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.
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.
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.
Which is why I never play that way. Some people may have differing opinions.
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.
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.
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 penalty dependant on no. of cities & distance from capital a bit instead of fixed 2 (just like maintenance in cIV) so you don't just spam cities.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 penalty dependant on no. of cities & distance from capital a bit instead of fixed 2 (just like maintenance in cIV) so you don't just spam cities.
What's ICS?:O