Start is too important.

[Kyro]

There is a huge contention on whether one should move the starting settler. I don't understand why; especially in the context of Deity games. The capital is just too important. How can one make proper use of Tradition if the capital is just sub-par? How can anyone deny the importance of Mountains and Rivers?

It's not a matter of whether you can "make up for it" with your subsequent cities; it's a matter of how much you're losing out by not having a proper start. In ALL games I play, even with friends; the start MAKES or BREAKS the game. It's simply too much of an advantage/handicap to ignore. It's stupid that you have to play catch up with your own cities when you already have your hands tied trying to play catch up with Deity AIs.

Is there a solution for this?

 

[sixty4half]

I actually stumbled across an article regarding moving your starting settler just today. It's from January 2014, but still seems relevant.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...-Settler-Opening-Strategy-Splits-Civ-V-Studio

 

[Kyro]

I actually stumbled across an article regarding moving your starting settler just today. It's from January 2014, but still seems relevant.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...-Settler-Opening-Strategy-Splits-Civ-V-Studio

Read that last year; it does not address the problem. Even the developers are polarized on this. It does however prove one point; that Starts are a genuine problem. It can snowball a civilization to Victory or it can cause a downward spiral into the toilet bowl of no return. They affect the game TOO much.

In order to justify NOT moving the settler; you have to justify that starts are NOT crucial. That is simply not true now.

It begs the question: If there is a good chance that this start will cost you the game 300 turns later, why not move your settler?

It's better to run into Barbarians 3 turns into the game than spend time and effort, only to lose 300 turns later and realize the capital would have made the difference.

Oh and the "everyone has equal chances at the start" argument is invalid. Playing on even a standard-sized map, there is a very good possibility that starts are unequal and all it takes is for 1 player to have better start to throw off the pace of the game. You may have made up for your capital with a good 2nd city but hey the opponent has a good capital AND a good 2nd city.

How can you expect someone not to move/restart given these circumstances?

 

[NukeAJS]

CivBE had the right idea with it's option to start you on 7 potential tiles, not one AND give you a wider range of tiles revealed around that starting tile. Basically, it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to get a bad start in BE. Sure, some starts are better than others, but it certainly levels the playing field a bit.

Also, I've found that if I have a great starting location, my nearby expansion locations usually don't have unique luxury resources or they might have one instead of 2-3. I've never looked at how the map scripts determine where resources are located, but it seems like a method of balancing. Likewise, if I get just one luxury resources at my starting location, there are almost always lots of unique luxuries nearby -- not always, just usually.

 

[CraigMak]

If my start is bad I move a turn or 2 to much better land. Especially if I see a mountain nearby for an observatory. It's not that big a deal unless some one starts with 3 salt or something ridiculous.

Most starts are fine but some are so bad you have to move or you auto lose like tundra/flat desert everywhere.

I read that article and I think most of those developers have a mental disability. Losing a turn or 2 is nothing compared to having horrible land in your cap for the entire game or getting your city up against a mountain for an observatory.

When you start a game and see 5/6 ppl not settling on turn 1 you know you have some decent players in the game IMO. Your random spawn is often not the best place to settle.

 

[Kyro]

If my start is bad I move a turn or 2 to much better land. Especially if I see a mountain nearby for an observatory. It's not that big a deal unless some one starts with 3 salt or something ridiculous.

Most starts are fine but some are so bad you have to move or you auto lose like tundra/flat desert everywhere.

I read that article and I think most of those developers have a mental disability. Losing a turn or 2 is nothing compared to having horrible land in your cap for the entire game or getting your city up against a mountain for an observatory.

When you start a game and see 5/6 ppl not settling on turn 1 you know you have some decent players in the game IMO. Your random spawn is often not the best place to settle.

Most starts don't have a river/mountain; the benefits of which decide the fate of the game. Slower growth without observatory = lose; you simply can't win Deity games without prioritizing Science; no matter what Victory condition you're aiming for.

And yeah, who in the right mind weighs the advantages of a few turns over the benefits of a Mountain/River? It really makes me wonder what they are thinking.

