ICS Question for experienced multiplayers...

Helium Pond · April 2, 2000, 15:35

When I play single-player, I like to self-limit the number of bases I build, because I can still win with a small # of bases, and I hate taking half an hour or more per turn. However, I've recently begun a couple PBEM games, and in thinking about my long-term strategy, I don't think I can keep my number of bases small. It seems like, against a human player, it's ICS or nothing. If one player chooses to build a heck of a lot of bases, they're all going to have to, or that one player will steal the game. Am I right about this, is ICS a sad necessity in multiplayer?

By the way, I'm using ICS here to mean Infinite City Sprawl, wherein a player builds city after city after city, because they can. I hope I'm using the term correctly.

ChrisShaffer · April 3, 2000, 08:08

I don't think you can win multiplayer with a small number of bases, unless it's a peculiar scenario. That said, you don't have to build bases every-other-square in the Moss style. Every third square or so works fine.

Helium Pond · April 3, 2000, 16:58

Well, okay, but it sounds like you're pretty much locked into ICS, then. As I feared, you have to grab every bit of planet you can, right? Or is there a happy medium?

Adam_Smith · April 3, 2000, 17:06

Helium Pond,

I'm assuming that your question is not "how many colonies should I build." That is elementary. Build as many as you can. The question is how do you build as many as you can. Should you only build colony pods? No, you build infrastructure also. As far as when to build infrastructure, military, formers, crawlers or colony pods, read a strategy guide on that. That gets pretty involved

Enigma · April 3, 2000, 21:03

Little disclaimer, I am not "experienced".. take everything I say with a fistful of consideration.

How you devote your minerals and population... to colony pods or infrastructure.. can have a serious affect on any MP game. As an energy based player generally fewer bases work best. As a mineral based player cram in as many as you possibly can, and then cram in some more.

For a conquer faction you want as many bases as possible to maximize your support bonuses and minimize costs by not having to pay for drone control.

If you are playing a more energy based style then you will NEED control facilities if you are running FM, you will NEED recyling tanks in order to be able to support formers, and after that you will benefit from adding nodes and children's creches. Energy banks are not nearly as beneficial since they subtract from their own benefits with upkeep costs. As an energy based player generally you will be able to have larger bases and because of this cramming them in will not be as useful in the long term.

Of course, there is always a happy medium. In the early game hurrying in recycling tanks will speed up your expansion. I have 50% more bases than everyone else in my most advanced PBEM game right now.. and that is as Morgan. The reason why is that 75% of my energy comes from the 6 energy in the base square of every base. As Morgan each base, no matter how puny, contributes. Some of my size 1 cities are doctors due to inefficiency drones.. pretty pathetic.

It is important to weigh benefits of each decision, especially in a PBEM. Will that next city cause inefficiency drones? Will building network nodes in 1/2 of my bases slow down my expansion? Will I be able to defend cities on the northern contient?
Consider all the factors involved before you make a decision. Always expand as fast as possible.. and then weigh the benefits and disadvantages of expanding more or building infrastructure. Obviously take this into faction context...

I am a rabid expander but I usually build nodes for long term benefits at cities near energy bonuses. Building a node in a completely average city is a waste.. 80 minerals is not cheap and the upkeep can add up.

It is also important to remember that few MP games will last more than 50 years. Even on a huge map the game will be decided by year 100 or so.

Most of what I have said is in context with the current map we are using.. on larger maps it is a different story. That land will be there 20 years in the future, and cities have time to grow larger and develop infrastructure more.

Generally though ICS is a necessary evil in MP games.

Helium Pond · April 3, 2000, 22:22

Yeah, I thought so. Something makes me unhappy about having to accept a "build as many cities as you can" strategy, but I concede that there's no way around it. Why do you say you're not experienced, Enigma? Sounds like you have plenty of experience to me.

Most games are decided in the first 100 years? That seems awfully quick...

MichaeltheGreat · April 4, 2000, 01:47

First question is IP or PBEM? In IP, thinking is secondary to cranking out Impact speeders, so it's a different game.

In PBEM, it depends on the map - I build quite a few bases, but not to ICS extremes. When you get to higher level warfare, there's just a limit to what 50 bases with fifteen minerals each will do for you.

It also depends heavily on the faction you are playing - Hive and Believers are natural ICS factions, the economically and research oriented ones aren't - especially UoP.

Games may be decided in the first 100 turns (in PBEM) but they aren't technically over, unless you have a medium to small map. Diplomacy can change the situation significantly even well into the mid game.

Helium Pond · April 4, 2000, 04:08

I was thinking PBEM. Thanks for the replies. IT looks like I'll have to get used to the idea of building more bases than I usually need to. But at least according to MtG, I don't have to build more than 50. Heh, no more than 50.

MichaeltheGreat · April 4, 2000, 04:34

Actually, I rarely build more than 20 real bases, and a few special purpose ones - to give me strategic air coverage, a bridghead to enemy territory, etc. I build up those, and a few more that I capture if they're close to me, so I end up with 30 bases I actually do anything with. - I don't ICS them though, I try to actually make them productive.

Enigma · April 4, 2000, 17:06

Michael is speaking of larger maps, of course. Even on the large maps like Michael is describing the games are over in 100 years, easily. Since at least 1/3 of the factions in a game like that on a large map will be researching it means that the total techs accumulated will be much higher, ending the game much faster. By turn 100 2 or 3 factions will probably be dead and the winner will be whoever has the most land and tech.

Like I said when I was saying ICS that applies specifically the tiny PBEM maps that I am playing on in this tournament. I am in a game that just started on a huge map with 7 people on it being hosted in the ACOL forums http://www.an.i-dentity.com/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi where there are generally more experienced players and games on larger maps than here. ACOL is a bit more chaotic but great for multi play games. But as I was saying on a tiny map where the games will only last till year 50 it does not make any sense to spread your cities because it is unlikely they will reach size 10. At the worst you will end up with a few cities that are a bit messy and have too many specialists in the last 10 years when you are mopping people up with gas units. It is a sad reality on tiny maps.

Michael- you said that economically based factions do not ICS as much. I beg to differ

. As UoP a new base gives you 2 rather than 1 research points and as Morgan in FM/Wealth (especially if you are governor) you can get 8 energy per base square. At this point in time an energy bank does nothing compared to a pod. You can get 2 pods and 1 formers for the cost of a bank.. which will almost always give you better energy even if those size 1 cities are just 1 doctor.

[This message has been edited by Enigma (edited April 04, 2000).]

Adam_Smith · April 4, 2000, 19:21

MtG,

How is IP different form PBEM? Are you assuming that IP is sim moves?

Also, I don't usually play what some people call "builder" factions, but when I do I still try to build maximum number of bases. Especially with Morgan and Zak.