1. What is ICS?

ICS also know as infinite city sprawl, is a strategy in civ games where a person seeks to create an endless amount of cities radiating out from a central hub. these cities generally lack the overall infrastructure of a so called perfectionist strategy where cities are spread out and are highly developed. the perfectionist strategy calls for maximizing each city's production. ICS is about optimizing your civ's overall production.

2. Why is ICS a problem?

ICS is a problem for a multitude of reasons, but the biggest problems arise from the current civ models for city production, unit support, the happiness model, and the growth model. i will address each model one at a time

city production:

the civ model for city production is base squares worked equal number of workers per city plus one multiplied by the total number of cities
or
(W+1)xC where w=workers per city and C=total number of cities

additionally each city is a production center

for example we have two civs: the green civ is a perfectionist civ with one size 10 city, the yellow civ is an ICS with ten size 1 cities

the yellow civ started with one colony pod and spent 270 minerals building nine more, each of the yellow civ's city have no infrastructure...

the green civ's city has the following alpha centauri infrastructure...a recyling tank, a recreation commons, a hologram theater, a tree farm, and one 1-1-1 police units costing 260 minerals...

all citizens of both civs are workers, and all citizens are working a forest square; there are no special resources or economy or industry bonuses

the yellow civ's total output is:
base square: 20-10-11 (+1 for HQ)
workers: 10-20-10
total: 30-30-21
surplus: 20-30-21 (minus people eating)

the green civ's total output is
base square: 3-2-3 (+1 for HQ)
workers: 20-20-10
total: 23-22-13
surplus: 13-22-6 (minus people eating and maint.)

additionally the yellow civ has ten production centers while the green civ only has one

unit support:

using the same stats for the yellow and green civs, if both civs have zero support ratings in the social engineering table, gives us

the yellow civ can support 20 units for free
(2x the number of cities)

the green civ can support 2 units for free
(2x the number of cities)

happiness model

using the same stats for the yellow and the green civs we get the following happiness scores

on librarian on a standard map at zero effic.

the green civ has a total of 10 workers seven of them are drones before base facilities and garrison units
four are taken care of by base facilities
three are taken care of by the police garrison unit (assuming the green civ has a police rating of +3)

the yellow civ has no drones

the growth model

with adequate food and a pop boom the green civ could only grow one citizens per turn, while under the same conditions the yellow civ could grow ten citizens per turn

also it cost ten food per worker to grow a base by one citizens so at size one the yellow civ's bases would only need one tenth of the food to increase by one citizen compared to the green civ

this is only the first installment of proposed solutions, and only a brief analysis for now...i intend to further explore causes, effects, and solutions for ICS plus add in more analysis

Re: city production:

although i am unsure of what to do about the (W+1)xC problem, i do have one proposed fix for this...advanced cities after building some facility should be able to produce more than one unit per turn...in Alpha Centauri i would suggest that each factory facility (genejack, robotic, nanoreplicator, quantum converter...) should add a new building slot...so if a city had all five of those facilities it could produce a maximum of six units at once

Re: Unit Support:

this is quite simple to fix. add in global unit support. give one point of support for each population unit. a side note to this is unis get more advanced and costly they should cost more support.

Re: Happiness Model:

though not as easy as a fix as unit support (which could be implemented in various ways but would still have global unit support as its crux) civs with a roughly equal population should have roughly equal drones reguardless of cities. Also, and this though not completely related to overall happiness, does have direct consequence to the problem. A city should not be able to have more specialists of any kind (i'm mostly refering to doctors/empaths/transcendi) than it has workers (until it's of a huge size like 20+), and a city should always have to have at least one worker.

This would stop people being to escape drone riots at will by simply turning workers into specialists to avoid drones. currently it is possible to ALWAYS avoid growth related drones only using specialists, without units or facilities if you are paying attention. This model would also help enfore the pacifism penalty. Currently a size one city with the only citizen turned into a doctor could support an entire army and suffer no pacifism penalty. With supply crawlers ferryingminerals back it could easily support 10 needle jets which normally would incure 20 drones due to pacifism. Also, pacifism drones like unit support should be global (working in the same way as ineffic. drones do)

Re Growth model:

this is fairly simple...do not base the growth model entirely on food surpluses

I think this is an appropriate place to put these ideas back.

My ideas are not as well defined as yours. They are more overall guidelines to what should be done. I am aware that including all the ideas will be too much. I am merely putting them all in so we can find the best ones and work on them.

-Huge corruption and waste for cities far away from the capital (I think SMAC did ok here).

-Less control over cities far away. This would especcially work before the industrial revolution, and could mean that you were not in control of what was being built in a distant city, and that you might only get a percentage of it's tax revenue. You could enforce your dominion by sending troops built in your core area to the city. This could be pretty frequent for cities far away.

-I like the concept of some sort of bureaucracy points. These would be an expence on your national budget. The more bureaucracy points you have the lower the chance is for revolt, and the more control you can have over cities far away. But the more cities you have the more of these points would be required. So a large empire wouldn't just mean that the periphery cities were more or less useless. It would be a very large expence on your national budget, forcing you to raise taxes, which could create even more unhappyness plus it could reduce your research rate. This concept is far from perfect, but an advanced version of it could be implemented in Civ3, making the game more exciting. This could also help setting back very large civs in research, which could help smaller powers to take over.

