Forward settling is a feature, not a bug

[ehecatzin]

I think you are being too optimistic about a badly implemented piece of code.

It's one thing if the AI beats me to a good city location and build closer to me. It brings competition for resources and most likely a bunch of wars, that's interesting and welcome.
It's something completely diferent when the AI ignores half a continent of rivers, resources and natural wonders to find a 2 tile space bordering my capital to "forward settle"

I'm very happy using mods to relieve this situation, and it makes for more interesting game where the AI actually competes for space instead of being braindead, but not everyone is going to use mods, and I hope Firaxis fixes this sooner than later.

 

[AD1730]

To me, a mechanic to claim land would fit well within the exploration age. Perhaps you could spend influence to claim areas of land. Claims could serve as a signal to AI and other players that settling in that area could mean war. Violation of a claim could give the claimant influence, war support, etc.

 

[ombak]

I also think there's a context that's hard to ignore here, and that is that the same problem happened in 6 and they addressed it. Later, in the expansion, there was loyalty, but I am sure they made changes before that. I seem to remember forward settling being really bad early on. There's nothing to suggest this is any different, let alone more strategic.

As for the frustration it generates, I think this is one are where the AI has to be programmed to be fun and contribute to the gameplay, even if it might actually have found something good to beeline for.

 

[Cymsdale]

To me, a mechanic to claim land would fit well within the exploration age. Perhaps you could spend influence to claim areas of land. Claims could serve as a signal to AI and other players that settling in that area could mean war. Violation of a claim could give the claimant influence, war support, etc.

Seems like the simplest mechanism to stake is claim is to.. you know, plop a settler on it. I don't think "calling dibbs" held up very well, historically.

 

[Ornen]

I don’t see how anyone could take a hard look at current AI settler behavior and say ‘this is great, definitely working as intended ’

the AI uses settlers as explorers, gets settlers stuck in place for entire eras, prefers 1-tile islands to inland settlements, and counts resources that have already been claimed when evaluating settle spots. they’re not forward settling tactically, that’s for sure

 

[Leucarum]

The AI's forward settling hasn't felt as bad for me as I'd seen in some of the preview videos so I am assuming some tweaks were done. Not that it's perfect, but I've generally been ok with the level of forward settling the AI does.

I'd just say 2 things.
Raze city giving war support on future wars is a pretty big debuff if you are only trying to remove the AI settling a trash town that took some key tiles from you. Maybe this should only happen for cities and not towns?
Maybe the AI should have a stricter aversion to settling outside its trade network. Occasionally the AI does decide it really wants an ice city on the far side of the map and walks a settler across the continent. It'd probably be a good QOL feature for all concerned if it was less inclined to do this.

 

[pokiehl]

Raze city giving war support on future wars is a pretty big debuff if you are only trying to remove the AI settling a trash town that took some key tiles from you

I don't think it's a huge deal. It only lasts for that specific age, and the player has the option to overcome it with Influence.

Maybe it does make sense to have a worse penalty for cities vs towns as you said, though.

 

[ehecatzin]

Raze city giving war support on future wars is a pretty big debuff if you are only trying to remove the AI settling a trash town that took some key tiles from you. Maybe this should only happen for cities and not towns?

This is a good idea, razing a horsehockey town in the outskirts of my empire should angry the opposing civ, but it shouldn't be on the same level as razing a city. it would encourage more push and pull on frontier towns, and a ticking clock to deal with it before it turns into a city.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Solutions to the problem of forward settling and border gore:

New and updated units
Settlers should be limited to founding cities within three tiles or a tile you currently own. As soon as they settle a town, it culture bombs a path to your closest territory.
Pioneers could forward settle anywhere, but if the territory they claim isn’t contiguous with your capital’s territory, it would lose loyalty and likely defect to the most populous nearby civ
Colonists would have no such restrictions and not be subject to loyalty pressure, but would be required to found a colony on a continent on which you currently have no cities.

New mechanics
Any territory completely encircled by your current territory would automatically come into your possession and be acquired by the nearest settlement
Endeavors preventing opponents from settling within a certain distance from your territory at the time the endeavor is agreed upon

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think it's a huge deal. It only lasts for that specific age, and the player has the option to overcome it with Influence.

It's not insurmountable but on higher difficulty levels a change in war support is something you definitely feel, and it seems out of proportion if it's the only way to get rid of a tiny, awfully positioned hamlet that took your precious camels. Not speaking from experience here.

This is a good idea, razing a horsehockey town in the outskirts of my empire should angry the opposing civ, but it shouldn't be on the same level as razing a city. it would encourage more push and pull on frontier towns, and a ticking clock to deal with it before it turns into a city.

i mean, maybe make it a general penalty for taking cities and a bigger one if you raze cities?

 

[Leyrann]

To me, a mechanic to claim land would fit well within the exploration age. Perhaps you could spend influence to claim areas of land. Claims could serve as a signal to AI and other players that settling in that area could mean war. Violation of a claim could give the claimant influence, war support, etc.

This is something I thought of as well. In addition to the owned tiles that we have in the game right now (which can also use some improvements but that aside), there should be a way to claim tiles, where you basically just outline what you want to claim on the map, and then you can have stuff like overlapping claims, casus belli related to claims not being respected, et cetera.