 

[Kyro]

CivBE had the right idea with it's option to start you on 7 potential tiles, not one AND give you a wider range of tiles revealed around that starting tile. Basically, it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to get a bad start in BE. Sure, some starts are better than others, but it certainly levels the playing field a bit.

Also, I've found that if I have a great starting location, my nearby expansion locations usually don't have unique luxury resources or they might have one instead of 2-3. I've never looked at how the map scripts determine where resources are located, but it seems like a method of balancing. Likewise, if I get just one luxury resources at my starting location, there are almost always lots of unique luxuries nearby -- not always, just usually.

If only there was something like that for BNW; I won't have to restart hundreds of times then.

Anyway; I dun actually mind having few luxuries, good food and Mountain has always been the deciding factor for me.

 

[Noblosh]

For nice start go advanced setup and pick legendary start.
For mountains go advanced setup and pick world age 3 billion.
For rivers, you can mod that in XML:

Spoiler :

<GameData>
<Civilization_Start_Along_River>
<Row>
<CivilizationType>CIVILIZATION_America</CivilizationType>
<StartAlongRiver>true</StartAlongRiver>
</Row>
</Civilization_Start_Along_River>
</GameData>

 

[Kyro]

For luxury go advanced setup and pick legendary start.
For mountains go advanced setup and pick world age 3 billion.
For rivers, you can mod that in XML:

Spoiler :

<GameData>
<Civilization_Start_Along_River>
<Row>
<CivilizationType>CIVILIZATION_America</CivilizationType>
<StartAlongRiver>true</StartAlongRiver>
</Row>
</Civilization_Start_Along_River>
</GameData>

Legendary Start is deity ai's ticket to snowballing victory. Already play at 3 Billion years and I'm pretty sure many people consider modding cheating. Oh well.

 

[Noblosh]

I'm pretty sure many people consider modding cheating. Oh well.

But restarting a game until you get a nice spot isn't cheating?

And what about those mods that make the AI better at the game, are they still called cheating?

 

[Kyro]

But restarting a game until you get a nice spot isn't cheating?

And what about those mods that make the AI better at the game, are they still called cheating?

Restarting is failing and trying again. So no it's not cheating. It's just that you fail much faster in a more predictable manner.

Context is Key. Modding in this context refers to changes to the original game that makes your life easier; hence the reference to cheating. Enhanced AI is not within this context and therefore cannot be compared likewise.

 

[Socratatus]

Restarting is failing and trying again. So no it's not cheating. It's just that you fail much faster in a more predictable manner.

Hahahaha. That`s a good one. You really jumped through hoops to justify what is basically cheating.

Context is Key. Modding in this context refers to changes to the original game that makes your life easier; hence the reference to cheating. Enhanced AI is not within this context and therefore cannot be compared likewise.

Seriously I don`t care if you restart or not to get a better start, but don`t make up so much flannel to deny it. You certainly aren`t fooling me. As for me I don`t reroll because of a `bad` start. I actually find it an exciting challenge if I`m between two mountains!

I don`t see the start as that crucial in this kind of game.

 

[Nick31]

Yes, he capital location (and surrounding land) is a key factor in game success. That's always the case in 4x games like CiV. And yes, a more experienced player has more feel for how to move a settler.

The obvious counter, by the way, to feeling pressured to settle without a great start is to play on slower speed. If you played on Epic speed, taking a few turns to move and scout would be less punitive as you're missing less net production relative to game length.

Anyway, the Start isn't "too important." The land factor and map discovery is part of CiV... if it were entirely equal/predictable, the game would be much less fun.

And we all have nice memories of winning with bad land... It's a nice feeling rather than just glass cannoning with a perfect start.

 

[chuckh89]

But restarting a game until you get a nice spot isn't cheating?

And what about those mods that make the AI better at the game, are they still called cheating?

As a individual you can argue your point, but countless hours, collaborations, and hundreds of players input has gone into setting the HOF rules. They are good!

MODs are cheating!
Rerolling is NOT cheating

This is clearly defined in the HOF rules which are mainly there to put everyone on EQUAL footing,...

Everyone needs to be playing the same version (Even, if your not a HOF or Gauntlet participant), because it is the basis for conversations on CivFanatics....