-The chance of civil wars raised if you were a large civ. The chance would be even higher if you had a very polarised civ (like great difference between the individual cities in wealth etc), which would also be more likely in a large civ.

-Being a large civ would require more units around the world. If the cost of units would be both raw materials, food, credits and perhabs labour a large army could be really expensive, also in your national budget. This could cause unhappyness and less research due to raised taxes.

-CTP's State of Alert could be implemented (this is among the things I like about CTP), but better. There should be 3 or more levels of alert - low, medium and high. If set on low your units would get their attack/defence rates halfed. This would make them pretty useless. If set on medium their rates would be 3/4 of usual, and on high they would be normal. However, on high an average amount of units could cost perhabs 40-50% of your country's labour and gross income plus loads of raw materials (of cause decided by the amount of units you have)! This would make that REALLY expensive, and therefor only workable in a serious war. The major downside for large civs should be, that these would be significantly slower at moving between these states of alert. If you have 150 cities the time to go from low to high could be 20-30 turns! For a small civ with 15 cities this could be reduced to 1-2 turns. This way large civs could be not only unstabile, but unflexible, and would make it possible for a small civ to win a war against a large one before the large can set it's SoA to the high level.

-Better AI. Small civs should make alliances with each other if they were attacked by a large one.

-Cities should grow faster in modern times. This way cities made in 1800 wouldn't be useless.

-Every civilization should spend part of its research points on education, just to preserve the knowledge it has: a larger civ should always spend/pay more on education just to ensure that no knowledge disappears; if it spends too little, doesn't have enough libraries, advances/knowledge will disappear (like a substantial part of the knowledge of the Romans after the Great Migration); as it has more people in it, it needs more administrators, more priests, more lawyers, more scientists just to run the empire!

-When building units conscription of the troops and manufacturing of the weapons should be divided (units would require real people from the cities, so cities should consist of people, not heads). But would it be wise policy for the Mongols in China to arm the subjected native population? Of course not! So you would have to conscript people that were loyal to you. This would make it hard to build a large army in a civ based on conquest, as you could only build loyal units in assimilated cities. Assimilation should take a lot of time, determined by the happyness of the city and how you treat it.

-When researching advances should spread slowly across your empire (with a speed of maybe 3). Cities who didn't have an advance couldn't produce things requiring this, and it couldn't help researching an advance which required one they didn't have. This would mean that a large part of your civ could end up not helping you with research. With the discovery of advanced flight this would no longer be, as all cities would get an advance immediately.

-There should be far more advances, so many that one civ could not research them all. This would mean that you would have to have good relations with some civs, and trade advances with these. This would also mean that large isolated civs would stagnate, as they couldn't trade advances with anyone (this would solve the China-stagnation problem).

As for the distance among the cities, we can require a lower limit for the squares allocated for a megalopolis (let's say 70). If the 4 cities overlaps too many squares the total squares will be less than 70 and they cannot merge.

Civ is trying to resemble real world mechanics as much as possible, and your Ideas are on the right track. Xin Yu's idea also has support in real world(Tokyo-Yokohama etc.).

i just typed for 45 minutes in responce to your megalopolis model. my internet messed up on me and lost my message. needless to say i am extreamly mad...however after running the numbers, the 40 size one cities still beats a size 40 megalopolis.

40 cities still produce more food and minerals than a size fourty megalopolis, they also produce more labs, the megalopolis produces more energy but not enough to make up for the superior minerals of the 40 cities. also the fourty cities still grow ten times faster than the megalopolis. and they still support ten times more units for free than the megalopolis does.

also if a perfectionist strategy is pursued by a player of equal skill against a player of equal skill who is pursuing an ISC strategy, then the ICS player will win, especially if megalopolis are added into the mix. an ICS player might not be able to turn all of his cities into a megalopolis but he could definantly cobble one or two together in the core of his empire with lots of little cities left over, compared to one or two megalopolis representing the entire perfectionist empire.

another fallacy of the megalopolis idea is that it doesn't stop ICS or offer any solutions for it during the earliest stages of the game when ICS is by far the strongest. by the time your megalopolis idea comes into play the person pursuing the ICS strategy is already firmly in control of the game, and can probably take advantage of megalopolis first.

going ICS doesn't mean that you purposely try to keep your cities at size one. it means early game you just keep on building colonly pods and expanding your empire like crazy...soon the first colonies you established stop building colony pods. they are the core of your empire. outside of the core you have your provinces churing out more colony pods. all of your cities are bringing in money, which you use to finance rapid infrastructure construction. so they can quickly catch the perfectionist in infrastructure. also small cities grow quickly especially with pop booms and can once again catch the perfectionist strategy. ICS gives a player the tech advantage early game to the perfectionist player. megalopolis does nothing to address this.

also is there one square on the map that represents your megalopolis? if so then a player could quickly capture your size 40 megalopolis with a sneak chop and drop attack.

so in summary, i think your idea does not stop ICS, in fact i think it encourages ICS. i also think it adds in new exploits and abuses.

in responce to your ideas...

