I want the AI to not build cities on tundra !

[Marla]

Hey, well, I'm writing not only to all of you, civplayers, I'm writing also to Firaxis I must admit. On the earth map I've made, the AI is invading Siberia, Greenland and Northern Canada of cities. The issue is that it makes the game a lot slower and occupy the AI in a useless colonization of unproductive land.

If it was possible in the editor to make impossible the construction of cities on tundra (just like it is on mountains), I think it would contribute a lot to the quality of the game. But unfortunately, it's impossible !!!

Just like the map I'm preparing of the mediterranean sea, I need to have a large part of desert if I want to get the whole sea. But that means and I already know it, an endless colonization of the desert by the carthagenese, instead of going in war against Rome...
If it was possible to not create cities on desert (but still on flood plains of course) it would make the map a lot funnier.
Well anyway, I will give up, that's the best I should do.

In a random map, there's no problem with tundra and desert, it's just on user created map that this problem occurs. That's why I ask you please, on your next version of the Editor, can you add the possibility to make a terrain impossible to create a city on it.
Thank you a lot to read this message.

Bye.

[Green Giant]

I see what you are saying. But tundra and desert are valuable sources of oil. The AI is unlikely not to build there because it would be detrimental in the late game.

I am sure there is a switch somewhere in the code that make it not possible to build cities there. You just need to find someone who knows how to do it.

[Marla]

I agree green Giant !

But it would still be possible to build colonies !!
You don't have to live in upper Alaska to exploit oil you can find there !

[Bad Ax]

I think that what's really needed is some AI/rules tweaking that makes the AI less reliant on the "build cities like a mad, mad fool" approach. Perhaps making it impossible to build settlers in cities sized less than four...

[EnochF]

If anybody succeeds in creating an AI that doesn't build cities all over the place, I might actually start playing again.

[GeorgeG]

Still at work, so I can't check this. . .

For tundra: What about making it more marginal, such as making it impossible to plant forest on tundra, or irrigate? That would certainly hamstring the city. I wonder though if the AI would realize this. . . . . I should hope that if you change the properties of the terrain, it would influence the AI's decisions. I have noticed that the AI is strangely fond of the tundra-coast boundary.

On my dream list of things I would want added to Civ, would be "erg" terrain. (an "erg" is also called a "sand sea"). It would be used for the Sahara, the Empty Quarter in Saudi Arabia, anywhere there are massive sand dunes that can never be irrigated, have no mineral value (nothing but sand), cannot be crossed with roads etc. The movement rate of anything except foot soldiers, horses, and very modern mech infantry would be poor.

[wal35]

But as Green Giant said there is a reason to build cities on Tundra and deserts -the potential resources. I hate it but I now build horribly puny cities on just such terrain for the same reasons and to deny them to the AI- road them up , rush buy a temple, garrison some troops, then leave them alone and hope that some resources make it worth your while.

As far as I'm concerned once I've staked out my "area" the AI can build cities on other peoples rubbish terrain as much as it likes, the more the merrier infact

[Marla]

As I already say it, it would still be possible to build colonies to get these ressources...

To me, here are other changes that it should be in the game...
The ability to build fortress occupied with units to claim lands (and so, to enlarge frontiers).

When there's a hole in our territory occupied by no one, it should automatically belongs to our territory. Is it accurate to say oh ! there's no one living here in the middle of Australia... well, I will build a city and it will belongs to me !

Anyway, in the case of my maps, there's a lot more advantage than defects to make it impossible to create cities in tundra... or even desert...
It wouldn't be a bigger change to add this possibility in the editor, actually, I was surprised to not see it !
Firaxis, PLEASE think about it for your next patch of the editor !
PLEASE !!

[justjake73]

I briefly considered occupying some tundra / forest lnd just to deny it to the AI, but then I thought "why?" Railroads inexplicably give no benefit in forests, you can't irrigate tundra. Ten turns later I got Refining and built a new city on the EDGE of the polar region because I HAD to to get oil, and there was an (extra) Rubber square within reach too.

[N. Machiavelli]

I just tweaked the game a bit and observed the results. I gave tundra 0 worth as far as food/shield/trade value. This didn't effect whether or not the AI settled there or not, but it would only take 1 turn before it starved to death. 10 turns later, another settler would come along and starve ad nauseam until my borders expanded enough to encompass the 2 squares.

[Sze]

The cities in tundra/desert would be a good argument except for the fact that that's NOT the AI's logic (and I use the term loosely) behind building there. They build cities for the sake of building cities. They're coded to occupy as much land as possible because of the strategy developed by Civ 2 players.
The irony is that Firaxis also changed the corruption to penalize large empires. So they gave the AI a strategy that they simultaneously coded to be less attractive. Huh?

[Spatzimaus]

I would love to disallow building on Tundra and Desert, since this would FINALLY make colonies worth something. So far, I haven't found any situations where I'd prefer a colony over another city.

There's precedent in the Real World. The problem is, most of the cities you'll see in the desert are actually located where there's a source of water (which could be represented as a grassland square in the middle). In fact, that could be it; you can only build a city in the desert if it's adjacent to fresh water? For tundra, it could be fresh OR salt water. It'd be like mountains; a natural border between empires.

Besides, the AI is really annoying me. Huge Earth map. The north end of Canada, Greenland, and Siberia are insane; every civ but me has a city or two in one of these places, even if it's impossible for them to support them. A civ in Argentina has a colony near Vladivostok. A civ in Australia has a couple on Greenland. Think it's realistic?

[Kolyana]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
I just tweaked the game a bit and observed the results. I gave tundra 0 worth as far as food/shield/trade value. This didn't effect whether or not the AI settled there or not, but it would only take 1 turn before it starved to death. 10 turns later, another settler would come along and starve ad nauseam until my borders expanded enough to encompass the 2 squares.

That's just silly ... what sort of vacky AI has been programmed into this game when it doesn't even calculate that it's not only destined to starve, but it's now making the same 'mistake' that it made only a few moves before.

AI = DUMB

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Kolyana


That's just silly ... what sort of vacky AI has been programmed into this game when it doesn't even calculate that it's not only destined to starve, but it's now making the same 'mistake' that it made only a few moves before.

AI = DUMB

Agreed. The AI really isn't any 'smarter' than before. The only difference is that it:

A.) Is more blindingly 'aggressive' to a fault

B.) Recieves more bonuses than before and

C.) Has more restrictions on the human player

[Marla]

Usually, desert tiles that are near fresh water (i.e rivers and lakes) aren't desert but "flood plains". You can see that with the Nile river on user created world maps, Egypt starts on flood plain and not desert.

Thus, if it's impossible to build a city in the desert, it's still possible to build cities in the desert near rivers (cause it's actually not desert but flood plains... even if graphics are the same).

I also agree to say it would finally give a real reason to build colonies.

Anyway, I don't want Firaxis to change the game rules... I just ask for the possibility to edit it in the EDITOR.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by EnochF
If anybody succeeds in creating an AI that doesn't build cities all over the place, I might actually start playing again.

i guess coding AI not to build any units either would be even better?

[EnochF]

Creating a game that doesn't totally suck would be better.