I'd appreciate if people could share examples of ICS.

[Kirov]

No idea what was built in the bases (was not my game). The screenshot is from an old thread on Apolyton. AFAIK, the save game was never posted.

  Thanks Petek, this is precisely the image I was looking for to show Yitzi an ICS! It was from years ago, I couldn't find it! But yeah, you nailed it. This ICS does look crazy, probably what Skynet or some Lord Mechatron would create. Who did that? Did you find the thread?

Anyhow, Happy New Year, SMACers! 

[Petek]

I also remembered that screenshot, from 2004 as it turns out. Some creative Googling found this thread. The screenshot is from Skanky Burns' post #5. The graphic no longer displays, but quoting the post gives its URL.

Happy New Year!

[Buster's Uncle]

Ah.  Got it to display.

[Earthmichael]

I do not believe ICS is an optimal strategy.  I was hoping to find some time to write up a detailed analysis of this, but have been too busy for now.

Just for a quick comparison, compare cities that are spaced so that each city works 20 squares, verses each city working 4 squares (ICS):

1. Given the multipliers that facilities can add to each city, you want to make sure all of these multipliers are built.  It seems that most ICSers do not do this, which makes no sense to me at all.  How can it be a good idea to not build facilties to boost energy and minerals by 200+%?

2. For the ICS case, you need 5x as many facilities to accomplish the same effect, since you have 5x as many cities.  This increases the initial production cost, as well as the maintenance cost, by 5x.  For this, you get the extra city resources, which is typically something like 3/2/6, which is not nearly enough to offset the extra building and maintenance cost.

3. Once I popboom (either with +6 growth or better yet cloning vats), I can acheive the maximum city size fairly quickly.

4. In the early game, I can achieve better results by spacing my bases for best use of the starting terrain, without worrying about ICS spacing.  In the late game, I am better off with large bases cover 20 squares, than small bases covering 4 squares.

Summary: So other than ICS looking kind of intersting, if it is not the best choice for either early game or late gate, why bother?

[Mart]

There was much said about ICS. How ICS works is complex, I was in games, where ICS'ers were winning. One of reasons is that ICS reduces time between colony pod completion and establishing a new base. Important is speed of development. Established new bases return cost of colony pods quite fast compared to building base facilities and terraforming. Production places are important too - many bases means many units can be completed in one turn.

However, there was one very good player who was winning without ICS. When asked, where he places bases, he replied something like: the spot is most important, it decides a lot if a base could grow fast or not.

ICS was also problem in civ3, iirc, and there were good discussions about it when making civ4. One can find it in forums. Apolyton had them?

[Earthmichael]

I personally have never lost to ICS, and I do not play ICS.  I once did a parallel game (with just AI) doing ICS and non-ICS with the same start.  Although it is true that the close (ICS style) base gets established 2-4 turns sooner than one further away, the further base location is usually picked because it supplies something more, typically 1-2N or 1-2M or 1-2E or some combination.  The 4 turn advantage for establishing sooner gets quickly overcome by the additional resources of the more distant base FOR THE REST OF THE GAME.

I played this parallel game for about 80 turns, and at that point was firmly convinced that the ICS approach was far behind the "terrain exploitation" approach.

I think the analysis is convincing also.  With my large bases I eventually build:

General: Tree Farm/Hybrid Forest - all forests are 3/2/2 with ecodamage eliminated

Minerals: Genejack factory/Robotic Assemby/Quantum Converter/Nanoreplication multiplies minerals by 200%.  That means every forest I work is good for 6 minerals!  Every borehole is worth 18 minerals!

Labs: Network Node, Fusion Lab, Quantum Lab, Research Hospital, Nanohospital multiplies labs by 250%!  How does ICS hope to compete with this research speed?

Econ: Energy Bank, Tree Farm, Hybrid Forest, Fusion Lab, Quantium Lab multiplies econ by 250%!

Psych: Hologram Theatre, Tree Farm, Hybrid Forest, Research Hospital, Nanohospital multiples psych by 250%!  So drone control and even golden age is fairly easy to achieve.

It is also much easier to boost military units built at a base if you have a lot fewer bases to boost.  It is easy to make sure that every unit built at a base gets a minimum of a +4 morale boost, plus fast repair.

Sure, ICS can build a lot of units, but I have found that quality is a lot better than quantity.  For one thing, every until requires support unless it is clean, which boosts the cost of the units built.  Plus as technology advances, with better weapons, armor, chassis, and enhancements, the best units become more expensive to build, but much more effective.  My singularity laser interceptor can typically take out half a dozen fusion interceptors before it is lost, particularly if it starts 4 morale upgrades ahead, and gain another morale upgrade after every 2-3 wins.

