City Spacing

[builer680]

I'll bet on Bibor....he knows what he's talking about, I know where he's coming from...

I know where he's coming from too, and I wish he was right. But I also know what I am talking about, and unfortunately with current mechanics he isn't right. ICS just leverages more things faster without enough 'penalties/incentives to go vertical' to restrain it.

EDIT:
Except Cultural Victory, of course. I guess if you only go for Cultural Victories then yeah, ICS sucks.

 

[Bibor]

Well, I just tired a normal/emperor/continents map with China. I decided to go heavy ICS from start. The land was rather poor (90% plains; some incense, gold, one dye). Since the land wasn't food-friendly I took a bit wider city-spread (3 tiles between) to grab as many riverside for each city that I could. Immediately after settling my 8th city I got a DoW from Rome (eastern neighbour) and a turn later from Japan (northern neighbour). Luckily I was beelining (and was 10 turns away from) Chu-ko-nu's and Rome had to walk 10 hexes or so to my lands.

All my cities had Paper maker by the time of DoW (or were finishing it). Rome showed up with 3 longswords and 2 ballistae. I had longswords and Archers. I lost one city but retook it with a newly spawned GG and some archers upgraded to Chu-ko-nus. Later I took all but one city from Japan.

***

It's turn 175 I have 12 cities (3 puppets, one annexed for workboats).
Total population 55 (my highest pop city is size 7) including puppets.
Total science generated per turn: 86 (all cities have paper maker), 7 turns to NC).
Total income after maintenance 160 per turn (60 eaten by military, 38 by buildings, 27 by roads). At least 50 GPT is coming from outgoing resource trades.

***

Conclusion:
I can see why ICS is appealing for Multiplayer.
1. Cities have only minimal infrastructure so loosing one doesn't hit you as much as loosing a big city.
2. Cities are easier to recapture due to lower population.
3. ICS can build a massive army in 15 or so turns, which in turn gets upgraded instantly due to massive GPT.
4. RAs and resource trades are virtually non-existent so GPT boosts happines via city-states and rush-buys of colosseums.

That said, 86 BPT at turn 175 is simply horrible. I know that the Colloseums I'm currently building will produce a population boom (10-size cities) and that this research will double in, say, 50 turns, but quite frankly, with my "regular" non-ICS playstyle I get even (200 BPT at turn 200) faster.

With a smaller empire (say, half the size) I get the following benefits:
- less workers needed (less upkeep, build time and rush-buys)
- NC goes up faster
- road costs are slightly higher per city but overall lower
- I can afford having a smaller army (less upkeep, build time and rush-buys)
- I can afford to sell more resources, sometimes even non-duplicates
- I can afford to build wonders
- I can afford to go 2 points into Tradition (captial + wonders) and are not forced into Liberty
- Golden Ages come more often and thus my production and GPT is even stronger.
- Social Policies come more often and I can afford going into Piety (to eliminate the need for happiness buildings past Colloseums, which I build @ T200+).

If I ever need to get more GPT I can always conquer a civ and puppet twice or three times the number of my core cities. As that's the only real benefit of ICS, I can say ICS is pretty obsolete. At least in single player.

EDIT: Attached screens

 

[Tabarnak]

I can see why ICS is appealing for Multiplayer.
1. Cities have only minimal infrastructure so loosing one doesn't hit you as much as loosing a big city.
2. Cities are easier to recapture due to lower population.
3. ICS can build a massive army in 15 or so turns, which in turn gets upgraded instantly due to massive GPT.
4. RAs and resource trades are virtually non-existent so GPT boosts happines via city-states and rush-buys of colosseums.

That said, 86 BPT at turn 175 is simply horrible.

Good points. Delaying NC too much really hurt science even if going pure ICS. The goal is to balance expansion while not struggling too long with science. Many players aim for 3-4 cities, build some units, then build libraries and NC before continuing expansion.

ICS means coliseums someday... in almost all cities. But these buildings are not cheap. While expanding, it's better to focus about building less coliseums as possible and keep building enough units through turns.

Building a lot of cities before NC and in almost unhappiness is really sub-optimal. I don't want to build a couple of cities with no infrastrutures already acquired. I mean by that : workers, NC, happiness, GPT. I want to build new cities for extra units factories and use them ASAP.

But if i don't build enough cities, i will lose to somebody in the long term because he will eventually out-produce and out-tech me, unless i want to rush him early.

I prefer to have 10-12 LS or a mix of strong units and 5 cities and a good tech rate around early ADs than having 8-10 cities, no NC, few workers and only 3-4 LS. The first path completely destroys the second one.

So, city spacing is not really important if you aim for ressources only. Road cities with fewer distance only.

Edit : LS=longswordmen

 

[Treso]

What is the meaning of LS?

