ICS: Love it or hate it?

[snarzberry]

I want to start a thread about the ICS strategy and whether or not it's good for the game. In my opinion, adjustments need to be made to make the strategy a non-starter as with city maintenance in IV.

I don't think it should be a good or viable strategy to expand, expand, expand creating dozens of carbon copy cities that you don't give a hoot about on literally any land available. Played in this way Civ resembles a game of Go where you just put your markers down over and over again trying to control more of the board than your opponent.

I don't blame players for playing this way, but can you really claim that doing so is rewarding or fun? Your cities should mean something to you, the land that you decide to settle on should get you excited and you should have to make serious decisions about the balance of expansion/economy/military.

There should be multiple ways to victory which are equally good, and when one strategy is so obviously the best way to win it takes the fun out of experimenting with the other possibilities, for me at least.

So who out there wants ICS to be shown the door, and who wants it to stay?
And if you are anti-ICS then how would you go about modifying the game to make it impractical?

 

[Jharii]

Why do you want to enforce your playstyle upon everyone else? You don't have to play ICS. Others may want to. That's the beauty. It's completely up to you.

I don't know how it takes the fun away from you when it's very simple to control ICS. Just don't build excessive amounts of cities. Are you saying that you are taking the fun away from yourself? And that you can't control yourself so you need them to change the game so you don't do it?

Only you can classify what you feel is the "best" strategy towards victory. This should always fit into your playstyle. But don't confuse that with others that want to go the "easy" route. Civilization has never been about taking the "easy" route. It's about strategies, all up to you to employ.

 

[lschnarch]

I agree with the OP.

ICS per se is not bad. It becomes bad when it is the clearly superior tactic AND being boring at the same time, because you end having gazillions of cities with lib, col, mon...

 

[Eberon]

I don't blame players for playing this way, but can you really claim that doing so is rewarding or fun?

Before I started ICS I was through with this game. Without ICS I find this game extremely boring. I seem to spend most of my non warring time just pressing end turn... yawn

 

[Bandit17]

I only use ICS as part of my Songhia strategy where my constant warring creates large vast areas of open land. So I only use it sparingly as I personally enjoy slow meaningful empire expansion since I'm more of a builder. It is a powerful strategy but I do not see any real harm in it as it is a choice that is left up to the player. I also tend to add civs to my games to make early land grabs more suspenceful.

 

[Eskel]

Well balanced game should allow the player to choose empire size he wants to stay with.
ICS, in which Infinity really means infinity, is IMO bad design, and the thing Civ games tried to counter from very beginning.
Most important cons are:
- lack of reality feeling (to those who care about it) - it is just crazy to sprawl an empire for an entire globe without any form of penalty.
- rewarding UNDEVELOPED empires for their size, not efficiency. It spoils the fun and removes any need to actually develop your cities nor civilization
- you dont need to mess with diplomacy, when you can go through entire game with brute force method. At some level of growth your empire is simply unstoppable, which makes the end of game far too easy and uninteresting
- competition from AI forces player to choose ICS as only effective strategy, if he plays to win.
To those who reject this strategy, games become tiresome. For those who go along with ICS, final stages of game are quite tedious, as player is forced to ocassionally micromanage his zillion of cities . Of course, player can simply switch them just to produce wealth, but - what are cities for, if someone really spams them everywhere and even dont bother to click on them?

OTOH there should be always possibility to build large empire - some players like it. However, IMO this should have limits and penalties, which would require from player choosing certain civics/policies and highly developed cities as well to be possible. Thus, it wouldnt be named INFINITY city sprawl then.