Anyway, we could analyze all day, but the proof is in the play.  So I have posted a challenge in the Command Nexus, insulting ICS, and asking if there is anyone who believes in ICS who is man enough to defend the honor of ICS.

So if anyone is willing to champion ICS, then let's settle the matter once and for all!

[Yitzi]

There was much said about ICS. How ICS works is complex, I was in games, where ICS'ers were winning. One of reasons is that ICS reduces time between colony pod completion and establishing a new base. Important is speed of development.

Why is speed of development so important as compared to long-term growth potential?  Just because you can then use crawlers to ramp up early development even more?

Established new bases return cost of colony pods quite fast compared to building base facilities and terraforming.

How so?  Without base facilities or terraforming, the new bases seem they'll be fairly weak as compared to a well-developed base.  You might get an advantage early on, but it'll be weaker later on as the non-ICSer has larger bases (because he's not clumping them.)  And remember of course that building a colony pod costs not only minerals but also a population point.

Production places are important too - many bases means many units can be completed in one turn.

But if they're all smaller, then they'll produce units (especially the more expensive units you encounter later in the game) less often, as compared to higher-production bases.  Why are a lot of small bases substantially stronger than a smaller number of larger bases on the same territory?

[Green1]

I have always thought the evils of ICS when they talk about it in 4x games to be bad because of insane micromanagement and boring mechanics. Not bad because of overpoweredness.

That is the reason designers since after Civ 3 have been trying to kill it with various new gameplay systems.

[Earthmichael]

It is linked to a perception of being overpowered.  People complain because they believe they also have to ICS and do insane amounts of micromangement to be competitive.

If people thought ICS was weak, they would just laugh at people who perform insane amounts of micromanagement to accomplish a decidedly weak strategy.

I think a lot of the problems I saw in Civ 4 were related to this attempt to make expansion overly painful to the point of absurdity, crippling the game.

Was ICS overpowered in Civ 3?  I honestly don't know; I was not interested enough to get good enough at the game to find out, since SMAC was so much more strategic.

But I do not think ICS is overpowered in SMAC.  That is what I would like to prove, so that people don't waste any more time trying to fix ICS in SMAC, and instead can work on more interesting things.

[Yitzi]

But I do not think ICS is overpowered in SMAC.  That is what I would like to prove, so that people don't waste any more time trying to fix ICS in SMAC, and instead can work on more interesting things.

To be fair, a lot of anti-ICS fixes would have other benefits too in terms of balance.

[Green1]

Well, lets look at how more modern games have tackle ICS with my criticsism of each.

Civ 4 instituted a maintainence cost for distance from capital. Beyond the Sword expansion went further with extreme costs if the other cities were on another continent. The happiness system was a direct response to simplifying the corruption system of Civ 3 and the drone revolt system of SMAC.

Civ V does away with all of that to some folk's dismay and other's joy. Civ 5 has global unhappiness countered by resources and added to by number of cities.

Fallen Enchantress only has certain areas which are "fertile" that can be settled. On crowded maps, it is literally a "spam pioneer" (FE's settler/colony maker) and pray contest with the AI. Veteran Civ players, however, did not like only being able to settle certain places and mod map makers have been making maps for them.

But, the underlying theme of all those schools of thought were that, like earthmicheal said, there was a perception that folks were forced to ICS to min/max and was a boring playstyle in all Civ games up to Civ V. It was the micro. Folks got tired of having a popup about a windmill on some crappy tundra just because they had to have X cities to out produce the AI.

Now... I can see where some factions would benifit. Zak has free network nodes every base. More bases = more research. However, Zak has drones. Yang is probably better. Each city is a fortified point you have to bust thru with all those perimeters.

But, even then... that is not going to fly in MP. I have never done MP for Alpha Centauri, but the Civ 4 MP games I have played are mostly smaller maps (time factor). You do not have time to set up all that. You gotta get humping because the other players are far more bloodthirsty that the AI. And those are the scrubs. A very good player like Earthmicheal would probably mop the floor with a turtle ICSer. ICS is mostly a single player deal.

I am with earthmicheal. Terrain exploitation is better than crowding city after city. Probably more fun, too. But if someone wants to ICS since it is mostly a single player strategy, maybe the AI should be adjusted to own folks that try that.

[Mart]

Why is speed of development so important as compared to long-term growth potential?  Just because you can then use crawlers to ramp up early development even more?

