I was simply pointing out logical breaks.
I'm sorry, but "Simply pointing out logical breaks" would have been possible without sarcastic remarks. It would also have been possible by asking questions to better understand the logic behind a line of thinking that is apparently unknown to you, instead of writing a rebuttal to tell other people that their perspective "makes no sense". Why are you interested in looking for "logical breaks" in the way I enjoy (or dislike) certain game mechanisms?
That is, if your desire is to play a historical game, then anachronistic tech is clearly against your preferences, which you did not say. "Alternative history" would not explain this, as optimal ways of playing Civ 4 could acquire Riflemen in the early ADs, when people would have barely discovered blast furnaces in the real world. I cannot forsee an alternative history so warped as to have Riflemen in Classical Eras (which require advanced metallurgical tech) but not Cannons.
Well, I can. To me, it is perfectly plausible that an invention or application simply isn't being made in an alternative history, or comes much earlier or later than in our history. The Greeks had knowledge of a machine that used steam to put an object into rapid motion, it's absolutely plausible that they could have invented steam power, which would have created a history of technology that diverged much more from ours than any history in an unmodded Civ can. I don't see why you regard cannons as an absolutely necessary application before rifles could be invented. Imho, the history of technology is much less predetermined than you think.
The difference between "riflemen before cannons" and ICS is that to make ICS plausible, I have to assume that people in an early civilization deem it a good idea to maximize the number of cities in their empire, regardless of the terrain cities are founded in, and actually take care that none of these cities grows beyond a very small population. This I regard as so implausible that at this point my immersion breaks.
I also have to say that I'm not sure whether I ever had riflemen before cannons, and I don't see why you regard this as a good example. I disagree that beelining to riflemen is an "optimal strategy" in Civ4. I also wonder why you throw Civ4 into the discussion; I didn't mention it except for stating that I was glad that it didn't favor ICS, and my dislike for ICS is independent of whether or not riflemen could be available before cannons in Civ4.
That doesn't square with your prior reasoning. "Extreme" specialist and cottage economies are the optimal ways to play Civ 4. You choose not to play like that, and you like that better. How is this different from not choosing to play ICS?
I don't see extreme specialist or cottage economies as an "optimal way" to play Civ4. Usually in my games, even a commerce- or food-heavy city leaves a forest standing, places a mine or two to have a production base, and probably utilizes one or two special resources as well.
However, again, why do you continually throw Civ4 into this discussion? I explained why I disliked ICS based on problems inherent to ICS, not based on comparisons to Civ4. If Civ4 doesn't have overpowered historically implausible strategies, then that's of course fine with me. If it does, then I'd of course wish it hadn't (and would have wished for Civ5 to fix this). In any case, my dislike for ICS (which is the topic of this thread) wouldn't change. Your argument seems much more suited for a "Civ4 > Civ5" discussion than it is suited for a discussion of ICS. I didn't intend to have a "Civ4 > Civ5" discussion here, though if you insist on it, we can probably go that route. I just don't see the merit.
Alright! That is a better reason. "ICS breaks my personal suspension of disbelief" is a better, more consistent reason than "ICS is ahistorical." Don't you agree?
May I point out that the "better reason" you now claim to see is an exact quote from my very first post in this thread - i.e., the one that you wrote your rebuttal for? There, I said: " ICS breaks my suspension of disbelief", and one of the reason that it does is (as I said) that I regard ICS as ahistorical and historically implausible.