Forward settling is a feature, not a bug

[Sagax]

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.

I wonder if it has to do with the way they designed legacy paths, especially in Exploration. For both Military and Economic paths, you pretty much have to have distant settlements, be it forcefully or peacefully. Loyalty would mess with that a lot, especially seeing how island settlements can get extremely close to distant land AI’s core cities. Of course, it could work with some fine-tuning, but probably wasn’t worth the effort for release.

 

[d4everman]

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?

I had the AI actually do this. They even bypassed an area with a natural wonder just to occupy like three tiles between my cities. It was so infuriating I lost interest in finishing that game.

 

[Ornen]

they’ve made a seemingly conscious effort to reduce the number of currencies at play, which is part of why we don’t have loyalty. if something like it is added back in, I wouldn’t mind it working via some combination of happiness and culture

loyalty never fully did what it promised anyway. I’d be very interested in seeing more stability mechanics, especially during crises, where one might lose a few cities to independents or even see breakaway civs forming. whatever form it takes, I hope it’s more than just an anti-forward settling mechanic

 

[Leyrann]

I'm a little surprised they didn't bring back loyalty as a mechanic.

I'm not.

Can you imagine what a pain it would be to have a loyalty mechanic while also making colonization a major gameplay component?

 

[Ornen]

if you let the AI settle between 3 of your cities, that’s partly on you… do NOT leave them that space (and if there is a gap between your cities, block it with units)

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'm not.

Can you imagine what a pain it would be to have a loyalty mechanic while also making colonization a major gameplay component?

Thus my idea for Colonists which established settlements on distant lands which would be immune from loyalty pressure

 

[Leyrann]

if you let the AI settle between 3 of your cities, that’s partly on you… do NOT leave them that space (and if there is a gap between your cities, block it with units)

Sometimes it's either settling too close to leave every settlement room to grow, or leaving a small spot in between your cities that could technically be settled.

Although I will note that I haven't had AIs settle in one of those tiny areas in my games yet. I do usually try to maximize my borders ASAP though so usually they wouldn't be able to grab more than 4 or 5 tiles total.

 

[chazzycat]

I don't have a problem with aggressive forward settling at all. If I was playing an aggressive civ, it's exactly what I would do, so it's only fair. I have seen the AI actually do this somewhat competently at times on higher levels.

But, that's not what people are really upset about, I don't think. It's their tendency to go all the way across the map BEHIND your empire and settle a crappy town in the tundra. That is nonsensical and terrible strategy. AI's need to put more value on creating a CONTIGUOUS empire, such that their settlements are much more defendable. They build plenty of units so that's not the problem, they just need to be closer and have a road.

 

[UWHabs]

Thus my idea for Colonists which established settlements on distant lands which would be immune from loyalty pressure

Yeah, whether it's with a specific colonist unit, or just a simple "everyone gets +20 loyalty in distant lands", you can make it work. But yeah, the point about encouraging the AI to settle the distant lands (which they are fond of), could very easily be the reason why they go overboard in the homelands other times.

 

[Leucarum]

As an aside. Archipelago maps I find more interesting than the boxinents for creating more dynamic gameplay (more chokepoints, better scope for naval engagements etc...) so I normally play on there... And thinking about it I think I experience less forward settling on those maps. Maybe it's an AI behaviour thing, but for those frustrated with forward settling, maybe try archipelago?

 

[Apathmia]

The behavior does encourage interaction and strategy. You don’t want them doing it then you need to commit to the priority of maintaining the space. Don’t be friendly with a neighbor who might settle you. Settle cities and maintain city states in a way that prevents them. Use scouts to keep tabs on settlers and position units to block tiles you don’t want settled.

Or embrace it like you said. Close cities mean easy trade routes. Also as the eras shift and diplomatic situations change you might have an opportunity to conquer that city with some development later on.

It’s also an option available to you to do to other civs. I honestly got so trained by 6 to consider loyalty that it took me a bit to realize oh wait I can settle that strategic spot! Trade connection is the main penalty to replace loyalty for settling too far out there, I think. But in the other side is trade routes. Settling close might enable you get that trade route that otherwise is out of range.

I will admit the perfectionist in me has gotten angry when it happens but I’ve always realized it’s my fault for not blocking it from happening.

 

[Evie]

Frankly, at that point, not playing the game sounds like both more fun and more effective for keeping the AI from behaving like an addled chicken whose entire purpose is to annoy me, not to build an actual strong empire than your hackneyed advice.

But sure, do keep telling those of us who find nothing interactive, fun or strategic about any of this how it's our own fault for playing the game wrong.

 

[AD1730]

Frankly, at that point, not playing the game sounds like both more fun and more effective for keeping the AI from behaving like an addled chicken whose entire purpose is to annoy me, not to build an actual strong empire than your hackneyed advice.

But sure, do keep telling those of us who find nothing interactive, fun or strategic about any of this how it's our own fault for playing the game wrong.

I completely resonate with this. Few things in strategy games frustrate and annoy me more than an AI calibrated specifically to antagonize the human player, rather than just other players generally.

 

[Pfeffersack]

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!

This. As much as it annoys me when it happens: I actually appreciate the AI interfering with my settling plans...as long as the city they place benefits them. What I outright hate is the AI placing a "stupid city" between mine, just because there is tile or two left and it can settle there, but doing so is to their own detriment. I really hoped that Civ7's focus on AI would have taken care of that, but what I read doesn't make me optimistic.