corruption: leaving it alone like you suggest sounds pretty good

less control in farflung territories: i do not like this idea because it clashes with gameplay...it is like the computer purposely puts your bases on govenor, that would make me want to break the game

bureaucracy points: could you give me more examples of this idea? it sounds really intriguing. i think this could be an innovative solution that solves the ICS problem

civil wars: i am an ARDENT supporter of this idea. that is eactly why i made suggestions about the proportions of workers to entertainers. if my idea is implemented it would make it harder to control "incubating cities" which are an invariable aspect of ICS...incubating cities are cities which have everybody turned into doctors until you have enough money to rush build a recreation commons.

quote: this is my workers to specialist idea. cities size 1-4 should have to have a worker for each specialist and should have to have at least one worker. cities size 5-20 should have to have a minimum of 3 workers and at least one worker for every two specialists. cities size 21+ should have to have a minimum of seven workers and that is the only restriction on them.

additionally losing your HQ should make a large number of cities revolt.

more units for a large city: i do not agree with this idea. for one thing it is easier for a large ICS civ to have and support lots of units. for another thing it would give them a large army to crush the little guys with.

State of Alert: this idea could work well, or could totally disrupt the balance of the game. I like the way it gives a small civ flexablity over a larger civ. however the high tech civs could stay on medium and never have to go high to high alert. or they could build cheap garrison units that cost little supply as the mainstay of their force and use a small high-tech multi-attack (nerve gas copters) armored spearhead to crush their enemies.

better AI: GREAT IDEA! this is one idea i always support

faster growth for current era: encourages ICS unfortunantly

losing tech: GREAT IDEA! i love this idea!

assimilation: i agree that assimilation should take a while, but i don't entirely agree with your ideas...but they could work

research spreads slowly: it's a novel idea but i think it would interfer with game play and wouldn't hurt ICS too much

more advances: it is not a solution to ICS

in summary, i think these ideas that you suggested hold the most promise to ending ICS.

1. bureaucracy points
2. civil wars
3. State of Alert
4. losing tech
5. assimilation

add in some of my ideas

global unit support
unhapiness not determined just by city
global pacifism penalties
minimum number of specialists

and one new idea

military units, except for the most basic military units, cannot be built unless a city has the appropriate facilities

and you have gone a long way to Fix ICS

please The Joker, could you discuss more about your five ideas? i feel that those ideas hold the most promise in killing ICS

also here is something to consider, in Alpha Centauri there is an assimilation period that lasts 50 turns, during that period their is increased drone riots and the city looks like the enemy you captured it from, there are also other things about it like the enemy can buy it back cheaper. now i think taking your assimilation idea and adding it to SMACs already established model. basically you couldn't build military units out of those cities for at least 25 turns (as time passes in SMAC the penalties go down) does that sound good?

A group unit=5 units but only costs 4 times of a single unit, and needs only 1 shield support. Moreover, if an ordinary unit is killed, it is out, but a group unit can be killed 4 times and recover as new (reduce the chance of stack-kill). The superiority of the group unit will render all units built from ordinary cities obselete. Hence, even the shield production of 40 small cities is larger than a size 40 megalopolis, they are of no use at all if building units.

I wouldn't worry about defensing a megalopolis against ordinary units. With a barracks a group unit can be fully recovered in one turn even after being killed 4 times. If I have 3 vet fortified group pikemen I should be able to hold the city against 15 crusaders.

For the food problem, a megalopolis can build a group settler unit, which costs 4 times an ordinary settler's shields, but only deduce the entire population by 1 and eat 1 or 2 food per turn. When building a city, the unit settler will give an instant size 5 city, which may have a temple and a marketplace already built.

If an ICS player keeps on expanding without building towards megalopolis he will face superb units which will wipe out his entire empire easily. Thus, sooner or later he must build city improvements.

for one thing you are wrong about the megalopolis making all other units obsolete. there is an attack to defend ratio advantage in Civ2 and SMAC. in civ2 there are some times when it doesn't exist but in SMAC the 2-1 attack to defend ratio always exists and many times its 13 to 3 attack defend ratio (shard against plasma). so basically your megalopolis unit is just five ordinary units, which a copter could kill in one turn. and once again chop and drop rules the late game.

with each new post of yours you increase the power of the megalopolis and you never address any of my concerns. the megalopolis idea does not stop ICS. i use ICS in SMAC, it is my strategy. to play any other way is foolish. there comes a certain point when i stop expanding because i can't take the micromanagement. i know how to use ICS to full advantage, so i try to limit what i know works.

your idea just keeps on making ICS look more and more attractive. you can easily expand early and then use the power of population booms (we love the presidents day) to quickly build the industrial might and population size of your ICS empire. a competant player with 4 size two cites can easily catch up to a player with 2 size four cities, if the size four city person doesn't go on a mass ICS expansion streak of their own. building lots of early colony pods then going for a megalopolis in your core cities won't slow you down very much. then who ever gets megalopolis first rule the game...with the cheap super settlers in four turns your could build four large cities and be well on the way to starting a new megalopolis.

it would work like this. i ICS and get a megalopolis first...if i have a space to build a new megalopolis on and it is connected by railroads then in eight or nine turns i can have a new megalopolis. all the while your idea does not stop ICS it encourages it. with the super settlers it would easily make the IMS (infinite megalopolis sprawl) a new term that civ4 would have to fix.

