 |
|
Father Beast
|
 |
My head stuck permanently in my civ
Feb 2000
time: 22:15
|
|
if that city screen thing is true... let me check...
2 city view screens on civ3.com both have size 40 foodboxes. one size 11, one size 12.
of the 2 screenshots at bonusweb, one is for a size 8 city, it doesn't have the 40 box, but it looks as if the graphics are unfinished. the other one is a 40 box, size 12.
having trouble finding any other city view screenshots online. I do have an old one from the CGW preview way back, and it seems to have the stacked sheaves we're all used to, then we have the computer games magazine preview from last month. it has perseopolis, size 10, with the 40 box.
I think you may be right!! If so, this is the biggest kick in the head ICS ever got!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
 |
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Hi all,
Having never used ICS (never knew what it was till I saw this thread), but after having read these threads I'd like to throw out a consolidated idea I had after reading this thread.
How would the following hamper ICS while still allowing a "traditional" player to still grow as normal?
1. Allow each city to only have one tile worked per population point. A city, when founded can ONLY work the tile it is located on, if you place the city in a tile with low/no food then your city will quickly disappear due to starvation.
Proposed fix: By limiting the amount of squares worked an ICS player would no longer have a "free tile" over a non-ICS player. A size three city and three size one cities would have the exact same area worked.
Good or bad?
2. Have the same amount of food for city growth regardless of city size for each "era". Cities in the "ancient era" might take 20 food for each size of growth to get from size 1 to size 2 and also from size 7 to size 8, at least until they hit a population halt due to need of aquaduct, etc. Once a different "era" is reached via technology research a city would automatically take more food to grow.
Proposed fix: Another factor encouraging ICS seems to be that smaller cities grow faster than larger cities. With this solution the larger a city becomes the faster it (potentially) can grow. This would directly benefit the cities with larger populations.
3. Change tile resources per "age" and not government type. When the game starts initially, grassland may only give 1 food (all grassland) with the only "shield" produced being where the city is (if-then statement, if no shields within city radius, city center has ONE), and as each age progresses the tiles give additional food and production until by the end of the game grassland may give one extra food and a shield in every tile (example). Only mines and farms would moderately increase this initial starting condition.
Proposed fix: This idea goes hand in hand with idea #2 above. Less advanced cultures couldn't possibly use the land as efficiently as more technologically advanced cultures could. Growing wheat in the American mid-west is a potential example of this. What might take 100 people and 50 acres of land can now be done with 5 people, some nifty machinery and half the acrage of land. As people learn more they are better able to "exploit" the resources around them.
The possible drawback would be someone far enough ahead technologically wise would likely stay dominant due to better "everything" but this could still be balanced.
----
There you have it, three ideas, mostly rehashed from what others said with a little of my thoughts to them. Anyone think they could work if added to the additional rules Firaxis has already implemented?
Let me know!
(Oh and thanks for the insight on ICS, it sounds like a definite game im-balance that should have been fixed long ago, but who cares about making the guts of the game better when they can add all these nifty new graphics to make the fanatics happy? )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
|
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Hi FB, thanks for the reply.
I went back and re-read what Metamorph said about how he thinks eliminating the "extra" worked tile would break the game, but he provides no actual figures on why.
Maybe he will post and say why this would break the game when all it would seem to do from my viewpoint would be to make people pick a good place to put their cities, either through a good natural spot of somewhere they have terraformed the land.
I like the limited food boxes also, would seem to balance the scale a bit. Let's hope it's true as it would allow the bigger cities to grow as fast as the ICS cities.
Hmm, ok, tying the food production to tech would be a bad idea, but how about linking it to city size? Once a city has ten worked tiles in it's radius then the bonus goes up? Maybe at 15 worked tiles and then 20? This would seem to make people want to make cities further apart and with less overlap because they would get more bonuses. For example, maybe at the "10" bonus all grassland got 2 food instead of one, hence growing the city faster and then at size 15 all grassland got one extra shield per production, and at 20 it got another food?
There has to be a way to tie in some bonus or equalizer for people who spread their cities out and have less cities than someone who plunks all the cities down on top of one another.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Madine
|
|
I think that the bonus tile the city automatically works is the primary reason that ICS is a powerful and desirable strategy. Eliminating the bonus tile combined with the 2 pop for a settler would put ICS at a disadvantage in terms of number of tiles worked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Takeshi
|
|
Canada
Jun 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
Ok, if you think eliminating the free tile could work, try this:
-Start a normal game of CivI or CivII
-Whenever you make a city, immediately turn one citizen into a scientist/taxman/entertainer
-If you're not surrounded by grassland, see how much slower and unfun the game becomes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
if the fixed size foodbox is in civ3, then ICS will be much less powerful than in civ2! i hope this is the case, and if it is, then good job firaxis!
what we are asking firaxis to do is to balance ICS, so that quantity of cities are balanced with quality of cities...this was not the case in civ2, where quantity always won out (except when you popped more huts, which is cheesy in my opinion)
it sounds like they just might have balanced ICS, and while people could still pursue it, using ICS wouldn't give those players such an advantage that other players would either have to use ICS too or would lose the game, this is all we have asked for, and it sounds like we have got it
if there is a fixed size 40 foodbox (size 20 with a granary) then ICS as we know it would be dead, and while something else might replace it, i don't think it would be as unbalanced as ICS in earlier civ games
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Skanky Burns
|
 |
Skanky Bastard Quartermaster
Aug 2001
time: 14:15
|
|
ICS is dead in the beginning of the game. An ICS player will expand at exactly the same rate as a non-ICS player*, with just their cities closer together. If ICS does show up, it will likely be towards the middle/end game area, and is likely to develop like this:
The ICSer, and non-ICSer, will build settlers whenever possible, and make cities. They will both place their cities with not too much overlap, therby increasing the territory they control faster than pure ICS. Once all available land is occupied, the non-ICSer will focus on other areas, depending on playing style. The ICSer, however, has only just begun their expansion. Each city they have will continue to build settlers, and now start filling in the 'gaps' between cities, eventually getting a thick carpet of cities. Each city will only need a temple to produce culture, getting a 1 square culture radius, and with cities only 2 squares away, their total territory will be within their cultural border.
Im not sure if a late ICS will give enough bonus to be worth the effort, though. Hopefully not.
Which reminds me, the Indians look like a good candidate ICS civilization (much like in real life  ), due to their UU not needing resources... therfore not needing a road network.
* - An ICS player will have a slight advantage, as their settlers need to move only 2 squares before settling, as opposed to 5 squares to reduce overlap. However, this bonus is likely to be offset by reduced quality of land (previously built ICS cities would grab the 'good tiles' first)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-09-2001 15:41
|