 

[Leyrann]

The behavior does encourage interaction and strategy.

No, it does not. It forces you into conflict and removes all other possible interactions and strategies.

You don’t want them doing it then you need to commit to the priority of maintaining the space.

Which is precisely why it sucks.

Don’t be friendly with a neighbor who might settle you.

Don't be friendly with anyone on the map, got it.

Settle cities and maintain city states in a way that prevents them.

You clearly do not play on Deity.

Use scouts to keep tabs on settlers and position units to block tiles you don’t want settled.

It might work.

Or maybe they'll just settle the next tile over.

I don't exactly have the resources to build a carpet of doom to block them from settling completely - and frankly if I did I'd rather spend them on a settler to settle it myself first.

Or embrace it like you said. Close cities mean easy trade routes.

Trade route range is not an issue.

Also as the eras shift and diplomatic situations change you might have an opportunity to conquer that city with some development later on.

And we're back to removing all strategy and leaving only warfare.

It’s also an option available to you to do to other civs.

In practice, yeah probably. But I should get punished hard for overextending like that. "The AI is too bad to punish me for it" is not a valid reason to pursue a bad strategy.

Settling close might enable you get that trade route that otherwise is out of range.

Nah I can get that trade route just through natural expansion of my and the AI's empire. Worst case I'll have to settle somewhere halfway in between.

I will admit the perfectionist in me has gotten angry when it happens but I’ve always realized it’s my fault for not blocking it from happening.

I'll start blaming myself when I actually make a mistake. Not blocking off every single tile is not a mistake.

 

[Apathmia]

No, it does not. It forces you into conflict and removes all other possible interactions and strategies.



Which is precisely why it sucks.



Don't be friendly with anyone on the map, got it.



You clearly do not play on Deity.



It might work.

Or maybe they'll just settle the next tile over.

I don't exactly have the resources to build a carpet of doom to block them from settling completely - and frankly if I did I'd rather spend them on a settler to settle it myself first.



Trade route range is not an issue.



And we're back to removing all strategy and leaving only warfare.



In practice, yeah probably. But I should get punished hard for overextending like that. "The AI is too bad to punish me for it" is not a valid reason to pursue a bad strategy.



Nah I can get that trade route just through natural expansion of my and the AI's empire. Worst case I'll have to settle somewhere halfway in between.



I'll start blaming myself when I actually make a mistake. Not blocking off every single tile is not a mistake.

I do play deity precisely because i enjoy overcoming the challenge of unideal conditions. If you want to peaceful sim with ai that doesn’t interfere you can do that on a lower difficulty. The point of my response wasn’t to say it’s not annoying but that there are strategies you can use to prevent/mitigate the problem. Those strategies come with a trade off though (as they should). If you can’t prevent the ai from taking your lands, are they truly your lands?

I had a game where world renouncer and I allied up and then he settled right between two cities that hadn’t joined borders quite yet (my fault for prioritizing resource tiles over closing the gap). My first instinct was to denounce and plan for war but instead I thought hey we’re allies who cares. I instead dumped some gold into expanding the surrounding tiles to make sure his little dumpster fire town remained in the first ring. And it worked. It even helped me in a war because the location happened to be in a spot the enemy was funneled into fighting him instead of me. At no point was the only option to go to war and raze the thing. Though sometimes war is unavoidable but hey that’s 4x for you.

As the saying goes everyone has a plan till they get punched in face.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

forward settling itself is quite a sound strategy. The AI just needs to be tweaked to fully take advantage of it.

I think you have a point but this is key, in my "peaceful" Confucius game I was twice forward settled and it would have been an interesting challenge / conundrum if the AI hadn't just left the settlement exposed with no garrison and no hope of reinforcement.

 

[Uberfrog]

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

How would you claim land in the game? Is that not what settlers are for?

Or, much like the Treaty of Tordesillas, would you simply be able to arbitrarily paint a continent in your colours and say it was yours whether it had any bearing in reality or not?

 

[Leyrann]

I do play deity precisely because i enjoy overcoming the challenge of unideal conditions.

Then you should be aware that it is not possible to settle your corner of the continent before the forward settling AI comes in and settles on the far side of your capital.

and then he settled right between two cities that hadn’t joined borders quite yet

If he could settle between them, the borders were never going to close. Settlements block settling three tiles out, and can expand their borders up to three tiles. There is no such thing as a tile that can end up within a border but can also be settled.

How would you claim land in the game? Is that not what settlers are for?

Or, much like the Treaty of Tordesillas, would you simply be able to arbitrarily paint a continent in your colours and say it was yours whether it had any bearing in reality or not?

That is indeed the idea. You have controlled land, which works in the way it does right now, and in addition you have claimed land. It's easy to claim half a continent, but that doesn't mean you can actually enforce that claim. And claiming land doesn't mean someone else can't also claim it - potentially leading to relationships penalties or casus belli. Or perhaps negotiations over who gets what.

 

[0urBall]

I'm not.

Can you imagine what a pain it would be to have a loyalty mechanic while also making colonization a major gameplay component?

Could there be a loyalty mechanic that only applies on the home landmass? So distant lands stays as a free-for-all?