Bases in ICS grow also, and they have potential. E.g. establishing a base on flat terrain, maybe moist, 1-0-0, gives you immediately smth like 2-1-1, and this is a "free" worker. If you count additional tiles with 2-1-1, where no population needs to be there working, that adds up to some significant bonus. Several turns earlier established bases also add up to more harvested resources. Colony pods are best made in bases of size 2, since you need only 3 rows of nutrients, and in fact in order to keep population 2 you accumulate only 2 rows of nutrients.

How so?  Without base facilities or terraforming, the new bases seem they'll be fairly weak as compared to a well-developed base.  You might get an advantage early on, but it'll be weaker later on as the non-ICSer has larger bases (because he's not clumping them.)  And remember of course that building a colony pod costs not only minerals but also a population point.

It is about this advantage in early game. MP often were won when someone got first to Air Power, copters and could use chop'n'drop. And itis not, that ICS cannot have bases where non-ICS would have. They can also be later placed in those locations having more tiles to be worked.

But if they're all smaller, then they'll produce units (especially the more expensive units you encounter later in the game) less often, as compared to higher-production bases.  Why are a lot of small bases substantially stronger than a smaller number of larger bases on the same territory?

Yes, that is why ICS is having a condenser for food and crawler for minerals/energy. And there are satellites later. Map size counts too. Larger maps allow you to be builder style player, and on small maps you have little time before contact with other players. It all depends.
I do not like ICS and do not play it almost at all. But it has its advantages. If a non-ICS player calculates his/her strategy not well enough, ICS player wins.
So maybe ICS is a strategy like other strategies, it depends on skill level of a player, how good it is.

[Yitzi]

Bases in ICS grow also, and they have potential.

Not as much until substantially late in the game, when they only have 4 squares to work with.  And most of that is due to farm/enricher/condenser being overpowered.

E.g. establishing a base on flat terrain, maybe moist, 1-0-0, gives you immediately smth like 2-1-1, and this is a "free" worker.

2-1-1 is impressive early on, but gets weak fast.  Early on, it's useful, but later on it's a waste of territory unless you use condenser tricks and recycling tanks.

It is about this advantage in early game. MP often were won when someone got first to Air Power, copters and could use chop'n'drop.

Ah, so as I suspected: The issue is early-game advantage, arising from air power being totally overpowered.

And itis not, that ICS cannot have bases where non-ICS would have. They can also be later placed in those locations having more tiles to be worked.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Yes, that is why ICS is having a condenser for food and crawler for minerals/energy.

Yeah, condensers seem to be a major component of the issue.

[Earthmichael]

It is not really about condensor being overpowered, or air power.

It is about the exponential initial growth issue.  If player A plays a strategy that doubles his resource base every 10 turns, and player B plays a strategy with better potential at turn 80, but doubles his resource base every 12 turns, then player B will be insurmountably behind at turn 80.

Because at turn 60, player A will have TWICE the resource base of player B.  Even with a better long term strategy, that kind of lead is probably insurmountable.

BUT, what I have discovered is that the 2-3 turn delay to move to better terrain is paid back in the short term, so instead of having a lower initial rate of growth, I get a equal or higher initial rate of growth, and better short term and long term potential.

Some of this is map related.  If the map is so bad that there is not any good terrain to exploit, no matter if you move 6 squares from your first base, then plopping your new base down ASAP is probably the best strategy.  I hate maps like that, and generally won't play them if I know what the map looks like in advance, simply because such maps encourage players not to think about optimum base placement, but just grind through the crappy terrain with minimum base spacing, i.e. ICS.

[Yitzi]

It is not really about condensor being overpowered, or air power.

It is about the exponential initial growth issue.  If player A plays a strategy that doubles his resource base every 10 turns, and player B plays a strategy with better potential at turn 80, but doubles his resource base every 12 turns, then player B will be insurmountably behind at turn 80.

Because at turn 60, player A will have TWICE the resource base of player B.  Even with a better long term strategy, that kind of lead is probably insurmountable.

I don't really see why...turn 80 is only roughly 1/3-1/5 of the way through the game (unless someone pushes to end it early, which is a lot harder without air power), so that should be plenty of time to come back if it were just an early-advantage issue.

BUT, what I have discovered is that the 2-3 turn delay to move to better terrain is paid back in the short term, so instead of having a lower initial rate of growth, I get a equal or higher initial rate of growth, and better short term and long term potential.

That may be true of moving to better terrain, but what about increasing your base density once you've expanded all you can?

I feel that ICS should not be powerful even when it doesn't come at the cost of optimum base placement.