First, I would add that I for one am against any artificial rule that penalizes a player for practicicing ICS. ICS needs to be treated at the root, not the stem. Some of the good ideas, like bureaucracy points are suspect for that reason. Once you start inventing intangible commodities like "bureaucracy points" it feels artificial. Not saying I know for sure it's wrong, I just know it's a step in the wrong direction.

State of alert -- again, artificial. Why should a huge nation take 20 to 30 turns to mobilize when the US did it in about a year in mid-twentieth century? It's another good idea that for me approaches being a false penalty.

Civil wars, as always, a must. Great idea.
Losing tech -- this is a genius idea, so long as there is an advance that will make you immune to it. Otherwise it becomes a false penalty well before you approach the modern.

So that's an idea of what I mean by not imposing any false penalties on the problem of ICS. The perfect Civ 3 would allow for ICS to happen in theory, but it would require a great deal of skill.

Second, and importantly, ICS is not in and of itself the problem. The main problem of ICS is the units ICS allows the player to spawn at below the average support cost to those not practicing ICS.

Other issues such as the happiness model are secondary to the unit support problem, in that the latter can make you unfairly lose the game. It's just too easy to mass large armies for less, when one practices ICS.

Third thing I want to introduce into the discussion is what I've been talking about elsewhere -- the fact the energy resources have not been adequately modeled in the game. I've said this in the Energy thread, and in the Energy Barrel model I proposed. The gist of it is, if you want more it must cost you more, not less.

The whole idea is to reduce the growth rate of ICS from geometric to arithmetic. An ICS player cannot afford to keep on building settlers in all of his cities, so probably he will take the following strategy: from 4 cities (A1-A4), build 4 settlers who build 4 more cities (B1-B4), then STOP building settlers in A1-A4 (they must go for megalopolis), but only build settlers in B1-B4 then build C1-C4, etc. The key is, the growth rate is arithmetic. Of course this will beat a player who never build any settlers and only grow A1-A4. Any strategy will beat a player who stops expansion so early.

A megalopolis takes a lot longer time to become a gold mine for your empire (tons of improvements needs to be built in order to get the best from it), so a player may want to grow a megalopolis to its maximum rather than build another one. Further, since a megalopolis needs at least 70 squares, you can only build several, so you need to build them in good places--carefully planned to maximize each megalopolis's potential.

As for the military, think about a duel between 5 crusaders+5 pikemen vs. 1 group crusader+1 group pikemen. The 5 crusaders attack 1 group pikemen: 4 win, the group pikemen still alive; the group crusader attack 5 pikemen 5 times: 1 wins, all gone.

A good wonder for this would be the "World Wide Web" or "Internet" (whichever). What better way to keep information than with the information superhighway? The Wonder would build an improvement (like a research lab) in every city (similar to SETI, Pyramids, and Great Wall) Then a civ can also build that improvement in cities which would reduce the effect of lack of information. I have no idea what the prereq. should be so feel free to take my idea and add to it.

The idea of overcrowding in CTP was good but ill-implemented by affecting only happiness.

Only an overcrowded city should be allowed to build proper settlers which can sucessfully settle.

We may check from our city list about which cities are overcrowded and select one or more cities to build a unit of settler.

Historically, Greeks did advertise among their cities to settle a new colony on specific area.

Not all cities were founded by this way and most of them were actually grown to cities from mere villages.

That's why we need to differentiate the status of our settlement like this;

Village
Town
City
Megalopolis

When a settler settles, it should make a village not a city.

It is natural that people feel secure when they live in bigger size village because it reduces the dangers of outside invasion or even attack from wild beasts. So small size villagers would not feel happy to be splited from their fellow villagers. As long as the food and water supply are alright,they will grow to the town status.

The behaviours of villagers,townees and citizens should vary by acting differently when they are faced to build a unit of settler.

Basically, villagers like to see more people
for growth of the village so they will hardly join the settler group.(should takes ages to build a settler from a village-should be treated differently from production capacity)

Citizens are sick of seeing people so they will happily join the settler(should takes little time to build a settler)

Townees' behaviour will be somewhat between above two groups.

Also there should be production and trade penalty for being low status dwelling.

Only city status should be allowed to have complex social class,trade and production boost by specialisation of working class.

Many villages or town owned empire like Russia should suffer enormously from the production,trade and science penalty whereas other big city based western European nations are more efficient at production,trade and science even though the total population of Russia is bigger than those of western European nations.

ie)
Great Britain: 5 20-sized cities. Total pop.100
Russian Empire: 40 5-sized Towns. Total pop.200

City production bonus 100%
City Trade bonus 150%
City Science bonus 200%(none to village)
Town production bonus 50%
Town Trade bonus50%
Town science bonus25%
Village has no bonus

British total production:200 Trade:250 Science:300
Russian total production:300 Trade:300 Science:250

Considering the Russians have twice more pop. than the British, the outcome is quite amazing.

So what about the differnce between cities and towns regarding the rate of pop. growth? Well, townees tend to have more childrens than citizens do so their birthrate will exceed that of citizens. So still towns have the advantages hah? later they can be all cities anyway in the current model of the game.

That's why we need to add an migration factor to population growth.

