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

[Kirov]

What I see missing here is taking factions into account. A general opinion somebody said was that those who can't popboom normally, should ICS. I saw the Hive ICSing twice and I would have a big trouble believing that what I saw was sub-optimum. Also, Morgan gets +3 energy per base tile with FM/Wealth.

OTOH, PK is obviously the last guy to ICS.

[Yitzi]

Also, Morgan gets +3 energy per base tile with FM/Wealth.

+5 actually; the bonus energy per base tile is +2 for +3 ECONOMY, and +4 for +4 ECONOMY.

[Earthmichael]

Turn 80 is about half way on the vets map.  I have rarely had a game go more than 200 turns, even with air power completely banned, and the game is usually decided quite a bit before that.  Only much larger maps, or much less aggressive players, have games going 300+ turns.

But the other issue is the base resources.  If a player has double the resources at turn 60, that probably means he has the majority of the secret projects, and has a very large base to continue building.  Even if at that point he is only 75% as efficient for future growth as the other player, 75% x 200% means that he still is growing 50% faster than the other player.

But my main point is that as long as there is reasonable terrain, ICS does not do better.  If the terrain is absolutely lousy, ICS wins because every base turns a 0/0/0 square into a 2/1/1+ sequare instantly.  So as a map designer, if you do not like ICS, then don't build a map that promotes it.

[Earthmichael]

Morgan may be the exception that proves the rule.  Since Morgan gets such a large bonus just for placing a base, Morgan might do better with ICS, but I still believe it depends on the terrain.  In Morgan's case, since every turn delay in base placement costs +4 energy compared to other factions, it takes more terrain advantage to make up that deficient.  But most maps, such as the map of Planet or the Vets map, do have good enough terrain to make it beneficial to delay placing the base a couple of turns even for Morgan, for better resource gain after the base is placed.

To get a rought idea for comparison, you multiply the lost resource opportunity times the number of turns of delay.  If the additional resources for the better terrain make up for the lost opportunity in a reasonable length of time, say before the base can reproduce itself, then you have a definite win from the delay.  But since the base continues to prosper from the new terrain, even if it takes a few extra turns to reproduce, it still might be better than the ICS placement.  Furthermore, having the base further out makes it easier subsequently to exploit terrain that is further from the starting point.

I found this very complex to try to just calculate in the cases where there was not an obvious win for delayed placement, so instead I ran some scenarioes both ways, and evaluated how both positions looked around turn 60-80.  And what I found is what I have reported: with reasonable terrain, terrain exploitation wins over ICS.  For a really crappy map with lousy terrain, ICS wins simply because there is not much tterrain o exploit, so the value of the extra 2/1/1+ for additional bases prevails.

[Yitzi]

Turn 80 is about half way on the vets map.  I have rarely had a game go more than 200 turns, even with air power completely banned, and the game is usually decided quite a bit before that.  Only much larger maps, or much less aggressive players, have games going 300+ turns.

Why don't the players who are behind form a temporary alliance to weaken the top player, thereby causing the game to go on longer (since it's harder to get the game decided until the endgame)?  Throw in that defense of a base is stronger than offense, and it would seem games should go on for quite a while.

But the other issue is the base resources.  If a player has double the resources at turn 60, that probably means he has the majority of the secret projects, and has a very large base to continue building.  Even if at that point he is only 75% as efficient for future growth as the other player, 75% x 200% means that he still is growing 50% faster than the other player.

It means he's gaining 50% more actual growth for the first "phase", but then he's only 50% ahead and is still only 75% as efficient for future growth, meaning that after the second "phase" he's only 12.5% ahead, and then after the third "phase" he's actually behind.

Just as a 20% growth rate advantage can put you twice as far ahead by turn 80, a 20% growth rate advantage after that can let the other guy catch up by turn 160.  Thus, it seems that one of the keys to weakening ICS is forcing longer games (unless, of course, a momentum faction pulls off an effective snowball rush.)

Projects are another consideration; I have an idea, though, of how to make ICS horrible for grabbing projects (and nerf the overpowered tech factions a bit while I'm at it): Increase project (especially later ones) costs, and limit each project to 3 bases working on it (counting crawlers.)

If the terrain is absolutely lousy, ICS wins because every base turns a 0/0/0 square into a 2/1/1+ sequare instantly.

Even with good terrain, recycling tanks raises that to 3/2/2, which is quite good.  But of course you don't have to spend a citizen on that square, so it's actually like a crawled 3/2/2 or a 3/2/5 (assuming the freed-up citizen becomes a specialist), which is extremely good.  Nerfing recycling tanks would weaken this substantially, of course.