A player can't say,..."I have no problem defeating Mongolia, and his pitiful Keshiks on deity" if your MOD gives you 10,000 gold to start

Is that a extreme,...YES! But MODs are too random to control across the board, so we all need to agree, and compete on a level playing field (Which is the most recent version of the base game).

Restarting is not cheating because everyone has the same ability to reroll as many times as they want,...


-

 

[shaglio]

Are we talking MP or SP? If it&#8217;s SP, then restarting is not cheating. You could roll a game with a crappy start, play it all the way until the end (win or lose), and then start another game afterward. Or you could roll a game with a crappy start and immediately restart the game. The only difference is you didn&#8217;t just waste time playing a round of a video game which led to no enjoyment whatsoever. To consider it cheating is ridiculously absurd and anybody who says otherwise needs to get their life&#8217;s priorities straight and stop treating a video game as some sort of moral litmus test.

If we&#8217;re talking MP, however, then it&#8217;s definitely a no-no.

 

[Solutionfinder]

Well, my favourite starting is on a hill next to mountain, next to river and next to the sea Don`t mind starting without a mountain or river if I`m next to sea with like 3 fish resources. Only thing important that is missing is garden.

Definitely agree about moving settler. Rather risk few turns than suffer the whole game. But on SP any start is doable. Only difference is do you want a challange or do you want pleasure from the game.

The only spawn I really don`t get is having like 2 stone and 1 marble and there are all plains tiles next to a river in the central area. I mean wtf? Why would you give me that and then forbid me the stoneworks?

 

[Chicoutimi]

i dont agree you absolutly need a river/mountain to have a good start. if i clearly see i wont be able to grow my capital i try to go wide and be top production of the game
the start i really dislike is the one that have absolutly no production, like a full flat land/flood plains desert or a jungle start with no hills

i consider starting on the coast a much bigger boost than river/mountain (at least when you can found your other cities on the coast too ^^)

anyway there are so many things that can affect your game, what you see on turn 1 is not enough to have an idea of how the game will go
the surrounding land, amount of different luxuries nearby, natural wonders, city states, how close you are to the others civ... so many things that can change your "good turn 1 start" into a crap one, or the other way around

 

[Ikael]

It is not a problem in SP, but it is a huge factor in snowballing (or not) during MP.

My proposed solution:

Make the starting unit not a Settler, but a "Tribe". Give it +1 vision and some huge mobility stats (5 moves or so), and make it impossible to be build so you only have one Tribe unit in the entire game. It is a starting unit only, but one very good one at that. Ta-daaa! Problem solved (or at least, mitigated).

 

[Kyro]

Hahahaha. That`s a good one. You really jumped through hoops to justify what is basically cheating.



Seriously I don`t care if you restart or not to get a better start, but don`t make up so much flannel to deny it. You certainly aren`t fooling me. As for me I don`t reroll because of a `bad` start. I actually find it an exciting challenge if I`m between two mountains!

I don`t see the start as that crucial in this kind of game.

It is legal according to the game rules to restart because the developers themselves recognize the flaws of a randomly generated map and its potentially damaging effects on game balance and experience.

If you can't even agree that starts have a compelling effect on games despite all the evidence there is then I doubt you can even be reasoned with.

Good luck NOT restarting when you end up with tundra and plains with fur. If you do it even once, you would be a hypocrite.

 

[Kyro]

i dont agree you absolutly need a river/mountain to have a good start. if i clearly see i wont be able to grow my capital i try to go wide and be top production of the game
the start i really dislike is the one that have absolutly no production, like a full flat land/flood plains desert or a jungle start with no hills

i consider starting on the coast a much bigger boost than river/mountain (at least when you can found your other cities on the coast too ^^)

anyway there are so many things that can affect your game, what you see on turn 1 is not enough to have an idea of how the game will go
the surrounding land, amount of different luxuries nearby, natural wonders, city states, how close you are to the others civ... so many things that can change your "good turn 1 start" into a crap one, or the other way around

So you are saying it's actually possible to go for a non-domination victory without emphasis on Science? (Since Wide = low population = low Science) How is it even possible to play wide on Deity anyway given the pace at which AI gobbles up land?