ICS: Alive and Well in Civ5?

[Jerrymander]

ICS, infinite city sprawl, was a great mechanic in Civ3 and a possible mechanic in Civ4. I'm just wondering if honeycomb city sprawl (HCS) is at all possible in Civ5. I want this topic to be a place where possible strategies for ICS will be discussed.

Theoretically, if you were to do it, how would you?

It seems like it would be best to play as Gandhi, beeline to Banking for the Forbidden Palace, then take the Order policy's -50% Unhappiness from # of Cities bonus (for a grand total of -100% unhappiness). It also seems like Liberty's per-city bonuses would be great, but with this system you're not going to have a whole lot of culture possibilities, unless you exploit the system by remaining small and exploding, like this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=388793 (Kudos to pir8)

Gandhi might be a better choice than Napoleon, because of his -50% unhappiness from population, allowing his cities to be twice as large as a rival ICS for the same happiness limit. This also makes Piety redundant at best or useless at worst.

There's also an Arabian idea: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=389425
However, this suffers from happiness limits, and the +1 gold from trade routes would be easily mitigated by the doubly large cities Gandhi would have.

I suppose China would be a possible choice as well, because of the Paper Maker. In this scenario, you would have some sort of runaway gold production from the Paper Makers and be able to buy happiness buildings. I'm not sure how well this would translate in the game, however.

I also don't know which map would be best suited for this. Would you want a highlands map, with lots of production potential, using Maritime city states as your food source?

(I got the idea for this thread after playing some SMAC today. That game is infamous for its ICS abuse with the proper 'social policies'.)

 

[vmxa]

There is a good sized ICS thread that shows how well it works ion V. Not played SMAC in a long time. I still have Vels book on it though.

 

[player1 fanatic]

It's now sprawl cities at as many different luxuries as possible.

 

[Jerrymander]

It's now sprawl cities at as many different luxuries as possible.

That works, to a point. There aren't unlimited luxuries available.

 

[alpaca]

As for how I do it, see this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=390302

I'm going to try Gandhi for ICS one of these days, however I'm not convinced about him. The typical size for cities is 6-8 where Gandhi's bonus is worth 1 or 2 happy faces, respectively, over the normal case. The same happiness bonus, without paying extra for your lots of small cities, can be gained from building Burial Tombs with Egypt and that doesn't work as good as one might think in my experience. Gandhis UU is better but Ramesses has the wonder building ability ot compensate.

I had a lot more success with France, China or Arabia. I simply don't agree that Arabia has "happiness issues". You don't have excess happiness for golden ages but that's normal for ICS and can possibly be avoided through more micromanagement (which I will step up sometime soon, I swear ).

 

[Bibor]

Well I used to play SMAC mostly with Yang and fully embracing ICS when I went to Transcend (not that the AI was smart or something). I'll presume ICS means a military domination game.

Here are my thoughts:

ICS does not have an Infinite city number. The final number of cities is determined by good city-spots, not room in general.

Ideal gap between cities is now 4 hexes (compared to 2 in SMAC) but 5 isn't bad either, especially if the cities have a chance to grab extra two riverside tiles.

Cities should be build in a fashion that they get at least 3 or 4 resources (at least 2 in first ring and 1 or 2 more in the second ring that can be either purchased by monument or for cash). No point in making a city on 7 marshland tiles just because the guide said "plant a city every 5 hexes".

Every city should be specialized in what its resources yield.

Every city should pay for its own expenses (including happiness buildings etc.), even if its a production city.

***

All this said, running a successful ICS means Quality over Quantity in every other aspect apart from the number of cities. What this means is that two or more of your cities will be *really big and powerful* production capitals that can crank out a wonder in 15 turns and a unit in 7.

Your military (due to all the available resources) needs to consist of the best troops available for the era, with all the military upgrades available (Honor tree, generals, Barracks, Armory, HE etc.) because in an ICS your actual production is considerably weaker than that of a civ with 5 solid cities.

All the surplus resources (including strategic ones) should be sold to the AIs for cash, money which is then used for unit upgrades, building purchases in cities which lack production almost completely, for research agreements (your own research sticks to the bottom of the tree) and for city-states which feed your nation (since you won't have policies to spare for Patronage).

Before starting the ICS I strongly suggest sticking to 2-3 cities (placed in areas where they will become your super-production cities eventually) and investing heavily into culture and military infrastructure (barracks+HE+armories) and filling out the Honor tree.

After the Honor tree is filled up (and it should happen sometime after the first neighbour is conquered), I sugest skipping every policy until Order gets unlocked.

As the player proceeds to eliminate the AIs one by one with elite troops, new cities start to dot the landscape. As GPT should be insane (not just due to the GPT generated by cities but by all the surplus resources being sold to AIs) the elite army gets bigger and bigger, with fresh recruits coming from the stated production powerhouses.