Morgan may be the exception that proves the rule.  Since Morgan gets such a large bonus just for placing a base, Morgan might do better with ICS, but I still believe it depends on the terrain.  In Morgan's case, since every turn delay in base placement costs +4 energy compared to other factions, it takes more terrain advantage to make up that deficient.  But most maps, such as the map of Planet or the Vets map, do have good enough terrain to make it beneficial to delay placing the base a couple of turns even for Morgan, for better resource gain after the base is placed.

To get a rought idea for comparison, you multiply the lost resource opportunity times the number of turns of delay.  If the additional resources for the better terrain make up for the lost opportunity in a reasonable length of time, say before the base can reproduce itself, then you have a definite win from the delay.  But since the base continues to prosper from the new terrain, even if it takes a few extra turns to reproduce, it still might be better than the ICS placement.  Furthermore, having the base further out makes it easier subsequently to exploit terrain that is further from the starting point.

I found this very complex to try to just calculate in the cases where there was not an obvious win for delayed placement, so instead I ran some scenarioes both ways, and evaluated how both positions looked around turn 60-80.  And what I found is what I have reported: with reasonable terrain, terrain exploitation wins over ICS.  For a really crappy map with lousy terrain, ICS wins simply because there is not much tterrain o exploit, so the value of the extra 2/1/1+ for additional bases prevails.

But in that case, wouldn't terrain exploitation followed by ICS (once you've reached your maximum feasible borders) be even better than that?

[Earthmichael]

But in that case, wouldn't terrain exploitation followed by ICS (once you've reached your maximum feasible borders) be even better than that?

No, because at that point I usually have enough technology to build mutliplier buildings that are more effective than additional colony pods.  I usually have bases that have grown to size 7, so multilying the result of thost 8 squares being worked is more effective than building additional bases.  Once I have some mutliplier buildings in place, I can lift the population cap on the cities so even more squares benefit from the multiplier builds.

It is also around this time that I can begin my pop boom.  So bases grow quickly, leaving very few unworked squares, and those few square can be exploited by supply crawlers.

If I can get to this point without being too far behind ICS (and with reasonable terrain, I am usually on pace or ahead of ICS), then I leave ICS in the dust.  Because I now have most of the squares I am working multiplied with 100% mineral boost, 100+% labs boost, 100+% econ boost, 100+% psych boost, 3/2/2 forest squares, units with +2to4 morale boost, etc.  And I am gaining population due to pop booming much faster than ICS can grow.  I build Areospace complexes, and build sats of each kind up to my max population.  And all of these Sat gained resources get subjected to all of my building multipliers. 

Because I have only 1/6 the number of cities to cover a given amount of land compared to ICS, even if ICS wanted to build these multiplier buildings, it would cost them 6x as much, with 6x as much maintenance.  So even if ICS wanted to try to catch up in this way, it is too costly.  At this point, I have effectively won the game over an ICS player, although it may take 50-100 more turns for this victory to be finalized.

[Yitzi]

No, because at that point I usually have enough technology to build mutliplier buildings that are more effective than additional colony pods.  I usually have bases that have grown to size 7, so multilying the result of thost 8 squares being worked is more effective than building additional bases.  Once I have some mutliplier buildings in place, I can lift the population cap on the cities so even more squares benefit from the multiplier builds.

It is also around this time that I can begin my pop boom.  So bases grow quickly, leaving very few unworked squares, and those few square can be exploited by supply crawlers.

Wouldn't you get more by having more bases and putting the extra population into specialists?

If I can get to this point without being too far behind ICS (and with reasonable terrain, I am usually on pace or ahead of ICS), then I leave ICS in the dust.  Because I now have most of the squares I am working multiplied with 100% mineral boost

You can't get more than 50% mineral boost until Industrial Nanorobotics, which is sort of pushing late-game.

3/2/2 forest squares

3/2/2 forest (worked) is actually sort of pathetic as compared to 3 engineers fed by crawled nutrients.

Because I have only 1/6 the number of cities to cover a given amount of land compared to ICS, even if ICS wanted to build these multiplier buildings, it would cost them 6x as much, with 6x as much maintenance.

On the other hand, ICS specialist bases don't have to worry about much psych (4 psych worth of drone control by whatever means is plenty), and can get crazy production once advanced specialists come along.

Once hab domes comes along it switches back to favoring non-ICS, but that's late-game.

We'll see how things play out in our game.

[Earthmichael]

With 200% labs, econ, and psych multipliers, each specialist acts like 3 specialists without the multipliers.