 

[Bandit17]

Well balanced game should allow the player to choose empire size he wants to stay with.
ICS, in which Infinity really means infinity, is IMO bad design, and the thing Civ games tried to counter from very beginning.
Most important cons are:
- lack of reality feeling (to those who care about it) - it is just crazy to sprawl an empire for an entire globe without any form of penalty.
- rewarding UNDEVELOPED empires for their size, not efficiency. It spoils the fun and removes any need to actually develop your cities nor civilization
- you dont need to mess with diplomacy, when you can go through entire game with brute force method. At some level of growth your empire is simply unstoppable, which makes the end of game far too easy and uninteresting
- competition from AI forces player to choose ICS as only effective strategy, if he plays to win.
To those who reject this strategy, games become tiresome. For those who go along with ICS, final stages of game are quite tedious, as player is forced to ocassionally micromanage his zillion of cities . Of course, player can simply switch them just to produce wealth, but - what are cities for, if someone really spams them everywhere and even dont bother to click on them?

OTOH there should be always possibility to build large empire - some players like it. However, IMO this should have limits and penalties, which would require from player choosing certain civics/policies and highly developed cities as well to be possible. Thus, it wouldnt be named INFINITY city sprawl then.

I disagree on many points. IMHO ICS is only a potential issue in multiplayer where game balance matters the most. It is still a strategy that is optional vs the ai. When I play a builder/culture type civ I never use it and I enjoy trying to maximize my civs UA's and what not. This version of civ is based more on gameplay and fun than on reality so I find the reality and historical arguments rather silly in relation to ciV. If you find yourself being unable to resist the urge to ICS than try adding more civs and playing for a non-domination win. I just don't get why having one powerful strategy is such an issue in a single player game. Most of us can agree that, for the most part, we are in control of what game techniques we apply and in regards to ICS this is definitly the case.

 

[Cywil]

Played in this way Civ resembles a game of Go where you just put your markers down over and over again trying to control more of the board than your opponent.

I feel exactly the same

 

[Ravenfeeder]

I can't see the point of a game of Civ if you're not constantly spreading your empire/culture. Lots of cities on a huge map is the only way I can play. It's been that way since Civ I.

 

[MkLh]

I disagree on many points. IMHO ICS is only a potential issue in multiplayer where game balance matters the most. It is still a strategy that is optional vs the ai. When I play a builder/culture type civ I never use it and I enjoy trying to maximize my civs UA's and what not. This version of civ is based more on gameplay and fun than on reality so I find the reality and historical arguments rather silly in relation to ciV. If you find yourself being unable to resist the urge to ICS than try adding more civs and playing for a non-domination win. I just don't get why having one powerful strategy is such an issue in a single player game.

I can see a problem when the optimal strategy in SP is simple, repetitive and brainless city spamming.

 

[Psyringe]

I have to admit that the thread title baffled me for a moment. I've played Civ games since 1991, and I always saw ICS as a sign of a weakly designed economic system, and bad game balance. I was very glad when Civ4 managed to finally stop ICS from being an overpowered strategy by introducing city maintenance. So, to me, the question "love or hate ICS" sounded a bit like (I hope no one feels offended by this) "love or hate garbage" - i.e., my first reaction was "Why even ask the question?".

But okay, sometimes questions like these open an interesting new perspective, by forcing people to think into venues they haven't done before. So I tried to find positive things in ICS. However, I have to say I failed.

I have two main problems with ICS:

1. It is a very ahistorical (and historically implausible) way to grow a civilization. Leaders of early civilizations didn't think "I have to litter the landscape with small, primitive cities to bring my empire forward". They rather thought "The hills over there would make a good position for a city overlooking the area, and the fertile lands at the river will feed its citizens", or they tried to secure resources. therefore, ICS breaks my suspension of disbelief, it makes Civ feel more like a game engine and less like a fascinating alternative history unfolding.

2. If the game's rules favor ICS as a superior strategy, then the player has the choice to either play the best strategy he can find (and swallow the fact that it doesn't really feel like growing a believable empire), or to consciously restrain himself from playing the best strategy in order to preserve the feeling of growing a civilization. Both choices are bad. Imho, the rules of a game like Civ can (and should) be designed in a way that "good strategy" and "historically believable growth" fall together. The player who tries to find the best strategies should not have the feeling that he has to forego his immersion for that, and the player who wants to watch a believable alternative history unfolding should not have the feeling that he must consciously stop himself from using good strategies to do so.

