 |
| |
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:16
|
|
ICS = Infinite City Sleaze. Basically the idea is simple: By sending out settlers at the earliest possible moment in all your cities, you can literally grow exponentially. Simply ignore city improvements, nice spacing between cities, etc. The power of numbers alone ensures victory (do a search on this site of 'ICS' if you want to understand this more).
It was Firaxis' top priority to fix this issue in Civ3. However, it is the opinion of a growing number of gamers, including myself, that the problem is actually worse. First, here are the 'fixes' Firaxis tried:
'FIXES'
1) Settlers now cost 2 population.
2) Enemy culture points can now cause small, undeveloped cities to join them.
3) The enemy AI itself expands like crazy.
'PROBLEMS'
1) This idea in and of itself fixes nothing. It only delays the amount of time it takes to make the next settler. So instead of timing your settler to pop out when your city reaches pop 2, you time it to arrive at pop 3. I am already getting down build oders for such a thing. So are others. So does the AI. Thus, this alone fixes nothing.
2) The concept of a superior culture eating up these cities is a great one, except that the AI itself is so consumed by spreading all over the place that its own cultural development is sacrificed for a good part of the early game. Now, if you take the cultural high road yourself, you might take over a few enemy cities that way, but the sheer number of AI cities by now wrapped all around (and even inside!) your empire will at the very least demoralize and perhaps infuriate you. Here again, you can try to go to war right off the bat, but that has a host of problems itself.
3) This one really exacerbates the problems already set up with 1 and 2: The AI (at least on Regent level, which is all I have played, sorry) will expand AT ALL COSTS! This means he will IGNORE your repeated pleas to get off your land. This means he will found cities right in the heart of your empire. This means that your nicely laid border meant to cut off his access to the land behind you is meaningless and you can count on the AI building all around you. On tundra. On anything he can reach. So you have options: Spread like a cancer yourself, go to war -- or a bit of both.
Frankly, I think there's a better way. I offer the following 'easy' solutions that I think will bring back a huge amount of fun and challenge.
1) "Continguous City Borders" -- CCBs
The idea is simple: You may found a city ONLY if its borders will touch your existing border. Now, if this means we should expand the initial borders a bit, fine. If the borders do NOT touch, you can only build a colony. And taking away the other civ's colony must NOT be considered an act of war. Building a colony should be a risk ... an important gamble to secure far off resources. That is what Firaxis intended, I think, but currently there is NO reason not to simply put cities helter skelter.
2) "Settler Deporation"
Another simple fix: If an AI with which you are not at war brings over his escorted settler into your land, any military unit you send to that stack will bring up the following two options: A) "Deport Settler?" or B) "Capture Settler? -- This will start a war." In fact, perhaps the entire stack should be able to be deported. Of course, if the AI refuses the deportation, you go to war and fight right on the spot. This will encourage you to patrol your borders diligently and gives back the player a vital early means of handling the AI's ignoring your borders.
I honeslty believe that those two solutions working together will make Civ3 vastly superior. Any thoughts? Thanks for listening.
Last edited by yin26 on 06-11-2001 at 06:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cougz
|
 |
So Cal
Nov 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
Re Continguous City Borders - To avoid changing the current border expansion system, perhaps the ruling could be:
- New city border can be no more than 2 spaces from existing border (so two brand new cities can be built next to each other but still have room to use all their resources available.)
- Can not put down a city if the border, when placed normally, would cross another civs border. (So if you put your cities so their border's are initially 2 spaces apart, another civ can't come and plant a city between them.)
I think this is effectively what you are getting at, it means that the absolute jumble of cities can't really occur. I am playing a game right now where the Americans, Egyptians, Indians, English, Chinese, Aztecs and Zulus are fairly close on one large continent. YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A MESS!  It's unreal, as in it's not realistic. Almost all Countries have very defined borders, in fact the only time they don't is usually during war.
Therefore the only way a jumble of cities should be possible is because of conquest, not by settling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dida
|
|
Let's do this, if the new city you found does not touches your existing border, the corruption will be very high, the waste of shelt would be very high, citizens would likely be unhappy. And thus, very high chance of revolting. This chance increases as distance from the existing border increases.
Therefore, you can found a new city anywhere, but it will be very difficult to control that city. If the new city is located across the sea, then you have to build harbor quickly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Yin.. I have a problem with this solution...
