18-08-2002 16:52									#1
	Is not following ICS a foolish startegy? Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well I just typed a long essay and my zone alert internet lock kicked in, so it wouldn't post..

Man I hate it when I click back and this damn forum erases your entire message body when you click back on your web browser..thats rude. argh. *sigh*

Anyway.... now I am gonna make it short and sweet..

It seems from what I have read here that the superior strategy is size 6 cities 2 spaces apart? ICS? Well, I don't play that way but was wondering.

I like minimizing city overlap and when bad terrain like desert even skipping the tiles and letting culture cover them when the 2 cities reach 100 rating.

It seems most here like small cities and alot of them? due to WLTK day? From the few posts I read this seems to be superior strategy? Like size 6 2 spaces apart? and tons of them?

How bad is one handicapping oneself by minimizing overlap and building big cities with alot of land coverage? I always play this way and win more than not on monarch at least. I wonder how bad I am handicapping myself by playing this way though...

Is the big city minimum overlap proven to be bad strategy compared to ICS?

I thought they had tried to fix ICS in Civ3 but it is still alive and well, no?? Or am I seeing things?

	18-08-2002 17:15									#2
	Put an end to popups!

I agree with you, Artifex. I don't care for ICS, on an aesthetic basis. I've always meant to try it, but when given the opportunity, just don't have the heart for it. This could be set up as a grand debate. I hereby issue a call to the CivGiants (tm) to play devil's advocate, as I am unworthy. Can anyone make a case for the viability of ultracities on the higher difficulty levels? Thanks.

	18-08-2002 17:26									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Think of it in Civ2 terms. In the lower levels you can afford to space your cities properly and concentrate on quality but as you get higher overlapping is needed to win in the direct way.

If you chose minimum overlap in such a case odds are you wont be dominating early and possibly may have to look at a non domination victory. If you play on a large map with fewer opponants than normal - obvoiusly there is more time to position.

The tactics of total ICS are really used to win as fast as possible and the measures Firaxis put to stop this have slowed it slightly, (eg - 2 pop for settler) but in no way gotten rid of it.

If you want to play higher levels and not use ICS I wouldn't call it foolish at all - but from my experiance dont bet everything on being able to take over the world with your military (at least for a long while)

	18-08-2002 17:31									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

This is for your basic standard maps with continents on Monarch and Emperor level.

I don't play huge or large maps.

	18-08-2002 17:41									#5
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

ICS isn't needed to win in single player anyway. Who knows what will happen in MP at the moment. The main problem with ICS is that you will the city quantity corruption limit fast. The main advantage of it is the city gets production PLUS one pop working a tile and you limit the effects of corruption by distance till you spread out.

ICS is good for early wars and high scores. Aeson's 63,000 point Deity win shows this. However I find I can win on Emperor at least with my cities spaced with a minimum overlap. I might bet better results though planning cities that are limited to twelve population due to overlap. This will still give high production cities in the core and help produce WLTKD. I suspect that this technique or even tighter spacing is going to needed for MP.

While ICS isn't a neccessity in single player REX is. You must expand rapidly early because the AI will what ever you do.

	18-08-2002 18:58									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Heavy ICS will probably be THE strat for MP. In MP few games will reach the industrial age, which is the point when bigger cities become useful, and in any case you can easily disband some of the cities to make space for big productive cities.

	18-08-2002 19:00									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Seems like ICS is the only way to go sadly. Or settle for second best. Too bad it had to be that way since that play style isn't too fun for me at least.

	18-08-2002 20:48									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

thats why i played civ2 with a bunch of my friends with a set of "house rules". Playing people like eyes of night just wasn't fun.

	18-08-2002 22:25									#9
	Got spare money?

When ever you enter the world of multiplayer, everyone falls into the same drum beat.

AvP GE with all the players wanting to play Alien
Q3 with everyone just sticking with Rockets
JkII with everyone just using Lightsabers
Force Comander with everyone playing as Empire
Total Annihilation with everyone flash rushing and commander bombing


Now the fall of Civ3 MP will be ICS.

