Is there no mercy? Geography/starting positions...

[Grim Legacy]

Augh!

I've been trying to play with the Greeks now, but after just a few turns it became clear that I was surrounded with a HUGE jungle. No way to found decent cities there, no way to fend off the opponents...

So I try a new game... hey... what's that? JUNGLE! A whole lot of it to my south. There are a few squares to the north of buildable type, but this jungle is such a disadvantage that I quit once more.

Try again. JUNGLE!

Try again. JUNGLE!!!

And so it goes for several newly started games (quits/reboots in between) -I chose several different terrain options (warm/temperate, moderate/hot, 4/5 billion years) to no avail.

Finally, after a sh1tload of tries, I get to some land where jungle isn't omnipresent. Sure enough I'm greeted with a HUGE mountain range. Raaaah!

You may call me picky, but such terrain is a big disadvantage and I am not going to continue to meddle in the face of such a bad omen.

Anyone else have the same "p1ss-poor terrain time and again" thing happen?

[Earthling7]

It's happened, but not all the time.

My greatest Goe concern is the lack of historical starting locations and a decent world map.

[Libertarian]

Must be rotten luck. I got a fantastic opening placement. Grassland all around. Fresh water. Rivers. A few forests. Lots of hills with resources, and just to the south a bit, tundra with oil (as I found out later) and enough hills (with iron) nearby to make it settlable. The only resources I lacked were aluminum and uranium. I found a splotch of aluminum within a hole in England and colonized it. I was on my way to a uranium source within a hole in Russia when I won abruptly by diplomacy. Too bad on that.

[Leonidas]

Yep, almost everytime. . .

In many random maps it seems I get stuck on an island - no resources, tundra everywhere. . . well, you get the picture. . . Being isolated means all the AIs are trading like crazy. . . and I'm stuck behind the eight ball. . .

When I do start on the mainland, there are no rivers anywhere. .

In my most recent game - it hasn't been too bad - at least I'm on the warpath now and churning out those mighty Immortals. . .

[smellymummy]

bad locations, and i do mean bad, happen to me often... I try it out though (unless it's really bad!) for a while, but usually restart if things look desperate.

The game I recently finished however, started out amidst lot's of mountains, hills, tundra and a few grassland squares. The worst thing though, no fresh water!

I was going to quit, but I worked my way through it... you wouldnt believe the industrial power my civ had by the middle age. Then when I researched electricity I turned those few grassland squares into much needed food

Starting and quiting until I find the "perfect" spot feels like cheating to me even though I do it, much like saving and reloading which took me a while to break that habit back with civ2.

my suggestion is to play the game even though the starting sucks. Use an industrious civ - they can chop down jungles pretty quick....

[Grim Legacy]

I had a thought -maybe it depends on the Civ you choose. Formerly I played with the Romans, and I had a nice strating location with them a couple of times.

Of course, then later in the game I got stuck up without iron nor saltpeter...

So far, my 'bad luck' was with the Greeks only.

But maybe I should look into a more rational explanation. To those who had good terrain: which settings did you choose?

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by smellymummy
bad locations, and i do mean bad, happen to me often... I try it out though (unless it's really bad!) for a while, but usually restart if things look desperate.

The game I recently finished however, started out amidst lot's of mountains, hills, tundra and a few grassland squares. The worst thing though, no fresh water!

I was going to quit, but I worked my way through it... you wouldnt believe the industrial power my civ had by the middle age. Then when I researched electricity I turned those few grassland squares into much needed food

Starting and quiting until I find the "perfect" spot feels like cheating to me even though I do it, much like saving and reloading which took me a while to break that habit back with civ2.

my suggestion is to play the game even though the starting sucks. Use an industrious civ - they can chop down jungles pretty quick....

Well I agree that trying doesn't hurt, but in the case of the jungle/mountain terrain it was simply unmanageable. The opponents roam between my cities freely, stopping invasions is very tough in such terrain, improving tiles takes forever... all problems and I get nothing in return.
Also, I don't want to play an industrious civ just to combat poor starting locations. I deliberately chose the Greeks for their commercial (corruption!) and scientific qualities.

[Executor]

That happened to me three times. The fourth time I gave up and created a real map using the Editor.

