I am getting P O'd here.....

justjake73 · November 21, 2003, 10:13

They OBVIOUSLY changed the map generator..and it SUCKS!!! I have NEVER had so many starting locations that are this poor - open desert, marsh, jungle, vast tracts of shieldless grassland, starts without a viable irrigation source in sight - and trying to find a LUXURY so your cities don't start RIOTING by 2000 BC is IMPOSSIBLE!! I want a PATCH TO FIX THIS ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!

asleepathewheel · November 21, 2003, 10:54

Here's a pretty decent start I had recently on Emperor. There were three luxuries within easy settling distance and a fourth on the continent (2 large continents, 16 civs, raging barbs etc) and the kicker is that one of the luxes was...ivory. Fun map, two civs as neighbors with the dutch to the south building Amsterdam on a two tile isthmus.

Ctrl-shift-q is your friend, use it. It took me a few tries to get this one.

edit: I have the save if anyones interested, a great map that shows the power of the maya-barbs raging (one camp, unless it was respawned, can be blocked for farming purposes) and two weak civs, aztecs and dutch, all of the ancient resources within reach.

mimi · November 21, 2003, 11:23

I thought that marshes were standard on all generated maps in Conquests. I start either in or within 4 squares of marsh EVERY SINGLE TIME... I just assumed this was how it was supposed to be? (At a wild guess I'd say I've started about 30 maps in Conquests, with everything set to the middle setting, or sometimes just random (and in the complete random cases, I'm ALWAYS near a volcano.)

I have to say that I dislke the new terrain types and don't really know why they were put in? They just add irritation and nothing particularly useful...

RobC · November 21, 2003, 13:29

I've played hundreds of games, and on average, I've had much better starts in c3c than in PtW...

DrSpike · November 21, 2003, 13:47

It's hard to say so far, but for me out of 4 starts 2 were hideous.

vmxa1 · November 21, 2003, 14:26

Too few games to make a statement, but so far they are pretty good, except for food bonus.

MrWhereItsAt · November 21, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by justjake73
They OBVIOUSLY changed the map generator..and it SUCKS!!! I have NEVER had so many starting locations that are this poor - open desert, marsh, jungle, vast tracts of shieldless grassland, starts without a viable irrigation source in sight - and trying to find a LUXURY so your cities don't start RIOTING by 2000 BC is IMPOSSIBLE!! I want a PATCH TO FIX THIS ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!

Well the luxuries are more scarce in C3C - that was a design decision and not a bug. Change it in the editor if you like.

Not sure about the bad starts, but I have seen 2 out of 2 atrocious ones - not just for immediate land area but for growth potential too. Have not seen enough to judge however.

I see marshes as jungles that are easier to clear (I THINK). Just imagine if that was PtW and those were jungles and not marshes - they would take even LONGER to get rid of.

Hagbart · November 21, 2003, 18:00

I'm very often (almost all the time) starting very close to the sea.

TheArsenal · November 21, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Hagbart
I'm very often (almost all the time) starting very close to the sea.

I don’t think I’ve ever had a start where I couldn’t put a reasonably close second city on the sea (and I play Large maps mostly), and in most cases, my first city is less than 3 squares away from water. I’ve played a handful of starts in C3C and the results have been varied, but none too terrible. Of course, I now have changed the criteria to what is a “good” start based upon how close I am to ivory.

alva · November 21, 2003, 18:36

Quote:

I see marshes as jungles that are easier to clear (I THINK). Just imagine if that was PtW and those were jungles and not marshes - they would take even LONGER to get rid of.

I like it, it makes for a slower early game (and I have a hunch (no proof) that this will slightly benefit the human (worker action anyone) )

Jaybe · November 21, 2003, 19:12

In the C3C editor, the appearance factors for resources are not any different from PTW, so it appears the meaning of the appearance factors have changed -- and they did NOT change the description in the editor help!

So I am ALSO P O'd!

Forster · November 21, 2003, 19:27

I've started around 20 games so far, and I haven't counted, but I'll be damned if 18 didn't have bad to rotten starting locations. About half did not have a luxury near by (w/i 5 hexes). all but one did not have iron in my empire! I really don't think they have changed luxuries and resources for the better.

Catt · November 21, 2003, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
In the C3C editor, the appearance factors for resources are not any different from PTW, so it appears the meaning of the appearance factors have changed -- and they did NOT change the description in the editor help!

So I am ALSO P O'd!

I haven't done any independent exploration, but there is a very interesting new thread at CFC that at least has the patina of a comprehensive understanding of how the new resource distribution works. It is here.

Catt

lockstep · November 21, 2003, 20:18

Thanks for the link, Catt!

BTW, it seems that the distribution of strategic resources in C3C comes very close to what was done in v1.17 of the AU mod.

Fried-Psitalon · November 22, 2003, 09:57

No luxuries within 5 tiles and you consider this a great offense? Oh, that your civilization might have to actually search for something instead of having it handed to you? C'mon now. While luxuries are more scarce, starts are the same random beast as ever. Besides, the single player community has one rather hefty advantage as someone pointed out above: Ctrl/shft/q. If there was a problem with consistently bad starts, you'd hear about it over on the ladder forum in multiplayer land, where restarts aren't an option.... and while there's all kinds of groaning and moaning about scarcity of luxuries (and some say resources as well) no one's started a rant thread about overall starts yet.

Dominae · November 22, 2003, 10:20

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Here's a pretty decent start I had recently on Emperor.

Pretty decent!?!. Imagine if you got a start like that in a DG...it's a dream come true!

Dominae

joncnunn · November 22, 2003, 12:56

The screen shot I've seeing is an excelent start.