If there's an intercontinental invasion needed (say, continents map) your latest recruits will become the cannon fodder which will inevitably die on the shores (for these you keep the promotions for insta-heals) before you send in your veterans.

 

[alpaca]

Bibor, that's simply not true. You can play a properly infinite ICS game with a space of two between cities. Your production isn't weaker, either.

 

[Bibor]

Bibor, that's simply not true. You can play a properly infinite ICS game with a space of two between cities. Your production isn't weaker, either.

Yes you can place a city every 3 tiles. But what's the point? There are no thermal boreholes and other super tile improvements to compensate for lack of resources. Speaking of which, SMAC was far more advanced in that matter :-(

 

[alpaca]

Yes you can place a city every 3 tiles. But what's the point? There are no thermal boreholes and other super tile improvements to compensate for lack of resources. Speaking of which, SMAC was far more advanced in that matter :-(

How about a little something called "Maritime City States"? Also, each citizen is worth one point of science, a lot more if specialised. I even place cities in desert and tundra if I really go for it, which is obviously enabled by the extra food that magically turns into specialists

 

[Jerrymander]

Well I used to play SMAC mostly with Yang and fully embracing ICS when I went to Transcend (not that the AI was smart or something). I'll presume ICS means a military domination game.

<3 Yang.

In order to reach the 'infinite' city amount, you would need to run a military game, but it doesn't need to be executed until post-Order.

Ideal gap between cities is now 4 hexes (compared to 2 in SMAC) but 5 isn't bad either, especially if the cities have a chance to grab extra two riverside tiles.

Yes, but I was thinking more of 3 hexes between city spots, with the bonuses from policies like Communism and Maritime city states serving the function of buildings like Recycling Tanks, putting more emphasis on the city tile than the surrounding 6 or so tiles. These could also potentially take the place of boreholes, although they are not as strong...

Cities should be build in a fashion that they get at least 3 or 4 resources (at least 2 in first ring and 1 or 2 more in the second ring that can be either purchased by monument or for cash). No point in making a city on 7 marshland tiles just because the guide said "plant a city every 5 hexes".

Every city should be specialized in what its resources yield.

Every city should pay for its own expenses (including happiness buildings etc.), even if its a production city.

All true and necessary. 'True' ICS would disagree with not planting a city in 7 marsh tiles. (I would just chop the marsh and plant a city there).

All this said, running a successful ICS means Quality over Quantity in every other aspect apart from the number of cities. What this means is that two or more of your cities will be *really big and powerful* production capitals that can crank out a wonder in 15 turns and a unit in 7.

And this is where I thought Gandhi would be best. Delhi and Bombay are your capstone cities, with nice land and large industrial capacities.

Your military (due to all the available resources) needs to consist of the best troops available for the era, with all the military upgrades available (Honor tree, generals, Barracks, Armory, HE etc.) because in an ICS your actual production is considerably weaker than that of a civ with 5 solid cities.

Not necessarily. The social policies of Civ5 allow for the possibility of many cities to be more productive than a few large ones, given the 'per city' bonuses.

All the surplus resources (including strategic ones) should be sold to the AIs for cash, money which is then used for unit upgrades, building purchases in cities which lack production almost completely, for research agreements (your own research sticks to the bottom of the tree) and for city-states which feed your nation (since you won't have policies to spare for Patronage).

Isn't this point true for any 'perfect' strategy?

Before starting the ICS I strongly suggest sticking to 2-3 cities (placed in areas where they will become your super-production cities eventually) and investing heavily into culture and military infrastructure (barracks+HE+armories) and filling out the Honor tree.

Well, do you really need the Honor tree? In my variant, the focus is on getting the per-city bonuses from the Order and Liberty branches, with the intent being that you'll defeat your enemy with superior numbers of troops. I don't really see the room for Honor in my scenario.

After the Honor tree is filled up (and it should happen sometime after the first neighbour is conquered), I sugest skipping every policy until Order gets unlocked.

As the player proceeds to eliminate the AIs one by one with elite troops, new cities start to dot the landscape. As GPT should be insane (not just due to the GPT generated by cities but by all the surplus resources being sold to AIs) the elite army gets bigger and bigger, with fresh recruits coming from the stated production powerhouses.

If there's an intercontinental invasion needed (say, continents map) your latest recruits will become the cannon fodder which will inevitably die on the shores (for these you keep the promotions for insta-heals) before you send in your veterans.

Lack of terraforming options make this less fun than in SMAC.

 

[Merovinge]

India is not a great choice because the game lies. As best I can tell Forbidden Palace and the Order policy are strictly -1 unhappy per city, leaving Gandhi with 2 unhappy still.

