Random Starting Locations?

[Bolleck]

I had just finished my first own map and tried to start at "my" location. I restarted over 12 times, but I started alwas only at 3 of the 5 starting locations.

I thougt starting location is random?

[Worthingtons]

THere are a number of starting on the map, as the editor will show bollock.

[Jethro83]

Random starting locations are so annoying at times.

Sometimes, you'll end up in an inhospitable region

Sometimes the closest neighbour is but a swallow's flight away. It is so annoying when they are so close and you have to drive them away. Once, as the French, I drove the Egyptians all the way across to the other side of the continent (how did they get so far in so few turns?), where they were sharing the few vestiges of hospitable land in the west with the Romans (as the continent was so far north, that most of the continent was tundra anyway).

But since nothing can really be done about it without a savegame modifier (I don't really like using those programs), I'm not going to slam my fist down demanding change. The easiest solution is to simply quit and start over.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Using random start locations on a premade map does not give random start locations. Without any start locations set, I started a map 20 times. I was "randomly" placed on a total of 3 different squares, each near the corner of usable land. I tried again with different civs - same result. I edited the distance between civs - no change. The same damn tiles every time. I find it hard to believe that out of some 20,000 tiles, the same 3 were randomly chosen each time.

O well.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Once, as the French, I drove the Egyptians all the way across to the other side of the continent (how did they get so far in so few turns?), where they were sharing the few vestiges of hospitable land in the west with the Romans (as the continent was so far north, that most of the continent was tundra anyway).

You may have actually killed them, and caused them to "teleport" to a new spot. In CivII, if you killed a civ off early in the game, a new civ would respawn in unsettled territory, with some free tech. In CivIII, if you kill off a civ really early, the SAME civ respawns, complete with an extra settler, 5 or 6 units (maybe more on the highest levels, this is on Monarch), several free techs and a SERIOUS grudge.

I've had civs "teleport" completely across a continent. I saw it on the replay: Rome captured, 2500bc, Veii founded, 2500 bc (40 tiles away). They were now actually stronger than before, and they wouldn't make peace. roughly 40 turns later, a stack of 2 spearmen/2archers showed up looking for a fight. I didn't even know where they had come from.

-Arrian

[spy14]

I've noticed the games reluctant to put you on a continent on your own... it seems to want to put you on the same landmass as at least one other civ

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Arrian


You may have actually killed them, and caused them to "teleport" to a new spot. In CivII, if you killed a civ off early in the game, a new civ would respawn in unsettled territory, with some free tech. In CivIII, if you kill off a civ really early, the SAME civ respawns, complete with an extra settler, 5 or 6 units (maybe more on the highest levels, this is on Monarch), several free techs and a SERIOUS grudge.

I've had civs "teleport" completely across a continent. I saw it on the replay: Rome captured, 2500bc, Veii founded, 2500 bc (40 tiles away). They were now actually stronger than before, and they wouldn't make peace. roughly 40 turns later, a stack of 2 spearmen/2archers showed up looking for a fight. I didn't even know where they had come from.

-Arrian

Well if that's the case, the computer picked a crap spot for them to respawn, as they had to rebuild Thebes right up against Rome's and Veii's borders.

And they didn't hold their grudge for long. In fact, the Romans probably hated me more for some stupid reason (probably to do with my treacherous behaviour against Egypt, as well as the fact that I was still a despotism, which is Rome's shunned government). Within a few turns of peace with the Egyptians, they were merely cautious with me rather than furious or annoyed. At least until I redeclared war and wiped them out again later.

They'd have to have had free techs too, as they had built Thebes right next to Rome, and then built Memphis on an island off their coast. They'd have to have been given Map Making at least for that to have happened.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by spy14
I've noticed the games reluctant to put you on a continent on your own... it seems to want to put you on the same landmass as at least one other civ

So true. Maybe in the 1.18 patch Firaxis are working on now, they should add the option to place each civ on a separate landmass. With this enabled, it will create at least enough landmasses for each player to start on their own, as well as placing them on separate landmasses.

The main annoying thing about the game placing you on the same landmass, is that your capital and their capital are really close to each other. As I said above, I had to drive another civ west to get enough space to develop my civilization. I really believe that you shouldn't have to do that if you want to develop your civ sufficiently.

[Bolleck]

I've noticed the games reluctant to put you on a continent on your own... it seems to want to put you on the same landmass as at least one other civ

What happens, if you set only one starting location per kontinent? Will try.