	19-08-2002 00:51									#10
	Support Apolyton

I got rid of ICS, by making all settlers cost 4 pop. :-D

This way, expanding just a little, and focusing more on developing cities (like building wonders) really pays off. Still, expansion is preferential, but other tactics have a good chance of winning as well.

	19-08-2002 01:03									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

ICS may the way to go... or maybe the rush strategy will be the best. Who knows at this point. It really will depend on the size of map and the victory conditions for the game.

We will just have to see what works the best

	19-08-2002 01:08									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ming, you're so unimaginative.

Yes, ICS will be best for MP, unfortunately. ICS and rush. *yawn*

Let's get some house rules ready guys.

	19-08-2002 01:18									#13
	Support Apolyton

Nahhh.... I reserve judgement until we start playing MP.

The strategies used when Civ II MP was first released are far different than the what wins now. Until we see it in action, it's hard to say what will and will not work.

Just being honest here

	19-08-2002 01:36									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So I am handicapping myself by not playing a style I feel to be unfun. I guess there is no use in playing a game handicappoing yourself? That's kinda like passing go and not collecting 200 bucks in Monopoly..

*sigh*

grr sid...

	19-08-2002 01:40									#15
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Artifex So I am handicapping myself by not playing a style I feel to be unfun. I guess there is no use in playing a game handicappoing yourself? That's kinda like passing go and not collecting 200 bucks in Monopoly.. *sigh* grr sid...

That's right. ICS and rushing will be the standard in competitive MP, and anyone who doesn't conform will lose because of the mighty Civ 2 MP gods like Ming.

	19-08-2002 01:44									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Trip That's right. ICS and rushing will be the standard in competitive MP, and anyone who doesn't conform will lose because of the mighty Civ 2 MP gods like Ming.

Yet another reason I'm not in a rush to buy PTW.

	19-08-2002 02:40									#17
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus I got rid of ICS, by making all settlers cost 4 pop. :-D This way, expanding just a little, and focusing more on developing cities (like building wonders) really pays off. Still, expansion is preferential, but other tactics have a good chance of winning as well.

I like this idea. Maybe modify it thusly: after a threshold # of cities, each settler becomes more expensive like that, and/or other support...

	19-08-2002 08:17									#18
	Increase Your PM Length

An easy way to limit ICS is to make each overlapping tile (or every 2 overlapping tiles) cost each city with the overlap 1 food. Calculate overlap not by tiles worked, but by the 21-tile city radius. Thus closely packed cities will be possible (and perhaps preferable) near grasslands and floodplains, but not so great on more food-marginal land (mirroring reality, at least til modern times). This will lead to spacing out cities naturally, while adding strategic depth to city placement.

I can't stand ICS - right now it's all benefits and no drawbacks. The fun parts to the games are where you have to strategically balance benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. I think this proposal should add some balance and strategic depth without unduly limiting player choice.

	19-08-2002 08:25									#19
	Remove this text

ICS does have drawbacks. Just the benefits outweigh them. I personally don't like anything that restricts play, so 'ICS solutions' do nothing for me.

Anyway, you'd be suprised how fun close city spacing + rushing can be at times. And if you don't like rushing, play on archipelago maps (hopefully MP will be sorted out so that you don't start on the same continent as your opponent 90% of the time, as it seems in SP).

	19-08-2002 21:23									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I've never liked ICS, but it works to well to be ignored.

As a compromise I will pack cities around my core's. They are limited in growth by overlaps, but the early game advantages are huge. Less corruption=more military units per turn. With my other cities I generally aim for no overlap.

Since I started packing my core, I've been a much better player. So no overlapper are certainly handicapping themselves, IMO.


If they wanted to eliminate ICS, why did they make a penalty for 21+ cities?