3 spaces is ideal because of the strength of the city square, cities counting as roads, the power of a library running 2 specs for cheap in each city, and even for defense should it ever come to that. China is actually great for this because of the paper maker, and the UA being great when it comes time to go for domination. Egypt is also solid with the tomb and easier access to wonders before the ICS really kicks off.

 

[Jerrymander]

India is not a great choice because the game lies. As best I can tell Forbidden Palace and the Order policy are strictly -1 unhappy per city, leaving Gandhi with 2 unhappy still.

Just opened my game, and this is true. I suppose if it is patched, Gandhi will be better for ICS.

I think I'm getting a Rome game mixed up with this one.

 

[Celevin]

I always interpreted ICS to mean "there's always an advantage to having another city", in other words the goal is to have as many as possible.

For example, in Civ4 your maintenance costs meant a new city might not be productive enough to warrant its existence, so you didn't build it. When you got Free Market + Great Lighthouse and have enough trading partners, then ICS happened as each new city's trade route income beat out the maintenance cost.

In Civ5, ICS exists as long as you have the cash and policies to support it. If you have the Forbidden Palace, and Liberty and Order trees maxed, and you build a new city, it supports itself. You in fact want to keep building because the costs will always be outweighed by the benefits.

 

[Lyoncet]

Yeah, they really need to tweak things a bit if they're serious about wanting smaller empires to be viable. Really, the only disadvantage to ICS that can't be countered by clever playing and some planning is that it's harder to build national wonders. But even then you can usually get the important ones if you really want them, and a lot of them are pretty lackluster to begin with.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Once you have a few policies and/or forbidden palace, cities can easily produce more happiness than they lose with colis + theater. If they are smallish (which often happens during ICS) then you might not even need the theaters.

 

[Zechnophobe]

ICS, infinite city sprawl, was a great mechanic in Civ3 and a possible mechanic in Civ4. I'm just wondering if honeycomb city sprawl (HCS) is at all possible in Civ5. I want this topic to be a place where possible strategies for ICS will be discussed.

Theoretically, if you were to do it, how would you?

It seems like it would be best to play as Gandhi, beeline to Banking for the Forbidden Palace, then take the Order policy's -50% Unhappiness from # of Cities bonus (for a grand total of -100% unhappiness).

So, Gandhi has +100% city unhappines. Forbidden is -50% and the Policy gives another -50% = ... normal city unhappiness.

So this doesn't really work as you are hoping it will, because it doesn't change the base value, but rather gives it a modifier. Empirically tested this too. Went from 4 unhappiness per city to 3 after building forbidden palace. Not to say this isn't an effect, but it is no better for Gandhi than anyone else trying to build a lot of cities.

That said, seeing that Gandhi gets parity on his special ability at size 4, attainable in a scant 4 to 10 turns if you have maritime food.. yes, he does this quite well. You'll just need to stall a little bit in the early game.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I always interpreted ICS to mean "there's always an advantage to having another city", in other words the goal is to have as many as possible.

For example, in Civ4 your maintenance costs meant a new city might not be productive enough to warrant its existence, so you didn't build it. When you got Free Market + Great Lighthouse and have enough trading partners, then ICS happened as each new city's trade route income beat out the maintenance cost.

In Civ5, ICS exists as long as you have the cash and policies to support it. If you have the Forbidden Palace, and Liberty and Order trees maxed, and you build a new city, it supports itself. You in fact want to keep building because the costs will always be outweighed by the benefits.

It is a bit more complicated than this. Basically each city created in civ 4 would be negatively effective (except rare cases) on the empire for a certain time, and then after it gets built up will pay for itself. The ICS style is to decrease that 'build up' time for each new city to be as short as possible.

Civ 5 is a little different though, because you will actually not have any cost for a new city unless it actively drops your happiness below -10! (-1 happiness will limit further growth, but the city itself is growth that you got very quickly, often 5 turns for 2 population).

 

[Jerrymander]

So, Gandhi has +100% city unhappines. Forbidden is -50% and the Policy gives another -50% = ... normal city unhappiness.

So this doesn't really work as you are hoping it will, because it doesn't change the base value, but rather gives it a modifier. Empirically tested this too. Went from 4 unhappiness per city to 3 after building forbidden palace. Not to say this isn't an effect, but it is no better for Gandhi than anyone else trying to build a lot of cities.

That said, seeing that Gandhi gets parity on his special ability at size 4, attainable in a scant 4 to 10 turns if you have maritime food.. yes, he does this quite well. You'll just need to stall a little bit in the early game.

Yeah, I noticed that I was misunderstanding the mechanic behind the Forbidden Palace and Order in comparison to Gandhi's special ability. One more place where the vagueness of the Civilopedia didn't particularly help.

Gandhi does have to stall to perform this strategy to the best effect, but I'm hopeful that the bonus he gets on unhappiness can outweigh the stall.