Why I think ICS was deliberately designed as an option

[Slowpoke]

I think one of the problems is, how do you stop ICS but make conquering worthwhile? Any hit to ICS makes conquering worse, and conquering atm is so bad you have to raze any cities that have no luxuries or wonders. Unless you're going for the very unhappy gambit.

 

[gaiko]

1) Don't forget that in CivV each city is an indirect fire platform, which can also provide protection to a ranged unit in addition. An ICS network of these is difficult to penetrate. This permits a more "passive" form of defense. You don't have to worry about "taking out" the AIs, let them come at you. I actually find this fun.

2) More cities, rather than less, are more conducive to specialization in CivV. It permits a core subset to grow beyond "zero happiness equilibrium" and differentiate into production, military and even a cultural capital.

I'm not sure if it was designed, or just happened to be an unintended consequence. Three weeks and a few hundred thousand players will tend to show exploits quicker than testing! That said, the more and more I play Civ 5 the more I think that the designers haven't played Civ 2 or Civ 3, as the same mistakes that were made in those games seem to be repeated here.

I'm not really a fan of ICS as a play style... it's not fun. I prefer to feel like each city means something, and I really hope they bash it around the head with patches. I think maybe if they complicate the tech tree (more prerequisites) and bash maritime city states a bit then it might become a bit less viable.

 

[gaiko]

This is my view of the design intent as well. The possibility of true, pure ICS is a "design leak".

There is a difference between ICS and large empires. These policies may as well be there to encourage military domination. I don't really think they wanted people to build insane amounts of size 4 cities as close together as possible, but they probably did want people to build something that feels like a large empire.
I think they just forgot to make sure that ICS doesn't benefit more than "legitimate" large empire strategies ;-)

 

[gaiko]

Yes! [five more characters}

dannythefool:

That's actually the point I was pointing out. Pure ICS as a theory is doable, but it's not optimized. It's actually better to just have a large empire with core cities and peripheral small cities - this actually looks fairly organic, from how I've played.

Small cities make money off of trading posts and Maritime food, core cities get farms and ridiculous numbers of Specialists and hammers.

 

[gaiko]

Yes, that is impressive. I'm playing America with exactly the same map parameters, but am hardly that far along, perhaps because I planned to build the whole culture building chain (temple, operas & museum), to see how many SPs I can get post communism. Also he appears to have built almost minimal military.

Its fun to get 5 notices of "[city x] can fire on an enemy" at the beginning of the turn. Since I also put ranged units in the cities (readily shuttled about on the dense road network to threatened points) the AIs meet a withering fire.

Wow! Outstanding. Can you post a screenshot of the city layout? I really like the cross fire idea. Hadn't thought of that before.

 

[gaiko]

Yep, a Pangaea isthmus separation will make a difference. I started out with a massive mountain range to the NW and the French nearby due east. France is programmed to aggressively REX and I had to whack them back with two early wars as they encroached on my predesignated ics territory.

Now Wu and Disgustus have aggressively settled the center of the Pangaea towards me, and I am in a bitter muskets/cannon war with Wu on a fairly wide front. Disgustus refuses peace eternally but never comes at me. Only due south is there peace with a 3 city Ghandi.

Gotta try this semi-isolated for focus.

--Map. It was a good layout in many regards. Pangaea was cut in half with an isthmus, and I got one more maritime and one less opponent on my half than I was due. Discovering 2 natural wonders before turn 50 didn't hurt. The resources were meh...only 2 luxuries in my first 4 cities.
--War. Sully and Monty were my closest neighbors. Sully is a pushover, and Monty never got out of the gate. Sully never even made a strong push with more than 3 units on offense. He took a city a few times, only to lose it right back. I never went on the attack until about turn 90 or so. Four War Elephants and 2 Archers shredded Monty and freed up a ton of open land. He was really just dicking around the whole time.

 

[Thrax73]

I'm not sure if it was designed, or just happened to be an unintended consequence. Three weeks and a few hundred thousand players will tend to show exploits quicker than testing! That said, the more and more I play Civ 5 the more I think that the designers haven't played Civ 2 or Civ 3, as the same mistakes that were made in those games seem to be repeated here.

I'm not really a fan of ICS as a play style... it's not fun. I prefer to feel like each city means something, and I really hope they bash it around the head with patches. I think maybe if they complicate the tech tree (more prerequisites) and bash maritime city states a bit then it might become a bit less viable.

I feel the same way. Spamming out cities at minimum hex distance from existing cities greatly dulls any unique look and feel a city should inspire. I would not, however, want to take away this option for people who enjoy this play style, instead I would opt for an option to set minimum number of hexes required between cities.