I often will set up two "nations" on either side of the equator (which is normally desert), and over time they connect due to expanding cultural influence. The desert maybe settled by other civs but will almost always become assimlated eventually.
For that matter, I've had little cities within my borders that are just terrible cities so I leave 'em alone. It's an eyesore, but doesn't really make a difference. When was the last time an enemy civ settled a *GOOD* spot in the middle of your empire?
The fact is, I think the AI should be fixed so that they don't settle the middle of your empire because it's a prime example of Artifical Idioicy. But I don't think that you should be limited by simple having city cultural boundaries touch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blackadar1
|
|
I'm not sure I agree with the "cities touching" theory, as some of us may like to space ours out (especially initial ones) a bit more. But I LOVE the idea of being able to deport settlers (or other units) that are in my territory, sort of like deporting the spys from Civ II. Frankly, I think that founding a city inside another Civs culture border should be an act of war.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
I don't know how you can still call it ICS, is that just like giving it a bad name? cuz unless yer playing a different game than I am, there aint nothing infinite about it. I assume yer refering to how its still perceived to be desirable to rapidly build yer cities very close together? then I can more relate to your concern.
I think there are definite and obvious reasons to maybe not wna do this, especially with the reality that you can't always add "one more city" w/o yer empire's corruption goin kinda psycho. but still in a mathematicaly bland environment, it gives turn advantage.
if u wnt to encourage ppl to stop building bases so close together, why not take away the corruption modifier for distance? I don't know, maybe I'm just too simple of a thinker for yall. but it seems to me that yer border touching thing would encourage the ICS we have right now, as ppl would plop cities down closely in rapid succession, and I don't see how it solves the problem at all. it also seems like a very artificial fix. just kinda imposed on the whim of abstractness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gaius Marius
|
 |
Gondwanaland
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
I really don't see what's so irritating about the AI or expansion system. In every game I have played, everyone (myself and the AI) has expanded rapidly, followed by a long period of working borders out.
The civ borders start oddly shaped, interleaved at places, etc. This is made more extreme by the small culture in each city. If you look at the map in the replay at this stage, the culture borders are very spotty, but you can watch them grow into relatively stable blocks...
Anyway, in this stabilization period, usually a number of cities change hands due to military or culture, and a civ or two is eliminated (completely or effectively). At a variable point in time dependent on geography, strategy, and randomness, the borders become stable. this happens very quickly when there are fewer civs, natural borders, and better land (=bigger cities, more stable culture).
For example, on my continent in the current game, the Iroquois (me) and Americans are large grassland-based empires. The Chinese are on a large peninsula, mostly plains. These borders were reached by rapid expansion and stabilization. Some cities at the edges have changed hands due to culture. Whatever. On the same continent, the Japanese and Aztecs have a small area of grass and tons of little jungle cities (wet world, so there's lots). Their borders are less defined and stable.
This is completely realistic, and one of the most interesting parts of the game. Geography shapes strategy which shapes international relations which shape borders. Watch the replay. It's really exciting to see the AI fight over continental schwerpunkten , etc.
HOWEVER, I do understand your gripe about the AI founding worthless cities on tundra, desert, etc. I think, however, that this strategy is actually a good one, and that most humans, myself included, don't adopt it because we are perfectionists with our cities, and because we don't want to bother with the effort to get a city like that producing anything. Cities never hurt (especially since you don't lose tech when they're taken, like in Civ 2).
The AI does not cheat in settler production or expansion - research and observation will show this, and Soren Johnson has clearly stated it. Quite frankly, if you think it is expanding annoyingly, it means the AI is playing a different strategy than you that happens to be very disruptive - making it a fantastic way to reduce your strategic capital and a lot of your time. Do it to the AI, too, if you want. Or fight it. Adapt. Watch your borders (you have to, since you MUST watch units move), use fortresses, and plan long in advance where you want your borders to be. Defend them jealously, and ignore everything else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cougz
I think this is effectively what you are getting at, it means that the absolute jumble of cities can't really occur. I am playing a game right now where the Americans, Egyptians, Indians, English, Chinese, Aztecs and Zulus are fairly close on one large continent. YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A MESS! It's unreal, as in it's not realistic. Almost all Countries have very defined borders, in fact the only time they don't is usually during war. |
Often jumbled borders DO occur. Look at a map of early modern Europe. Borders were tangled, jumbled messes. The Spanish held the Low Countries and Naples; Papal lands extended out of the Italian peninsula; France claimed pockets of territory in Sicily, etc.; England had protectorates in Gibralter, Saxony, etc. The whole map of Europe was this messy for hundreds of years.
