ICS: Love it or hate it?

I think the problem is too much unhappiness from population, and too little from number of cities.
 
I'm a big ICS fan, in fact Civ 5 was my first Civ game and ICS was the first "strat" I've used to build an empire.

I don't know about you guys but when I look on a map, or google earth even, ICS is the "real life" strategy. It's the end goal of nearly every civilization. Cities aren't spread up and down the eastern coast with a little bit of space to give it room to breath. They're jam packed one on top of another with all different names and locales.

To me the idea of having lots of space between cities is unnatural.

You start with that first intrepid settler guarded by his warrior and set up a city. After that it is GO. GO and build your empire. The first new city might be miles upon miles away for new trade opportunities or right next door. But at the end of it all ICS is what its going to look like.
 
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.

The point though is that Civ4 mechanics for many people offer more "historical plausibility" and "better game playing experience" at the same time. When you have mechanics that can deliver on both aspects that is the best thing IMO. Civ5 delivers on neither in the opinion of most people that are anti-ICS.

And I hardly can see how ICS "offers a better game play experience". A game which is designed so that building a ton of small cities with just colosseums and trading post spam is hardly my idea of a "better game experience", historical plausibility aside.
 
If you are following the optimum strategies for ICS, you deserve to be bored. Size limits, building in tundra, and skeletal city infrastructure goes against the concept of empire-building. Power-gaming is for the competitive, not those seeking fun.

I was littering the map with cities before ICS became the strat-du-jour. Perhaps what my playstyle would be better characterized as REX. I find it an enjoyable way to play because I grow outwards organically: following rivers; settling needed resources, backfilling to populate gaps, and generally letting the challenges guide my expansion.

Granted, there are some issues that do need to be addressed, such as the disparity of power between the city states, among others. However, in the meantime there is no reason not to enjoy the game with an incremental/infinite city sprawl without adopting the boring power-gaming aspects.
 
And I hardly can see how ICS "offers a better game play experience". A game which is designed so that building a ton of small cities with just colosseums and trading post spam is hardly my idea of a "better game experience", historical plausibility aside.

Which is why I never play that way. Some people may have differing opinions.
 
I think the problem is not so much that you're spamming infinite cities, but rather that you're spamming infinite size two cities. Creating these artificial placeholders just because they optimize a game mechanic is what breaks the immersion and makes the game unsatisfying.

Throughout the Civ series, I've always enjoyed building many, many cities. I remember back in Civ II, there was a hard cap of 255 cities on the map, and I'd frequently run into that. But that wasn't ICS in the same sence we see here, because every single one of those cities was a growing, vibrant community.

The fix (if one is needed) needs to correct the fact that in CiV, unlike previous versions, city growth is bad. And for that, I think the problem lies in
(a) global happiness,
(b) no entertainers.

Currently, my city grows by one, and suddenly my entire empire suffers. Solution? Build a colliseum. I already have a colliseum here? Well, then, found a new "garbage" city and build a colliseum in it. That's why ICS is successfull, and that's why ICS unsatisfying.

Local happiness ensures that one productive city cannot be supported by a sprawl of meaningless size two cities. And entertainer specialists ensure that if a city grows, the worst that'll happen is the new citizen is an entertainer, with no net effect. (ie growth is no longer bad).
 
I'm a big ICS fan, in fact Civ 5 was my first Civ game and ICS was the first "strat" I've used to build an empire.

I don't know about you guys but when I look on a map, or google earth even, ICS is the "real life" strategy. It's the end goal of nearly every civilization. Cities aren't spread up and down the eastern coast with a little bit of space to give it room to breath. They're jam packed one on top of another with all different names and locales.

To me the idea of having lots of space between cities is unnatural.

It is not an idea about just having "space" between cities. For me, so called "city", is a representation of certain region development. For me ICS is situation, when player can gain bonuses not through development, but from spamming cities that are currently undeveloped. ICS removes the "builder-type" strategy as sub-optimal, what some of us dont like.

