-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
So... What will stop ICS?
- Thread starter igorsrs
- Start date
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Worker to builder change is pretty huge because you need to invest in extra builders to help the new cities out.
You should probably get 2-3 builders before you expand, that way you should have a rather decent capital to support your new cities and it should also make it easier to get early empire maybe even before the first settler so you can take advantage of the 50% bonus.
If you rush for settlers it will slow you down as new cities are a huge investment and are very poor at the begining. Building up your cap first should allow you to support your new cities much better.
Having a 2-3 pop then you start your first settler is not a good idea, maybe if there is an excellent spot which you really need then you should maybe do it but it will put your capital development so far behind a 3 worker build that you are likely to fall behind in long term expansion and everything else so that spot must really be something special.
You should probably get 2-3 builders before you expand, that way you should have a rather decent capital to support your new cities and it should also make it easier to get early empire maybe even before the first settler so you can take advantage of the 50% bonus.
If you rush for settlers it will slow you down as new cities are a huge investment and are very poor at the begining. Building up your cap first should allow you to support your new cities much better.
Having a 2-3 pop then you start your first settler is not a good idea, maybe if there is an excellent spot which you really need then you should maybe do it but it will put your capital development so far behind a 3 worker build that you are likely to fall behind in long term expansion and everything else so that spot must really be something special.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,311
If I recall correctly, ICS was originally a thing because two size one cities were automatically better than a single size two. Besides the fact that you'd have two cities for building things, you'd be working four tiles (one outside tile plus the city center) instead of three. Never thought it was very fun, but many times it seemed you'd be best off just spamming settlers (which were also workers) to make one improvement and plant, only needing to leave one space for the new city to work. I think that another thing going its way is that you could buy whatever you wanted with money, and roads gave a gold. Going to extremes you'd wind up with a big checkerboard with small towns every other tile. Not a strategy expert here, but I think this is how it went: heck I didn't even need online strategy articles and the like to figure this out.
Many of the things they did to counter this aren't even brought up any more--minimum city distance from each other, upkeep, no rush buying early, etc. I actually liked what V did to make fewer, larger cities viable, but of course they probably went too far. I think they were always had the worry of returning to that in the back of their minds.
Many of the things they did to counter this aren't even brought up any more--minimum city distance from each other, upkeep, no rush buying early, etc. I actually liked what V did to make fewer, larger cities viable, but of course they probably went too far. I think they were always had the worry of returning to that in the back of their minds.
Which, to me, is the biggest turn-off of Civ6. As much as I like watching the videos, I simply cannot stand seeing so many cities all packed together.
Staler87
Warlord
I didn't actually play civ V vanilla but this isn't what I've heard...
I think at least pop 5 if poor production, or after you plop down your first district should be optimal
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
If this is the case, that's great
It sounds like districts may get too expensive eventually...not sure if I'm so keen on that
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
6 pop give you eurka boost for early empire.
There's that, or you could just build settler at pop 5 and continue to grow, and settle second city and wait your capital get back to pop 5 to get 6 total population
That's why I thought Civ5's solution was worse than the problem. Firstly that a big empire was 10 cities, secondly that it made it so easy to implode by having such a modest number of cities.
I could see things such as adjacency bonuses for districts (but only districts in the same city perhaps?) reducing the incentive to cram in as many cities as possible. But ultimately, I have much less of a problem with some people choosing to play ICS, and it being somewhat necessary on high difficulty levels where the AI gets a huge bonus, like in Civ3, then when ICS isn't possible but I'm limited to 10 (or often fewer) cities until very late game like Civ5.
Civ4 was unbalanced at launch - remember the Redcoats and Cossacks in Civ4 1.00? - but I didn't feel that was really a big problem. Au contraire, it was kind of fun to storm across the continent once with the Redcoats. More seriously though, despite the HOF competitions and so forth, Civ's never really been about a competitively balanced multiplayer the way, say, Starcraft is, and I'd rather it focus on what it's good at than worry excessively about balance.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yes, vanilla Civ5 was pretty balanced in Tall vs. Wide, but it had large empty space in the things to do for peaceful civs, especially later in the game. So, both expansions were focused on adding more things to do peacefully, which led to the disbalance.
Civ6 tries to avoid this.
So, from what i have seen so far having as many cities as possible is probably the best strategy. Markets banks etc give flat bonus, no national wonders which require a specific building in each city, smaller cities require relative less amenities and as always having relatively better production.
I don't know how significant the settler's cost increase, but that's probably the only deterrent from packing as many cities and as close to each other as possible.
I don't know how significant the settler's cost increase, but that's probably the only deterrent from packing as many cities and as close to each other as possible.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Having more cities is better than having less, and it's good. But it's state, not a strategy. Strategy is how and when you get those cities and it could vary a lot.