I'm not saying that Civ should be like this though. I get just as annoyed as anyone when the Indians build a new city in the middle of my territory.
The contiguous city rule wouldn't work for reasons stated previously. I think the problem needs to be solved with harsher transgression penalties. When the AI crosses your border, there should be diplomatic and military penalties applied. It should count against your reputation and effect your dealings with other civs. That's the only thing that would stop the AI from running amok.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cougz
I think this is effectively what you are getting at, it means that the absolute jumble of cities can't really occur. I am playing a game right now where the Americans, Egyptians, Indians, English, Chinese, Aztecs and Zulus are fairly close on one large continent. YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A MESS! It's unreal, as in it's not realistic. Almost all Countries have very defined borders, in fact the only time they don't is usually during war. |
Often jumbled borders DO occur. Look at a map of early modern Europe. Borders were tangled, jumbled messes. The Spanish held the Low Countries and Naples; Papal lands extended out of the Italian peninsula; France claimed pockets of territory in Sicily, etc.; England had protectorates in Gibralter, Saxony, etc. The whole map of Europe was this messy for hundreds of years.
America too, when it was being colonized looked like this. Think it was easy to tell the difference between the Sweedish, Dutch, French, English, Spanish, Russian and Native American territory?
I'm not saying that Civ should be like this though. I get just as annoyed as anyone when the Indians build a new city in the middle of my territory.
The contiguous city rule wouldn't work for reasons stated previously. I think the problem needs to be solved with harsher transgression penalties. When the AI crosses your border, there should be diplomatic and military penalties applied. It should count against your reputation and effect your dealings with other civs. That's the only thing that would stop the AI from running amok.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mhenders
|
|
If I recall correctly, the sleazy version of ICS was a very specific sort of exploit--move a settler the shortest possible distance away from your city, plop down a new city, and then wash, rinse repeat, ad nauseum. An ICS player ending up with a hugely dense grove of cities--basically they were packed in every two squares or so.
I forget exactly how the numbers worked out, but it ended up to be hugely profitable in Civ2 and SMAC to sleaze rather than build up existing cities. Generating a new city was a more efficient use of population, mainly because as cities grew, the food requirement for the next pop point increased, so keeping cities small and spawning settlers allowed a sleazer to grow population far faster than letting cities gain population. In Civ2 and SMAC, population was power, and the AI and/or non-sleazer players could never match the population or power of a sleazer Civ. Thus, sleazing was an instant reciple for domination, and most everyone who ever gave it any thought felt that it was an exploit of flawed game mechanics.
Anyway, my point is that as an exploit, ICS seems to be fixed in Civ3. Two-pop point settlers, lower food cost for big city growth, culture, and corruption combine to eliminate the sort of easy dominance that Civ2/SMAC sleazing recipes guaranteed. The main complaint on this thread seems to be that the AI is always aggressively expansionistic in the early game, and is also generally contemptuous of borders. Both of these are problems, but they're not the Infinite City Sleaze that ruined Civ2 and SMAC.
So, it might be more productive to ask Firaxis for a little variety in the AI's style--an insular perfectionist wonder hogging AI would be loads of fun to play against. But you should realized that a common complaint about the Civ2 and SMAC AIs was that they never expanded fast enought to compete with a savvy non-sleaze but aggressively expansionist player. Thus, the current behavior is good testimony to the fact that Firaxis listened to feedback. Now they just need to add a little behavioral variety to AI's arsenal.
Later,
MTH
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AceCiv
|
|
New London, CT, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
I'd like see a new concept introduced to units in CIV 3.
