Forward settling is a feature, not a bug

[thecrazyscot]

A bunch of y'all are getting upset by AI forward settling.

Here's why you're wrong, and forward settling is a positive gameplay mechanic.

• Forward settling is good strategy, as it deprives an opponent of resources, land, and provides a base of attack in immediate proximity. It is quintessential human-player behavior.
  • It's even better for a human to do it, as the gold economy in this game means you can purchase an army in your neighbor's back yard in just a few turns.
• AI forward settling keeps the narrative going. You could have your own corner of the map where you peacefully build and don't interact with anyone, but forward settling forces you to respond and do something with the rest of the world. To put it bluntly, it makes the game more interesting.
• AI forward settling gives you interesting decisions.
  • Do you go to war to maintain your personal space? Or do you pursue blissfully easy trade route opportunities and spend your influence to have a tightly intertwined ally?
  • If you conquer it, do you keep the settlement, even if it's not ideally located? Or do you raze it and have to work a little harder in the future to keep your war support positive?
• AI forward settling gives you benefits. Free influence. An obvious bargaining chip in peace deals. Experience mills for your Commanders.

Embrace a more interesting game.

 

[Evie]

Not more interesting to me.

You like it, that's great, but maybe recognize that it's not how a lot of us want to play the game, that it's not more interesting to us that way, and bug off with your trying to shove your "more interesting" way down other people's throat?

 

[Leyrann]

Here's why you're wrong, and forward settling is a positive gameplay mechanic.

Except no it's not. If I declare war on the AI, I can take it's forward settled city before it has even had the chance to march it's army over. And from that point onwards I'm fighting a defensive war where I have to stop it from capturing a city, while my reinforcement lines are short and the AI's reinforcement lines are long, basically the same thing as if it were attacking someone on the other side of the continent for no reason.

Forward settled cities suck not because they're frustrating (although that certainly doesn't help), but because they're strategically unsound.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Not more interesting to me.

You like it, that's great, but maybe recognize that it's not how a lot of us want to play the game, that it's not more interesting to us that way, and bug off with your trying to shove your "more interesting" way down other people's throat?

Can I ask why? In my limited experience AI forward settling doesn't stop any styles of play. Maybe it's just annoying which is enough.

 

[Kerosene31]

My problems are:

One example - Catherine settles smack dab in the middle of my 3 cities. Next turn, she's complaining about troops on her border. My army was there when she built the city and are within my border! She's now angry at me because we're touching borders the entire game. I kept peace with her, but I realized I should have just gone to war back in antiquity.

What happened to the diplomatic "don't settle near me?" option? There seems to be little to do with this outside a war. You can keep throwing diplomatic points at it to keep the peace, but that doesn't feel great. Also in 6, you could culture bomb the city. I'm still learning the game, but there doesn't feel like many options available other than war. If there's something I'm missing, let me know.

It seems to make sense to keep your cities/settlements clustered, so the AI throwing a forward city doesn't seem to make any sense.

 

[Evie]

The exploration and expansion part of the game is usually the part I enjoy the most. I want and like to grow my empire organically, expanding steadily from the core outward, and eventually, once the core is established, to run into borderland with others in the hinterlands.

Having my organic expansion cut short or rushed the strategically unsound, anti-immersion forward settling of the AI, which exists only to foster artificial conflict, end the part of the game I enjoy far faster than I like, and plunge me into nonsense conflict gameplay. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I mean, there's forward settling and there's absolutely stupid settling.

I forward settle the AI all the time, by which I mean settle in their direction first to try to claim space and limit theirs. But when they march through your entire territory to settle a silly coastal town with your whole empire between it and their other cities? That's just silly!

 

[thecrazyscot]

Except no it's not. If I declare war on the AI, I can take it's forward settled city before it has even had the chance to march it's army over. And from that point onwards I'm fighting a defensive war where I have to stop it from capturing a city, while my reinforcement lines are short and the AI's reinforcement lines are long, basically the same thing as if it were attacking someone on the other side of the continent for no reason.

Forward settled cities suck not because they're frustrating (although that certainly doesn't help), but because they're strategically unsound.

They are only strategically unsound if the AI does not purchase an army there. Which, granted, they often don't - but forward settling itself is quite a sound strategy. The AI just needs to be tweaked to fully take advantage of it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Except no it's not. If I declare war on the AI, I can take it's forward settled city before it has even had the chance to march it's army over. And from that point onwards I'm fighting a defensive war where I have to stop it from capturing a city, while my reinforcement lines are short and the AI's reinforcement lines are long, basically the same thing as if it were attacking someone on the other side of the continent for no reason.

Forward settled cities suck not because they're frustrating (although that certainly doesn't help), but because they're strategically unsound.

When you forward settle you get some advantages, while taking some risks, that's totally ok for player. Since AI doesn't play the game, you need to look at its forward settling from player standpoint - it's an opportunity to dive into small-scope war, but you'll have to deal with consequences of conquered settlement. So, it both gives you strategic choices and things to do.

 

[Cymsdale]

I wonder how much confirmation bias is involved in this issue. AI settles 99 times in some perfectly normal spot? Don't even notice. AI settles in the spot you want? Fury of a thousand suns!

