Three tile spacing

[budweiser]

That means two empty tiles between cities.

XXCXXCXXCXX

Does anyone use this? Is it too close together?

I use it alot, and I think the AI does not stand a chance against it. They just dont get enough cities compared to this spacing.

 

[Moonsinger]

Yes, it's ICS and many people have been known to use it. Since there is a limit of 512 cities per map, you can't really do it all the way on the huge map.

 

[budweiser]

I dont do it all the way. I do it for my first core. The second core might be the same or it might be spread out a little more. By the time I start taking land away from the enemy, I just keep the cities where the ai put them. Is this too much of an exploit? Look at Europe compared to the USA, the cities there are closer together. The old world was more compact, I figure this is the game's way of representing that.

 

[sealman]

what is the benefit for the ICS system as oppoes to Optimal City Placement, which is what I usually follow?

 

[benstandby]

Originally posted by sealman
what is the benefit for the ICS system as oppoes to Optimal City Placement, which is what I usually follow?

I wish I had time to answer this one, but I have to go to work soon.

BUT

Basically, you get more cities built more quickly. Every turn you move a settler is another turn that city isn't built. This is extrapolated by the number of turns each city gets to work on the troops or whatever it is working on. Think about the game in terms of creating "turn advantage". Turn advantage is defined as the answer to the question "How many turns ahead of X civ am I in terms of X aspect?" where X aspect is the building of a project, or the number of troops you have respectively, or the acquisition of a technology, or getting a settler to that island with the rubber on it, etc. The more turn advantage you create early on, the easier it is to pull ahead in late game. So each turn a city is built while your opponent is still moving the settler is at least a "one-turn advantage". Multiply this by the number of cities you do this with and the number of turns each settler takes to get to its city location, and you have a pretty good indication of what kind of turn advantage you are creating.

On top of this, you get the free resources off the city tile itself. Since it does not take any citizens to work the city tile, each city you have is another FREE set of food, shields, and- more universally important*- commerce. Add up the turn advantage created here, and ICS nets you countless turns over the OCP paradigm in the early stages of the game. Couple this with the corruption algorithm (which you can exploit by building your FP in the city in which your capital started and building your Palace in a city surrounded by a group of cities placed in OCP check it here) , and you really start to pile on the turn advantage. This final step is the only way (I guess RCP is another way. I tend to use both.) to eliminate the mid to late game disadvantages of limited growth that densly-packed cities comes with.

At the early stages of the game, when your cities aren't very big anyway, you don't need more than a few tiles for each one (6 or 12 for each at max). So early on, ICS does not hurt you in terms of limiting city growth until the advent of hospitals.

I have to go to work now, but I hope this helps. If not, I'll post some more tonight when I get back. You should add this to the FOCUS paradigm discussion in the "Articles" section of this site for some serious arse-whoopin'! :rocket: :rocket2: :ripper: [dance] [dance]

*If you're wondering what "universally important" means: commerce is the only resource that your cities "share"- meaning that all calculations about economy are based on how many units of commerce you are bringing in across the empire, not locally. In other words, all other resources are "locally significant", while commerce is "globally significant" or at least "nationally significant".

 

[apparition]

In my current game I'm using it for the first time and it's great

My core has never been so large. Through trade I had 18 turns to pump out as many tanks as possible. In my small area I was pumping out 6 or 7 a turn.

 

[budweiser]

Here is a save. Tell if if you think it is ICS. I want to know because if it is I will spread out more.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/Bismarck_of_the_Germans,_1380_AD.SAV

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by sealman
what is the benefit for the ICS system as oppoes to Optimal City Placement, which is what I usually follow?

The most important thing that is wrong with OCP is that it wastes around 40% of your empire for most of the game. With OCP, you give each city 21 squares, while they only get to work on 13 of them until a time after you have built hosptals. The benefit you'll have during the ancient and middle age by using 100% of your squares instead of 60% is decisive.
With the same land you'll get to produce 67% more shields and commerse (minus a bit due to added corruption, so let's say 50% more). 50% higher research speed and 50% more military units produced in the same time span is a dramatic improvement.

Add to this benefits like more culture if you build temples in all cities, better defense since defensive units in neighbour cities can always reach the threathened city in one turn, no need for hospitals, less need for luxuries (alt. more WLTKD) in the late game, and you'll find that OCP is really very far from an optimal strategy.

 

[Darkness]

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Yes, it's ICS and many people have been known to use it. Since there is a limit of 512 cities per map, you can't really do it all the way on the huge map.

With all due respect Moonsinger, but you're wrong on both counts.

The layout Budweiser describes gives each city 8 tiles to work with. Last I heard ICS was 3-6 tiles per city. This is more widely spaced than ICS.
And you can do this on a huge pangaea (6o% water) map without reaching the 512 city limit (Just check my Warlord game in the HoF)...

 

[anarres]

Wow ICS is *not* a 3 tile spacing. That is just a tight build.