When the right of passage is NOT active, AND the "trespassing" unit is not at war with culture within whose borders it lies, then there should be a CUMULATIVE demoralizing factor eventually leading to DEFECTION . But how long should these intruding units be allowed inside one's borders before defection is certain? I figure 1 turn within the other's border is an oops! - with no penalty - each turn thereafter the odds increase that the offending unit will defect.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MustPost
|
|
I would have thought that capturing cities giving you a tech would have discurraged ICS. I didn't really go onto the civ/SMAC boards that often so im not really sure why it was taken out. But it seems that if your enemy gained a tech whenever thay took over a city, you would build up your cities more or risk losing them and one of your advaced techs going to the opponent. Of course this won't matter in many of the cases because when your ICS you often fall behind in tech so you wouldn't have any tech worth taking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:16
|
|
It would be helpful to me if the people who don't see this as a problem would post the level of difficulty. I think below Regent, the comp doesn't really do what I described.
Also, if you click the link I provided above, you will see that I *did* adapt. I have 19 cities by 640 A.D. and could have had more with a bit more practice.
My point is ... that's nearly an hour or more of JUST LAND GRABBING in a way that detracts from building up the cities and culture that Civ3 was supposed to encourage. Sure, it's kind of fun to deal with this for 20 or 30 minutes, but an hour in and you really begin to get bored by it.
Again, I wouldn't mind it so much if the comp didn't so blatantly run over my borders. I purposely scouted with 2 warriors from very early, found my nearest neighbor, and totally cut him off from coming my way.
And yet he did by violating my borders and not listening to my request. "Well, go to war, Yin!"
Sure, I could. But that just means the expansion AI is forcing me into wars every game. It shouldn't have to play that way. Again, look at my link above to see what the purple AI did and how I responded in a very Civ2-esque kind of way. My cities are NOT spaced out properly for a reason: To eat up as much land as humanly possible before the AI settler walked across my empire and gobbled it up.
Please let me deport settlers!
Please let borders have more meaning!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
The problem with Civ3 is how you have to do ICS. In ICS it was the player's option to do ICS, where as in Civ3 you are forced to do ICS to win the game. This is because the AI does ICS itself and in order for you to win you have to match the AI's dirty tricks. Now I never used ICS in Civ2 (I liked to have fun when playing) and I continously have to use ICS in Civ3. Where is the fun in that? You are right, Yin, ICS has got worse.
A proposal I have for containing ICS.
1)A city can build a settler but now at the cost of 3. Ultimately this will do nothing but it's still a nice, little deterent to ICS.
2)If a city builds a settler, then the city will have to wait for two more project (wealth doesn't count) completions to finish. There is a way to get around this, though, you can build a settler consecutively or bi-consecutively, but after the settler is built half of the remaining citizens in the city will become unhappy. The realistic reasoning for this is that the city needs time to recooperate after losing a lot of citizens (3; that's where this comes into play) and will become unhappy if they are not able to do so.
3)The AI decides to play normal and not like a mad expansionist. If the AI would build up it's infastructure a bit the player is not forced to ICS themself. The AI also needs to be a little less predictable. Knowing that the AI is going to go into a frenzy of expansion will entice you do the same. This isn't a direct ICS container, more less something that will improve the gameplay, though.
4)The previously mentioned option of "deporting a settler". To expand on this, you should have four diplomatic options come up, besides ("prepare for war" & "that's it, goodbye" & "propose a deal"), those four would be "leave out territory now or prepare for war", "please leave out territory now, in good faith of our mutual peace", "leave our territory now and never to enter it again", and "care to discuss a right of passage deal". The first one would be very forceful and might offend the Civ, but has the possibility of being the most effective. The second one will most likely only be listened to if the other Civ is very respectful towards you. The third one will be the second most effective in that you are using force but are not giving the other Civ a war ultimatem (sorry for spelling that wrong). The last one will take you to a window in which you can propose an offer to the Civ, so they can enter your territory. If the last one is chosen you will get the better end of the deal proposition; meaning that you might get a lump sum and a right of passage agreement in exchange for a right of passage agreement to the other Civ.
I didn't mention having Yin's rule number one because it would cause problems elsewhere. Yes, it is a good idea for stopping ICS a bit, but the restrictions it will put on the game will be far greater than it's upsides it will bring to the game.
This is amazing, in just a few minutes other and I have come up with many ideas that could stop (contain) ICS, yet Firaxis had professional game designers spending a few years on this matter and only made ICS worse.   
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2001 05:58
If it doesn't do this then the borders concept appears pretty worthless to me. 
Need a translator?
|