 

[alpaca]

Yep, a Pangaea isthmus separation will make a difference. I started out with a massive mountain range to the NW and the French nearby due east. France is programmed to aggressively REX and I had to whack them back with two early wars as they encroached on my predesignated ics territory.

Now Wu and Disgustus have aggressively settled the center of the Pangaea towards me, and I am in a bitter muskets/cannon war with Wu on a fairly wide front. Disgustus refuses peace eternally but never comes at me. Only due south is there peace with a 3 city Ghandi.

Gotta try this semi-isolated for focus.

Saying it makes a difference is like saying an elephant is a tad bit on the big side.

From my own experience, having your own quasi-continent while still being able to trade with the AI is such a boon that the games can't actually be compared in any realistic fashion

 

[Bibor]

Yes, ICS currently is a bit overpowered. However, as we remember, "having a large number of cities" was a deliberately planned feature for Yang in SMAC (and he was basically the only leader that could pull it off properly due to removing penalties from adopting police state; again, a feature by game design, since it was kept through several patches and an expansion). So I have no issues for an quasi-ICS being a planned option for one or two leaders here either. Or okay, lets say "really large empires with lots of cities".

What needs to be toned down is the "generic benefit of having a city", compared to "having lots of cities that are not generic", i.e. compared to cities placed on strategically or resource-wise rich areas. I don't mind having lots of cities because there's lots of good land available. I do mind having a city on tundra that's as almost as effective as a riverside city with 3 resources at pop 6.

 

[pagh80]

Paeanblack:
Could you post a savefile by any chance. I find that date to be highly impressive.
Also what about wonders? which ones do you focus on.
And what about CS? Do you ally alot of maritime CS?

 

[Random Oracle]

However, as we remember, "having a large number of cities" was a deliberately planned feature for Yang in SMAC (and he was basically the only leader that could pull it off properly due to removing penalties from adopting police state; again, a feature by game design, since it was kept through several patches and an expansion).

No, he wasn't. ICS was just the best strategy in SMAC/X.

 

[r_rolo1]

No, he wasn't. ICS was just the best strategy in SMAC/X.

Let me correct you: ICS is the best strategy in any TBS that is vaguely related to Sid Meier except in civ IV ( and even in civ IV it is doable ).... because it allows for more juice out of your orange sooner ( and sooner is better in this kind of games that are so prone to snowball effects ). ICS in fact is the thing that civ devs ( and SMAC ones ) have been trying to fight against since the beginning, since it is the obvious strategy unless you put some kind of break in it.

And civ V has virtually no breaks against it

P.S This is, in the end, my response to the OP : ICS was not put deliberately in the game, unless you consider designing a civ-style TBS with snowballing as a deliberate choice for ICS ... because if you have one of those, you have ICS as the best option unless there are enough of breaks to it. And civ V has no real breaks to it... SMAC and civ III have corruption-like mechanics for when the number of cities is high ( none works as the devs intended, but atleast they are there ), civ IV has maintenance for both distance to a governative center and number of cities ( and colonial maintenance in BtS ) that contribute equally against ICS . Civ V has ... nothing ( in fact it can even be argued that the game actively punishes having big cities in general due to the way global happiness works + the fact that buildings give a fixed ammount of happpiness ). No wonder that ICS shows up

 

[uberfish]

ICS = idiotic city spam

There's no way ICS being so effective is intentional, the game designers hate it as it makes for rather tedious gameplay

 

[alpaca]

What needs to be toned down is the "generic benefit of having a city", compared to "having lots of cities that are not generic", i.e. compared to cities placed on strategically or resource-wise rich areas. I don't mind having lots of cities because there's lots of good land available. I do mind having a city on tundra that's as almost as effective as a riverside city with 3 resources at pop 6.

Totally agree. The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that resources, and therefore "good" city spots being so meh in civ5 is another major reasons why massive city spamming is so effective. It just doesn't pay well enough to place a city near all of those supposedly bonus tiles that are often actively worse than simply being able to trade-post them over.

 

[LL_LordOmega]

Big Ben? Who has enough money to rushbuy anything? Even with a superb economy, your money surplus is not going to be that big to afford rushbuys very often.

lol wut

 

[gaiko]

OK, good, we are retuning to the fundamental issue. If as one of our posters has dramatically indicated, pure, true "dumb ICS" that ignores whole game feature areas (SPs and culture generally, diplomacy, the building hierarchy, civ UAs , resources etc) and only requires 1 maritime CD, 1 colosseum / city, 3 Liberty policies, and (perhaps) the FP is is merely possible for winning the game - and early on to boot! - then the game is broken in this particular regard. Note that this conclusion does not require that this be an "optimal" strategy - clearly the optimal path right now in the game as it is, is 5 horsemen (including replacement horsemen) early on + optics if necessary - it just needs to be possible. Like horsemen, it is broken because it allows ignoring the bulk of the game mechanics. I don't think the designers intended this.