As for minerals, I get 50% multiplier at Retroviral Engineering (C6), which is pretty early.  I get the next 50% at Industrial Nanorobotics (B9), which is mid-game in my view.

The labs, econ, and psych multipliers start much earlier.  By level 6 on the tech chart, I already get 150% labs, 200% econ, and 175% psych; at mid and late game, these multipliers get even higher.

It is true that the base limit of 14 limits limits the growth for awhile.  But even only working 15 of 24 available squares, with multipliers, I still do better than ICS covering the same ground.  I consider Super Tensile Solids (B10) for habitation Domes to be a mid-game technology. So as long as I hold my own until then, I am doing fine.  After this point, my bases can reach maximum potential and really clobber ICS.

As for the forests 3/2/2, engineers provide no minerals.  I can always work or crawl nutrients after I get hab domes, but before then it is pointless.  If I choose to not work a forest square, I can instead get 5 energy from an engineer, effectively trading 3N/2M for 3 more energy.  Furthermore, because of facility multipliers, this get to be effectively about tripled.

I don't understand the idea of specialists giving "crazy production".  I am not aware of any specialist that aids production.  As far as I know, they can only give labs, econ, or psych.  Because of the multiplying buidlings, my specialist get about 200% in the mid-game, and even more in the late game.  So for each specialist I have takes, ICS needs 3x as many for the same effect.

As you said, we will see during our game.  But to continue harping for a momemt, I think the best thing a game can do for anti-ICS is to make lots of valuable multiplying facilities that can be built, with fairly high maintenance costs.  Then if ICS players wants these multipliers, they will have to build 6x as many with 6x the maintenance costs.  Ultimately, it is these multiplying facilities in SMAC that defeats the ICS strategy, in my opinion.

[Yitzi]

With 200% labs, econ, and psych multipliers, each specialist acts like 3 specialists without the multipliers.

Definitely; of course, you're limited to 14 specialists per base (which you actually can get on ICS with condensers, enrichers, crawlers, and satellites), so once the ICSer does get his multipliers up he's even stronger.
(Also, 200% labs and psych isn't available until Homo Superior gives nanohospitals.)

As for minerals, I get 50% multiplier at Retroviral Engineering (C6), which is pretty early.  I get the next 50% at Industrial Nanorobotics (B9), which is mid-game in my view.

I thought you said that turn 80 is around halfway.  Around what turn number do you generally reach Industrial Nanorobotics?  (And what's your number of techs known and research rate at that point?)

It is true that the base limit of 14 limits limits the growth for awhile.  But even only working 15 of 24 available squares, with multipliers, I still do better than ICS covering the same ground.

Not if both have the same facilities.

I consider Super Tensile Solids (B10) for habitation Domes to be a mid-game technology.

Ah, I think that's the difference; many consider that to begin the late game, and I suspect that's why they see ICS as more powerful.

As for the forests 3/2/2, engineers provide no minerals.

They provide energy for rush buying, which (after considering the higher multiplier, which even ICS can get though of course it costs them more) is almost as good or even better.

As you said, we will see during our game.

Actually, based on this discussion I think that the dispute is based on more fundamental issues that won't be addressed in a game between us (most notably: Are hab domes midgame or late game.)

But to continue harping for a momemt, I think the best thing a game can do for anti-ICS is to make lots of valuable multiplying facilities that can be built, with fairly high maintenance costs.  Then if ICS players wants these multipliers, they will have to build 6x as many with 6x the maintenance costs.  Ultimately, it is these multiplying facilities in SMAC that defeats the ICS strategy, in my opinion.

Of course, if you make the maintenance too high then that reduces their value to the point where they don't give enough advantage over ICS.  But I do think that adding, say, 1/3 rounded up, or 1/2 rounded down, to the maintenance of all multiplying facilities (plus rec commons and children's creche) would help a lot to weaken mid-late game ICS.

[Earthmichael]

In my experience, ICS players do not build very many facilities at all.  When I take over their bases, I generally only find a very small handful of facilities.  Maybe other ICS players can comment on what facilities they typically build.

Also, I do not believe ICS offers an increased defensive perimeter.  It is actually quite the opposite.  I can always look for the weak point and attack there, going around any strongly defended cities.  Essentially, with 6x fewer cities, I can station 6x as many defenders as ICS per city.

I don't believe maintenance costs need to be increased.  It is enough that ICS will pay 600% more maintenance cost than the large base strategy, as well as 600% facility construction cost.  I think that is enough to see that if ICS tries to match the facilities construction to gain the same multipliers as the large city approach, the ICS approach will lag far behind, due to the 600% increased cost.

