Minor Annoyance
Deity
With powered up improvements they are. However with TRs you can get a city from size 1 to size 5 pretty quickly. Five new awesome tiles while your big cities wait for new tiles.
ICS discussion
- Thread starter TheGrumpyBuddha
- Start date
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Its not 400 empire wide science that's the limit, its 400 science in your capital
Or 400+20*(cities you already have) empirewide science.
No they aren't because 'cheap per city yields' includes things like Trade routes... the per city yield from trade routes (and other buildings) is ~ 30 food 30 production
that's equivalent to ~8 of the best possible tiles
Also the fact that you can Very easily go from pop 1 to pop 5 (v. pop 21-pop 25) shifts it even more towards ICS [point #2]
Or 400+20*(cities you already have) empirewide science.
No they aren't because 'cheap per city yields' includes things like Trade routes... the per city yield from trade routes (and other buildings) is ~ 30 food 30 production
that's equivalent to ~8 of the best possible tiles
Also the fact that you can Very easily go from pop 1 to pop 5 (v. pop 21-pop 25) shifts it even more towards ICS [point #2]
KrikkitTwo:
Eight of the best possible tiles is much more than... nothing! You're not sacrificing tiles for trade routes. In fact, Trade Routes allow you to utilize tiles faster, and make them more meaningful. You could just as easily be arguing against Colonists. A size 10 new City is better than 10 (!!!) additional tiles in the capital! Yes, it almost literally is.
No. ICS is built in from the game because of growth mechanics and city mechanics. Instituting a hard limit of 3 tiles definitively removes the strategy from the menu. It can't happen.
Shortening the time between cost and profit moves the pointer towards expansion. This is much more transparent Civ4, but it's definitely what's going. Nevertheless, the time between a city is completely useless and the time when it becomes useful is not what I would call a good mechanic for limiting expansion in the midgame, and CivBE already simulates that anyway with the Output mechanic, which stipulates a hard 1-turn limit on a founding being useless, and often extends it to 5-6 turns or more.
Now, you can baldly state here that you think it's fun to manage useless cities. I will plainly state the opposite - the faster cities become useful in the midgame, the more meaningful simply having cities in the first place is. Shortening that time makes the game more fun, not less.
Eight of the best possible tiles is much more than... nothing! You're not sacrificing tiles for trade routes. In fact, Trade Routes allow you to utilize tiles faster, and make them more meaningful. You could just as easily be arguing against Colonists. A size 10 new City is better than 10 (!!!) additional tiles in the capital! Yes, it almost literally is.
No. ICS is built in from the game because of growth mechanics and city mechanics. Instituting a hard limit of 3 tiles definitively removes the strategy from the menu. It can't happen.
Shortening the time between cost and profit moves the pointer towards expansion. This is much more transparent Civ4, but it's definitely what's going. Nevertheless, the time between a city is completely useless and the time when it becomes useful is not what I would call a good mechanic for limiting expansion in the midgame, and CivBE already simulates that anyway with the Output mechanic, which stipulates a hard 1-turn limit on a founding being useless, and often extends it to 5-6 turns or more.
Now, you can baldly state here that you think it's fun to manage useless cities. I will plainly state the opposite - the faster cities become useful in the midgame, the more meaningful simply having cities in the first place is. Shortening that time makes the game more fun, not less.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Trade routes don't make tiles more meaningful outside of the supercity destination (which doesn't even have to be in your empire)
And a size 10 new city is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than 10 new pop in a developed city
(the tiles cost less, the population costs less, and more importantly you get the yield from cheap "buildings"..like the depot and autoplant trade routes)
This supports ICS..ICS meaning every city (ie the city itself not the terrain it gets) is a net gain.
ICS means you place cities Only to get yourself the city tile and cheap buildings, actual claiming of tiles is unimportant (so you want cities as close as possible)
The point is the time it takes a city to become productive should depend on the terrain that it claims... so Ice city will take 200+ turns to be useful, but resource rich city will pay back its investment in ~20 turns.
Otherwise you have ICS.. which means the city tile pays itself back with no regard for the terrain... so you want maximum # of cities .. not maximum useful or even improved terrain, because the only worthwhile terrain improvement is a city.
Gort
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,518
What? All putting a 3 tile limit in does is make you require more space to ICS.
Requiring you to have more space kills the entire basis of ICS - maximizing the curve of tile harvest. It's not ICS.
KrikkitTwo:
That is the completely wrong idea. ICS works because of tile harvest efficiency. If it's not about that, then it's not ICS.
Proved my point. Colonists are OP. Let's nerf Colonists!
Terrain play is very Civ4. Old hat. CivBE has multiple themes that specifically say "No" to all that. Terrascapes and Terraforming tech are only some of the mechanics that express this. Trade Routes do, too. I'll go on the record as saying that CivBE says that any tile or location should be usable, and that this is a good departure of theme from normal Civ. You want Civ4, it's still playable. There's even a good Planetfall mod for it.