That isn't to say the AI settler logic couldn't use a clean up.

 

[UWHabs]

Forward settling is ok. Carving out your space, pushing up against an opponent, grabbing the maximum land makes total sense. Especially if it blocks them off from a strategic piece of land.

But what the AI is doing now is not forward settling, it's back-settling. Like they may start all the way up North of your continent, and decide to march their settler 50 tiles to settle in like a 3x3 plot of land right between 3 of your cities. And it's not even like they are claiming some magical land with 6 resource tiles, sometimes it's a settlement off freshwater with like one Gypsum tile.

In the ancient era at least, to me, if a town is not connected to your network, it should have the same penalty as being over your settlement cap. Or maybe even worse. Arguably I'd even be a fan of requiring you to settle within your trade network. If you're not close enough to trade with your capital, how are you ruling that land in the ancient era?

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

but because they're strategically unsound.

I see what you are saying and don't want to give the AI too much credit, but the combination of the trade system giving you resources and the settlement cap sometimes it's could be considered a benifit to both civs to be forward settled.

 

[Cymsdale]

In the ancient era at least, to me, if a town is not connected to your network, it should have the same penalty as being over your settlement cap. Or maybe even worse. Arguably I'd even be a fan of requiring you to settle within your trade network. If you're not close enough to trade with your capital, how are you ruling that land in the ancient era?

Being outside the trade network is already downside, so this is basically a double punishment.

 

[Leyrann]

They are only strategically unsound if the AI does not purchase an army there. Which, granted, they often don't - but forward settling itself is quite a sound strategy. The AI just needs to be tweaked to fully take advantage of it.

Do not teach the AI a tactic unless you teach it the entire tactic.

So long as they do not properly defend forward settled cities (which, I want to stress, will always be more difficult than defending cities settled closely together), they should not be coded to forward settle in the first place. Else you're creating dumb artificial conflict that only harms the AI out of a misguided belief that players prefer fighting a stupid AI over having more complex interactions with a smarter AI.

I see what you are saying and don't want to give the AI too much credit, but the combination of the trade system giving you resources and the settlement cap sometimes it's could be considered a benifit to both civs to be forward settled.

Except you do not need to forward settle nearly to the degree the AI likes doing in order to trade, and the settlement cap is high enough (plus the AI doesn't mind going over it) that you can fill pretty much the entire continent by the end of Antiquity anyway, assuming normal settings.

 

[wesplaysciv]

The way I see it, it's part of the game now, you can do it too and have fun with it until they add a loyalty mechanic

I remember being bummed when Civ 6 added it and I couldn't realistically settle on new continents without a simultaneous war to capture pop for loyalty

 

[Jeppetto]

Even If it's silly decision, AI should be able to do silly decisions, emulating miscalculations humans make (not every leader in history was perfect strategist) to break the tidium. But I assume people have problem with this because the AI lacks wit in other areas so it's just another bad decision on the list rather than tidium-breaking fatal mistake.

 

[Mudkip1001]

I would 100% agree with you scot if the game offered you a way to negate the forward settlement's cost to the settlement limit if they settled on your border or so close to your borders; but as it stands the AI can pump out settlers and continually throw them at your borders and you have to take these settlements at the cost of taking up your limit. We need civ6's causus belli system again.

I wish there was some way of recourse that doesn't always involve military conquest, whether that be espionage, influence, a world congress, arbitration, or loyalty (albiet if they do add loyalty back, it should not exist in distant lands or during wars). I want a more aggressive but competent AI that can defend the settlements it makes,
(so far notque's mod seems to have improved this a little)

 

[Leyrann]

Even If it's silly decision, AI should be able to do silly decisions, emulating miscalculations humans make (not every leader in history was perfect strategist) to break the tidium. But I assume people have problem with this because the AI lacks wit in other areas so it's just another bad decision on the list rather than tidium-breaking fatal mistake.

I'll start supporting this argument only once Deity AI, at the very least, can compete with me. Until the AI can contest me, it should not make obviously-stupid decisions because it's "not perfect". Yeah no **** it's not perfect, I noticed. Even if it's trying it's best I can see mistakes.

 

[Uberfrog]

There are two issues here:

1) AI settling logic is flawed. It is settling suboptimal cities before it settles much better land. And it is not defending its cities. This isn’t because it is deliberately trying to deny these spots to the player, it’s just unfinished game design.

2) Forward-settling is seen as offensive by many players. It offends our childish sense of fairness — “that’s my land!” — and feels frustrating to play against.

On this latter point, I think it’s just something we need to cope with, just like any hostile action from the AI. A game where you get everything you want is comforting, but I think ultimately a worse game.

In any case, we forward settle AIs all the time. The distant lands mechanic actively encourages us to do so. A loyalty mechanic, certainly one as unfun and punitive as Civ 6’s would only serve to make colonisation and conquest miserable and punishing.

I much prefer a dynamic game where players and AI can settle where they like, so long as we both have the ability to counter it.

 

[marius_kaparius]

Strikes me as the kind of thing that should depend on the personality of the AI leader.