Typically with ICS, the outer cities will expand, while the inner cities build up.  In actually practice, I have never seen any ICS player with very many multiplying facilities even on the inner cities.  Most have Recycling Tanks (a non-multiplying facility), and some network nodes and energy banks, and occasionally a fusion lab, but I rarely see much more than that, and even those faciliteis are not commonplace.

I will check some of my previous MP game saves tomorrow, and see if I can spot which turn I typically get a couple of these techs you asked about.

[Yitzi]

I don't believe maintenance costs need to be increased.  It is enough that ICS will pay 600% more maintenance cost than the large base strategy, as well as 600% facility construction cost.  I think that is enough to see that if ICS tries to match the facilities construction to gain the same multipliers as the large city approach, the ICS approach will lag far behind, due to the 600% increased cost.

This could be...if an ICSer is around, we can see what happens there.

I will check some of my previous MP game saves tomorrow, and see if I can spot which turn I typically get a couple of these techs you asked about.

Thanks.  Also, if you could see how many techs you have, and how fast you're researching, by that point.

[Earthmichael]

OK, I checked a couple of games at turn 80.

On my AKI game, I have 30 total advances, and making a new advance every 3 turns.

On my University game, I have 35 advances, also making a new advance every 3 turns.

In both cases, the techs include:
MMI, and everything leading to it.
Bio-Engineering, and everything leading to it.
Environmental Economics, and everything leading to it.
Fusion Power, and everything leading to it.
These account for the first 30 techs researched.

Additionally, University has:
Orbital Spaceflight
Organic Superlubricant
Adavanced Spaceflight
Superstring Theory
Silksteel Alloys

My next major Beeline is Super Tensile Solids, to get Hab Dome and Space Elevator.
This requires 8 techs:
Orbital Spaceflight
Organic Superlubricant
Adavanced Spaceflight
Superstring Theory
Silksteel Alloys
Monopole Magnet
Nanominiturization
Matter Compression

In the University game, 5 of those techs were already obtained at turn 80; Supertensile Solids was obtained around turn 90.
In the Aki game, Supertensile solids was obtained around turn 100.  (One might have thought it would take longer, but actually Aki is reearching faster tha Uni at this point, at about a tech every 2.5 turns.)

When I obtain Supertensile Solids, I build the Space Elevator right away using a bunch of supply crawlers, and build Hab Domes in all my cities.  Then I start cranking out Hydroponic Sats (at half cost due to Space Elevator), while I pop boom all of my cities until they are working every possible square, and the rest of the nutrients are use for specialists.  Once I have enough Hydroponic Sats to cover my population, I build the same number of Orbital Power Transmitters.  Now every single pop-boom population unit is bringing in an extra food and energy, the energy being multiplied by 200% or so by all of the facilities.

Several times, after this pop boom/sat construction has occured, which generally boosts my power graph by 50% or so over then next 20 turns, the ICS player just concedes.  He thinks he is supposed to be way ahead on development right now, only to find that he is far, far behind.

FYI, to pop boom with Aki, put a lot of energy into Psych.  The facility multipliers help a lot here.  You have to put in enough energy to get at least 50% talents at all bases, and no drones.  This triggers a Golden Age, which provides +2 Growth, so that Aki can boom.

[Yitzi]

OK, I checked a couple of games at turn 80.

On my AKI game, I have 30 total advances, and making a new advance every 3 turns.

On my University game, I have 35 advances, also making a new advance every 3 turns.

In both cases, the techs include:
MMI, and everything leading to it.
Bio-Engineering, and everything leading to it.
Environmental Economics, and everything leading to it.
Fusion Power, and everything leading to it.
These account for the first 30 techs researched.

By my count, it's actually 32.  In order to get The Will to Power, you only need 10 more techs: Retroviral, Biomachinery, Doc:Init, Homo Superior, Advanced Ecological Engineering, Centauri Empathy, Meditation, Genetics, and Psi,  and Will to Power itself.  Will to Power needs a total of 42, including the four you mentioned, so that means that those four need 32.

Or were you not counting the 2 you start with?

