Has anyone tried a low optimal cities game?

[Grey Knight]

Similar to a 5 city challenge, has anyone tried lowering the optimal number of cities to a lower number, like 5 on a standard map?

The AI is supposed to stop building after 2x OCN, and I'm thinking this might promote more of a builder game versus ICS. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[SirJethro]

Sure would leave a lot of dead zone on the map. Would make wars interesting.

 

[Grey Knight]

Yes, I'm thinking that bamspeedy's technique of using an infantry stack to control roadways could be very useful.

 

[JuicyCivNewbie]

ICS would be more powerful, as you'd have fewer potential productive cities. Of course if you don't ICS (and of course the AI doesn't) then it's not a problem.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Yes, I'm thinking that bamspeedy's technique of using an infantry stack to control roadways could be very useful.

Wow, I must have some reputation! I get credit for stuff I don't/haven't used .

I don't know who's tactic that is, but it does sound like a very smart move in a situation like this. ICS would be extremely powerful in this situation since the AI would leave you all that empty land. You could rather easily get domination without fighting a single battle. Just be nice to the AI so they don't attack you, and get that settler flood up and rolling. If you limit yourself to as many cities as the AI builds, then yes, I think it would be more of a human builder vs AI builder type game if that is what you want.

 

[bbaws]

Seems like a good idea all the horrors of a tiny map and all the horrors of a huge map. You could just pollute vast swathes in the editor. The AI is notoriously reluctant to clean up and the early cost of it for you would be too much. But you'd still get terrain movement and defense variety better than swathes of jungle\ mountain.This is kind of the wrong thread. ICS how to defeat it. Just get rid of GLs or remove the ability to rush wonders with them.