Do you reload till you get a good start ?

[RedFuneral]

I re-rolled for the first time today. Morroco, in a thick forest, on a small island... nope.

I always take whatever the game throws my way, though I don't finish most of my games. I quit a large majority of them around t100-150 either because I'm too far head/behind/or just bored. Though what was more common with G&K is that a mod would update and break my saves.

 

[Socratatus]

Also take into account, if you have a bad start, it's very likely AI civs have bad starts as well. Just roll with it

Agreed. A lot of people always assume that the AI must all have brilliant starts or never consider that events could slow them down later.


It`s all the sweeter not always having an immediate start advantage, but then climbing up and doing as well or better - especially with an AI relying on programmed routines to defeat the Human Brain. Not really much of a challenge really, so why should WE worry about bad starts?

 

[David Squires]

I don't reroll for a "crappy" start, but I'll reroll if I get a start that won't let me leverage my civ's special ability, unit, or building. I often play random civs, random maps. If I get Assyria and I'm alone on an island, I'll reroll. If I get Spain and I don't see a natural wonder in 25 turns, I'll reroll. Venice on an inland sea. I'll reroll. If I get a mediocre capital, I'll keep as long as I'm not gimped from using my goodies.

 

[Scott Jegg]

What about getting trolled by the map generator?

Montezuma getting a coastal start with two sea resources, and there's a river or lake three tiles from the coast.

Leverage your UB or take the resources? Absolute trollmonger. That's insta-ragerestart for me.

 

[Scott Jegg]

Venice on an inland sea

Perfect example of map generator trolling.

 

[Denounced]

I never reroll a start. I've had great games after a bad start and terrible games after a good start. I quit games when the writing is on the wall but I don't do the reroll thing.

 

[rodrigoq]

I've played enough random/garbage starts to know that I prefer something more workable from the start, especially on diety. My default "win" on any bad start is early domination. Find a forest, chop an army, blow up everyone before Med era. I used to take w/e was thrown at me for the "challenge", but I found it became more annoying than fun. Now I have a minimum criteria for any start. I do save my 4000bc, explore the starting city tiles only, and decide if it's worth keeping. I prefer a minimum potential production, 2 lux's, and half decent food potential. If the city can't grow quickly, its garbage, if it can't produce units at a reasonable speed before classical, it's garbage. I don't need marble, hill start, coastal, desert, tundra ect to do well, just a set of tiles that gives a minimum amount of food/prod/lux's to poop out an average city. I have restarted upwards of 30 times somedays.. map generator seems to love to taunt me with ******ed starts. Somedays 1st map is fine.
My favorite recently has to have been my Arctic Atilla start. Mostly tundra, but some good snow hills, loads of deer and fish, and a mass of forested tundra. Looked interesting, so I tried it, and chopped a sickeningly massive army of rams. Once I was rolling, I was unstoppable. This was a large, pangea, diety, epic map, 16 civs, 24 CS.

 

[isau]

I also reroll everytime I open with Piety or Honor. I know that's not the question, and maybe i'm just bad with those trees, but picking either one tanks me waaay worse than a bad start. Guaranteed slog of a game.

 

[dashwinner]

I get frustrated if soon into the game I notice a much better site one or two hexes from the original start. If the site is really nice, I may restart and move my settler. I never do that based on horses or iron, however, only after a few turns.

In my last completed game, I had a relatively poor capital site. Two hexes away and I would have had three fishes as well as three deer, plus forests and hills. Any tiles lost would be taken by 2nd/3rd cities. As the fish were a way out, I did not find them until later. All through the game it really annoyed me! I prefer to 'cheat' a little rather than suffer that annoyance, frankly.

I am not sure we do get the best site any more. I think we used to, but no longer. In BNW I have had a few almost useless sites with much better ones nearby.

I'm pretty much the same. I have some sort of OCD where i'll spend the entire length of a game kicking myself for not having picked the ideal location for my capital, where that hill gold or wtv resource is just out of reach. I'll usually play whatever i'm given, but if I'm 10 or so turns in a realize i'd have a much better location if I moved my settler, i'll do it.

 

[ravennaux]

absolutely...good start is much more fun..King Huge...mods or not

 

[Socratatus]

I tell a lie. There is one case in which I do restart and that is if I get just two Civs on a Duel map. I don`t like duel games. I like a lot of Civs on a map.

 

[kukatr]

I don't care about the starting position. Nowadays I'm playing on shuffle and I'm always curious about the sorrundings, so I take what I got. Recently, I'm playing on a map where my capital doesn't have river or sea resources, it is 3 tile from mountains, 4 tile from marble. Well, at least my second city's stats are equal to capital's, so I'm happy. Later I've figured out that I have no coal, no problem, I like colonizing.

I'd wasted a lot of months to turn based games, in which I abused the random generator and saving system to achieve the best result. I'm tired of it.