 

[YYY]

To clarify, when I said 'blow gold on happiness buildings', I didn't mean buying them. I meant in maintenance. In a traditional build, if you really have to spam happiness buildings to keep your head above water, you've kinda done something wrong. Under ICS, it's just the cost of doing business.

 

[Airey]

What is the meaning of LS?

Longswordsmen

 

[Ulti_mecia]

What you're saying about science is true Bibor, if you don't NC first, which I really think you should when doing ICS.

What you should definately try is playing ICS as France/build a monument first for landgrab in the outer ring, but most importantly for Theocracy. Time it so your 2nd policy is Piety (Iron Working).

NC first, into a Theocracy/Colloseum fuelled population boom will give you a ton of science. If you time Education after Collosea finish you get even more.
I feel it's Theocracy that lets you ICS properly in the sense that you cancel out the happiness penalty from nr of cities with the happiness from colloseum (4)/stables(6)/Satrap's court(8, Persia is fantastic)/Theatres(x)

 

[fed1943]

I think there are two questions here:
a) To overlap or not to overlap (2 free tiles or 4 between cities) ;
b) More or less cities (more precisely when to get more cities; puppets also count).

 

[skallben]

Biggest factors are map-size, geography, food access and neighbors. Resource-REX via Liberty is nice. Contrary to release it seems AI is more reluctant to settle inbetween your cities, they still do in your outskirts though. So grab good site, eventual ICS would be a later decision, often without happiness and plenty food it is just a waste of happy faces IMO. My philosophy is that happy faces = wasted workers in early game. You will get a -GA eventually and with big cities you will have even more through specialists. It'd be better to grow your decent cities where your citizens work is multiplied by building bonuses.

Any further expansion past the obvious good sites require some investment in happiness AKA: CS resource/trade, colosseums, theocracy. This is thus a crossroads, maybe it's better to invest in war, infrastructure or wonders. My experience is since last patch that even with theocracy, plenty resources and colosseums, proper ICS makes you hit happiness cap and thus limits your growth in major cities, where your citizens do a better job. And when excess happiness is available, I'd much rather capture a decent puppet and weaken an opponent than fuel a crappy spacer city with my excess happiness.

That being said, no river tiles should never be wasted. Free gold is free gold. Mint cities are also nice.

 

[Rittmeyer]

My philosophy is that happy faces = wasted workers in early game.

one argument in favor of ICS that get`s overlooked is exactly that, you don`t want that early golden age. early happiness surplus is a disadvantage by itself, because it will lead to a golden age in a point of the game in which you are so small and thus will make little use of the bonuses.

 

[Smote]

Well, I just tired a normal/emperor/continents map with China. I decided to go heavy ICS from start. The land was rather poor (90% plains; some incense, gold, one dye). Since the land wasn't food-friendly I took a bit wider city-spread (3 tiles between) to grab as many riverside for each city that I could. Immediately after settling my 8th city I got a DoW from Rome (eastern neighbour) and a turn later from Japan (northern neighbour). Luckily I was beelining (and was 10 turns away from) Chu-ko-nu's and Rome had to walk 10 hexes or so to my lands.

All my cities had Paper maker by the time of DoW (or were finishing it). Rome showed up with 3 longswords and 2 ballistae. I had longswords and Archers. I lost one city but retook it with a newly spawned GG and some archers upgraded to Chu-ko-nus. Later I took all but one city from Japan.

***

It's turn 175 I have 12 cities (3 puppets, one annexed for workboats).
Total population 55 (my highest pop city is size 7) including puppets.
Total science generated per turn: 86 (all cities have paper maker), 7 turns to NC).
Total income after maintenance 160 per turn (60 eaten by military, 38 by buildings, 27 by roads). At least 50 GPT is coming from outgoing resource trades.

***

Conclusion:
I can see why ICS is appealing for Multiplayer.
1. Cities have only minimal infrastructure so loosing one doesn't hit you as much as loosing a big city.
2. Cities are easier to recapture due to lower population.
3. ICS can build a massive army in 15 or so turns, which in turn gets upgraded instantly due to massive GPT.
4. RAs and resource trades are virtually non-existent so GPT boosts happines via city-states and rush-buys of colosseums.

That said, 86 BPT at turn 175 is simply horrible. I know that the Colloseums I'm currently building will produce a population boom (10-size cities) and that this research will double in, say, 50 turns, but quite frankly, with my "regular" non-ICS playstyle I get even (200 BPT at turn 200) faster.

With a smaller empire (say, half the size) I get the following benefits:
- less workers needed (less upkeep, build time and rush-buys)
- NC goes up faster
- road costs are slightly higher per city but overall lower
- I can afford having a smaller army (less upkeep, build time and rush-buys)
- I can afford to sell more resources, sometimes even non-duplicates
- I can afford to build wonders
- I can afford to go 2 points into Tradition (captial + wonders) and are not forced into Liberty
- Golden Ages come more often and thus my production and GPT is even stronger.
- Social Policies come more often and I can afford going into Piety (to eliminate the need for happiness buildings past Colloseums, which I build @ T200+).

