Why am I always next to the same Civs?

[Pembleton]

Does this annoy anyone else? I have started my third game (the first 2 going unfinished) with the French and I have encountered the English AGAIN.

When I played the Indians I was always next to the Chinese. Is there any way I can prevent this other than choosing the civs intentionally and making sure not to pick the English as an AI civ?

Could anyone make a mod that could fix this? Why does it have to be the same civ that I fight first every time?

[Malkuth]

Because those are the civs they were by in real life. Too bad though on the Earth Map they didnt put everyone in the Right place.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Pembleton
Does this annoy anyone else?

Yes.

Is there any way I can prevent this other than choosing the civs intentionally and making sure not to pick the English as an AI civ?

You'll still get placed by the same civs, provided that you chose them.

For example, playing as china, if you pick russia and america among other civs, you will always be placed beside russia and america

[Grumbold]

It is a "feature" that civs of the same cultural groups tend to clump together. Once the full fledged editor is available it should be a doddle to switch cultural groupings around or experiment putting everyone in the same group etc.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Malkuth
Because those are the civs they were by in real life.

Well gee. Why are you smater than me? I couldn't figure this out by myself. My question was rhetorical. Sorry to be snappy but I was just about to start a new game until this really pissed me off.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Pembleton
Does this annoy anyone else? I have started my third game (the first 2 going unfinished) with the French and I have encountered the English AGAIN.

When I played the Indians I was always next to the Chinese. Is there any way I can prevent this other than choosing the civs intentionally and making sure not to pick the English as an AI civ?

Could anyone make a mod that could fix this? Why does it have to be the same civ that I fight first every time?

It is annoying, and something I identified early on that could severely limit replayability if not corrected.

Civs are currently placed near other civs in the same Culture group (same color rows on this chart: http://www.civ3.com/devupdates/abilitiespopup.cfm). So, for instance, the Russians/English/French/Germans will always be in close proximity to each other.

Now one thing this does is cause most of your neighbors to get their unique units about the same time you do. Notice the UUs are grouped:

Aztecs/Iroquois/Americans: Ancient (except the Americans - they are my exception to the rule)
Russians/English/French/Germans: Industrial (I know, the French are actually Middle Ages)
Greeks/Romans/Egyptians: Ancient
Babylonians/Persians/Zulus: Ancient
Indians/Japanese/Chinese: Middle Ages

So there is some rational for the grouping: Not giving one civ the UU advantage over their immediate neighbor. But that's pretty weak in my mind.

[General Ludd]

You don't always get grouped with the same culture group, it depends on how you set the game up, if all the civs are random, you do start with your culture group, and almost every time you will get the exact same set of civs playing, if you chose them your self, you will still get stuck with certain civs, even if they are not of your culture group (China, Russia, and America, for example)

[Guynemer]

This does NOT happen all the time. I haven't had much time to play, only on my second game, but I'm playing the French on a huge random map with the full compliment of civs. My closest neighbors were the Indians to my north, and the Iroquois to the south. To the west, the ocean; the east, a vast uninhabited (at least initially) jungle. Right next to the Iroquois, boxed off on a peninsula, were the Persians. The Romans were bordered by the Babylonians and the Chinese. The Germans were clear across the one massive continent from me, stuck between the Egyptians and the Americans.

I've also seen the AI fight wars amongst themselves in this game. Virtually everyone ganged up on the Germans, and then turned their attention to the Aztecs (who had major borders with the Russians and the English). The AI was also open to diplomacy in regards to war, as I convinced the world to gang up on the Chinese and Zulu.

[Yohan]

Hmm... I've played 2 games as the Egyptians. Both times the Greeks were up north and the Romans were south. Coincidence?

[G.A]

Yes, coincidence

I play as Greece, and Romans are North and Egypt are South...

Lame, I know

[Stuie]

Well, I ran a quick experiment and switched the Romans to the "American" culture group then started a game with 16 civs. My neighbors: The Aztecs and the Germans. Guess that's pretty inconclusive.

[Sevorak]

I agree with Stuie. This not only can, but most certainly will limit replayability. I liked that feeling in Civ2 wondering which enemy civs were where, and they weren't even different back then. Now that they're different, this forced cultural grouping eliminates the "every game is different" feel and limits strategy to just learning how to deal with the civs that you "know" you will be grouped with.

-Sev

[narmox]

the "Communications with..." exchange too I'm starting to hate. I don't want to know all the world map too soon, from people on the other end of the world. I don't want them knowing my maps too soon either It's just not realistic enough until more modern techs (maybe this should be available only with electricity?). I liked the feeling of actually going out and exploring, meeting new civs, making some alliances with them before my neighbours knew about them, etc...

And I agree too that in the long term, always having the same civs nearby is going to get boring

[Comrade Tribune]

I agree: There should be an option to totally randomize the starting places of all Civs.

