Better starting positions

star mouse · February 21, 2002, 23:55

There is a lack of consistency with starting positions in CIV3, with many of the starting positions being unviable. Capital cities in jungles, in deserts or on hills in chunky mountain ranges are too common.

I would like a simple check to be performed on all starting positions to test their viability. As an example, I would consider a city site to be unviable for a capital if it is not possible to gather 12 food and 6 production simultaneously from the best 6 improved tiles under Despotism with the resources in that city's radius. The only terrain improvements that should be needed are irrigation and mining.

As an example, grasslands are always viable, but plains are only viable if there's a river or lake in the city radius or several food-generating bonus resources.

Another check that should be performed is the availability of a few good city sites nearby.

These are not high standards. A city site next to a vast mountain range with only 6 grasslands squares is good enough to generate the settlers needed to found cities in more desirable positions. The trouble is, many of the city sites aren't even as viable as that.

If I was a leader of a band of nomads in 4000 BC, if I led them into the middle of a vast desert and told them "This is the best spot to build a city", they would stone me to death. CIV3 should reflect this more with consistently viable starting positions.

Aeson · February 22, 2002, 00:01

Sometimes it is nice to have the added challenge of starting in a less than desireable local. If there was a check made, this wouldn't be possible. If you want a good starting location, it only takes a few seconds to ctrl-shift-q and quick start. The only problem with this is you can't keep any customized civ/leader names

star mouse · February 22, 2002, 00:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
Sometimes it is nice to have the added challenge of starting in a less than desireable local.

It could always be a preference. However, some starting positions are so suboptimal that you will never get enough population points to build a settler.

One thing to consider: These rules would apply to all starting positions. The AI civs will also have good starting positions, so they will be tougher.

Pyrodrew · February 22, 2002, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by star mouse
There is a lack of consistency with starting positions in CIV3, with many of the starting positions being unviable. Capital cities in jungles, in deserts or on hills in chunky mountain ranges are too common.

I would like a simple check to be performed on all starting positions to test their viability. As an example, I would consider a city site to be unviable for a capital if it is not possible to gather 12 food and 6 production simultaneously from the best 6 improved tiles under Despotism with the resources in that city's radius. Another check that should be performed is the availability of a few good city sites nearby.

If I was a leader of a band of nomads in 4000 BC, if I led them into the middle of a vast desert and told them "This is the best spot to build a city", they would stone me to death. CIV3 should reflect this more with consistently viable starting positions.

The problem with this "simple check" is it would thrust all the Civs to have MUCH closer starter positions to each other. Tundra, Jungle, Mountains, Hills, & Desert take up a good part of the game. I would MUCH rather prefer Desert, Tundra, & Jungle being improved to be better starting positions (with an Oasis, Banannas, no Disease, etc.) rather than pack everyone into the grasslands.

If you brought a band of nomads in 4000 BC to an Oasis, and with a river nearby (lets call it the Nile) that was along a coast with the ability to harvest wheat... they would call you Pharoah.

As of now, I agree deserts, jungle, & tundra are usually suicide. When was the last game you had where 1 of the AI Superpowers originated from a desert, jungle, or tundra?

Gramphos · February 22, 2002, 05:50

Not so very good starting positions adds a great challange to the early game. Don't change that.

Pyrodrew · February 22, 2002, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
Not so very good starting positions adds a great challange to the early game. Don't change that.

Civ2 had "not so very good starting positions". That was good. In Civ2 I didn't mind starting in a desert or jungle... in Civ3 it is just stupid.

Civ3's "suicide starting positions" only make most games easier as the AI Civs who start there become technologically backwards & merely food for the early feeding frenzies.