 

[Eskel]

2. If the game's rules favor ICS as a superior strategy, then the player has the choice to either play the best strategy he can find (and swallow the fact that it doesn't really feel like growing a believable empire), or to consciously restrain himself from playing the best strategy in order to preserve the feeling of growing a civilization. Both choices are bad. [..]The player who tries to find the best strategies should not have the feeling that he has to forego his immersion for that, and the player who wants to watch a believable alternative history unfolding should not have the feeling that he must consciously stop himself from using good strategies to do so.

I would also add that player who chooses 2nd option actually gets punished by that. Playing optimal strategy AI's very soon get far ahead both in military and research, and then human player has only few paths to follow:
1. use other exploits or cheat to balance the game, not fun for me
2. play lower difficulty with easier oponents, acceptable, but not always satisfying
3. Play "Last-stand" scenario, quite tiresome
4. Loose, not fun too me if it happen on regular basis, due te same reason (ICS)

 

[ohioastronomy]

I guess that I'm worried about a cure worse than the disease. The flaw is the basic mechanism of global happiness coupled with flat overall bonuses and per city ones. I could very easily see "fixes" which left us with a small number of small cities as the default position for most of the game.

Poor design can be very hard to get around.

 

[Jharii]

I suppose one could probably very easily mod the minimum city distance from its current value to something like 5 or 6 and give it a go. Maybe even larger if there is a way to add to the value of the culture creep.

 

[lschnarch]

I suppose one could probably very easily mod the minimum city distance from its current value to something like 5 or 6 and give it a go. Maybe even larger if there is a way to add to the value of the culture creep.

As Ohioastronomy already pointed out, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Your suggestion collides with other core mechanics, as the distribution of resources.
Either, you would have to have much more resources so that the imposed distance between cities doesn't make you miss some of them, or they would have to be organized in a way fitting to the new minimum city distance. The latter would make the map look quite strange, as I assume.
Enlarging the BFC doesn't help either (not to mention that it wouldn't fit into the city screen anymore), because then you have cities with a theoretical max number of hexes somewhere around 120 or so of which only a quarter could be used in the best case.

The problem indeed is with the core design and cannot be easily changed by just tweaking two or three numbers.

 

[Jharii]

As Ohioastronomy already pointed out, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Your suggestion collides with other core mechanics, as the distribution of resources.
Either, you would have to have much more resources so that the imposed distance between cities doesn't make you miss some of them, or they would have to be organized in a way fitting to the new minimum city distance. The latter would make the map look quite strange, as I assume.
Enlarging the BFC doesn't help either (not to mention that it wouldn't fit into the city screen anymore), because then you have cities with a theoretical max number of hexes somewhere around 120 or so of which only a quarter could be used in the best case.

The problem indeed is with the core design and cannot be easily changed by just tweaking two or three numbers.

I never said I was going to do it. I can just exhibit some self control and not build an abundance of cities. I was just offering it out there for someone that may want to test it out. "Problem" is a subjective observation.

FYI, the resources within your borders can still be improved upon. Strategic and Luxury resources are still added to your inventory even if they are outside of the radius that your population can work.

So there is no reason to shoot down a suggestion with theories of why it won't work within the current game mechanics when someone else can perform actual testing and prove/disprove whether it works or not.

 

[Psyringe]

I suppose one could probably very easily mod the minimum city distance from its current value to something like 5 or 6 and give it a go. Maybe even larger if there is a way to add to the value of the culture creep.

This wouldn't remove the problem that early expansion feels "gamey" and historically implausible though. For example, if there's a potential site that looks like a good defensive position, has enough food, and perhaps a resource in its reach, then not being able to settle there because of an artificial "minimal distance" rule doesn't feel believable either. The problem runs deeper, I'm afraid.

