OK, I know the choices here are a bit subjective, but I think you get the idea.

I think I am really getting to be a purist when I play FFH now. I figure if I am going to spend hours playing a game I want to get off to a good start. And, IMO, the most important start involves the terrain for your first city.

For example, I am looking usually for the following:

1. Two or more resources within the first expansion limits of the city.
2. Built on a river (mostly for connecting to other cities, especially the second one and building the Brewery.
3. Defensible because I usually play with raging barbs.
4. A good mix of flood plains, forest, hills etc.
5. A resource that will help me get the priests, etc. for my religions like incense, gems, reagents.

If I can get 3 of these, I am usually happy and will play that starting position. However, if not, time to go back to the Main Menu and try again.

What about you?

Just noticed my 1-25% choice didn't appear on the poll. I'm not sure why and I don't know how to edit the poll. Sorry. :cry:

Just noticed my 1-25% choice didn't appear on the poll. I'm not sure why and I don't know how to edit the poll. Sorry.

And that would be my choice.

_Valis;5555209']And that would be my choice.

Mine too. The only times I've restarted recently was playing highlands. I had mountains in my city range blocking me from reaching the other side. In one of them I had no plots in my city range that weren't one of the following three: lake, peak (4 of them) or forested (can't do much 'til bronze working. No chance for early farms). The only direction I could move was east. As far as I could see eastwards there were nothing but tundra and peaks.

It seems to me that highlands produce very unfair starting positions. I've had several like the one above, and then every once in a while I get a really good one. Like the one with two clam, three gems, sugar or some other such (forested) luxury, two floodplains and ivory. Plus a river. Ofcourse that was just too good to be true, so the game decided I should have three barrows/ruins nearby and I was killed before I could build my first warrior :cry:

For me it only depends on the map. In Highlands I restart seldom-often, especially if I have a starting location relying on 2-3 seafood (not uncommon) with the Sailor Dirge standing next to them from turn 1. On Balanced, Pangea or Inland Sea (the other map kinds I play) I will probably never restart. Any start there is manageable.

1-25% is my range, too. I don't look for perfect starts (though I'll take them if I get them!) but a crippling start ruins the opening game for me, so I restart. Given that civ is a game of cumulative economics (meaning a lousy location for your 1st city is far worse than a bad spot for, say, your 5th city), where's the fun in knowing you'll be far behind right from turn 1?

Game over, man, game over!

Until I have two gold in my starting location in multiplayer.

Sometimes if i have desert all the way around me or a small island or something...

There. :)

1-25% now an option.

Aww, too late for me...

Since I do a lot of playtesting I had to select Seldom, but it depends on what I'm testing.

I restart 25-50% of my games because I start in or near the jungle every second game! In the beginning it really cripples my economy because I can't hook up most jungle resources.

The only time I restart is when my starting location is really bad. Example: playing highlands, and the game plops me down in the middle of the ice and tundra. Or, one time (I forget what map type), there was an odd configuration of mountains and water around my starting settler such that my warrior started a 12-turn walk away from my settler, there were about 3 workable land tiles in my initial location, and it would have taken 10+ turns to walk to a better location. I wish I had taken a screenshot from that game >_<

The only time I'll restart is if I am in the deep arctic (I play on huge maps) or if I don't like the look of the terrain around me. I can deal with lack of resources as long as the map I am playing on (mostly around me) "looks" interesting.

I play on crowded maps, and I will rarely restart if I'm trapped in ice and tundra (<<25% of all plays). At least jungle will be useful by early-mid game with sanitation; tundra and ice are not useable without High Priests of Leaves or Druids, either of which might not be an option. (I RP the civs, at least in as much as I won't adopt an inappropriate religion for units.)

Some (1-25%). I would call that Seldom though. I do sometimes like the challenge of a bad start and I get my fair share of them. So I most often play the Prince difficulty. But some starts are just ridiculous. The Jungle starts being the worst. Having to beeline to Sanitation without any commerce is not a fun position to be in.

Jungle's less of a problem now that you can frequently burn it down by provoking Acheron or teching up to fireballs some time before you get sanitation.

Pretty much the only things that make me reroll are loads of desert with no hills near the floodplains and that thing where you get stuck in the tundra with a mapscript-adjusted BFC and no other city locations nearby. Always feel sorry for the AI on that one too. Oh, and teeny weeny islands.

Only if it were impossible to move and impossible for anyone to put me out of my misery.

