initial city positioning

[jshelr]

That's my twisted idea of a joke.

[zeh]

Originally posted by jshelr
That's my twisted idea of a joke.

A smile like will do fine as a tip for readers at the end of jokes.

[Datajack Franit]

Oh I didn't knew that

I always play with the germans btw

Still wondering why romans are ALWAYS the weakest in every single game I play

[Solomyr]

i just take the land i am given and go with it. i have restarted a few times a little into the game. when i realize i am in the middle of a juggle surrounded by mountains, on a thin penninsula, that's when i restart. i like to be competitive, and games where i am getting my butt kicked just ain't no fun.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Still wondering why romans are ALWAYS the weakest in every single game I play

rome is usually quite a powerful civ (militaristic, very strong UU). probably you've got the "culturally linked starting positions" on, so you're always near the romans. and because you're probably playing on a to east level for you, they never get a chance to get strong.

try playing on a higher level or remove the culturally linked starting positions.

im most of my games (mainly standard world size, sometimes small or a little larger than standard) usually the civs with the most "useless" traits for these sizes (expansionist, commercial) are the weakest: iroquois, english, american, zulu, russia.

[Datajack Franit]

Sabrewolf, I never play at a level below monarch- culturally linked positions is always off, and I noticed that romans just stop developing new wonders after the Oracle.
Most of the time I even give them aluminum and rubber as a gift, just because they usually get trashed by someone.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong choosing tough opponents? I always play on large, continents, wet, warm, 4 billions with Egypt, France, Rome, Persia and Greece.

(in the last turn I used 34 nukes against the greeks and was so damn fun! )

[sabrewolf]

datajack: sorry, i thought that could be the reason. many settlers here play on levels they always win - i personally prefer the challenge, even if it means losing some games (well usually giving up, when "the end is nigh" )

but back to you: strange, i don't what else it could be

rome may be wasting it's ancient powers on the greek phalanx, getting toasted by persian immortals or be outbuilt by the reliogious industialist egyptians... i don't know.

uhm... why don't you try varying the combination?

[laissez-faire]

I agree. I usually find Rome to be quite aggressive and powerful early. In my current game, they came knocking early, demanding Iron. I refused, and 10-12 horseman immediately took one of my iron-yielding cities. Of course, that was the same turn the GL gave me Chivalry (and thus Riders). Approximately 8-10 turns later, there was only one small blip of red left on my map.

No one likes a bully, Caesar.

This coming to you from another Monarch-or-better Settler.

And I usually build my capital on the 1st turn 60% of the time and 2nd turn the other 40%.

[Datajack Franit]

I'd like to do so Sabrewolf, but I'm already waiting for CIV:PTW- then.. spanish, arabs.. it will be so damn fun!

Btw I'll give the boot to Cleo and the happy french, let's hope it will be better- but what I found astonishing is that Rome ALWAYS start on crap maps! In the previous games I had they started: on a small island away from the pangea, on tundra, desert, jungle and desert again

[Explorer579]

It is preferable to build the first city in the first turn. However, I may delay it a turn or two until I find a tile that has at least 2 food resources around it (cattle, weat, fish, grassland, games, or river). Because if I don't have food, my city will never grow!

My strategy is to move the worker (or scout if any) looking for such a tile. I then move the settler there.

If by the third turn I did not find it, I am most probably doomed. It would be a very challenging game. I keep playing though. Because the promised land may be few blocks around me for my second city or I enjoy watching my butt kicked by other civilizations

[civjunkie]

If I happen to start next to a hill with gold, I build my 1st city on top of it. Instant wealth, and great defence to boot.

[Solomyr]

it's interesting that we are talking about this, or that in the newest game i started, i moved 2 spaces to get a better position. honestly, i think i made the right decision, seeing as how i was in a much more secure position to pump out settlers. of course, i only got 4 cities made before i had start picking on the Japaneese and the Chinese, and am now on my way to world domination. looks like after this game i will be moving up a level and playing at emperor

of course, i probably should study at some point...

[sabrewolf]

(bump)

because it's brought up again in another thread...

[Robber Baron]

Usually (~67% of the time) I settle right where I find myself. I always send out my worker 1 square for looksee first, and if there's a compelling site 1 turn away, I'll shift over a tile (~33%) of the time. But I never delay further. At monarch+ level, the human player simply cannot afford to delay production.

[sabrewolf]

robber baron,
even if your position sucks?
aeson calculated that you need at least 2 tiles with (potential) 2 food, otherwise you lose 10 turns for the growth of the settler. so basicly in that case it's worth moving up to 10 tiles (!)

on monarch and higher the AI anyway has an advantage. e.g. at deity his production costs 60% of yours. so a settler costs 24 shields instead of 30... a major difference in the early game on maps like standard or smaller.