I also agree: It is now too easy to get a complete world map.

[GNGSpam]

My last 3 games

Huge Map
Pangea
16 Civs
Im the Aztecs
Im by America, Japan and India

Huge Map
Pangea
16 Civs
Im the Zulus
Im by the Persians and Babylonians

Huge Map
Pangea
16 Civs
Im the English
Im by the Chinese, Japanese, French, Greeks and Egyptians

While the probability seems to be increased that im near certain rivals (England/France) it doesnt seem set in stone.

Also of note. Rome is on the otherside of the map as Greece in the English game as is Germany on the otherside of the map as France and myself. Ironically though, France and Germany DID ally together against me

[LRotan]

I'm going to have to go with the majority here and agree that it puts a massive dent in replayability. There are exceptions to the rule, but not many. For example, my last game as the Americans, I got lucky. I wasn't near *anyone* and I was playing on a standard sized pangea map with little water cover and eight civs. The closest were the Persians and Zulus far to the south. However, I tried a game as the French and the first people I encountered were the Germans. I had scouted my area for prime real estate and was prepare to plop down a city in certain squares, but the germans beat me to it and completely blocked me in on a tiny peninsula. So I started again hoping to get better neighbors. Nope, Germans again. Two more tries and I still got the Germans.

I can't agree enough that this takes all the surprise out of new games. I know who I'm going to encounter and can plan ahead before I make my first city.

LR

[Pyrodrew]

1st game I played I was the Americans & my neighbors were Aztecs & Iroquois.

2nd game I played I am the Americans & my neighbors are the Persians, Chinese, & Japanese. All the European Civs are not on the main continent.

So it does seem to *try* to group cultures together ((which SUCKS)), but your culture group is not always grouped 1st. As was the case in my 2nd game, this can lead the player to get different neighbors sometimes... but not often.

[Garth Vader]

My first 3 starts as the Russians. I was on a continent with the French, English, Germans. I only finished one of those games.

My next 2 starts with the French I was on a continent with the Germans, English and Russians. I started a third game where I manually picked the other civs and took the archipeligo setting so I could get a different game.

[Jeff George]

Originally posted by Osweld
You don't always get grouped with the same culture group, it depends on how you set the game up, if all the civs are random, you do start with your culture group, and almost every time you will get the exact same set of civs playing,

So then I guess that random opponents really aren't. I don't like this. If I pick a random civ and random opponents I want them to be RANDOM, including placement and neighbors.

[Jeff George]

Originally posted by narmox
the "Communications with..." exchange too I'm starting to hate. I don't want to know all the world map too soon, from people on the other end of the world.

No one forces you to take communications with a different faction. If a civ has it available it means that they are in contact with that nation. No biggie.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Jeff George
No one forces you to take communications with a different faction. If a civ has it available it means that they are in contact with that nation. No biggie.

It´s not about communications as such, but exchanging world maps with everybody is too easy.

[gumbytech]

I love the game (assumign some patching) but I am a huge fan of randomization. If you know that there is even a probability of having certain neighbors then your strategy is effected and some of the suspense of exploration is removed.

I have been playing the Romans exclusively (and yes I do dream about gladiators), and I know that I am likely to find the Egyptians to my north, that they are likely to make peace and then soon attack me, that they will continue to send troops to harrass me for hundreds of turns. Therefore, when playing the Romans I beef up my military and go after the Egyptians as soon as I can to eliminate them.

So my point is that this has definately impacted my strategy and taken much of the suspense out of the early stages of the game.

I strongly dislike this.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
It´s not about communications as such, but exchanging world maps with everybody is too easy.

If you have a bigger world map than an AI they will always be willing to trade with you. If your world map is smaller they will not. Same goes for territory map vs. territory map.

If you know that there is even a probability of having certain neighbors then your strategy is effected and some of the suspense of exploration is removed.

Agreed. I've mentioned how some things are minor issues, but this is one of the major issues that needs to be addressed in the patch.

[Capt Dizle]

eXploration is a major part of the attraction of the genre. I didn't mind much having com links available for trade in SMAC, it was in keeping with the backdrop of the game...advanced tech and so forth.

But being able to trade communication capibility in Civ is silly and eliminates a key motivation to explore. It is one of many poor design decisions made by the Civ3 team.

It's pretty clear from the uneven combat results that whatever method of random number generation being used is badly flawed. It plainly stinks being set up adjacent to the same Civs game after game.

[Pyrodrew]

The trade of territory maps is fine. This is necessary for trade & respecting borders.

The trade for world maps is the problem. The AI should value it's world map (it's exploration work) much more & guard these secrets. They should not hand out their world maps so easily even if someone's world map is larger than someone else's world map. Specifically because large areas of claimed land is far less valuable then smaller areas of unsettled & unexplored land. Revealing where empty ocean is also not smart. Making someone else waste their time to explore empty ocean is strategically superior.