[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7021) fighting ICS (was: allies give all their techs for nothing)

["Arnstein Lindgard" <a-l@xxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7021 >

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:51:46 -0800 imbaczek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> We have these ideas to fight ICS -- some change the petty variables,
> some change the rules:

Nice enumeration.

> - increasing settler cost with each built settler,

Several implications:

1. I don't see any realism aspect.

2. As an offset equal for all, it would cause a general slowdown.

3. Could be useful to modify the time window of the initial expansion
   phase, if that's called for by other tweaking. Once you've settled
   your natural area, further expansion comes from taking over other
   peoples' cities.

4. In some drawn-out smallpox fights, you can start playing
   defensively on the front line in order to settle new lands and
   attack in numbers later. This tweak could shorten the game by
   forcing you to duke it out there and then. At the same time, it
   removes the perfectly valid strategy of utilizing empty lands that
   may not be availabale to the enemy. This last point may not be
   valid since I assume pox/nopox modes will be separate.

> - increasing corruption to draconian levels,

Gradually for cities above a certain number. Makes sense for realism.

> - increasing tech costs with every city (mine, mine! ;) I could even
>   write a patch, I believe.)

Uhm.. counter-intuitive? Realism?

> - making certain improvements required for building certain units
>   (implemented even) and resarching certain techs,

Does not give incentive to grow vertically. Does not prevent
warmongering with normal units.

> - having settlers cost 2 pop; splitting settler to settler/worker,

Genereal slowdown. But since we have the nice worker unit graphics..

> - no free city centre production anymore,

Seems very petty.

> - restricting city radius,

Works to the opposite effect. Smallpoxers don't need radius, the
other guys do.

> - patriotism (#6375),

Nah, an empty city is an emty city is an empty city. I didn't like
that one. Better implement Civ3 conscription understrength units
taken from population. But you would have to take an action.

> - probably some more I'm not aware of.

One of Mike Jings less successful patches is, unfortunately, already
implemented and worked to the opposite effect: unhappy specialists
made it more difficult to manage large cities while not forcing nor
giving incentive to the opposition for growing vertically.

> Now we should analyse what are the benefits of ICS. There is one:
> exponential growth in every aspect of the game.

The benefits? The merry slugfest is fun :-) but it's also all we have.

> Observation: To successfully combat exponential things, you need to
> apply exponenetial countermeasures or change game rules. If it's true,
> then we need to have some costs growing at a rapid
> rate. Or change the rules.

Assuming the defense problem is fixed, so that you can survive til
later ages, we can increase the shields cost of modern units to match
the production output of big cities with factories. By then, the guy
with only small cities would not be able to produce units in due
time.

The current shields cost of Musketeers is only 50% more than Phalanx,
but the light bulbs required is 11900% more. With luck you can even
steal the particular tech you need. So I agree, we have missed an
opportunity to use exponential countermeasures.


Arnstein