1.17F starting locations?

[PerpetualNewbie]

I had taken quite a bit of time off CIII shortly after 1.16 came out, (Real Life got in the way) and just got back to it a week ago or so.

I didn't see anything in the rev history about it, but it seems to me I used to get much "sweeter" starts. If I recall correctly, I used to spawn at a start location with at least one bonus resource about 60% of the time, and on a river about 75%. I don't have any figures on that, just what I remember about my typical start.

I have been playing Monarch, Std size, 7 opponents, and after a number of poor starting locations that I play until the end is inevitable (at war with 4 civs, 3 cities left, the second strongest AI sues for peace demanding only 2 of my cities...) I started keeping track. Out of the last 22 games, I only had one start with bonus resources (2 wheat), and one with a single luxury (furs). Four starts had at least one grassland tile (2 food) as its best square, and SIXTEEN starts had the best tile being a one shield, one food. I had rivers on 16 of the 22, so that sounds pretty close to what I remember, but the bonus resources seem to be cosiderably weaker.

One game, I started in the middle of a jungle that turned out to have nothing but jungle right up to the coast, and a single strip of decent land between the jungle and the desert. However, Cleopatra had 2 cows in her original 9-tile, and an additional cow and 2 dyes in her 21-tile expansion. Five tiles east of her was a great spot controlling 3 silks and two game, IIRC. Five tiles south was a mediocre spot with 1 wheat and 3 gems. Caesar did not have it quite that nice, and those were the only two civs I had a chance to scout out before they tag-teamed me.

Is this how Monarch starts are supposed to be in 1.17, or have the Random Gods just been having fun with me?

[steelehc]

I think Randomo and Randomita (the randomness gods you spoke of) are playing with you. I've only played random maps on monarch twice since 1.17f, and I've gotten fairle normal starts. One time, I had an Iron, a Horse, two spices, and a gems in my 21-square radius (albeit after increasing the chance of appearance for all resources). Just keep playing, and eventually you'll get something nice.

Steele

[PerpetualNewbie]

Just started a new game, and got a great spot. 2 wheat, 2 spice, 1 cow, and horses. Several other really good spots about, too.

Apparently, the computer was just waiting for me to say something...

[star mouse]

Originally posted by PerpetualNewbie
Just started a new game, and got a great spot. 2 wheat, 2 spice, 1 cow, and horses. Several other really good spots about, too.

Apparently, the computer was just waiting for me to say something...

Depends what your climate / rainfall / age settings are too. I have found that Warm / Wet / 5 billion gives the best worlds (the fewest tundra, desert and mountain squares). You get lots of jungle tho, but these become excellent city sites in the mid-game once the jungle is cleared away.

[rpodos]

This is sheerly anecdotal, but I believe that the AI civs are generally given better start locations, possibly more so as difficulty level increases.

I play a lot of games (as I usually stop after achieving overwhelming momentum, rather than winning) and I pay a lot of attention to other civs capital locations (warmonger with a first-strike-on-capital strategy).

The player seems to get randomized starting locations, tending to be crap but sometimes good to insanely great.

The AIs almost always get advantageous starts... cows, wheat, resources, etc.

The exception is if they start in the middle of a jungle, which is I guess unavidable. Have you ever noticed that those civs perform very weakly?

It would make sense for Firaxis to have programmed this way.

R

[PerpetualNewbie]

Yes, jungle starts seem to be a death sentence for whomever gets them. By the time you get them cleared to something decent, you are several cities behind, at least on Monarch. Relocating the initial settler seems very hit-n-miss. More often than not, the first decent settling spot I find already has a city there.

Speaking of which, how about if jungle were a little faster to clear? As it is, those spots only become useful when you have more workers than you know what to do with, and that means later in the game.

A faster clearing wouldn't be a big problem, would it? Clearing a jungle doesn't return any shields, IIRC. So I can't imagine it as a balance thing, though I admit I might have overlooked something. It can't be a realism thing -- there is precious little real-life terraforming that happens faster than slash-n-burn.

Seems to me the only rationale for slow clearing of jungle terrain is to condemn the unlucky civ that draws that to a disease-ridden backwater that by the end of the game, just might aspire to third-world status. It is irritating when it happens to me, but if luck is with me, I can sometimes get out of it. When it happens to an AI civ, they never get strong enough to make decent vassals.

From a gameplay standpoint, is there a good reason for slow clearing of jungle tiles? Have I missed something obvious?

[randommushroom]

Sometimes I know the computer has a strange sense of humor. Every time, every time, I have ever decided to try a game as the Aztecs I get stuck in the middle of a vast huge jungle, which is usually surrounded by mountain ranges. By the time the modern age comes around, I might be lucky to have a Jag reach the coast.

[star mouse]

I think the solution to this problem is for us to create random maps and hand-pick the starting locations so all of them are good. Then upload the maps and we can play each other's random maps with the knowledge that the positions are good.

[siredgar]

I thought this thread was going to be about the inability of this game to specify player starting locations.

[Beren]

I once created a map and every time I started it I started at the same position.

[Jethro83]

I usually end up with decent starting locations.

Unfortunately, the AI always tends to try and start RIGHT UP NEXT TO ME!!! I've totally lost count of how many times the AI has started with the cultural boundaries of their capital hugging up against mine (OK, not quite, but close), and the map is much larger than Tiny. The map creation of the random map generator is fine. The AI placement is what usually stinks.

There's so much space out there, even on a Standard map. Why does everyone have to be bunched up in one small space?

[Evil_Eric_4]

I once autogenerated a map in the editor and made one of the starting locations REALLY good-Im talking lots of good stuff.

Well when I started the game I had to restart DOZENS of times and it would not give me that spot.

When I switched my civ to the Romans(1st or second on the list I think) after a few tries I got the cherry spot.

So heres what I think happens--When the AI dols out starting positions it starts at the top of the list of nations that are in the game and works its way down.
The first placements get the best spots -The last get the worst.

Its either that or the AI cheats and almost always gives itself the best spots.

Try this--Pick your adversaries yourself in setup(no randoms) and make sure your civ is the first on the list.
Let me know if this works Perp. Newbe.
I cant test it since I Uninstalled this game till it is properly fixed.

[Beren]

The time I always got the same (BTW: sucking) starting location. I didn't even place starting locations. That's how I fixed the problem actually. Now it seems to be working pretty well.

I still find it odd the computer auto assigns me to a starting location, which I didnot place.