Making CivBE into Civ4 won't make it into a better game. It'll just make it into a Civ4 mod.
That is the completely wrong idea. ICS works because of tile harvest efficiency. If it's not about that, then it's not ICS.
Proved my point. Colonists are OP. Let's nerf Colonists!
Terrain play is very Civ4. Old hat. CivBE has multiple themes that specifically say "No" to all that. Terrascapes and Terraforming tech are only some of the mechanics that express this. Trade Routes do, too. I'll go on the record as saying that CivBE says that any tile or location should be usable, and that this is a good departure of theme from normal Civ. You want Civ4, it's still playable. There's even a good Planetfall mod for it.
Making CivBE into Civ4 won't make it into a better game. It'll just make it into a Civ4 mod.
Gort
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,518
I'm glad we have you here to arbitrate on the definition of video game terms. What's your definition of ICS?
Mine is, "Have as many cities as possible and profit from it".
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
You are still maximizing that curve, you just can't do it as much (to truly "kill ICS" you need a minimum distance of 6 between cities (ie every new city will claim the maximum of 36 tiles for itself... of course that still mean you might not care about Which tiles the city claims.... but you should...at least in terms of how fast the city pays itself back ... even if every tile becomes of equal value eventually, some should take longer than others)
If that's your definition, then I'll just go ahead and say that there's nothing wrong with that. Civ4 is based on that strategy - just have as many cities as possible. Every Civ before Civ5 was based on that. GalCiv is based on that; MoO2, as well - all the classic 4X's.
It's not a 4x game without the expand part.
KrikkitTwo:
No. That's completely ridiculous. Six tiles between cities is just a "perfectionist" version of the old "4 tiles per city" outlook, and is based on the idea that the maximum number of tiles a city can work should be the amount of space you should set aside for it, completely apart from any other mechanic.
Specialist Slots and the nature of hexagons means that with 3 tiles between cities, a city would need to be something in the vicinity of size 12-16 to maximize everything it has - and I'm comfortable with not calling a size 16 city a useless snow wasteland nothing of a city. 16 is a respectable size.
CivBE says that which tiles don't matter. It's a theme of the game. I happen to like that theme in CivBE, because of its scifi bent.
That said, you do kind of still care which tiles you colonize. I find it difficult to imagine that you'd give up a 2-titanium site in favor of a completely desert site, and you can't colonize the entire land anyway before the game ends. It's not ICS.
Gort
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,518
Sure. However, Civ 4 had stronger controls on whether it was a good idea to expand than BE does - expand without care and you'll tank your gold and science. In BE we have the Health mechanic that's supposed to fill the same role - giving penalties to discourage expansion without development.
The difference is, Civ 4's mechanics are actually good at the job, while in BE you can play quite happily with -200 health because the penalties are completely toothless.
Gort:
Sure. So the problem is Health and expansion control, not ICS.
By the by, Civ4's mechanics didn't control whether it was a good idea to expand or not. It was always a good idea. The play was in modulating the rate, not whether you did it or not.
Sure. So the problem is Health and expansion control, not ICS.
By the by, Civ4's mechanics didn't control whether it was a good idea to expand or not. It was always a good idea. The play was in modulating the rate, not whether you did it or not.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
My point was that "X distance between cities" =/= ICS
(I guess I was wrong in an attempt to be hyperbolic, technically 6 tiles between cities wouldn't get rid of ICS either.. neither would 16 tiles minimum between cities)
The point is NOT what tiles the city Can use at the minimum allowable distance.
The issue is if the city is worthwhile regardless of any tiles.
If the city is worthwhile regardless of tiles, then the only thing you want to be building is cities+cheap buildings (and units so you can get enough space to build more cities)
I agree Expansion should be worthwhile, but if the only tiles worth expanding to are the ones with a city on them, then that leads to ICS.
(particularly if those city tiles have a rapid payback)
You expand by building/capturing cities to claim tiles. Not the other way around.
KrikkitTwo:
I will once again reiterate my direct opposition to tile play. That is my opinion. Siting cities for the tiles is a Civ4 thing and goes against a whole lot of mechanics and themes in CivBE. It's a horrible fit.
Just because you can work any location doesn't mean that the mechanics must necessarily dictate that only units and cheap buildings are desirable. In fact, that's already not true now; it's an incorrect view lazily carried over from previous games. The building balance in CivBE is not the same as Civ4 or Civ5. Carrying over evaluations from those games is an error. Judge the game for what it is.
I will once again reiterate my direct opposition to tile play. That is my opinion. Siting cities for the tiles is a Civ4 thing and goes against a whole lot of mechanics and themes in CivBE. It's a horrible fit.