[Grim Legacy]

Lol it gets better. Finally I obtained a half-decent continent (still lots of desert, mountains and only 1 ill-placed river) so I play a good while.

Delighted, I spotted an iron resource in my territory. I build a road to it... to see it disappear 6 turns later.

Gee well, what's left? Oh yes a SINGLE wine resource, for which I must use a colony too. Great. No horses, no iron, no military. My far-off neighbours the romans have their Legionaries (req. iron) parading through the spot of 5 silk resources they have... and who knows what else. Pffff.

The deck is stacked against me.

[Honour_Shogun]

Well, I play as the Persians always, as I love those Immortals
As for starting positions, I have gotten possibly my best starting position this game. Of course, I had India almost directly to the West of me, but as I play on very easy(what, I am supposed to get aggravted just so I can raise my blood pressure? Yeah, ok... )
I had rivers everywhere. And as I found out by accident that cities on rivers do not need aquaducts, well, my capital was level 12 by 1500BC. As for surrounding terrain, mountains with gold, lots of wheat(jeez, what is it with wheat? I have counted no less than 15 tiles with wheat, and insane amounts of fish on the map.)
There is a huge area between me and Japan with Jungle, and I put a city on a river there to stop Japanese exapnsion. Other than that, very little in the realm of desert, tundra, or any truly inhospitable tiles. Of course, I just got chemistry, and am thinking, since i have loads of resource tiles, well I'll get some saltpeter. Nope. None. Guess I am unlucky that way. As for setts, well, I think everything is the same as normal, but huge map, and 5 civs(4 now, buh bye India). Does this help at all? I think it is the luck of the draw. Kinda just look up, and hope like hell you get a good map

[Grim Legacy]

Luck... maybe.

But apart from normal resources I've heard more complaints about special resources from others. It does seem the human player gets a shall we say 'calculated' access to them.

...
I still feel stabbed in the back by the disappearance of my only iron resource. It was the first iron tile I ever had (barring trade) too.

[zapperio]

I'm playing my third game on regent, as indians on a regular map with one continent. It is 1200 AD, I'm landlocked, surrounded by four civs and I have no strategic resources and only four luxeries. Not even horses!

I'm also third largest, (15 cities) first in tech and first in culture. I've had no wars, except for briefly joining a crusade against russia, (I tried to make a dash for iron but france got it before me) and I have one military unit per city. Its trade and culture baby! The trick to survive and prosper in a situation like that is bribes, and convincing the other civs that you are harmless and then more bribes!

You can play the game anyway you want and I actually enjoy difficult starting positions more as this is one of the few strategy games I've played that is fun to loose. Much more so than Civ2 for instance. Although I fully intend to win this one.

...Waiting for another war to start.

Zap

[Pogue Mahone]

What age are you using when chosing your world? If you pick 3 billion years, the terrain features and resources come in clumps, and you are likely to find yourself in a never ending jungle or mountain range, with high concentrations of one resource, but nothing of many other resources. Try the 4 billion setting, which works fine for me. I imagine that 5 billion may be even better, but I haven't tried it yet.

[Didymus]

I feel your pain, man. I have only ever had Coal once: it appeared next to a city. Then, five turns later, it was exhausted! And you NEED railroads. (You can live w/o Saltpeter, altho it hurts.) I'm not sure that I have ever had a supply of rubber, either. Still, this is part of the game. You're not supposed to have all the resources you need.

I always play with 5 billion yrs; huge swathes of the same terrain is deadly. But I agree that jungle shouldn't take so freaking long to cut down, for gameplay reasons if nothing else.

Trade and diplomacy is everything when you need resources. One tip I find is that if you ask the other civ to suggest a deal, you get better terms than if you make a proposal. Brown-nose, survive until you can research Fission, build the UN, and go for a diplomatic victory. It doesn't matter if you are the weakest civ left on the map!

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone
What age are you using when chosing your world? If you pick 3 billion years, the terrain features and resources come in clumps, and you are likely to find yourself in a never ending jungle or mountain range, with high concentrations of one resource, but nothing of many other resources. Try the 4 billion setting, which works fine for me. I imagine that 5 billion may be even better, but I haven't tried it yet.

Nah I play 5 billion years all the time (tried 4 though to see whether that would help). I am well aware of the terrain settings and their effects due to my rich Civ1 and Civ2 experience.