Townees and villagers should admire the lifestyle of citizens so they will migrate to nearby cities. Mortality should be higher in villages and Towns due to lack of health care. But during the early stage of the game cities are also vulnerable from epidemics.

overall:
1.Higher pop. growth but also higher mortality rate for villages and towns than those of cities(unstable growth)
2.lower pop. growth and mortality rate for cities(Steady growth)
3.Production,trade and science bonus to cities.
4.Harder pop. control unless you are in charge of extreme totalitarian regime.(no forced migration or settlement)

Ah! another point.
AI-controlled setter which is made in villages so they will choose suitable site for the settlement. After the settlement we can establish our authority to the new village.(Small scale migrations are not government led in thoroughout history!)
Only city-borne settlers should be directly controlled by us(makes sense when we think government-led large scale migration)

I think this should be delt with, and I also think that cities should have a real population in stead of thos ugly heads.

Youngsun:
I totally agree with your ideas. I myself have posted an idea like yours (that you are not in complete control over your expansion), but it never became as developed as yours. It would be great to have it included.

korn:
Thanks for your responce.

Bureaucracy points:
They would work as an expence on your national budget, like the city improvements. Each city would increase the amount required for the BP. You would decide how much to be spent on it, but the more you do spend, the smaller is the chance of a civil war. I think the civil wars cost by lack of BP's should be only small ones where a few cities (like 5-15% of your cities) break away. The large ones would be more crucial and would be caused by more important reasons (like nationalism or a general discontent with your SE settings or policy - check out raingoons "CIVilians: the next best thing that civ never had" thread for info on how this could be done). The BPs should work so that it wouldn't be more catastrophic to lack them than that you would accept to spare some if you're truly f***** in a war or something. This would mean that if you have 1 BP per city, the chance of each city (preferably the periphery ones) to try to break apart from your civ would be like 10% (this would be catastrophic if you have. If you spend 2 BP per city the chance would be down to 5%. If you use 10 BP per city the chance would be down to something like 0,05%. I don't think you should be able to be totally sure not to ever get a civil war (I don't think you should have any security in civ3 - no matter how many troops you garrison in a conquored city there should always be a very small chance of it breaking up).

These BPs would mean, that a huge empire with small cities would be a huge cost on your national budget. I think this alone could solve ICS (although I still think there are other problems in Civ2 that it can't solve alone), as an empire with 40 size 1 cities would never work out - it would be far too expensive, forcing you to have an unusually high tax rate, setting you back in research.

I must say that I don't quite understand how your idea would solve ICS...

More units for a large civ: I didn't mean this as a sollution for ICS. I meant it as a way to make the power balance of the world be dynamic, meaning that the most powerful civ at one point in the game wouldn't stay that forever. A way to make this happend is, that being a large civ would need a lot of units stationed around the world (to help your allies, defend your protectorates, a large navy to defend your valuable energy trade routes etc). This would all cost money, which would give you less research and therefor make it possible for you to be surpassed by a less militaristic civ. I am not saying that is should be impossible to stay a large civ throughout the game, just that it should be very dificult.

Of cause the SoA should be done well to work. A smaller civ should be able to change from low to medium instantly, and technology would make the change faster for everybody. I agree that it should be possible for an advanced civ to wage short blitzkriegs without having to move away from low SoA.

I am aware that faster growth for modern cities will encourage ICS, but it is very realistic, and will make the Rise and fall of great Powers more possible.

Research spread: This does totally damage ICS. Imagine having a huge 100 city civ, but only 20 of these can actually make the legion unit that you need as the advance required haven't reached them yet!

More advances would not be a sollution to ICS, but would make good relations with some civs crucial, and would therefor hurt the huge conquestorial civs.

Assimilation: This should definately be included, but I think it should be done by including nationalism, and not just have it so that after x turns a city is assimilated. Assimilation should be gradual, and determined by your actions against the ethnicity the city belongs to, the happyness in the city, the use of police, the amount of improvements you build in the city etc. A city should be able to concist of 20% americans, 70% Germans and 10% Russians.

Xin Yu:
I think the megalopolis could be done (although not with all your extreme bonuses), but that stack of 5 units is completely silly. It has nothing to do with reality, and in the end it would simply mean that everybody walked around with those supertroopers. It would destreoy the balance and the realism of the game, and as it has no function I don't at all see why it should be included.

raingoon:
I do not at all agree with you. Bureaucracy points are not artificial. Of cause a huge civ need to spend much more money on bureaucracy to make it all function. And that includes penalties.

And the SoA is also realistic. Of cause there is a difference between being at war and being at peace. Civs in war use LOADS of money, production etc on the war and therefor not on other things. And of cause a very large civ takes longer to mobilize the army. I agree that technology has made this change faster, but it still excists.

Losing tech: I agree that this should no longer be after some national project (Orange seems to be on to something here).