Just because you can work any location doesn't mean that the mechanics must necessarily dictate that only units and cheap buildings are desirable. In fact, that's already not true now; it's an incorrect view lazily carried over from previous games. The building balance in CivBE is not the same as Civ4 or Civ5. Carrying over evaluations from those games is an error. Judge the game for what it is.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
The problem with not citing cities for the tiles is
1. that removes the importance of tiles... in which case having terrain other than mountain/canyon/ocean/land is a pointless mechanic
2. you end up with ICS (ie if it is worthwhile building a city, then your goal is as many cities as possible in X amount of space..where X is the space you have)
Now if they removed all terrain types (except mountain, ocean, canyon..maybe hills and forest for combat purposes) then the current game mechanics (trade yields based on difference, per city health bonus buildings/virtues) might make sense. [and it would be nicer for the game's UI no more need to distinguish between grass/plain/desert/tundra/snow... allow the biomes to define that better]
In that case, the limit for cities 3 apart is only to allow for some tactical maneuvering between cities (the reason it was introduced in Civ5)
Perhaps it would be better to make cities more 'squishy' and reduce the distance to 1 tile (then they could have smaller maps)
Trade route differentials would be more important then because getting a city to a high level of production would be a commitment (ie you have to not plant some cities in terrain that you Could have planted them in order to maximize trade route yield for other cities going to this big city)
Gort
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,518
Yes. ICS is a symptom of the ineffectiveness of the health mechanic and it's lack of effective expansion control.
I think you need to stop assuming that anyone talking about expansion not being effectively controlled is advocating never expanding. It doesn't help the discussion at all.
Civ 4's mechanics prevent ICS by giving a level of expansion control throughout the game. Going straight to ten cities in the early game in Civ 4 was a really bad idea. In BE, not so much. Your health will tank, but since the health penalties aren't bad, it's totally worthwhile.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
First city matters (because of the trade route differential One city needs to have food/production..and the fact that you need to get the first few out)
Later cities don't (because of the trade route differential).. you could put them all in snow and it would rapidly matter less and less (as it got easier and easier to get their depot/convoys up)
[mountains + canyon+ ocean] matter because they affect movement (ie combat and ability to get settlers to new locations)
The idea that a snow city can instantly be at 50% of its late game output just as fast as a city surrounded by resources is a bad idea.
I have nothing against every city that claims some tiles being worthwhile in the long term... but the tiles should have a major effect on what term that is. (a pure snow city is just fine, but should require a major investment... and should probably not be worth the work unless for strategic reasons..ie a snow city that is not there to provide orbital coverage/a unit construction base/defense/strategic resource access should probably not pay off the investment before the game is done... and a size 1 city should Never pay itself off unless it is there for one of those strategic reasons.)
Gort:
Going to 10 cities immediately isn't ICS. That's REX. Rapid EXpansion. There's a difference between those two things.
KrikkitTwo:
I think CivBE intentionally makes so that it's like that, and it's a fresh change of pace from when you can't build a city on hostile terrain.
In the late game, cities can output more than 100 science per turn plus culture, energy, food, and hammers. However are you making your TRs worth that much? Moreover, why is it a bad idea? Because it wasn't that way in previous Civs?
Why not? It's costing Health. That should be enough. It ought to be just as good as anywhere else, barring special resources (which CivBE already weighs fairly heavily).
Going to 10 cities immediately isn't ICS. That's REX. Rapid EXpansion. There's a difference between those two things.
KrikkitTwo:
I think CivBE intentionally makes so that it's like that, and it's a fresh change of pace from when you can't build a city on hostile terrain.
In the late game, cities can output more than 100 science per turn plus culture, energy, food, and hammers. However are you making your TRs worth that much? Moreover, why is it a bad idea? Because it wasn't that way in previous Civs?
Why not? It's costing Health. That should be enough. It ought to be just as good as anywhere else, barring special resources (which CivBE already weighs fairly heavily).
Minor Annoyance
Deity
Yes this game is largely about terraforming, which means any location can be productive.
A city built around hills and a city built on flatland can both be cities with high production. However the hill city can use mines, for free and available from the start while the flatlands city needs manufactories that cost energy and health and technology to make. Sid Meier once said something to the effect of the map being as important a character in the game as the other players. They way you're talking the map should be irrelevant. Just three types of tiles; water, land, and impassible.
EDIT: I posted before reading the whole thread. So point made twice.
Mine is having many cities as close together as possible, none of them contributing a lot but enough of them to add up to a lot.
Cities have been able to collect extra tiles since civ 3. Why can't we expand by having a huge city grab everything around it? Settling in an area and grabbing 180 tiles with two big cities does not count as expanding but grabbing 180 tiles with five small cities does?
BTDubs. I always played MoO2 on the smallest map because once you got a conquest or two going there were just too many planets to manage. I still ended up with 30+ colonies.
Furthermore, I recall you making the opposite argument when it suited your opinion.
EDIT: Actually you just did again:
When people were saying trade routes were never this big a factor in previous games, your response was they are now and it's not changing back. But now the Civ 5 idea of having fewer, bigger cities is something we should do away with. The design of previous games is law when it suits you and arbitrary when it doesn't. If you want to go back the way things were before civ 5 I've been told there is a good Planetfall mod for Civ 4.