3 COWS and a River!

And don't the Mayas start with the tech for the Granery?
And aren't they industrious and so at least one forest tile will be choped 50% faster than normal once you start building it to speed this improvement up even more?

Provost Harrison · November 22, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Hagbart
I'm very often (almost all the time) starting very close to the sea.

Could it be anything to do with the fact that you have been playing Seafaring civs?

CerberusIV · November 22, 2003, 14:03

Marsh and jungle both now come under the clear wetlands command and it takes 24 turns in either case AFAIK.

I thought my starting positions took a turn for the worse after the 1.21 PTW patch. The Conquests starts haven't been any worse than I was getting in PTW.

The only thing that worries me is that three out of the four games I have played long enough to find all my immediate neighbours included the Vikings AND gave them ivory!!! Admittedly I was actually playing the Vikings in one of those games but still....

PS Is it me or do the barbarians now tend to sit there until there is a massive horde of them, then rampage all over the nearest towns. I abandoned one game after being confronted with around 40 barbarian horsemen (I play with raging barbs).

Jaybe · November 22, 2003, 14:22

Barbs just don't put their forces into action as soon as possible. They are more like a civ, in that they are not always at war with you (sometimes they just want to be left alone).

Provost Harrison · November 22, 2003, 15:24

I have noticed that they are more likely to fortify, but I thought that it was just taking the best course of defensive action rather than wanting to survive...

FrostyBoy · November 22, 2003, 15:58

LOL

Here is everyone complaining about starting in bad spots and others loving it when they start in good spots.

"Oh no, I'm surrounded by tundra and I have no luxuries or anything! May aswell restart!"

If only the AI could do that, right?

vmxa1 · November 22, 2003, 16:09

Barbs do seem to be a bit more passive. The starts complaint makes me think of "so very cold".

joncnunn · November 22, 2003, 18:08

I think the diferences between Jungle and Marsh are that:

1. Location: Jungle is found near the equator. Marsh seems to be found in Temperate regions.

2. City founding: You can't found cities in Marsh [must clear it first]. You can found cities in Jungle.

Otherwise the desired improvement is the same, clear it to expose grassland.

Myself here's how I rate starts: Horid : No posibility of fresh water access to 50%+ of the natural border for my territory within a reasonble timefrime

Poor: A situation where there evenually will be fresh water throughout the territory, but I'm going to have make a long chain of irrigation into the core area or else clear and irrigate a few wetland tiles to accomplish this.

Average: No place within 2 tiles to get a free aquaduct for the starting city, but a place to get fresh water access was found slightly further away.

Good: Starting river with no cows nor wheat

Excelent: Add cows and wheat.

Forster · November 24, 2003, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
No luxuries within 5 tiles and you consider this a great offense? Oh, that your civilization might have to actually search for something instead of having it handed to you? C'mon now. While luxuries are more scarce, starts are the same random beast as ever. Besides, the single player community has one rather hefty advantage as someone pointed out above: Ctrl/shft/q. If there was a problem with consistently bad starts, you'd hear about it over on the ladder forum in multiplayer land, where restarts aren't an option.... and while there's all kinds of groaning and moaning about scarcity of luxuries (and some say resources as well) no one's started a rant thread about overall starts yet.

True, single player can always restart. I try not to do that. I guess I got spoiled playing the other civs, because there always seemed to be one luxury near by. I wouldn't restart because of that, by the way. But consider this, I now control almost half of a continent in a game, there are two other civs. Only one of us has iron, and it isn't me! I just don't think iron is that rare a commodity. If it was, it wouldn't be a commodity. I'm up to AD 300 and watching this hoard of swordsmen swarm into my territory. Agggahh!!!

WarpStorm · November 24, 2003, 06:37

In Civanilla, I remember playing a game as the Romans where I didn't get any iron till the end of the Industrial era. It was all on another continent and nobody wanted to trade it. Skewed maps have happened since the beginning.

Conqueror · November 24, 2003, 07:05

Hey, i enjoy bad starts. Nothing is more rewarding in a civ game than to build your way to victory from isolated tundra with no resources

Bit masochistic, got to admit

But really, for me, the C3C starts are a big plus - i hated it in PTW when all civs got 6 iron and 9 horses. Its much better now.

statusperfect · November 24, 2003, 08:06

C3C maps amke for mor einteresting games. I even have to use longbows sometimes (combined with trebuchets and spearmen

)

Scriblerus · November 24, 2003, 09:38

My reflections on C3C are entirely unscientific (one epic game start - being in the UK I only bought it this weekend, and have had very little free time), but I had a good river location (all grassland, but with a few accessible hills for my next two cities) one luxury within reach, and by cranking out a curragh and sending it round the coast I found what seem to be two of three iron resources on my continent and got settlers to them first. Now I'm waiting for the Egyptian demands for a supply from one of the two iron to turn into a chariot rush and to hit my distant and corrupt iron producing settlements.
This feels like a decent set-up to me; not too easy (can't get anyone to trade luxuries), but with strategic points to defend, and some terrain advantages to use.

I can be less scientific about vanilla Civ 3, in which I got endless plains/desert/mountain/no river starts. And I've yet to see what or a cow on my starting screen...ever.

But other people do. I think it's just random, but with thousands of players out there, some are statistically likely to get long runs of good or bad starts.

ZargonX · November 24, 2003, 11:19

In my current epic game, on a standard map, continents, there are only 4 sources of oil. Fortunatly, I am lucky enough to have one within my borders (er... former viking lands, but let's not discuss that

). With oil so scarce, I can only imagine what it will be like when uranium shows up. But, just makes for some new strategies then, doesn't it?