The most intelligent thing you wrote in your post was definately that ICS should be possible, but require a lot of skill. I completely agree on this, as I think, that it should be possible to have a huge civ that actually stays huge for 1000s of years. But it should be very, VERY hard.

you're on to something!!!

quote: I think one of the major reasons why ICS is a problem is, that growth rates in small cities is larger than that in large ones. As population growth is exponential this is totally against reality

in Alpha Centauri, this means that one size twenty city takes 400 nutrients to grow to size 21, while it only takes 20 nutrients for a size one city to grow to size two, unfortunantly, this also means that it takes 400 nutrients for twenty size one cities to grow to size two. so in effect, for the same amount of food, one civ gets 20 new citizens while another civ get one new citizen.

that is a problem
sloution: new idea read below

also support based on cities is a problem, because unless all civs had +3 support, smaller bases provide much greater support per citizens than a large base does. given the most extream example, you have 20 size one bases and one size 20 base. each civ has one hundred units they must support. if the ICS civ had -2 support and the perfectionist civ had +2 support, it would cost the ICS civ 80 minerals to support its forces while it would cost the perfectionist civ 96 minerals to support it forces. if the situation was reversed it would cost the perfectionist civ 99 minerals to support it focres for 20 minerals. if both were at zero support it would cost the perfectionist civ 98 minerals to support its forces while it would cost the ICS civ 60 minerals to support its forces.

that is a problem
solution: support happens globaly instead of city by city

at each and every population size it is better to have many size one bases instead of one large base from a production stand point.

that is a problem
solution: make the base square yeild 1-0-4 (would that help or hurt?)

from 4-20 citizens it always better to have size one bases than it is to have size a 20 bae when it comes to dealing with drone riots.

that is a problem
solutions: my previous ideas about specialists and drones are based on total population, not city population

so here is a solution to those problems.

Joker, you inspired my new idea...

1. make the nutrient cost of getting a new citizens cost the same reguardless of city size. This would solve the exponential growth problem. Also larger cities would grow faster than smaller cities. I would say make the cost of a new citizen be 40 nutrients (food). This would slow down expansion during the early game when ICS is at its strongest, and later on when cities got larger their growth would increase.

here is a sub idea to this...

in order to make growth not be totally based on nutrients and your growth rate in the SE chart, you could make the base cost nutrient cost of a unit be based on the happiness of a city. In a normal city the base cost would be 40 nutrients. In a "happy" city the base cost of getting a new citizens would be 30 nutrients, and in an "unhappy" city, the base cost of getting a new citizen would be 50 nutrients.

does anyone see any problems with this change? what exploits and pitfalls would it cause? would it be a better system that what civ has now? i think it would, how about you?

Bureaucracy Points -- I'm coming around to this. I didn't understand it exactly at first. But if I understand you correctly, essentially it is "political currency," the cost the central government pays to exert control over its periphery.

Your point about energy being moved around in trade sounds great to me -- why isn't it in my model?? Could you post a brief summary of what you mean in the EC3 Energy New Idea thread for Energy? I would love to incorporate it.

Also, you're right about Energy not solving the problem until the industrial age. I still like it, but it is not enough.

Korn469,

I like what you're saying about changing the nutrient model.

I Until the introduction of water works around 1850 nearly all cities on this planet had a mortality rate higher than its birth rate and were much more vulnerable to epidemics. Sanitary conditions were always bad or exceptionally bad. Cities could only retain their population figures or grow due to constant migration of rurals to the city. This does also explain why only a few political, religious or economic centres had populations above 100,000. As soon as the centre of power or wealth shifted to another centre the old capitol declined. Most cities were of a parasitic character!

Most towns before 1700AD never passed the 40,000. As an illustration a list of all British and French cities with a population above 28,000 inhabitants in 1700 AD:
Paris ~530,000
Marseille 88,000
Lyon 71,000
Rouen 68,000
Lille 55,000
Torino 43,000 (temporarily conquered)
Bordeaux 42,000
Nantes 42,000
Orleans 41,000
Toulouse 40,000
Caen 37,000
Angers 35,000
Amiens 35,000
Dijon 34,000
Tours 33,000
Metz 30,000
Strasbourg 28,000

London ~550,000
Dublin 80,000
Edinburgh 35,000
Norwich 29,000
So in the British isles only four cities exceeded this number!

Some other figures just for comparison, all 1700 AD:
Amsterdam 172,000
Leiden 62,000
Rotterdam 51,000
Haarlem 48,000
the Hague 29,000
Holland was the most urbanized region of the world, more than half the population dwelling in cities!

Brussel 70,000
Kopenhagen 62,000
Stockholm 48,000
Roma 149,000
Venezia 144,000
Firenze 69,000
Napoli 207,000
Palermo 113,000
Milano 124,000
Lisboa 188,000
Madrid 110,000
Hamburg 70,000
Koln 39,000
Ličge 36,000
Wien 105,000
Prag 48,000
Danzig 50,000
Moskwa 130,000, the only Russian city above 28,000
Constantinople ~700,000, at that moment the largest city in the world

Mexico City 100,000
Potosí 95,000
Oruro 72,000
Puebla 63,000
Lima 37,000
In North America (later US and Canada) no city at this date exceeded 20,000!

Cairo ~350,000
Tripoli 50,000
Meknes ~200,000
Algiers 85,000
Tunis 75,000
Gondar 80,000 (in Ethopia)

In Asia we find quite a few really large cities:
Beijing ~650,000
Isfahan ~600,000
Yedo ~500,000
Delhi ~500,000
Ahmedabad ~380,000
Osaka ~370,000
Kyoto ~350,000
Canton ~300,000
Nanking ~300,000
Hangchow 292,000
Soochow 245,000
Dacca ~200,000
Surat ~200,000
Hyderabad ~200,000
Patna 170,000
Seoul 170,000
Sian 167,000
Ayutia 150,000
Tabriz 150,000

In sum there were only about fourty (40!) cities on this planet in 1700AD exceeding the 100,000! There were a lot of smaller centres, but the rural population dwarfed the townspeople.

