[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Fixing ICS (simply)

["Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hellen Claggett wrote:
>
> OK, I've been following the debates and discussions on reducing ICS in
> Freeciv and, as a ICS player myself, it seems to me that the proposed
> solutions are more complicated than the problem they are
> trying to fix.
> As far as I can tell, the basic problem is that founding a new city is
> far more profitable than improving an existing city. Therefore, if you
> really want to fix ICS, I suggest you reduce the profitability of
> building a new city.

Yes, that is certainly a correct basic-level analysis.

> For example, simply removing the free road and irrigation
> that is given
> to a new city will cause true fear and angst among ICS players
> (remember, I'm one of them so I know ;-). If you want to keep those
> above improvements for all cities, then increase the length of time it
> takes to build a new city to include the time it would take
> to road and irrigate the terrain.

At the beginning of the game, that increases the startup cost of
producing a city.  It does nothing to address the amortized benefit of
having many such cities, such as for supporting army units under a
Monarchy.

By midgame, longer settler production time is no big deal.  You'll use
one of your highly productive cities to spew 'em out.  If they're taking
too long, you'll simply buy 'em.

I think we need to realize that the startup cost of a city is not the
only problem.  The ongoing benefit of a small city is a major problem.
They're way too beneficial, that's why people like having lots of them.

> Picture seeing a 'B' on a settler for 6 turns as
> it actually builds a city and then picture your would be ICS player
> grinding his teeth in frustration.

Hm, well, elevating the level of military risk in building a city is an
interesting idea.  But is it really a substantial risk over, say,
establishing your empty city and then building your first Phalanx?  A
Settler, if attacked, actually defends itself and sometimes wins.  An
empty city is just a walk-in.

> P.S. Just as an aside, I've never understood how 10k people (i.e., a
> settler unit) wandering into a desert (or onto any tile not
> near water)
> and merely planting a flag in the sand and calling it 'home'
> would grant
> them the abililty to irrigate that square with no neighboring water
> source. Not only is it not realistic but is expressly encourages ICS
> behavior. City sites should be planted with care; not rewarded for
> idiocy.

Then adopt Civ III rules.  You can't do this in Civ III, you need a
water source.  This change won't solve ICS, but it's a contributing
factor that would help.

Another minor but significant Civ III rule is that if you plant your
city by a river, you don't need an aqueduct!  And it is "by" a river in
Civ III, the rivers are on the borders between tiles.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.