I do think the designers intended an "aggressive REX" strategy - I just witnessed this with the AI France, who did this not once, but twice, even after I captured Paris and whacked them down to 1 city, they soon spawned 4 more (in a direction away from me this time, heh, heh). So yes, it is squeezing the orange with ICS principles (prioritizing settling the ICS lattice over grabbing resources) that can turbocharge an aggressive REX.

My concern is that in blocking ICS they don't also nerf REX, as this is my preferred strategy: Map out a potential "victory platform, completely settle it asap (ejecting intruders) and build up an overpowering economy for the endgame. Exercising out of necessity most of the game features in the process.

Let me correct you: ICS is the best strategy in any TBS that is vaguely related to Sid Meier except in civ IV ( and even in civ IV it is doable ).... because it allows for more juice out of your orange sooner ( and sooner is better in this kind of games that are so prone to snowball effects ). ICS in fact is the thing that civ devs ( and SMAC ones ) have been trying to fight against since the beginning, since it is the obvious strategy unless you put some kind of break in it.

And civ V has virtually no breaks against it

P.S This is, in the end, my response to the OP : ICS was not put deliberately in the game, unless you consider designing a civ-style TBS with snowballing as a deliberate choice for ICS ... because if you have one of those, you have ICS as the best option unless there are enough of breaks to it. And civ V has no real breaks to it... SMAC and civ III have corruption-like mechanics for when the number of cities is high ( none works as the devs intended, but atleast they are there ), civ IV has maintenance for both distance to a governative center and number of cities ( and colonial maintenance in BtS ) that contribute equally against ICS . Civ V has ... nothing ( in fact it can even be argued that the game actively punishes having big cities in general due to the way global happiness works + the fact that buildings give a fixed ammount of happpiness ). No wonder that ICS shows up

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well part of the problem is

Civ 4...
Undeveloped city=$ drain
Population provides $, but also more $ drain
So the city needs to be developed so that
$ drain from pop and city < $ benefit from pop
At this point, a Bigger Developed city > Smaller Developed city in every way

Civ 5
Undeveloped city= drain
Population does NOT provide happiness, but only drain
THe only thing that provides happiness is the city itself (through buildings)

So in civ V Small Developed City < Big developed city for Happiness

of course Developed cities cost $ and That is still provided by population.

So as long as a population provides snough $ to support the Building that pay for its happiness, it works.

The real way to favor big cities over small ones in civ 5

Theaters should cost less Maintenance than Colluseums rather than more.

Trading posts should give 1 Gold... and Marketplaces, Banks, etc. should give +50%, and cost some maintenance. (or at least be expensive)

 

[QuixotesGhost]

Personally, I have no idea why we're paying maintience per building instead of per city again. The decision to change it in Civ4 was a masterstroke of good game design that finally (for the most part) slew ICS. Can anyone guess what was the rationale behind backsliding?

 

[ShaqFu]

Personally, I have no idea why we're paying maintience per building instead of per city again. The decision to change it in Civ4 was a masterstroke of good game design that finally (for the most part) slew ICS. Can anyone guess what was the rationale behind backsliding?

In a way, building maintenance is supposed to fill the same role as city upkeep, since you're paying gold for the city either way. Unfortunately, it's so easy to get back your money for the first level buildings (and if you're China, they're functionally all free!) that it isn't nearly as limiting.

Happiness was supposed to replace upkeep, but since it's trivial to get happy-neutral cities that still add hammers/gold/science, once again, there's no reason not to ICS.

If Civ5 had some way of making REX punishing in the short-term, a la Civ4, it'd work out fine - you'd put up with early deficits/anger for long-term gains. Instead, there's nothing stopping you from getting your cities happy-neutral quickly. Imagine Civ4, but instead of the Courthouse giving -50% upkeep, it was -10 GPT paid in upkeep. You'd just choose an Organized leader and spam cities that took less than 10 GPT to maintain, since there's no reason not to.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That might have been the better path

Colluseum= -X% unhappiness from this city
Theater... etc.
Stadium...etc.

So that with Theocracy, non-occupied cities would have 0 population unhappiness.


Or just make Technology suffer the same/similar City# effects as social policies (people won't complain about Technology moving too fast)