|
Author
|
|
Topic: a compromise approach (ics vs perfectionism) |  |
|
geofelt
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted April 11, 2001 13:58
   | 
 |
 |  |
Ics envisions many small cities two squares apart, while perfectionism builds cities with minimal overlap, about 5 squares apart. I have been working on an approach that places cities about three squares apart. This lets me expand quickly and gain the benefits of ics expansion, but leaves room for growth later. I keep the cities at size three until I get democracy, when it is easy to grow them to size 8 quickly.
I find this just as effective as ics, but much less tedious. It also claims territory faster than is. |
Mixam
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted April 11, 2001 23:24
|
|
| |
I too have tried this approach and i find it to be quite effective if you remeber to check which squares each city is working each turn or so. However as always my approach is determined by what i start with if a small island i will ICS until i get to a larger continent. Therin lies part of the problem. I find that you need a larger land mass for this strat to work wheras ICS works on any size landmass. The way i have been playing lately is to ICS until i have about 20 cities then to build the rest more spread out or just take over the AI cities. I find this works very well for me.------------------
Shhh... Just Take It!
Shhh... No-one Has To Know! |
SandMonkey
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted April 12, 2001 00:36
|
|
| |
I always ICS'ed, and then, with an absolute ARMY of settlers/enginners, (when I made it into Communism usually) I would irrigate every square and let the cities grow. I made adam smith's a priority, and once I had that I would build temple/marketplace/library in every city. With the trade from the caravans, I had a science and tax beast that was very capable of waging a quick war with any AI. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums-archives
