What's this talk about bad starts? (probably my best start ever)

[asleepathewheel]

I thought I would post this, I rarely would post such things, but its just...so shocking for me to get this....

netherlands, emperor, archipelego, 15 ai civs

I moved the settler towards the river




On a lark, I thought, Ag civ, should be on the river

[asleepathewheel]

And the third shot, when I built the city and popped the hut (hence, the warrior




The save

[notyoueither]

Wow.

I have had some bad starts from the resource/luxury point of view. They were on large maps with fat continents. Way toooo far to iron, horses, luxes, or all three. It happens 'commonly'. I say 'commonly' because I have not sat down to put together enough cases yet to post at length about it, but I suspect something is not right with base values for those settlings.

[Arnelos]

Wow!

As for bad starts, my start in a 1-v-1 MP game I'm playing with ZargonX is HORRIBLE! I'm on a crappy island that's half tundra that I share with Portugal with no iron and no horses. I also had a barb warrior find and kill one of my early warrior/settler combos because I popped the barbs from a hut with another warrior who died.

Meanwhile, ZargonX starts with a wonderful grassland and hills start with a river and bonus tiles and a source of iron a few tiles from his capital.

Still playing that one, since I don't believe in giving up on even poor starts, but the situation could certainly be better!

[Boris Godunov]

Holy Crap!

I'd almost think you'd had to have made that map yourself to get such a starting spot... jeez.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Holy Crap!

I'd almost think you'd had to have made that map yourself to get such a starting spot... jeez.

I know, shocking map. Iron and horses quite close to the capital as well.

However, If I made the map, I would have given myself at least one lux on my island (however, there are two islands nearby with luxuries. )

[Snotty]

That really is something else. The other day I ran a quick start so I could look something up in the civilopedia and ended up with a small pile of cows. It was a crying shame the last civ I had played was the zulu

[Shogun Gunner]

The only way that start could be called a bad start is if your job is to clean up cow manure in the town!!!

[Boris Godunov]

What's rather amusing about this is that history has shown that the earliest civilizations didn't arise in areas of plenty, but in areas of extreme difficulty, as a response by the people to the environment...

So, it should actually be in Civ that the best starting locations are the ones with the fewest resources/food production values/etc.

[Inverse Icarus]

well, that puts mine to shame, but here

[Boris Godunov]

Actually, I'd rather have yours, Uber...2 less cows, yes, but you've got the added shield values of the bonus grassland, several plains squares and a forest.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What's rather amusing about this is that history has shown that the earliest civilizations didn't arise in areas of plenty, but in areas of extreme difficulty, as a response by the people to the environment...

So, it should actually be in Civ that the best starting locations are the ones with the fewest resources/food production values/etc.

Aren't the "four cradles of civilization" each located in fertile river valleys?

Nile - Eygpt
Indus- Indian
Yellow - Chinese
Euphrates - Arab

I wouldn't call these starts of extreme difficulty...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Aren't the "four cradles of civilization" each located in fertile river valleys?

Nile - Eygpt
Indus- Indian
Yellow - Chinese
Euphrates - Arab

I wouldn't call these starts of extreme difficulty...

They were fertile when Herodotus and later historians wrote of them, but not when the initial peoples settled there.

The Nile valley was originally a reedy swamp. Prehistory Egyptians had to drain it and learn to control the flooding of the Nile in order to tame the land.

We know very little of Indus civilization, but it seems to have arisen in adverse terrain--dense tropical jungle.

The ancient Yellow river valley was not only marsh and bush and prone to flooding, but was also subject to extremes of temperatures in the different seasons. The river was not navigable, as in winter it was choked with ice, and in warmer seasons flooded horribly, frequently changing its course dramatically. Even in 1852, under human "management," the river managed to change its outflow into the sea by 100 miles.

Sumeric (what you call Arab) civilization had the same adverse terrain--swamps, gigantic swaths of mud, and unpredictable river course changes of the Tigris and Euphrates. Much of Ancient Sumerian mythology (i.e. Marduk slaying Tiamat) symbolizes the claiming of this land by humans and making it habitable.

Toynbee discusses this at length in A Study of History, and shows how each unique civilization (meaning, those without any predecessors) arose in less-than-idyllic terrain, while cultures in lands of plenty lazed in barbarism.

[Shogun Gunner]

Yes, I've read some of Toynbee...the abridged version...reading your post I'm wondering if read his completed unabridged work!

Yes, Sumeric, intellectual laziness, or a three drink buzz, made me type 'arab'

It is true that settlements in areas with hardships (cold, poor land, etc) were forced to adapt to a lack of resources and this improved human cooperation, interaction provided a stimulus to advancement...perhaps a more rigid social structure as a reason.

Since you are refering to real life, I concede the point to you.

[E_T]

It would be nice to see an ARR writeup from this start to finish....

E_T