oh wait - never mind - they still do.

this is the secomd time I've asked this.

Try "Infinite City Sleaze" - Metamorph and Celestial Dawn had some good posts on the subject in CtP - General.

The big reason no one wants to describe it is that it is slightly complex, has been re-hashed a gazillion times without solution, and usually provokes much rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth.

quote: Originally posted by romelus on 12-08-2000 02:26 PM i tried searching for ics, and got posts containing words like politICS. can't someone just answer what ICS is?

Try searching on " ICS " without the quotes. Put a space before and after it. ZippyG, I PM'd the answer to you, if you want to forward it on to Romelus I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

------------------
Big Dave

However, I wouldn't do so far as to say including "retreat" in the game was a game flaw. The way I see it, the game developers realized that some less skilled players may want to use this feature. Yes people could abuse it, and people do.. just the way people use cheats and trainers. In the end, I think the way it should be viewed is "The feature is there for you to use. If you abuse it, well, you're doing the equivalent of cheating. If you dont abuse it you are using a feature that you might have wanted. And if you DONT want to use it.. dont use it." . The reason they disabled it in the MP portion of the game is because they realized that there oculd be a conflict here between people who DONT want to use it, and those who DO.

I think its commendable that the game developers are actively taking risks and trying to take the whole Civ gaming series to a new level by introducing all these new and realistic concepts.

I think metamorph, you dont hate the concept of retreating so much as you hate the way it has been implemented. Thats fine. The retreat concept isn't wrong, but I think its the implementation thats all wrong.

quote: Originally posted by Sabre2th on 12-06-2000 03:22 PM I agree with metamorph in that the retreat feature could have been better, but we have to stop at some point and realize that no game will ever be 100% perfect.

I hate it when people say things like that. Basically, what you are saying is that we should never thrive for making a game better, we should accept the fact that it will never be 100% and there is no use trying. Just because a game can't be 100%, we shouldnt deal with the issues in the game? I think not.

And about the whole "retreat then attack, retreat then attack" strategy, doesn't anyone ever save the game before they attack and reload if they lose????? I think that makes the game 100 times easier than the retreat then attack strategy, it sorta takes the difficulty out of the game, maybe there should something that lets you only save the game every few turns, just an idea.

Anways I really agree with metamorph's idea and it should REALLY be put into SERIOUS consideration for a patch by Activision, although i don't really have high expectations from Activision on a patch.

Retreat is a good idea, the implementation is poor. My ideas for repairing game balance.

Defenders should be able to retreat also.
When retreating a stacked army there should be a chance that it will split into several stacks (confusion of war).
You should be able to retreat some of your army more successfully if you leave behind a sacrificial lamb(didn't need those stinking hopilites anyway).

By making it less advantageous to retreat, but still a worthwhile option, maybe game balance can be reached.

Ok, so I rush an expendable unit into the city, and its destroyed but that screen just sits there, showing me every feature of the land.

I think if a Hoplite jumps in, you should see only the field of view of that unit, like the enemy's Warrior, not the whole battle!

I think it annoys people (and quite rightly) that both old and novel ideas implemented in CTP2 are "buggy".