was exactly what Shawnmcc did in Girls Night in and I suppose in TGAU as well. (I heard he was building habdomes around 2190).
In GNI he grabbed all the early SPs near me who was ICSing(1x2 or somesuch). He was Morgan and no-ICS.
Of course there are people around who'd give him a challenge but the only one who could beat him in building I know is Buster.

	17-05-2005 22:09									#12
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin And your point about builders being much more competitive over large maps is falsed just by looking at the ACDG3 Sparta.

Without knowing the specifics of the game I can't really say anything about that. But what is the probability of Sparta doing that well? Is SParta's performance the norm or the exception? And doesn't the ACDG3 lack the Hive/Uni/Drones?

quote: Miracle builder is a builder which can build twice as fast as everyone else. That was exactly what Shawnmcc did in Girls Night in and I suppose in TGAU as well. (I heard he was building habdomes around 2190). In GNI he grabbed all the early SPs near me who was ICSing(1x2 or somesuch). He was Morgan and no-ICS. Of course there are people around who'd give him a challenge but the only one who could beat him in building I know is Buster.

If I hadn't seen the transcendance speedrun I would have said that was impossible.

But you're still talking in terms of specifics. Shawnmcc is just a good player; general rules and trends don't apply to him because such people circumvent them.

But consider this: In an experimental universe where I am god I take 100 Shawnmccs and divide them into two groups, one who plays ICS and another freestyle non-ICS. If they all played 10 games on a variety of maps that are considered suitable for MP, who would win the most?

(Obviously, this situation is ridiculous as even in this controlled environment there will be too many unaccountable variables introducing error into the results, but bear with me.)

	17-05-2005 22:20									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: (Obviously, this situation is ridiculous as even in this controlled environment there will be too many unaccountable variables introducing error into the results, but bear with me.)

Your remark demonstrates that even you yourself are not so sure ICS is unstoppable..

quote: Without knowing the specifics of the game I can't really say anything about that. But what is the probability of Sparta doing that well? Is SParta's performance the norm or the exception? And doesn't the ACDG3 lack the Hive/Uni/Drones?

You see the general point that many players are missing is that bigger maps benefit momentum/hybrid factions in one particular way.
PODS.
In the ACDG Spartans have popped so many pods that they themselves have made Sparta powerful.
They can than MCC a lot for that, but even without MCC it's a brilliant execution of a strategy most builder players are almost unable to execute at that efficency because of FM.

Also the much earlier contact of all factions is a very big benefit if you know what 'diplomacy' means.


A lone Gaians having a fleet of some 6-8 foils can make it multiply so fast that after some 20-30 years they're ruling the sea and have popped all sea pods (which gives great income indeed).
Capturing IoDs is a way to go.

	17-05-2005 22:50									#14
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Ok, this is becoming badly derailed. The balancing of Sparta and to a lesser extent Pirates and other hybrid styles against pure builder over large map through use of pod popping is an entirely separate issue (one I would like to address, but not today.)

quote: Your remark demonstrates that even you yourself are not so sure ICS is unstoppable..

BTW, my definition of unstoppable is winning 66% of the time, all other factors equal. Winning 60% of the time I would consider to be pragmatical maximum imbalance permittable. (i.e, in the ideal world the difference between the Drone and the Cult.)

I was actually thinking of the situation with regards to my scientific training. I actually did wonder how it would be possible to control for likely maps generated by the worldbuilder, results of pod-popping, how many opponents should my shawnmccs face: 1 or 6, meta-game considerations like diplomacy, lack of one player performance feedback route (if I force my shawnmccs to play one style, what if they decide that the other style would be more suited for this situation? This would result in shawnmcc playing less than his best), do I instruct the use of popular factions or all factions, are my players well hydrated etc.

The answer is you can't account for all those variables. If you did so by making a flat unchanging map then ICS is obviously going to win because its the mathematical approach.

Non-ICS spacing works because in that situation, it is the mathematical approach. It achieves more than the comparable ICS because of nut/min/ec bonuses, whatever.

Question rephrased: Is ICS, that is, 1x1 spacing 50% condensers, 25% boreholes, 25% bases an acceptable/desirable/permissable mathematical approach?

And you still haven't given me a straight answer

Does anyone think it a good idea that Specialist gathered econ/labs (not psych) should be subjected to inefficiency calculations?

	18-05-2005 00:24									#15
	Re: Do you consider ICS to be a problem? Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Senethro and a former army that could probably wipe out hallf the other factions through self-destruct.

Formers cause no damage to anyone by self destruct

The formula is weapon multiplied by reactor value divided by two equals the number of hitpoints damage an adjacent unit will take.

So formers and crawlers are useless for this unless you have found a way to mount weapons on them.

Armour is irrelevant on both the destructing units and its victims. Units inside bases are immune to the self destruct effects

	18-05-2005 00:36									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Thank you for that correction. So noted.
(Does anyone think that self-destruct is to powerful in certain circumstances?)

	18-05-2005 03:51									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Builders do better on small or standard maps, NOT LARGE OR HUGE...the reason for this is because the builder will have to expand little before settling into builder mode...hybrids and momentums will kill on large maps because they expand so quickly, they don't have to build to be economically and industrially powerful...