II about colonization by settlers
Organized colonization by settlers was quite exceptional and didn't occur voluntarily. The Greek migration period from the 8th-6th century BC was the result of enormous population pressure: the land couldn't feed all mouths so to avert disaster it was the only choice!
Of course unorganized migration by wandering nomads has occurred from the beginning. Originally we do all descend out of Africa!

As for far flung empires, why not just have distant colonies be more vulnerable to independence?

Growth: the nutrient(food) box should be the same size for all cities, and once that food box gets filled the city grows in size. I propose that this nutrient box be size 40 nutrients(food). This is the growth box.

In a side note, after building a granery, cities should be able to direct some of their food into another box. This box can hold up to ten (maybe 15 or 20) food per citizen. This represents the stored food in your city. If for any reason you run out of food in the growth box, then your city will drawn on food stockpiled in this granery box. This will allow you to stockpile food in case of sieges, droughts, famines, ect. Until the discovery of refrigeration, a very small percentage of the food in this box will be lost to decay. Maybe one unit of nutrients per turn.

Support: The amount of free support generated by your empire should be based on three things. One is population. Two is support generating facilities. Three is your civs Social Engineering Support level. Your SE Support level would act as a modifier to the first two categories. Units would not be supported by cities. Instead your civ would generate a number of support units based on the three categories. Each unit would cost so many support points. After your civ had exceeded the number of support points it generated, then shields from random bases would be converted into support points. SE Support leves would determine exactly how many support points each shield would generate. This process would happen automatically and the player would not be involved in it. Support generating facilites should be military structures (barracks) and advanced manufactoring structures (factories).

Production: The base square's production should change as the city increased in size. At first it would produce food-shields-money, then as the city grew larger (size five perhaps) it would produce food-no shields-more money then when it got even biger it would produce no food-no shields-even more money.

Also when a city builds an advanced manufactoring facility it should add in another production slot. So that a civ that had a nanoreplicator could make two units at the same time. A city that had a nanoreplicator and a quantum converter could produce three units at the same time.

Happiness: For cities size 1-4 there should have to be one worker for each pysch specialist, with there always having to be one worker. If the worker was discontent(a drone) then the city would riot and revolt. For larger cities, size 5-20 there would have to be one worker for every two specialist, with a minimum number of three workers. If these workers were discontent they would riot and revolt. For the largest cities, size 21+ there should be a minimum number of seven workers but an unlimited number of specialists. If the workers were discontent the city would riot and revolt. Now only police, happiness spending, or happiness facilities could pacify this minimum number of workers. They could not be turned into happiness or any other kind of specialists.

Additionally, as your empire increases the number of cities under its control there should be a chance for these cities to spontaneously revolt or declare their independednce, even if they are not in a state of riot. The cities the longest distance from the capital would be most likely to declare their independence.

firaxis that would end ICS.

Introduce Disease!!!!

I am not sure what to do with the base square... It is more or less a must-have for the newly found city. I think that if Firaxis can solve ICS etc by other means I would rather keep the base square, but I am not quite sure.

I like your new growth model alot. It is both realistic, it can help solve ICS and it includes that growth should not be based on food entirely. Maybe include trade too (cities with lots of trade has shown to grow faster) by taking the amount of trade in the city divided by the pop and set into some model so that a city with lots of trade would grow faster. Just a suggestion.

When summarizing, what have you done with all my ideas?

raingoon:
I guess I'll do that.

Theben:
I don't think giving advanced cities the possibility to build two things at the same time would solve anything. If it means that the production of the city is divided into two pools, then it would not be good at all. I would much rather have a tank in 10 turns and one in 20 turns than having 2 in 20 turns...

Why would centralization make BPs obsolete? I am for both centralization AND BPs, but I think they can complement each other.

sorry i didn't have much time to sum up all things (going out on a date)...like i said at the beginning of the post, i was summing up some things

the more i think about it the more that i think leaving the base square untouched is the only way to go, a necessary evil

in my next summary i will in clude SoA, losing tech, assimilation, bureaucracy, energy and then an idea S.Kroeze gave me

that maximum food production should definantly be capped until the industrial age to slow growth...in the industrial age food production would go way up so that population could do the same thing

One word, really -- GERMS. I've been reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel," a book about why civilization evolved down the peculiar paths it did, and why North American Indians, say, did not discover Spain in 1492, rather than the other way around.

Very interesting. But truly profound is the effect that germs have had on population growth and migration over the years. The title of the book is no accident -- germs are right there alongside guns for exactly the reason you would think.