I often have 3 tile spacing with a few cities 2 tiles apart (especially with and RCP ring at distance 6, 7 or 8). I don't even consider that ICS....

 

[Bamspeedy]

Everyone has their own definition of ICS. 8 tiles is getting pretty darn close to ICS even if it isn't technically ICS. Are you counting the city center tile? If you are, so that each city has 7 citizens working the terrain, then it is ICS. If you are not, so each city has 8 citizens working the terrain, then that is right on the border between ICS and a dense build, IMO.

If you aren't playing for score (where ICS can do pretty good), then 11-12 tiles/city is best. Allows your cities to be more productive and you don't need to worry about it being called ICS.

 

[Grille]

by Bamspeedy:
...you don't need to worry about it being called ICS.

Possibly the best argument for a 11-12tiles/per city build pattern...

 

[Darkness]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
and you don't need to worry about it being called ICS.

Yeah, that's what usually worries me most while playing...

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Originally posted by budweiser

XXCXXCXXCXX

Does anyone use this? Is it too close together?

This is what I've been doing in the past 3 games I've played. I have to admit it has helped me to survive in the ancient age better than when I was OCP'ing. Must be my playstyle I guess.

 

[USC]

The funny thing is that the "majority" definition of, and opinion on, ICS has changed over the years. I even once got called an ICSer by my competitor in a Civ II comparison game because I had a mostly OCP empire, but a huge city count and an occasional tightly-packed city. And the thing is, calling someone an ICSer back then was like calling them a dirty name.

In Civ III with its different growth and corruption models (Civ II's Democracy and IIRC Fundamentalism gov was corruptionless) and later lifting of the size 12 limit, I think it's no surprise that size-12 spacing is not considered ICSing by the "civ-playing community". However, I still feel iffy about spacing that is or that tends towards O-X-O, although I occasionally use it myself due to RCPing or to grab a river, peninsular, etc. site.

One small note added above--besides the Hospital factor, there is the fact that it is easier to maintain happiness e.g. in two size-2 (working six tiles) than in one size-5 city (working six tiles). (In Civ II, acquiring happiness was even harder and it was also harder foodwise to attain each new size. The food aspect is perhaps another reason why ICS was condemned in those days -- it bypassed a game mechanism.)

Once Conquests becomes the mainstream version, strong ICS will probably become less popular among hardcore players due to the elimination of RCP, although on the other hand ICSed empires are apparently quite strong during Feudalism.

USC

edited to remove nonsense, added some info in the process...

 

[jeremiahrounds]

last game i was in made me solidify a concept in my head.

I recommend putting your palace city to build a granary then putting your palace city on settler then never taking it off. Let the rest of your cities build your empire. (this also works nice if you want to do a free palace jump later =)

then comes placing. I place with hybrid ideas

Consider OCP. The down side is you waste space. But what if i were to place another city next to my ocp city until hospitals? would i get my settlers worth? prolly. so why cant i do this?
answer is no reason i cant =)


Now consider blitzing by just putting cities down. Is there any reason you cant just destroy one or more of these cities post hospitals? no not at all. Would it hurt you? relative to OCP not really.

So what i do is leave that first city as a settler factory almost FOREVER. And i pack em tight. I pack em really tight around the maximum corruption threshold area too. Seriously. It has to be literally no place to stuff a city without hurting myself before i take it off settler.

Further you can be really aggressive about placing cities like this cause they are sort of generic at the out reachs. Remember the idea of leaving your first city on perma-settler is that the huge explosion you get in pop will out weight lost production. (and keep in mind you can pop rush too!) So anyway here you are with tons of cities and so what if the computer takes one or two on your out skirts where your empires meet. big whoop~

Then lately i been doing free palace jumps. That leaves a nice little hole in your initial core that ive usually set down silly tight (1 to 2 squares in each direction type tight). With the palace city disbanded though they start looking normal. As for how to do the disband I pop rush all the cities I dont want it to go towards to 1. Then I let the 4 or 5 cities that would be better for my palace grow some. Thats after I ran out of spots to set settlers.

Then finally if you need more breathing room just disband cities. your still ahead for the mad earlier settling. Its not like you have to invest anymore in cities then they produce for themselves.

ok condensed version for people looking for new ideas (though its an old idea!)

1) set down your capital at the start
2) make a granary
3) make settlers.
4) that city makes nothing but settlers until you launch to alpha centari. (ie make settlers until you have no clue where to put your next settler. send em to obscene places next to the enemy. who cares!)
5) place em.. anywhere... after a while just look for any spot. but dont stop the settler factory. Dont place em for OCP *yet* just plop em down somewhere close at the start.
6) start abondoning cities when it gets too crowded. But keep in mind cities on the coast can be very crowded till hospitals.
7) finally you can actually shift into OCP by just abandoning select cities if you so desire after hospitals. your ahead for the super fast start

And thats my way... err alot of peoples way i guess.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I think they are too close together, sure you can get more cities, but that means you have to spend more money buying improvements for all the different ciites