After all, it's not as if the European powers actually controlled all the land in these areas...

 

[Leyrann]

Settlers should be limited to founding cities within three tiles or a tile you currently own. As soon as they settle a town, it culture bombs a path to your closest territory.

That's stupid. It would literally make it impossible to properly space your cities out.

Pioneers could forward settle anywhere, but if they territory the claim isn’t contiguous with your capital’s territory, it would lose loyalty and likely defect to the most populous nearby civ
Colonists would have no such restrictions and not be subject to loyalty pressure, but would be required to found a colony on a continent on which you currently have no cities.

So after I settle South Africa I no longer get to settle Nigeria, Egypt or Kenya?

 

[AD1730]

This is something I thought of as well. In addition to the owned tiles that we have in the game right now (which can also use some improvements but that aside), there should be a way to claim tiles, where you basically just outline what you want to claim on the map, and then you can have stuff like overlapping claims, casus belli related to claims not being respected, et cetera.

After all, it's not as if the European powers actually controlled all the land in these areas...

View attachment 720936

Definitely. The Seven Years/French & Indian War (which some describe as the first "world war") started due to competing claims in North America. It also provides more opportunity to differentiate civs. For example, Spain might be able to claim land in Distant Lands at a discounted rate.

 

[Xandinho]

I hate forward settling, and I'd disable it immediately if that were an option. It’s incredibly frustrating to see the AI travel from far away just to establish a settlement in the middle of multiple foreign cities, without even being able to defend it.

For those who like to see well-organized and structured empires, the visual mess that forward settling creates on the map is awful. I wish there were a cultural assimilation mechanic or something similar—or at the very least, that these cities would turn into Independent Peoples.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

So after I settle South Africa I no longer get to settle Nigeria, Egypt or Kenya?

It’d be possible to do so with a Pioneer, or through conquering settlements already there. Or perhaps Colonists simply couldn’t settle anywhere but the Distant Land, but could do so anywhere there. I’m just brainstorming and spitballing

 

[Sagax]

That's stupid. It would literally make it impossible to properly space your cities out.



So after I settle South Africa I no longer get to settle Nigeria, Egypt or Kenya?

I think the idea is to use all three in tandem. Want to space out your cities? Use pioneers, not settlers. Want to spread on a new continent? Use a colonist for your first city, then spread using settlers and pioneers from that city.

Of course, it all hinges on presence of loyalty as a mechanic, which apparently is not a thing in this game outside of the Happiness crisis.

 

[Leyrann]

It’d be possible to do so with a Pioneer, or through conquering settlements already there. Or perhaps Colonists simply couldn’t settle anywhere but the Distant Land, but could do so anywhere there. I’m just brainstorming and spitballing

No, it would not be by your own rules. Those settlements from pioneers would flip to the local powers.

Also you'd have to keep track of which unit founded a settlement and create different rules for it, and then provide a way for the player to view that information, preferably without having to open a separate screen, and you have to come up with rules for conquered settlements, etc.

I think the idea is to use all three in tandem. Want to space out your cities? Use pioneers, not settlers. Want to spread on a new continent? Use a colonist for your first city, then spread using settlers and pioneers from that city.

My point being, once you use a colonist to settle one place in Distant Lands, you can no longer settle anywhere else in those distant lands, and are locked to that one part. Which is incredibly ahistoric as there are many examples of colonizers grabbing bits and pieces from all over a continent (hence my example using England).

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

What baffles me is that when you have a settler selected, the AI is giving you hint on "good" spots (which, in my opinion, tends to be off by a few tiles most of the time...). And, so far, it didn't advice me to go settle at the other side of the map...

So, if the AI is using a similar decision program, why does it so consistently bug and forward settle (in sub-optimal spaces, at that...)?...

 

[UWHabs]

I think the idea is to use all three in tandem. Want to space out your cities? Use pioneers, not settlers. Want to spread on a new continent? Use a colonist for your first city, then spread using settlers and pioneers from that city.

Of course, it all hinges on presence of loyalty as a mechanic, which apparently is not a thing in this game outside of the Happiness crisis.

I'm a little surprised they didn't bring back loyalty as a mechanic. Maybe they just wanted to start simple. But even a bare-bones loyalty setup to me could be something like every settlement connected in the network to your founded city gets you +, every opposing settlement within 8 tiles of the city in question is a minus, and you get a happiness penalty if the negatives win. And then have it like the loyalty crisis, where a city can flip if it doesn't stay happy. So if you can keep the city content, keep it.

Although I will say, even with that, due to the way the settlement cap works, I feel like there should be an "abandon settlement" option. Because I had the case where Ben Franklin settled a crappy settlement between a bunch of mine, but I was allied with him so I didn't really want to break the alliance to capture it to raze it. But I'd love if there was some way it could peacefully flip to me, I could accept it, and then abandon it. Let me re-settle those migrants please.

 

[Cymsdale]

What baffles me is that when you have a settler selected, the AI is giving you hint on "good" spots (which, in my opinion, tends to be off by a few tiles most of the time...). And, so far, it didn't advice me to go settle at the other side of the map...

So, if the AI is using a similar decision program, why does it so consistently bug and forward settle (in sub-optimal spaces, at that...)?...

Maybe their settlement lens is from the perspective of the player.