About example 4, i understand that it is indeed not a bad spot that provides many resources, i would still favour the western one with corn and cow i mean, but i understand better that AI may favour it. However about the barbarians and their pressure, i would say planting too far south would not supress completely the pressure (unless AI uses one of its units to "watch" unseen tiles near the city as a human would i mean but it's probably overkill or too much hassle to code if ever possible, would be nice though if AI did this but it's maybe a bit too hard/impractical to implement i mean i dont know, but considering the number of cities it loses to barbarians in almost in each game i play, centering planting in a radial path rather than longitudinal one, when possible may help overall land security i mean. But it's true that not planting south may result in even more barbarians, so it's a tricky position that no player would immediately contest. Then the approach may to tell the AI to not settle too deep uncontested (by any player) land unless it has a few units to garrison it. Often these cities are destroyed due to one unit guarding the new city. Maybe telling AI to concentrate a bigger/most of its units closer to its borders (especially ones next to no other civilization where barbarians could spawn) would improve the AI if not already implemented by advciv? If not already existing, would advciv consider implementing a ay to tell the AI to guarrison more its outside cities, and when planting near no civilization use 2 units instead of one? (which hopefully shouldnt slow expansion too much? But it may be cheaper to lose the settler/city once in a whiel than wait everytime until 2 guarrison are ready (especially in the early game where expansion is crucial i mean i think) so maybe it's best as is and unfortunate i dont know, but anyways what would advciv think of this?)
Another consideration about example 4 is probably mitlitary security vs other players too i mean: if AI plants this spot of corn and cow, the human player or another player is more likely to contest it, so maybe it's best to not go for it overall i mean
About ressource visibility, it's cool i didnt know, it means that AI cant just blind find but really needs to think about which spots are overall best, hopefully this knowing good spots strength would translate thorughout the game when choosing where to plant and possibly when too but i dont know about that last point. The interesting thing about planting spots, in relation to how you said before i mean, that other saves files may provide other examples, it turns out i mean i have another example from today, example 13.1 and 13.2 (same city spot just at different time locations to show the surroundings etc i mean). Here AI very outrageously plants on the copper grassland tile, that would have been so nice for city growth otherwise (it's like 4 free hammers and no food cost (plus copper as a reosurce but planting there also gives it so not the main point i mean)). I have provided screenshot and save files for this example 13 here (download link at the begining of this message:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/advanced-civ.614217/page-80#post-16754101 ). This time however unlike example 2 city was planted in 1440 AD by Zara Yaqob who has Bronze working since a very long time, also unlike example 2 this is not a hill iron but here in example 13 a grassland copper.. I feel it's really a waste. I understand the strategic value of the fresh water and coast, also very far there is silver, but considering the very long distance from capital city (unless there is another city in between that i dont see (didnt want to spoil myself also i dont remember how to switch to AI view would need to reread your post but it looks a very cool feature but also no spoil for me now anyways), what i mean is i think the other spots i pointed nearby also achieve freshwater or/and coast. Also, like in example 4, if worse comes to worse, it may be fine to not get either fresh water or/and coast bonuses, but i think the value of this copper grassland tile is really higher. Hence, i am asking if this intended advciv behaviour, and wouldnt it benefit the AI in that case to plant in one of the spots i highlighted? (again if no other city or obstacle is there that i did not see). If it is intended, wouldnt it make AI in advciv stronger to not plant in strategic resources (especially if one grassland for production resources, or most tiles for food ressources)? So as in example 2, would advciv want to incorportate these changes? Unlike example 2, Zara Yaqob doesnt seem cramped this time, and can go for the silver later even though it doesnt look like surroudning tiles are nice enough for that, but i would favour not planting on key resources when they could give such nice yield, 4 hammers have been, i think, wasted in this example. What do you think of this, and would advciv consider changing the AI's judgment on planting on a resource depending on surrondings and the tile it's on or/and other parameters.
About the rest of your message, i did not read all yet, but i also agree that things like boosting tundra is in fact quite unintuitive, and may not appeal to most. My idea was to make the game a bit fairer by valuing each tile, but there's no harm if some are useless. In fact, it would make the game faster if the civs are cramped sooner, it's why i choose high see level by the way to not have the game drag for ages, one can always choose a bigger size if one so wishes. I also understand and learn from your explanation about advciv cramping civs more in map generation unlike vanilla bts, for the same reason as in this paragraph, i am in favour of that, even though the game mod is not made just for me xd, but i personally like when it's faster and not too large to settle everywhere so that strategy and stuff happen sooner i mean (else slow gamespeed relatively or something but it's not my point i mean). I just wonder about one thing, even if these tiles like desert, tundra, mountains are quite useless, isnt/is there another to make them useful besides settling on them or near them. Mountains have a very cool thing of not being able to walk on them, so they are like walls that add strategical depth especially regarding military. But is it realistic. Up to some eras, didnt civilizations sprout in mountains, and some cities (despite atypical) exist in these? For the sake of immersion, but also (my main point xd) not ruining nice planting spots unplantable due to it being a mountain, how about the suggestion to make mountains walkable (if not a hassle to code/implement i mean and if advciv would want too i mean) past a certain era? This seems quite practical and realistic too i think. For example, how about allow walking and working mountain tiles (building roads etc) when Enginerring is discovered? With the movement gain +1 i think it makes sense. In example 2, a mountain tile blocks access to all the nothern peninsula. Had the AI access to it, with its big army Boudica could have probably stormed the barbarian city there, and become much stronger, Boudica had a big army with nothing to do of it, plus was cramped, so it's a good example i think/feel of this suggestion. Another is as i said planting spots that are often too ideal but theres a (or many) mountain(s i mean anyways). So what would advciv think of this? If mountains are walkable, then settling on them is not too far fetched right? How about either this eing possible at Engineering, or maybe another tech? If another tech would be the way to go to allow settling on a mountain, what about a tech that follows Engineering? At this stage of the game settling would be just a small bonus anyway, and unless local circumstances, just a way to make the game easier/more comfortable i mean not giving critical advantage. Looking at the tech tree actually, maybe allowing to walk on mountain and work the tiles at construction makes sense, and settling on mountains at enginerring makes sense i think, what would you think of this suggestion? Again it would be immersive as you said, and personally realistic, it's not like it's unwalkable i mean, and sometimes it may help, movement speed may be reduced if really want to make it more realistic, but i am not sure it's required especially if the tile is roaded i mean. So what would you think of this suggestion in advciv, personally i would be looking forward to it. As for settling, in order to not haave full mountain cities everywhere, a defensive bonus of +25% same as hills should be fine and fit in civ4? What do you think of this suggestion i mean?
As for the rest of your message i will read and reply to it a bit later hopefully not too late but cannot guarantee that it would be too soon, in all cases thanks,