Additionally, University has:
Orbital Spaceflight
Organic Superlubricant
Adavanced Spaceflight
Superstring Theory
Silksteel Alloys

My next major Beeline is Super Tensile Solids, to get Hab Dome and Space Elevator.
This requires 8 techs:
Orbital Spaceflight
Organic Superlubricant
Adavanced Spaceflight
Superstring Theory
Silksteel Alloys
Monopole Magnet
Nanominiturization
Matter Compression

In the University game, 5 of those techs were already obtained at turn 80; Supertensile Solids was obtained around turn 90.
In the Aki game, Supertensile solids was obtained around turn 100.  (One might have thought it would take longer, but actually Aki is reearching faster tha Uni at this point, at about a tech every 2.5 turns.)[/quote]

Ok.
At 30-35 advances at turn 80 on Transcend, a tech should cost roughly 1500-2000 research points (more for a larger map).  So you're making roughly 600 research a turn on an average map by turn 80?  What's your faction-wide population at that point, how many cities is it spread out among, and what terraforming are you using?

When I obtain Supertensile Solids, I build the Space Elevator right away using a bunch of supply crawlers, and build Hab Domes in all my cities.  Then I start cranking out Hydroponic Sats (at half cost due to Space Elevator), while I pop boom all of my cities until they are working every possible square, and the rest of the nutrients are use for specialists.  Once I have enough Hydroponic Sats to cover my population, I build the same number of Orbital Power Transmitters.  Now every single pop-boom population unit is bringing in an extra food and energy, the energy being multiplied by 200% or so by all of the facilities.

Several times, after this pop boom/sat construction has occured, which generally boost my power graph by 50% or so, the ICS player just concedes.  He thinks he is supposed to be way ahead on development right now, only to find that he is far, far behind.

So that's sort of late-game then, isn't it?
And yes, ICS without facilities works well only when it's used as part of a rush.

FYI, to pop boom with Aki, put a lot of energy into Psych.  The facility multipliers help a lot here.  You have to put in enough energy to get at least 50% talents at all bases, and no drones.  This triggers a Golden Age, which provides +2 Growth, so that Aki can boom.

Naturally.

[Earthmichael]

To clarify, I am actually talking about SMACX here.  Virtually all of my games are SMACX.  So there may be some confusion about the tech tree.

With SMACX,  Will To Power is not on the beeline to Super Tensile Solids.  So I don't think I am missing any techs.

I don't consider turns 90-100 to be late game.  I consider this mid-game.  Of course, if someone concedes, I guess that is end-game.  But seriously, the game has typically another 50-100 turns left to reach a final conclusion on a map the size of the Vets map; more on a larger map.

The vast majority of the terraforming is forest; there is no fungus remaining.  There are some mines, because I rarely take the trouble to terraform level, and just build mines to crawl for 4 extra minerals.  I have one energy field with 8 solar collectors and an echelon mirror in the center, raised to maximum altitude, with 3 energy specials, all being crawled to my HQ.  There are some scattered boreholes.

As for labs, at turn 80, AKI is generating 652 with 100% labs.
At turn 80, University is generating 618 with 100% labs (after a -20% penalty).
The population is in large cities with hab complexes which got boomed to around 14.  All multiplying facilities allowed by the tech are built in all cities.  I didn't want to add up the total population.

[Yitzi]

To clarify, I am actually talking about SMACX here.  Virtually all of my games are SMACX.  So there may be some confusion about the tech tree.

I am talking about SMACX as well.

With SMACX,  Will To Power is not on the beeline to Super Tensile Solids.

But it does require Bio-Engineering, Fusion Power, MMI, and Environmental economics, so it's a good shortcut to use to find how many techs you need.

Count them up; you'll see that to get those four, you need 32 techs in total.

I don't consider turns 90-100 to be late game.  I consider this mid-game.  Of course, if someone concedes, I guess that is end-game.  But seriously, the game has typically another 50-100 turns left to reach a final conclusion on a map the size of the Vets map; more on a larger map.

Ok, I suppose that makes sense.

The vast majority of the terraforming is forest; there is no fungus remaining.  There are some mines, because I rarely take the trouble to terraform level, and just build mines to crawl for 4 extra minerals.  I have one energy field with 8 solar collectors and an echelon mirror in the center, raised to maximum altitude, with 3 energy specials, all being crawled to my HQ.  There are some scattered boreholes.

As for labs, at turn 80, AKI is generating 652 with 100% labs.
At turn 80, University is generating 618 with 100% labs (after a -20% penalty).
The population is in large cities with hab complexes which got boomed to around 14.  All multiplying facilities allowed by the tech are built in all cities.  I didn't want to add up the total population.

Ok, how many bases do you have at that point?  Alternatively, how many votes do you have in council (that should be shown at the bottom of the commlink menu)?

Also, if you're running 100% labs, where do you get the cash for maintenance?  And what do you do for drone control?