Focusing on few but very well developed cities or expanding and building as many cities as possible are two different strategy for me. I like smaller empires and I like when the game provides mechanic to allow to be competitive with a small empire. Maybe civ5 went a bit too far, but generally was fine.
stealth_nsk
Deity
There are much more details than this. Optimal strategy in Civ6 is to have small amount of large cities AND large amount of smaller cities.
The production curve in Civ6 is quite a bit steeper than it is in Civ5. Hammer costs start out about the same, but things are a lot more expensive in Civ6 in the late game. Sydney Opera House is 3300 hammers for example, where it is 1250 hammers in Civ5. Modern Armor is 420 in Civ5, but 680 in Civ6. You're going to need big, productive cities.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
People need to understand terms here. ICS means just plopping cities at the minimum distance regardless of terrain. Vanilla civ 5 was full ICS. With specialists on libraries and endless maritime food you just built a city anywhere bought a library and ran specialists. This also gave massive numbers of the ultra overpowered Great scientists. That will NOT happen in civ 6 because of one thing, FRESH WATER. A city not on a river or coast has only 2 housing cap which means they have a 50% growth penalty immediately. There are no specialists without districts that need pop and space. Great People come from districts. You can only build an aqueduct if the city is within 2 tiles of a mountain so city placement is limited until late game. Add in massive adjacency bonuses for both improvements and districts and ICS is not a good strategy.
The question is open if Rapid Expansion is overpowered. I don't think so because there is way too much to do in civ 6 early game. Have you guys actually seen barbarians in this game. They are far more aggressive than in Civ 5 and the games are on prince. Without city bombardment you need military early to deal with barbarians because they will pillage everything. That ties up early hammers in military. Especially since the AI DOES move and shoot and seems to hunt units. Then if you want religion or science or culture you need to build the districts. And city states quests give far more valuable envoys so they are worth doing and can distract you. Then there is the question of eurekas and inspirations. They are so powerful you need to focus on them and they are not gained by expanding. Early war is also beneficial with minimal warmonger penalties.
Then there is the scaling of costs. Each settler, district and builder and district costs more hammers. If you just pile in more cities you will be pay more and more for less since you will be less likely to have the adjacency bonuses to make the districts powerful. And settlers cost 1 population to build which limits your ability to spam them like in Civ 5. Each Luxury only gives 4 cities a boost no matter how many copies you have so fewer taller cities is viable.
Cities are also at the strength they were in civ 5 vanilla and not BNW. Melee units eat cities unless you have walls and siege support negates those easily. Range units are very squishy and have no ZOC which makes mass range units less viable. Enemies can use your roads and send trade routes to make them pushing through rough terrain. The AI pillages more and your buildings are in unfortified districts not behind city defenses as powerful as the Golden walls.
At the same time there is no tradition factor going on here. Global happiness is not a thing so more medium size cities seems like a good strategy. City placement, wonder and district placement is going to make empire building more strategic than ever. You want cities spread out to have the space for adjacency bonuses and improvements to provide housing. But you want them close enough to make use of regional effects such as entertainment bonuses.
The question is open if Rapid Expansion is overpowered. I don't think so because there is way too much to do in civ 6 early game. Have you guys actually seen barbarians in this game. They are far more aggressive than in Civ 5 and the games are on prince. Without city bombardment you need military early to deal with barbarians because they will pillage everything. That ties up early hammers in military. Especially since the AI DOES move and shoot and seems to hunt units. Then if you want religion or science or culture you need to build the districts. And city states quests give far more valuable envoys so they are worth doing and can distract you. Then there is the question of eurekas and inspirations. They are so powerful you need to focus on them and they are not gained by expanding. Early war is also beneficial with minimal warmonger penalties.
Then there is the scaling of costs. Each settler, district and builder and district costs more hammers. If you just pile in more cities you will be pay more and more for less since you will be less likely to have the adjacency bonuses to make the districts powerful. And settlers cost 1 population to build which limits your ability to spam them like in Civ 5. Each Luxury only gives 4 cities a boost no matter how many copies you have so fewer taller cities is viable.
Cities are also at the strength they were in civ 5 vanilla and not BNW. Melee units eat cities unless you have walls and siege support negates those easily. Range units are very squishy and have no ZOC which makes mass range units less viable. Enemies can use your roads and send trade routes to make them pushing through rough terrain. The AI pillages more and your buildings are in unfortified districts not behind city defenses as powerful as the Golden walls.
At the same time there is no tradition factor going on here. Global happiness is not a thing so more medium size cities seems like a good strategy. City placement, wonder and district placement is going to make empire building more strategic than ever. You want cities spread out to have the space for adjacency bonuses and improvements to provide housing. But you want them close enough to make use of regional effects such as entertainment bonuses.
Similar threads