 

[Samson]

1. It is a very ahistorical (and historically implausible) way to grow a civilization. Leaders of early civilizations didn't think "I have to litter the landscape with small, primitive cities to bring my empire forward". They rather thought "The hills over there would make a good position for a city overlooking the area, and the fertile lands at the river will feed its citizens", or they tried to secure resources. therefore, ICS breaks my suspension of disbelief, it makes Civ feel more like a game engine and less like a fascinating alternative history unfolding.

I am not sure about this argument. In europe at least it seems to me that civ 5 ICS is quite similar to the real world, with most land covered in small settlements with very few civic building servicing a few large cities with lots of civic buildings (universities etc.). Not that this is much of an reason to havi it or not, but it kind of makes sence to me.

 

[Jharii]

This wouldn't remove the problem that early expansion feels "gamey" and historically implausible though. For example, if there's a potential site that looks like a good defensive position, has enough food, and perhaps a resource in its reach, then not being able to settle there because of an artificial "minimal distance" rule doesn't feel believable either. The problem runs deeper, I'm afraid.

This is a much better argument. Like I said, I don't have a problem with ICS. I don't employe that "tactic." Just throwing out a suggestion that may offer a workaround.

Historical plausibility and believability are really not the foundation of the Civilization series. They are its inspiration. The game, in any version, has always had to take liberties against history to offer a better game play experience. And yes, of course they try to do their best to maintain the integrity whenever possible.

 

[polypheus]

I have to admit that the thread title baffled me for a moment. I've played Civ games since 1991, and I always saw ICS as a sign of a weakly designed economic system, and bad game balance. I was very glad when Civ4 managed to finally stop ICS from being an overpowered strategy by introducing city maintenance. So, to me, the question "love or hate ICS" sounded a bit like (I hope no one feels offended by this) "love or hate garbage" - i.e., my first reaction was "Why even ask the question?".

But okay, sometimes questions like these open an interesting new perspective, by forcing people to think into venues they haven't done before. So I tried to find positive things in ICS. However, I have to say I failed.

I have two main problems with ICS:

1. It is a very ahistorical (and historically implausible) way to grow a civilization. Leaders of early civilizations didn't think "I have to litter the landscape with small, primitive cities to bring my empire forward". They rather thought "The hills over there would make a good position for a city overlooking the area, and the fertile lands at the river will feed its citizens", or they tried to secure resources. therefore, ICS breaks my suspension of disbelief, it makes Civ feel more like a game engine and less like a fascinating alternative history unfolding.

2. If the game's rules favor ICS as a superior strategy, then the player has the choice to either play the best strategy he can find (and swallow the fact that it doesn't really feel like growing a believable empire), or to consciously restrain himself from playing the best strategy in order to preserve the feeling of growing a civilization. Both choices are bad. Imho, the rules of a game like Civ can (and should) be designed in a way that "good strategy" and "historically believable growth" fall together. The player who tries to find the best strategies should not have the feeling that he has to forego his immersion for that, and the player who wants to watch a believable alternative history unfolding should not have the feeling that he must consciously stop himself from using good strategies to do so.

These two points are exactly the reasons that most of us anti-ICS people feel. Your comments go right to the heart of the issue with ICS!

To point 1, it definitely very much lessens the feeling of historical immersion. Civ4 style expansion mechanics and balance simply feel much more "true" while Civ5 (and Civ2-3 for that matter) feel much more artificial and gamey. It is just frustrating that in Civ5 we are regressing to Civ2-3 style gamey ICS mechanics. ICS was mostly a solved problem that is now "un"-solved.

As to point2, people will say of course that well you don't have to do ICS if it feels too artificial and gamey to you. You can expand more "historically" and "realistically" if you want. The problem though is the game mechanics simply don't support that. That would be like saying that since horseman are so overpowered in Civ5, just don't build horseman.

Anyway saying not to do ICS does nothing about the fact that the mechanics and balance are broken fundamentally. As said by another poster, "Building a ton of cities with capped growth and coliseums is so much better than building fewer, larger cities. With trade routes and meritocracy, each of these small cities gives additional gold to your empire." That is just wrong from a "realism/historical immersion" POV. But it is also wrong from a pure gameplay POV.