No constant starting locations? Please confirm/deny.

[Juggernaut]

I've seen a lot of disquieting remarks about this from the just-Civ3-owners, although I haven't really got it clear:

Are the starting locations always randomized? That is, if I play the Russians, do I automatically start in Moscow or anywhere else?

I just want a yes/no. If the starting locations aren't constant, it's just too much negative factors to bear IMO...

[yin26]

Bad news...perhaps in a patch?

[RobRoy]

Re: No constant starting locations? Please confirm/deny.

Originally posted by uncle_funk
I just want a yes/no. If the starting locations aren't constant, it's just too much negative factors for me...

Confirmed. Starting locations, currently, are always seem to be randomized (both for the civ you selected and for the opposing civs).

If there is some hidden or non-obvious way to make them stay put, I have not yet discovered it (believe me, I've tried).

'Course if you're playing on a random map, do you really care? (There aren't any worthwhile world maps out there yet, anyway)


What you can do is specify the universe of starting locations in the map editor. It might be worth experimenting what would happen if you remove all but one Player Strart. I'm suspecting that might consistently set the player location, or the location of your first opposing civ...but it's possible that it would restrict the number of civs that you could have on the map, though.

[Yog-Sothoth]

What happened to having things as an option? Why remove something a lot of player's like?

This really annoys me!

[yin26]

It seems that Firaxis programmers were forced to get SP in order for the October release. From what I hear, they are only too aware of what a 'questionable' decision it was to ship broken editors and missing MP.

[Gangerolf]

That is, if I play the Russians, do I automatically start in Moscow or anywhere else?

You'll start in Moscow, but Moscow might be in Mexico...

From what I hear the earth map is crap crappety crap, so you might want to start on a random map anyway.

[Juggernaut]

Darn it. It's almost comical how they've removed everything I liked from Civ2: wonder movies, scenarios, good world maps and historical accuracy... That's it. I ain't buying this sh*te, atleast not until they release a patch.

Is CTP2 really that bad? I'm really hungering for a decent strategy game now...

[HisMajestyBOB]

I didn't think that CTPII was really bad, but it just didn't hook me, even with the Apolyton Pack

[orange]

CtpII was great for the first 1000 years.....and then it starts to be a yawn

The problem is, unless your machine is wicked fast, more than 4 civs takes forever between turns, Civs snowball meaning the strongest civ remains the strongest Civ, and the editor sucks major arse.

Warfare was excellent, and so was diplomacy. The rest left much to be desired.

[Bkeela]

The entire point of playing on an Eath map for me is the attempt of a basically historical style of play. It is utterly absurd to wish to play as Rome, but be situated in South America for example.

I do realise that if a player was alone with the Americas, playing the Aztecs for example, they would have an advantage. But the failure to provide an option is too much.

I can tolerate playing the game on my apparently small 15" monitor, but I can't tolerate this.

Firaxis, you have lost my money - for if you cannot get this simple thing right, I simply do not trust you for the rest.

Bkeela.

p.s I am so grateful that the release was delayed in Australia, for I just saved myself $90.