	19-08-2002 22:30									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GI Josh An easy way to limit ICS is to make each overlapping tile (or every 2 overlapping tiles) cost each city with the overlap 1 food. Calculate overlap not by tiles worked, but by the 21-tile city radius. Thus closely packed cities will be possible (and perhaps preferable) near grasslands and floodplains, but not so great on more food-marginal land (mirroring reality, at least til modern times). This will lead to spacing out cities naturally, while adding strategic depth to city placement. I can't stand ICS - right now it's all benefits and no drawbacks. The fun parts to the games are where you have to strategically balance benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. I think this proposal should add some balance and strategic depth without unduly limiting player choice.

I like your idea. But this is what I'd do:

If two cities share the same tile(s), then neither gets to use those tiles. Also, the population is reduced by 1 for each tile that is overlapped (1 will still be 1 though). And to boot, the city that has such tile(s) are capped at size 12 (IF they can make that far).

This will teach all of your to play the right way!

	19-08-2002 22:45									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

I don't know, but I always played Civ3 with cities at 3tile distacnce.

They can rise to 18-25 pop easily, in early game it gives me CLOSED borders, which helps gainst AI, it's quicker, etc...

It's surely better then 4 or more tile distance needed for "prefect 20pop citites).

3 tiles is way to go (and maybe somtimes 4 tiles if it feels to crouded, or 2 tiles if you realy need that resource).

	19-08-2002 23:04									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by player1 3 tiles is way to go (and maybe somtimes 4 tiles if it feels to crouded, or 2 tiles if you realy need that resource).

I wish Colonies were done better, then I could avoid putting a city there to avoid the colonies to be "cultured" by an enemy city that only has two or three NON overlapped tiles just to get the darn resource.

	19-08-2002 23:53									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

First, Firaxis has corruption tied to the number of cities to combat rampant numbers of cities. People whined about how bad corruption was (you know who you are, I was one).

Then, Firaxis tones it down (a lot).

Now, people are whining about the fact that empires with lots of small cities are better than empires with a few good cities.

Maybe Firaxis should penalize players who build a lot of cities. Oh wait, they already tried that and people (myself included) whined.

Enough grumbling...

Like Player1, I usually shoot for a 3 tile spacing. In between the ICS and the maximum possible growth. Will this work in MP? Who knows yet (maybe Firaxis). It works fine in SP. It yields big productive cities in the late game and lots of cities in the early game. I vary it according to geography, of course.

	20-08-2002 00:18									#25
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DrFell Anyway, you'd be suprised how fun close city spacing + rushing can be at times.

The key phrase in there is "at times".

In MP, 'competitive' players will do it every time, simply because they can win that way.

	20-08-2002 00:27									#26
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Trip In MP, 'competitive' players will do it every time, simply because they can win that way.

Trip is right. It will happen. Like I mentioned above, all MP games I've play break down into clockwork. I tend to find the AI less prodictable then those idiot humans that live on a little green ball they call "Earth".


Firaxis should have a little button for the host that will punish players who overlap their own city tiles (I'm willing to give people a break when it comes to rival cities).

	20-08-2002 01:24									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ironically, disabling ICS would probably make rushing the only viable strat. Tightly packed cities are great for defence.

By the way, I am a competitive player myself, and I plan on ICSing to win

	20-08-2002 02:27									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Thrawn05 I tend to find the AI less prodictable then those idiot humans that live on a little green ball they call "Earth".

That's the most something has tickled me in a while.
The worst thing is that you're completely right.

Even if I'm not the 'best' MP Civ 3 player out there, I won't care. I'm here to have fun and play Civ with people, not to exploit a bent/broken system that only favors one meathod of play.

	21-08-2002 00:31									#29
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DrFell Ironically, disabling ICS would probably make rushing the only viable strat. Tightly packed cities are great for defence. By the way, I am a competitive player myself, and I plan on ICSing to win

What is rushing in MP? I've only played SP games, so I haven't brushed up on MP strategies.

Please feel free to keep your answers short, or just leave a link.

	21-08-2002 00:39									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DrFell Ironically, disabling ICS would probably make rushing the only viable strat. Tightly packed cities are great for defence. By the way, I am a competitive player myself, and I plan on ICSing to win

Thanks for the forwarning... I WON'T be playing against you.