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

[Hellen Claggett <hellen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 20:14, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 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.

My thought is that slowing down the initial building rate of new cities
in the opening part of the game will significantly cut into the
geometric growth of an ICS player so that he is not already unstoppable
by the midgame (which, ATM, is really the endgame for all intents). I
don't want the Mongol hoards to be removed from the game entirely. I
just want to give time for the Chinese empire to put up a fight when
they do sweep across the land.

If I ever get the time (after New Years earliest), I'd like to try to
create a patch to play test this proposal (removing free terrain
improvements) to see how it impacts the ICS strategy.

> 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.

Welll, if you _really_ want to drive a stake through the ICS strategy
(why do I feel like I'm betraying my own kin?), then in addition to
removing free terrain improvements given to a city, removing the free
worker given to all cities ought to finish the job. A city of size 1
would only have 1 worker that may or may not work the actual city tile.
A city of size 2 would only have 2 workers that may or may not work the
actual city tile and so on.

The only 'problem' with this is that growth rates would be severely
hampered until the player could get out of despotism. Personally, I
think this would be quite a fun challenge. Each new city site would have
to strongly favor rivers and high food squares just to stay alive at
all. Building a settler would be a significant risk since it is taking a
precious food from your despotic little village; possibly risking
starvation. I definitely don't see someone blithely founding new cities
at will until late Monarchy and maybe not until they had engineers.

> > 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.

He'd still have an empty city after it was built. But now six or so
turns have elapsed giving barbarians and opposing players that much more
time to attack it.

> > 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.

I think both of those refinements sound great!

later,
Jonathan

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>