As far as I am concerned, ICSing is a sin...it is not at all unstoppable, but rather, the only way to defeat it is not by being a builder, but either militaristic or by being anarchist...

I ICSed one time while playing hot seat...my friend, who at the time typically lost on citizen level defeated my ICS pattern with just a few PBs and probe teams...even with a puny economy, a foe can still triumph over ICS...

True, it was my first time ICSing, but I remember having orbital spaceflight before 2200, and I didn't even beeline to it...actually, I think I built the cloning vats before then as well, but not too sure on that...

	18-05-2005 03:56									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Senethro [...] The balancing of Sparta [...]

I like using childrens creches when the AI plays Sparta. I haven't play tested extensively, though.

	18-05-2005 04:01									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Senethro Thank you for that correction. So noted. (Does anyone think that self-destruct is to powerful in certain circumstances?)

YES

Once people have the 10 weapon and fusion reactors, all fission units are dead with a single destruct and you powerful stack of fusion reactor units die to two self destructs

	18-05-2005 04:18									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Commy Builders do better on small or standard maps, NOT LARGE OR HUGE...the reason for this is because the builder will have to expand little before settling into builder mode...hybrids and momentums will kill on large maps because they expand so quickly, they don't have to build to be economically and industrially powerful... As far as I am concerned, ICSing is a sin...it is not at all unstoppable, but rather, the only way to defeat it is not by being a builder, but either militaristic or by being anarchist... I ICSed one time while playing hot seat...my friend, who at the time typically lost on citizen level defeated my ICS pattern with just a few PBs and probe teams...even with a puny economy, a foe can still triumph over ICS... True, it was my first time ICSing, but I remember having orbital spaceflight before 2200, and I didn't even beeline to it...actually, I think I built the cloning vats before then as well, but not too sure on that...

People, please, seriously now, VALID examples only. WHile a lot of stuff here is going to be anecdotal, your first time ICSing is NOT a good example of anything to do with ICS.

And what is your definition of a builder? Are you meaning someone who stays small and expands vertically? I would define an ICS builder as someone who just borgs across the entire map if you'll let them.

	18-05-2005 04:29									#21
	Tired of ads?

If the AI ICSed then it woulden't be a problem, but now it is

	18-05-2005 08:31									#22
	Put an end to popups!

I think someone put an AI in the jungle, set priority to growth and got almost perfect 1x1 ICS once.

	18-05-2005 12:09									#23
	Got spare money?

quote: Ok, this is becoming badly derailed. The balancing of Sparta and to a lesser extent Pirates and other hybrid styles against pure builder over large map through use of pod popping is an entirely separate issue (one I would like to address, but not today.)

Firstly, you can't throw some arguments out of the window like this just because you don't want to talk about them (whatever is the reason of this unwillingness).

When pretending some strategy is superior to all others you can't just ignore some aspects of game.

A momentum faction like Sparta which goes for D:Flex early and grabs as much land and sea pods as it can can easily become very powerful.

Yes, it's vertical growth. Who does not want his 200 mineral 0-3t-2 crawler finished in a single instabuild?

It's just so easy to build Secret Projects with those.
In an ongoing game (CGN 25) playing Gaians I had 2 explorers - mind worms (only 2!!!) and they got 2 instabuilds for me and 2 AAs till 2129. I was able to finish PTS in 2130 and am looking forward to grab PTS and HGP in a couple of turns.

The importance of pod popping just can't be ignored when talking which tactic is the most powerful.

It's just the newbiestic builder style. They don't pop pods much, just build LOTS of CPs, formers and crawlers and never go out of their borders because of FM.

I say go try it! You will be amazed how much and how early you can gain power by pod popping.

And ICS early is very vulnerable because usually you don't even have garrisons (except if Hive) for the sake of faster buildup. I hope you don't deny this.


The example I mentioned - ACDG3 is a good one.
In this game players are not just some newbies which try ICS their first time.

ICS was exactly what Morgan was doing. Not ICS1x1 of course because early you can't found base on each rocky and fungus square, you just don't have the former speed for it, but it was gooing to be such.

Morgan had PTS, PEG and HGP.
Sparta had CN and MCC.

Guess who won?

Sparta!

And Sparta is winning badly!

Not just some occasional luck or a sligh difference between turnplayer skills.

It is a good example ICS can be beaten and also a good example big maps are not in favour of builders.


And talking about your mentioned 50% condensers 25% boreholes 25% bases.
Yes, okay, you can do it, but the question is not whether you can, but when you can do it.

In one game (CGN 21) where Im Hive I have huge empire and around 150 formers plus Weather Paradigm.

It's past 2190 and I have terraformed 1/3rd of the "50% condensors 25% boreholes" grid.

In a normal mutliplayer game you can't be so quick to do it.

By the time you have half of that a nearby momentum faction has:
1. built all the military SPs it could.
2. built some infra (for popbooming)
3. popboomed for some 10 yrs
4. built an airborne force to attack you and destroy your neat terraforming.