I said this somewhere else, but I like to 'preview' maps and just save the ones that look promising (about 50% with Smartmap). When I want to play, I load one at random and by then I will have forgotten anything I might have seen before. I don't so much mind restarts as having to abandon a map after playing it for an hour.

I just find it depressing to play stuck in the middle of the tundra, so I restart instantly when that happens.

Once in a while, I begin more or less on top of another civ, and I avoid that.

otherwise, I just play it.

I personally just play it. It's more amusing when I get screwed over in a starting position. If it goes bad I'll find some risky manuever and try it. It usually either gets me killed or gets me somewhere. More likely the former.

On a side note, there is a situation where I can see doing it (though its never happened to me).. one of the civs was on a peninsula blocked in by a mountain... so the AI had a truly abominable start. Literally, four squares to move, so it didn't have many hammers and once city only.. it had an amazing amount of (Orc Spearman) units on each square though ;). I ransacked all of their gold (OK, traded it for a tech that was extremely basic to me at the time) and then sent a ship with much stronger units over..

Until I have two gold in my starting location in multiplayer.Same here. And if they don't let me restart, I . .. .. .. .. . up a storm and quit within 10 to 20 turns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by much2much View Post
Until I have two gold in my starting location in multiplayer.
Same here. And if they don't let me restart, I . .. .. .. .. . up a storm and quit within 10 to 20 turns.

Personal note: Never play with him. :P

Starting locations in the middle of the ice are usually very good. In most cases overflowing with ressources. The only problem is the surrounding area.

But if you really don't like locations like this, there is an option for switching off ice in some mapscripts. For the Tectonics mapscript I know it for certain.

There is another option too. Starting Settlers are able to move 4 tiles and are quite some good scouts with their sentry promotion. I don't think ist's much of a problem if you lose one ot two turns by moving your settler.

But you can try to get vitalize as fast as possible by druids or nature manas...

There. :)

1-25% now an option.

Thanks, woodelf. You gotta tell me how you did for when I screw up the next time. ;)

I'd rather move my settler than restart. But if I feel like this game is gonna get boring cause of the start I'll restart.

Usually I just bang my head and tell me it's multiplayer.

Thanks, woodelf. You gotta tell me how you did for when I screw up the next time. He's a moderator. :p

I have to ask the people who voted 100%... if you are restarting the game every single time, when are you able to play? ;)

I have to ask the people who voted 100%... if you are restarting the game every single time, when are you able to play? ;)

Maybe they just never finish a game. :p

Even if I cared that much about my starting location, it takes me so long to set up a game (16+ civs) that I'd be too lazy to bother. If regenerate map worked, I might consider that. Anyway, I voted 'never'.

Obviously the question is not well worded for a proper survey as it can be taken a number of ways.

I took it as: When you restart a game, how often is it due to your starting position?

It seems others interpret it as: Due to your starting position, how often do you restart a game?

There's probably another way (or two) to interpret it that I'm missing, too.

As to the question, or rather my answer to it, starting possition is only ever a major impact on my decision to restart a game if I am praying around with a certain mapscript and/or settings. Actually, considering that the question is about restarting, I should probably change my vote to never. If anything, I abandon a game and start a new one (or regenerate the map).

If anything, I abandon a game and start a new one (or regenerate the map).

That's what I call restarting.

Even if I cared that much about my starting location, it takes me so long to set up a game (16+ civs) that I'd be too lazy to bother. If regenerate map worked, I might consider that. Anyway, I voted 'never'.

Interesting, V. I take it you select the 16 ai civs then.

I will sometimes choose the civ I play, but I always let the computer randomly choose my opponents. But, I play on Epic and there are only a total of 10 civs.

I find that with many civs the map fills up quickly and my computer really bogs down between turns.

I really really want to select the Huge Map and then reduce two of the civs in a map like Highlands or Oasis, But I am certain that the endgame will result in turn lags that result in me abandoning the game regardless of interest.

Starting locations in the middle of the ice are usually very good. In most cases overflowing with ressources. The only problem is the surrounding area.

But if you really don't like locations like this, there is an option for switching off ice in some mapscripts. For the Tectonics mapscript I know it for certain.

There is another option too. Starting Settlers are able to move 4 tiles and are quite some good scouts with their sentry promotion. I don't think ist's much of a problem if you lose one ot two turns by moving your settler.

There's a whole set of functions in the code purely to set up starting locations to be somewhat equative (and better than average). So it you start in the middle of a desert (without the typical river) or tundra, you'll be overflowing with resources (out to a distance of 3, due to a possible defect in the sprawling code that treats all civilizations as sprawling for this purpose).