If I ever need to get more GPT I can always conquer a civ and puppet twice or three times the number of my core cities. As that's the only real benefit of ICS, I can say ICS is pretty obsolete. At least in single player.

EDIT: Attached screens

Build moar cities!!!11

Seriously though, if doing a peaceful ICS, try it with Siam and use Wats and 2 science specialists, along with maritimes. Your BPT will be very high. Also, I see better BPT results from not doing "true ICS" but allowing the capital to grow freely, while strictly limiting every other city. Theocracy is wonderful if you can get it.

"True ICS" (NC usually turn 90-100+) is very good for hammers and war but not so good for tech.

I will only adopt an ICS style if I see a lot of different luxuries around (5 minimum). The prod heavy starts are great w/ maritimes and/or granaries.1 granary can feed 4 tradepost plains, after all (can use other tiles to get up to that 4 level). Preferably each ICS city has at least 1 hill, even if its a "shared" hill.

 

[guczy]

There is no biggest size, you can always add more specialists.

Theoretically you need 36 pop to work all land tiles, but there is not enough food in the game to get multiple cities that big.

Yeah, you just have to choose caste system for unlimited specialists. Oh wai.....

 

[skallben]

one argument in favor of ICS that get`s overlooked is exactly that, you don`t want that early golden age. early happiness surplus is a disadvantage by itself, because it will lead to a golden age in a point of the game in which you are so small and thus will make little use of the bonuses.

I'd say it would be in favour of making every happy face into a citizen. That does not necessarily need to be through ICS, I believe it's an autopilot thought train from pre-patch.

ICS requires: happiness, settler, worker time and eventually a colosseum of it's own. If you can grow existing cities, that is a more beneficial option until the time when ICS-cities have colosseums up. Even then, you have spent happiness/citizens, hammers and worker time on that venture. I tried to argue that growing existing cities or alternatively going to war is a just as valid, if not better strategy.

 

[Smote]

one argument in favor of ICS that get`s overlooked is exactly that, you don`t want that early golden age. early happiness surplus is a disadvantage by itself, because it will lead to a golden age in a point of the game in which you are so small and thus will make little use of the bonuses.

Well if you do theocracy, you should be trying for 2 happy golden ages throughout the game. This makes better use of the SP before theocracy which lowers golden age happy cost.

Sometimes I get 3, in long games where I don't do Medieval or Renaissance domination.

 

[Smote]

I'd say it would be in favour of making every happy face into a citizen. That does not necessarily need to be through ICS, I believe it's an autopilot thought train from pre-patch.

ICS requires: happiness, settler, worker time and eventually a colosseum of it's own. If you can grow existing cities, that is a more beneficial option until the time when ICS-cities have colosseums up. Even then, you have spent happiness/citizens, hammers and worker time on that venture. I tried to argue that growing existing cities or alternatively going to war is a just as valid, if not better strategy.

Agreed here.

Small city civ ->
problem 1 = lack of boundary cities -> vulnerability during war
problem 2 = lack of hammers -> vulnerability during war. Need oligarchy/tactical usage of siege to stay alive vs larger civ.

benefit 1: ease of research -> you will research better unless ICS player manages to build university and/or observatory in most/all ICS cities
benefit 2: concentrated hammers -> you can adapt to a situation more quickly than a gold-short ICS player, because you have more hammers per city and can make those initial units faster

ICS player ->
Problem 1 = lack of beakers per turn. You must remedy this by building collosseums and universities everywhere, and sci specialists.
Problem 2 = lack of concentrated hammers. You must remedy this by either having gold stockpiled for national defense [which is wasteful] or have sizable army [wasteful if unused] or have pre-built units [wasteful if you wait too long to finish]. Alternatively, you may ignore problem and remedy with good scouting.
Problem 3 = a lot of necessary actions per turn. ICS player is hard work managing all those cities and workers

Benefit 1 = Much gold output. You can buy what you need, when you need it. You can buy allies which accelerate you further.
Benefit 2 = Better steady state values than any small city civ can achieve. However, it takes a lot of time to get there
Benefit 3 = Scary factor. People are usually hesitant to invade someone 2x their size.
Benefit 4 = Border cities are expendable. If surprised during war, must merely slow down opponent enough so that a wave of units can finish.

ICS player can win two ways:
1. Reach steady state research potential. You will fly through tech tree.
2. Dominate through numbers

Small city player can win two ways:
1. Get early tech advantage and take down opp via longsword or rifle rush
2. Get early tech advantage and use it to further tech advantage [via public schools]

It is difficult to say which is better or worse. I know ICS + small city player makes a deadly team in 2v2.