Who's afraid of the big, bad ICS???

[Earthmichael]

There has been much discussion about ICS over the years, how powerful it is, and what to do about.  I am a firm believer that ICS is not the best way to play, so nothing needs to be done with it.  It is an inferior play style.  I have written some discussions analyzing ICS verses widely spaced bases based on terrain exploitation. 

Anyway, we could analyze all day, but the proof is in the play. 

So I challenge anyone who wants to champion ICS to a duel.  We can either play Vets map, or someone can create another balanced map for the duel.  We both play on the same side of the map, i.e. NW and SW, or NE and SE, on the vets map, to minimize the effect of the wind direction.  I would actually prefer if somone can create a new balanced dueling map, but make sure the symmetry is directly reflected across the equator, rather than diagonal symmetry, since we will both start at the same  E/W postion, just on the Northern and Southern halves of the map.  The new balanced map can be just a two player map, with two identical starting positions, instead of 4 positions like the Vets map.  I think such a map would be useful for more than this challenge.  Is anyone interesting in crafting such a map?

We both play the same faction, with exactly the same starting units.  (So we will need a CMN to volunteer, since this is the only way we can both play the same faction.)  I will give the ICS player the advantage of first move.  My opponent must play ICS style; I must play terrain expoitive style.  To me, this means that ICS player must typically have minimal city spacing, terrain allowing.  I am not permitted to build cities any closer than 3 squares apart, and must typically have a spacing of 4 squares or more.

As for the faction we both play, I will allow my opponent to select their choice from this faction list:  [CyCon, Gaia, PK, Hive, Angels, Caretakers, Usurpers].  I have deliberately excluding factions that I consider to have extreme play styles: Pirates, University, Prophets, Morgan, Drones, Believers, and Sparta, because I do not believe these factions will provide a true test of the supremecy of ICS.  If you do not like the list approach, then we can use the veto approach.  You select a faction that you do not want to play, then I select, and so on, until only one faction remains.  This way, you get to veto 7 factions (making the final selection between the last two factions), and I veto 6 factions.  This should give us a true middle ground test of ICS.

My challenger can select the starting units, either as little as a single colony pod each, or up to 3 colony pods, 3 formers, and 6 scouts patrols.

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

[gwillybj]

I would like to give a 2-player map a shot.
What other specs do you have beyond those in your post?
What, if any, natural landmarks would you like?
I wouldn't be the CMN or the challenger, since I never MP.

[Yitzi]

I've never MP'd before, but I might want to see how this would go.  Caretakers for both of us, I think.

[Earthmichael]

I like a lot of features about the Vets map.  As far as I am concerned, you could just copy one of the 4 starting positions on the vets map, but put it in the center of the north side, and then just mirror it onto the south side.  I really like having jungle on the starting position to assist with fast expansion.  I like the nearby energy special at 3500 feet, just begging for a solar collector for some extra early energy.  I like the somewhat nearby mineral specials on rocky terrain.

As for other features, I like the uranium flats, the Garland crater, etc.  I am not so found of having sections cut off by nearly impassible sections of fungus; I would like to have at least a non-fungus bridge to most of the map.

The map could be half the size of the Vets map from east to west, since we are only hosting two players.  It could perhaps also be cut down a little bit N/S, but we don't want the starting positions too close. 

You could use a center island like the Vets map, with special features like the Ruins.  Or you can just make it all water between the North and South starting continents, with maybe some water features.

To me, the key feature is that the map needs to be mirrored N/S accross the equator.  This way, both of the starting positions are totally identical.

[Earthmichael]

Yitzi, Caretakers is fine with me.  We need a moderator to set us up.  Do you want to just go with the Vets map for now, or wait until a dueling map is ready, or make a dueling map yourself?

But if you have never MPed before, I am not sure that you could really champion the ICS cause in a convincing way.  We could still play anyway if you like, but I would also like to see if someone experienced with MP would also be willing to take up the challenge to be the champion ICS.

[Yitzi]

Yitzi, Caretakers is fine with me.  We need a moderator to set us up.  Do you want to just go with the Vets map for now, or wait until a dueling map is ready, or make a dueling map yourself?

Whichever you want, except I'm not making the map myself.

But if you have never MPed before, I am not sure that you could really champion the ICS cause in a convincing way.  We could still play anyway if you like.

Might as well.

[Earthmichael]

OK Yitzi, let's figure out the details, and then we can try to get a moderator.

1. Map.  Rather than wait, lets just play with the west side of the Vets map.  Perhaps the moderator could just cut the map cut the map in half, eliminating the east side.  I can take North, and you South;  if you want to reverse it, just say so.

