Hi!

I observed, that some independent cities tend to be placed always in desert terrain, like Samarkand, Sana'a and sometimes Sur. I've never seen Samarkand been placed somewhere it can grow - so the attacker, AI or me - always is forced to destroy them. On the other hand, Jerusalem usually does well. Is this delibaretly so?

And is there a possibility to divert the Barbarians from destroying so many cities? In my latest 4 games civs that fell apart during pressure from Barbs were wholly annihilated. The Barbs destroying all the cities from the Chinese, so there would be no possibility for respawn.

Greetings!

I'm pretty sure the terrain around independent cities is supposed to be the same or similar to the terrain surrounding them in the real world. So yes, this would be deliberate.

What's most annoying is when they flip to you. There's usually not a good way to get rid of them, so you have to hope that barbarians burn them down or you're stuck with crippled city.

@Metal Alloy Man

Actually, Samarkand is located near the Ferghana valley, a fairly productive valley in Central Asia. It was a big city in ancient times.

Hey, I didn't chose the terrain but I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be similar. If you compare it to the terrain in normal RFC it should be very similar.

@MAM

I know you're not responsible, it was more of a plea to Rhye.

;-)

Actually, RFC RAND is for me the better RFC because you can't plan so much ahead as in normal RFC. You have to adapt to unknown terrain and civ's strength (depending on terrain and neighourhood). That's - at least for me - the perfect match: Rhye's Civ-mechanics and an unknown earthlike map generator like the one he designed.