Frankly, If I have a really bad start (typically an Isthmus, since the code seems to overvalue water for non-Lanun civilizations), I usually move my settler until I'm out of that situation. A few turns delay is nothing compared to a really bad location (as I've discovered the hard way). Otherwise, I typically move my settler at most 1-2 tiles (depending on where the visible resources are).

Yeah moving the settler is always good, since he is a good scout as well. EVEN if you end up settling on the original location, 1 move can be spared before you do so.

Interesting, V. I take it you select the 16 ai civs then.

I will sometimes choose the civ I play, but I always let the computer randomly choose my opponents. But, I play on Epic and there are only a total of 10 civs.

I find that with many civs the map fills up quickly and my computer really bogs down between turns.
No, I go all random. That's the enormity of my laziness - selecting 6 (7?) more AI spots is annoying to me ;)

I hope with BtS we can surpass the 18-civ limit, so that I can go back to opening all 18 spots and still have the opportunity to see Hyborem and Basium :)

I hope with BtS we can surpass the 18-civ limit, so that I can go back to opening all 18 spots and still have the opportunity to see Hyborem and Basium :)

With warlords, the hardcoded limit became changeable in the SDK, so it should remain changeable in BtS as well. Kael should probably change it to 21.

They said in the chat that there is only a minor change in the .dll file needed to raise the limit, but that the limit for the epic game is till 18.

since i usually play on a random map generater i dont rarely choose to restart even if im in hell. i try and make do but their have been a few times like on a small island with only one spot for a good city the rest desert. heck i even was gonna try that one until i found a roaving hill giant on it with me then said restart LOL

I really really want to select the Huge Map and then reduce two of the civs in a map like Highlands or Oasis, But I am certain that the endgame will result in turn lags that result in me abandoning the game regardless of interest.

Yes, guilty as charged. I find myself abandoning about half my games for this reason. Some I am far out ahead in points, but the time in between turns is just too much to take.

I love playing a Huge map and I have a pretty decent computer, video card, etc.

One thing that always drives me nuts is when I turn on Show Friendly Units and see units with multiple movement pts just spinning in circles. It's not like they are patrolling or anything. I wonder if this bizarre AI movement contributes to the lag time in between turns.

I guess I should choose a smaller size map.

I cant see how you guys enjoy managing a huge empire anyways. :P


For me, its 3 Cities that are my favorite children, they get all the attention from me, and the rest are fillers. More than 3 cities help my empire of course, but my top 3 cities are what 80-95% of my attention usually is on. And the capital is of course the brain and spine of the operation.

Agree with above. Soren specifically made it more difficult to grow uber-empires in Civ IV because they are exceptionally unfun and tedious to maintain.

I was disappointed to see that ffh2 reversed this restriction to a certain extent. In ffh2 MP mode, I'm often asked why I keep such small empires in the game, and the simple answer is that I play to have fun first and to win second (not that the reverse handicap prevents my ability to win very often, but it definitely comes into play against experienced players).

I cant see how you guys enjoy managing a huge empire anyways. :PI defiantly dont like managing huge empires. But I do like having large tracks of open land into the mid to late game. If I'm playing a game where I want to advance the AC then its no concern for me to raze enemy cities. But when I dont want the AC to advance thats when my Empire grows enormous. Then I queue my city builds which helps, but I don't automate my Workers because they still do it wrong. Hopefully this will improve in BtS.

ya, unless i get something where i'm surrounded by ice or desert, i never restart. I just make the best of it

I cant see how you guys enjoy managing a huge empire anyways. :P
Sharing a huge map with 15-17 other civs doesn't usually mean you'll have a huge empire.

For me it's all about variety. I want a variety of rivals in the game to bring about a variety of diplomatic situations, wars, alliances, etc.

I also like exploring, and having a bigger map means there is more exploring to do ;)

Yeah, I think in my games on a huge map I am lucky if I can get to 7-8 cities, so that is not a very large empire to manage.

What does amaze me though is how the AI can build two-three times as many cities. I just don't see how they can afford, let alone manage that many.

The problem is that if you don't keep up by continuing to build cities when you can afford it, then you fall behind the juggernauts like the Malakhim and Elves.

Like, V, I enjoy playing a game with a variety of civs and adapting my strategy to who's in the game.

What does amaze me though is how the AI can build two-three times as many cities. I just don't see how they can afford, let alone manage that many.

They do get some maintenance/support bonuses, more the higher the difficulty. But I've played Vanilla civ, with AIAutoPlay by jdogg, and I must say they play awfully bad when it comes to the economy.