My conclusion:

ICS is powerful.
But no strategy is universal.
ICS favours only some of the factions and ICS is not likely to succeed upon certain circumstances like abundant fungus and/or too much rocks.
Factions which I consider suited for a success in ICS:
1.Hive
Ultimate ICS faction - Patrol, Former, CP infinite loop. (add crawlers after IA)
2.Drones
One less drone helps with b-drones and +3 INDUSTRY is just sweet.
3.Morgan.
That 8+ energy per base you can get is worth trying to rush more and more bases.
4.Uni
Only with a prerequsition of VW. If you manage to get PTS as well, you're gold ICSer. Playing with equal opponents will rarely end up you having them both.

Some other factions like Angels amd Believers could do well too, but they're "inbetween" successfull ICS or rare-base popbooming.

CyCon usually gets no chance but to ICS (probably some looser variation like 1x2 or 2x2) due to -1 growth.

Cult and Sparta are definitely better for popbooming.

Pirates are out of competition. Their base placement should be ultimate search for a bonus-rich areas.
I've ended up my faction scattered all over the world sometimes this way.
And I don't understand persons saying Pirates should go to land early.
What's the benefit from it?
Pirates have -1 Growth and -1Effic and no land bonuses, thus they'd be way weaker on land than any other land faction.

The ultimate mistake I made in one PBEM (CGN22) which I lost was ICS with PKs.
They lose 2 of their best bonuses when ICSing - talent per 4 citizens and increased pop limit.
Talents get eliminateed by b-drones and you rarely get pop up to 7+ early enough.

I'd say PKs are ultimate popbooming faction - the more pop they have the more votes, talents and they can have much pop in a single base.

Did I forgot someone?
I don't consider aliens worth playing for a human, they're just so boring.


And AI does ICS, yes.
Actually you don't even need to set priority to explore, just put it into Jungle.

	18-05-2005 16:10									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

welll, well, welll...
the above binTravkin's post is very mellow post and contains lots of valuable informations
those comments are very valuable, because they come strictly from experience!
and i agree with great majority of them!
many players should be able to learn from that post above a lots!
good work, binTravkin - it was your the best post i ever read...

	18-05-2005 16:32									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: because they come strictly from experience!

I actually think that I made my summary on ICS strategy here.
I learned about ICS year ago and have been using it ever since.
It's lots of SP games, a couple of TCP/IP games and almost 20 PBEMs.

Over that time span I have been turning ICS inside-out (or how it is spelled in English).
I can't probably say that I know every bonus and malus of it but I have tried each and every faction in ICS and it is pretty obvious for me now which ones are suited, and which ones are not.

	18-05-2005 18:11									#26
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Senethro Thank you for that correction. So noted. (Does anyone think that self-destruct is to powerful in certain circumstances?)

In all circumstance where it does damage to other units, yes.

	18-05-2005 18:19									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin Firstly, you can't throw some arguments out of the window like this just because you don't want to talk about them (whatever is the reason of this unwillingness). When pretending some strategy is superior to all others you can't just ignore some aspects of game.

Oh the irony.

	18-05-2005 18:39									#28
	Got spare money?

In the post above I've actually forgot Gaians.

Well, due to their usual Demo/Planned/Wealth SE combo they're pretty suited for a constant popboom.

But ICS can be an option if you grab PTS - fungal nutrients will help your bases not to starve early.
I'd say they're "inbetween" faction along with Believers and Angels.

quote: Oh the irony.

Didn't catch you.

	18-05-2005 18:52									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin *** The example I mentioned - ACDG3 is a good one. In this game players are not just some newbies which try ICS their first time. ICS was exactly what Morgan was doing. Not ICS1x1 of course because early you can't found base on each rocky and fungus square, you just don't have the former speed for it, but it was gooing to be such. Morgan had PTS, PEG and HGP. Sparta had CN and MCC. Guess who won? Sparta! And Sparta is winning badly!

The game is not over yet.

quote: Not just some occasional luck or a sligh difference between turnplayer skills.

There were at least two instances that I am personally aware of where luck or skill played a significant role is Sparta's game.

Postmortems of the game can be fully done after the game is over, but I feel that the ability to make ships early on greatly enhanced Sparta's position. The ships enabled early exploration, diplomacy, infiltration, and tech steals. The ships and rovers allowed early invasions.

Although bigger maps give builders more distance from the militaristic factions, Sparta can get ahead by getting out to explore.


Mead

	18-05-2005 19:13									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The game is not over yet.

Yes it is not, I was just demonstrating that as good example ICS can be beaten.

quote: There were at least two instances that I am personally aware of where luck or skill played a significant role is Sparta's game.

Ok, I was not aware of this, but anyways, do you think this luck/skill was what actually made Sparta so powerful now?

quote: Postmortems of the game can be fully done after the game is over, but I feel that the ability to make ships early on greatly enhanced Sparta's position. The ships enabled early exploration, diplomacy, infiltration, and tech steals. The ships and rovers allowed early invasions. Although bigger maps give builders more distance from the militaristic factions, Sparta can get ahead by getting out to explore.

Yes and by "getting out to explore" it can make itself powerful popping all those juice pods underway.