2. Starting units.  You get to decide.  As I said, I am good with anything ranging from a single colony pod each, to up to 3 colony pods, 3 formers, and 6 scouts, or anything in between.  The more units, the faster the start, but you should pick what you feel most comfortable with, even if it is just single colony pods.

3. We both are playing Caretakers using SMACX.  You go first.

4. Do we want to ban or patch anything?  I would vote to ban copters, because I think they are overpowered.  We use Scient patch.  If you know how to patch the game to prevent rising water, I would vote for that!  Otherwise, I suggest banning attrocities.

5. Settings.  All victory conditions allowed except Diplomatic Victory.  (That is just lame for two players.)  No cooperative victory.  Do or Die.  Look first.  No tech stagnation.  No spoils.  No blind research. Unity survey on.  (We already know the map anyway.)  No pods.  No random events.  Everything else off.

Do these setting look OK to you?

[Yitzi]

OK Yitzi, let's figure out the details, and then we can try to get a moderator.

1. Map.  Rather than wait, lets just play with the west side of the Vets map.  Perhaps the moderator could just cut the map cut the map in half, eliminating the east side.  I can take North, and you South;  if you want to reverse it, just say so.

Either way's ok.

2. Starting units.  You get to decide.  As I said, I am good with anything ranging from a single colony pod each, to up to 3 colony pods, 3 formers, and 6 scouts, or anything in between.  The more units, the faster the start, but you should pick what you feel most comfortable with, even if it is just single colony pods.

Let's start with 2 colony pods, 1 former, 1 battle ogre (since we are playing aliens), 1 scout, and no base.  (i.e. we begin in "look first" mode.)

4. Do we want to ban or patch anything?  I would vote to ban copters, because I think they are overpowered.  We use Scient patch.  If you know how to patch the game to prevent rising water, I would vote for that!  Otherwise, I suggest banning attrocities.

Banning copters is fine. 
To patch the game to prevent rising water, all three of us (counting the creator) go to alphax.txt, go to where it says "Numerator/Denominator for frequency of global warming", and change it to 0,1.

5. Settings.  All victory conditions allowed except Diplomatic Victory.  (That is just lame for two players.)

Aliens can't do it anyway.

No cooperative victory.  Do or Die.  Look first.  No tech stagnation.  No spoils.  No blind research. Unity survey on.  (We already know the map anyway.)

Aliens also get "no blind research" and "unity survey on" anyway.

Do these setting look OK to you?

Yeah, seems good for the game I'm planning to play.

[Yitzi]

A question: Are we banning crawler upgrading?

[Earthmichael]

A question: Are we banning crawler upgrading?

No crawler upgrading with energy.  You can build whatever kind of crawler you like, as long as you use minerals to build it.  Once built, it cannot be upgraded.

We can allow stockpile energy after unit builds, so that they match building builds.  I think that will benefit ICS.  Or we can disallow that if you would rather.

[Yitzi]

A question: Are we banning crawler upgrading?

No crawler upgrading with energy.  You can build whatever kind of crawler you like, as long as you use minerals to build it.

Are you allowed to rush-buy crawlers?

We can allow stockpile energy after unit builds, so that they match building builds.  I think that will benefit ICS.  Or we can disallow that if you would rather.

Let's allow it.

[Earthmichael]

I wll go either way you want on rush buying crawlers.  I usually allow it, but we can ban it is you would rather.

[Yitzi]

I wll go either way you want on rush buying crawlers.  I usually allow it, but we can ban it is you would rather.

No, let's allow it.  One more thing: Am I to play "strict" ICS, or is "place bases farther apart and then fill it in with ICS" also allowed?

[Earthmichael]

Why would you place bases further apart?  Obviously, rocky terain and fungus might prevent perfect spacing, so 3 squares is OK.

I am OK if you place bases further apart, but if the reason to take advantage of better terrain, I think you are just proviing my point about terrain-based placement verses rapid ICS placement.  So some might think you are not properly representing the ICS view, but instead are attempting a hybrid approach.

If anyone in the community wants to chime in here, that would be fine.  How do ICSers feel about placing bases further apart and filling in?

[Yitzi]

I am OK if you place bases further apart, but if the reason to take advantage of better terrain, I think you are just proviing my point about terrain-based placement verses rapid ICS placement.  So some might think you are not properly representing the ICS view, but instead are attempting a hybrid approach.

Thing is, I think I actually agree about the advantage of terrain-based priority of placement over rapid ICS placement; it's just that once you've covered as much territory as you can, I think that (without mods) filling in to ICS density is more effective than leaving a wider spacing.  It might still be worth playing, to see whether even rapid-ICS can beat terrain-based low-density, but the real concern I have with ICS is about what you're calling a hybrid approach.