1) eternal expansion

To solve this problem I want to propose my own version of the "bureaucracy points" idea. It involves an administration costs. Put simply, each city (the capital city would be exempt), proportional to its population, would require a certain amount of money to be paid from the national budget. This administration cost would vary depending on the government type. The more totalitarian your gvt was, the higher the administration costs would be. Expansion should not be impossible but it would require careful planning. Also, administration costs would simulate managing an empire pretty well, so it would deal with the discussion about how to portray the rise and fall of empires. If you could not pay the cost for a city, that city's loyalty would decrease until you resumed payment or it would eventually revolt and declare independance.
(note: the specific amount for the administration cost could easily be changed by the user in a .txt file. You could increase it to make expansion harder, if you wanted a challenge, or even set the cost at 0 to "turn off" this rule)
The main advantage of this idea is that it is fairly easy to implement since it is similar to the maintenance cost for city improvements. And, it simulates empire management pretty well.

2) small cities being better than large ones.

The simplest way to make a village less "useful" than a larger city is through an accurate pop growth method. Let's say for example that each "farmer" citizen produces enough food for 1.5 citizens. This means that 2 farmers produce food for 3 citizens. This would mean that a city of pop 3, would have two citizens producing food and one citizen free to do something else (like building a city improvement). But a city of pop 2 could only produce food. Therefore, under this example, a city of 2 or less pop would be unable to produce things until it grew. So for example, 12 cities of pop 1 could only produce food for themselves, compared to 1 city of pop 12 which would have 4 citizens free to build something or wage war. So, a player would want to build up the population rather than just settle new cities. Especially that you could only send out a new settler once you had a "free" citizen. So, with the previous example, only a size 3 city could send out its first settler.
The number of people that one citizen could feed would increase with certain technologies. it might be 1.2 for example at the beginning of the game but in modern times it might 3.5 (one "farmer" citizen can feed 3.5 citizens). Like in reality, in modern times the percentage of your pop that has to produce food for the rest would be smaller and smaller.

3) supporting units

It has been said before but I think a unit should require food, gold and shields as support, not just shields. This is a realistic limit on unit production. Furthermore, the number of units a city can support should be limited by the total pop. How can a city have a larger army than its total population ?!

last, I think that disease should definitely be modeled in civ3. It could be a random event.

Tying disease to climate is a singularly smart idea and right on the money. It's just one of those things that should be in the game, somehow. It really happened that way and nobody realizes how important it really was to civilization's development (or lack thereof).

a base square generates nothing on its own, but it would add a matching amount of resources up to 3-3-3

here is what i mean

if you have a person working on a 0-0-0 square the base square would produce 0-0-0

if you had a person working on a 1-0-2 square the base square would add 1-0-2

if you had two people working on a 1-2-1 and a 3-0-1 square respectively then the base square would produce 3-2-2

if you had 20 population each working a 5-2-3 square then the base square would add 3-3-3

that system would solve lots of problems...i will put up a new summary later tonight with most of the new ideas incorporated into it

could you explain your idea better? i do not understand what you mean when you say 2x production do you mean on a per square basis? even if you did cap the per square productivity at 3-3-3 this could lead to two problems...

one is that if productivity was capped at 3-3-3 per square all of the squares would become very similar and civ3 would suffer from SMAC's big problem...that you basically only need one set of tile improvements (forests)

the second problem is that while the base square is needed, a big ramp up in total base output is not needed

the diplomat

my idea has as much to do with the real life as any civ game does...absolutely nothing

the basic problem is that the base square is needed for little cities to do anything

the goal of this thread is to solve the problem of ICS but not introduce a new problem...namely that the super city strat would become best

ok if a worker works the base square, and it only yeilds 2 food, then a city could never grow...if it yeilded three food, then every size one city would grow at the exact same rate, in fact if every first worker had to work the base square then every single size one city would be identical...which should not be the case

the best part of my idea is that the way it works, there are some locations that could not support cities at first until some form of irragation takes place...my idea would introduce a great deal of variety in size 1-3 cities, much more than either having a normal base square like in civ2 or having the base square being worked by the first worker

here is an comparison of my idea to SMAC (i forgot how much a base square in Civ2 produces) and to the diplomats idea

the wastelands: each square produces 0-1-0

my idea, a worker produces 0-0-0, the base square produces 0-0-0, the city will die of starvation

SMAC, the worker produces 0-0-0, the base square produces 2-1-1...the city experiances no growth

the diplomats idea, the worker produces 2-1-1, the city experiances no growth

the badlands: each square produces 1-1-1

my idea, the worker produces 1-1-1, the base square produces 1-1-1, there is no growth

SMAC, the worker produces 1-1-1, the base square produces 2-1-1, the city will grow in 40 turns

the diplomat's idea, the worker produces 2-1-1, the city experiances no growth

green pastures: each square produces 2-2-2

my idea, the worker produces 2-2-2, the base square produces 2-2-2 the city will grow in 20 turns

SMAC, the worker produces 2-2-2, the base square produces, 2-1-1 the city will grow in 20 turns

the diplomats idea, the worker produces 2-1-1, the city experiances no growth

the fertile cresent: each square produces 3-3-3

my idea, the worker produces 3-3-3, the base square produces 3-3-3, the city will grow in 7 turns

SMAC, the worker produces 3-3-3, the base square produces 2-1-1, the city will grow in ten turns

the diplomat's idea, the worker produces 2-1-1, the city experiances no growth

my aim is not to base my solution on real life, but it is to base my solution to ICS on good game play fundamentals...