Starting position - Page 2

The Pioneer · November 19, 2002, 06:16

Well AFAIR the starting position was much more important in Civ 2. The effect has been negated and it really is not that important anymore. Of course there are exceptions, especially if the location is a very bad one. Usually to get out of that location though I need more than one move and therefore I restart my game.

So long...

Pyrodrew · November 19, 2002, 10:09

I disagree, I find the Civ3 starting position more important than in Civ2.

metalhead · November 19, 2002, 12:03

Usually emperor, standard maps, with 8 Civs. Experiments with OCC games have made overcoming initial deficits not as difficult as you might think. Wandering for a few turns does change my ancient age style a bit, though. I really don't mind playing catch up - it's akin to fighting the drawn-out ancient war, which most players will also tell you is a bad idea as you will fall woefully behind on tech and developing your empire. I will often fight such a war anyway, because I can always catch up, given the predictable AI.

Mad Bomber · November 20, 2002, 08:28

metalhead:

Playing an OCC is the one exception to the rule. If you only have one city then you do have to make sure it is in a great location. As for catching up, its not impossible to win while moving your settler around like a band of gypsies, but it will put you in a hole. the best way of catching up early is with an early war and demanding tribute

metalhead · November 20, 2002, 10:35

Yeah, but I can wander on normal games because of the experience of OCC, not just in a OCC game. Besides, with a good enough starting spot, even after 5 turns, I can usually research faster and keep up better with the AI through the ancient age and therefore the rest of the game. If I can get 6 gold from my first 2 working squares, I am one happy dude, and will take questionable risks in order to find such a starting spot. It really helps me out, especially since I insist on doing my own research.

Panag · November 23, 2002, 15:49

hi ,

its always intresting to take a look around , it can save you a great deal of troubles later , ...

have a nice day

Aeson · November 23, 2002, 16:15

I always move to avoid opening a hut by founding my city, to move onto a visable gold hill, to move to fresh water or the coast in some cases, or to move off of a bonus tile. I'll also move until I can find a city site with at least 2 tiles of 2 food (potential). Otherwise the first settler is delayed by 10 turns (it seems you always get 1 tile of 2 food from the map generator) anyways, so moving for up to 10 turns to find a better site should always pay off.

cracker · November 23, 2002, 20:07

Aeson,

Your list of potential good reasons to move a settler are right in line with some of my expereinces.

... but I think your last sentence will lead 99% of the people that read it to make some terrible decisions if they use it as a carte blanche to move the settler.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
... so moving for up to 10 turns to find a better site should always pay off.

In most cases, moving the settler does not pay off in the long run if your starting location has at least a base number of potential food producing tiles.

Ugly terrain, like deserts, tundra, mountains, and jungle usually forces a move for the reasons you stated, but ten turns of aimless wandering about is usually fatal. (particularly when the player started on grass but is just wandering to look for floodplains or a wheat).

sabrewolf · November 23, 2002, 20:31

i had the same question in a thread that ended hasn't been accessed since octobre:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=55948

sabrewolf · November 23, 2002, 20:35

but for my opinion: i usually move if i don't like the spot (same reasons as aeson).

however, it's actually not very fair because the AI civs aren't programmed to move (so if they're stuck in unforested tundra, they'll stay there).

Mad Bomber · November 24, 2002, 00:59

Sabrewolf:

Your last post indicated that moving your settler is unfair to the AI, but before you make that statement you should consider that in a typical game a human will face 8 or more civs, so even though one or two civs will wind up with crappy terrain (usually the aztecs and zulus in my games) the rest will have as good or better starting positions than the human player which hardly makes moving a settler an exploit.

Aeson:

I rarely have starting positions when I have less than 2 food producing tiles at my start, and if it does not, I usually start a new game as it would take a considerable time to find a suitable site. Most of the reasons that you sited for moving are valid, but would only take one or two moves to accomplish which is an acceptable amount of turns to lose for a move. The one exception is the move to a gold producing hill, which I am noncommital over. The increased commerce would be great, but it will take the city to grow to size three to utliize it, unless you are also working a floodplain or bonus tile.

Aeson · November 24, 2002, 01:34

You get the commerce bonus (and defense bonus) from building your city on a gold hill from turn one. It can double your tech rate early on, so is certainly worth a turn if the surrounding terrain is equal.

Quote:

In most cases, moving the settler does not pay off in the long run if your starting location has at least a base number of potential food producing tiles.

I thought that was what I said. 10 turns looking for a city site which has at least 2 tiles of 2 or more food. If you don't have those 2 tiles, you lose that much time before your first settler can be produced anyways. I seem to be having a problem with clarity lately... my final sentence of that post could have used a "in that case" added onto the end...

Zachriel · November 24, 2002, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
You get the commerce bonus (and defense bonus) from building your city on a gold hill from turn one. It can double your tech rate early on, so is certainly worth a turn if the surrounding terrain is equal.

Quote:

In most cases, moving the settler does not pay off in the long run if your starting location has at least a base number of potential food producing tiles.

I thought that was what I said. 10 turns looking for a city site which has at least 2 tiles of 2 or more food. If you don't have those 2 tiles, you lose that much time before your first settler can be produced anyways. I seem to be having a problem with clarity lately... my final sentence of that post could have used a "in that case" added onto the end...

Your "ten-move" analysis was thought-provoking. I think that it is rarely good to move before founding your first town. The exception would be when there are compelling reasons to move, as in Bushido, Way of the Samurai.

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm11/