One more thing, if you talk about "reality" and Google map. Do you really belive, that desert with primitive settlements spawned 20 mile distatnce each from another, has more scientific, commercial, and production potential than for example New York city?
Because that is how Civ5 ICS looks like.
 
Which is why I never play that way. Some people may have differing opinions.

The fact that "you never play that way" doesn't change the fact that the Civ5 mechanics of building rather than city maintenance and Shafer rating (err global happiness) point you in the general direction of ICS. You can choose not to do ICS but it doesn't change the underlying ICS-leading mechanics (which the AI itself employs).

As to people that like ICS, well I can only say that for people that played at least Civ3 and then Civ4, the anti-ICS mechanics of Civ4 were mostly welcomed by many. At least as far as ICS goes, few people I recall wanted Civ2-3 style ICS back for Civ4. Well now its back in Civ5 but I don't recall that most people were unhappy about it being gone in Civ4.
 
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.

If Civ5 ICS style development and economics were true, then something that resembles modern-day Mongolia or Libya or such should be much richer and more developed and scientifically more advanced than something like Singapore. That hardly is the case past or present.

In Civ5 terms, creating a country that looks like Libya/Mongolia with lots of purposefully undeveloped small cities is much more powerful than creating a country with a few Singapore style fully developed cities. That is hardly sensible.
 
Has anyone here tried India as a solution? I am currently playing them, and it seems more natural to me in terms of the cost / benefit if new cities. Off course "play only one civ" is not exactly an answer to a flaw in a game mechanic, but it does give an idea of a possible easy solution.

I actually wonder if some sort of per city unhappiness that is dependant on number of cities, in a similar way to the per city maintenance from civ IV. Perhaps something like 1 + (log2(no. cities))?
 
India supports the ICS even more.

Now you don't have to build a colosseum in each and every city, you can spare it in every seconcd city and build something else.
All you need is this CP which reduces the unhappiness by city (forgot the name, don't use it very often).
 
India supports the ICS even more.

Now you don't have to build a colosseum in each and every city, you can spare it in every seconcd city and build something else.
All you need is this CP which reduces the unhappiness by city (forgot the name, don't use it very often).

India automatically has the x2 unhappiness penalty for number of cities and /2 for population. So by basic math, your assessment is incorrect. You apply your same suggestions to every other civilization and they out-perform India in happiness. Each and every time. A side-by-side comparison would be nice, however, if you would like to provide it. I'm in the mood for a little crow.
 
India automatically has the x2 unhappiness penalty for number of cities and /2 for population. So by basic math, your assessment is incorrect. You apply your same suggestions to every other civilization and they out-perform India in happiness. Each and every time. A side-by-side comparison would be nice, however, if you would like to provide it. I'm in the mood for a little crow.

By my reckoning, a size 4 city produces the same unhappiness under India or any other civ. So every smaller city is worse under india, and every larger city is better. So a size 1 city with coliseum and connection to capital (with Meritocracy) is happiness neutral.

As I understand it the forbidden palace only gives -1 unhappiness per city not the stated 50% reduction (which would be -2 for india). I have not got that far yet, but if Planned Economy gives a true 50% reduction that will be massive. Not quit a game breaker as it comes so late, but massive all the same.
 
I don't mind, either way. Hopefully the devs won't force players who like big empires to build smaller empires.
 
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.
This is not the right solution friend. It is like saying that don't build horsemen because they are OP instead of balancing them. A good solution could be to make the :c5angry: penalty dependant on no. of cities & distance from capital a bit instead of fixed 2 :c5angry: (just like maintenance in cIV) so you don't just spam cities.
 
This is not the right solution friend. It is like saying that don't build horsemen because they are OP instead of balancing them. A good solution could be to make the :c5angry: penalty dependant on no. of cities & distance from capital a bit instead of fixed 2 :c5angry: (just like maintenance in cIV) so you don't just spam cities.

Or make techs more expensive after every new city, just like the social policies already are.
 
sorry - just asked what ICS meant without seeing the above
 
ICS is not the best strategy

it is only viable in a few situations, and in those few situations there are far superior strategies

competent AI would "fix" this problem where you think the strategy is always the best way to play
 
Top Bottom