Forward settling is out of control

[nzcamel]

On King I have had games where if I settle close to the AI they will settle elsewhere if there is space. Need to do it fast though, pretty much as soon as I reach 2 pop I switch to settler production to mark out the boundaries.

Have seen this with Poland, America, and Rome. I don't settle right in there space, but close enough that I get the "you settle too close" message. I leave a little gap so its not an outright DOW then backfill the gaps between the border town and my cap.

On levels above King I haven't been able to pull this off as the AI takes the spots much quicker than I can.

This usually works until around medieval/renaissance period at which point they'll settle anywhere they can, including between two of my cities.

This feels like what a lot of us were doing in IV. Then in playing V we adjusted to not being able to do that anymore without completely crippling our economy (I mean in IV it was costly too, but that cost could be paid off eventually). I think many people are yet to adjust their strategies back to being able to settle a few more cities early... I don't think I have yet lol

 

[oedali]

Yes you need to turn in into an opportunity instead of being pissed off that your borders are so close. I find that it does not happen in every game which is good; means the AI will do it in certain circumstances. There are so many different ways I personally deal with it, when the AI pops a city super close to me:

1. If I have the military means, I prepare for war and do a surprise attack to grab the city
2. If I don't have the military means, I build up an army
3. If the AI is friendly, I do a DoF and expand in other directions. When it's a convenient time in the future, I attack
4. If we end up becoming allies and taking their city isn't in line with the victory I am pursuing (e.g. better use resources to gang up on another neighbor), in some games I let it be

Of course a huge factor in this is how good a city it is. Sometimes the AI plops a worthless city w/ no nearby strategic or luxury resources. Whereas if they build districts or wonders then I am almost certain to try to take it unless staying allies with that AI is super important to my end goal

 

[Leyrann]

This feels like what a lot of us were doing in IV. Then in playing V we adjusted to not being able to do that anymore without completely crippling our economy (I mean in IV it was costly too, but that cost could be paid off eventually). I think many people are yet to adjust their strategies back to being able to settle a few more cities early... I don't think I have yet lol

Though I played Civ II when I was young, I always consider myself to have started with Civ V, yet I never bowed to the demand of "don't build too many cities". I'm just like, expanding forever is the only option.

 

[Photi]

Will the AI build a new settler before its current settler has found a city? In my current game (6OTM 12) I kept corralling one of Teddy's settlers who never did find a place to settle. In the meantime I was able to settle all the land that really should've been his.

 

[Kyro]

To be fair though, you can. You'll probably have to defend from a war or two early on, but if you expand properly and don't take cities after the Classical Era, you can get along with people fine and just slide towards a cultural or scientific victory, with at most having to defend from a war or two by a neighbor if you have captured one of their cities. I've done so on Emperor. And afaik Victoria does it on Deity.

Well the point isn't about whether you can or not; which is why I added that last line. It is about whether it is an efficient/competitive strategy to do so.

The choice to play peacefully is just an illusion because building your own cities and districts cannot compare with taking them in the same timespan. The comparison is what determines what strategies/builds etc are prefered and what aren't. If you're aiming for fastest completion time some doable but inefficient strategies are automatically eliminated.

It's doable even on Deity I know. It's just not as efficient as conquering your nearest neighbours, especially when you have to prepare for inevitable wars against multiple opponents simultaneously.

I have heard warmongers calling Religion useless. That's how redundant warmongering makes every other strategy.

 

[NN23]

It's an AI, and it's not designed to be helpful to your plans. Of course it will do infuriating things: it is just a way to fake that there's someone actually playing against you and you're supposed to pretend that it knows what it's doing.

I'm not asking the AI to be helpful to my plans. I'm asking it to act with a little bit of common sense. The AI, in my experience, is not trying to win the game (expect when an AI is alone on an isolated continent/island and it is pretty much forced to go after any victory condition other than domination) but rather has the approach of "how can i annoy and mess with the Human player". I wan't the AI to act like a true competitor, not like a fly that buzzes around you when you're about to go to sleep.

Secondly, the AI usually settles on terrible spots (look at my photo above and look at how many resources the city is missing out on to the south and east) when it is forward settling and you have to torch the city.

 

[Leyrann]

Well the point isn't about whether you can or not; which is why I added that last line. It is about whether it is an efficient/competitive strategy to do so.

The choice to play peacefully is just an illusion because building your own cities and districts cannot compare with taking them in the same timespan. The comparison is what determines what strategies/builds etc are prefered and what aren't. If you're aiming for fastest completion time some doable but inefficient strategies are automatically eliminated.

It's doable even on Deity I know. It's just not as efficient as conquering your nearest neighbours, especially when you have to prepare for inevitable wars against multiple opponents simultaneously.

I have heard warmongers calling Religion useless. That's how redundant warmongering makes every other strategy.

Do I have it right that you're playing not just to play and win the game, but to win it as efficiently as possible?

If so, I assume that you're doing it to challenge yourself. So I say: Challenge yourself in another way - do not declare a war or take a city after the Medieval Era.

Also, there's people calling Entertainment Districts useless. Doesn't mean they're actually redundant.

 

[Kyro]

@Leyrann
On the contrary I dun aim for speed in games but maximum potential and superiority in all aspects. Efficiency is definitely required that way but it is only a means to an end. I'm not a warmonger either, I play all my games almost exclusively peaceful even on Deity; I just detest how crippling it feels to play that way.

I'm not evaluating anything based on personal preference. I'm stating what the Devs have in mind based on their design choices. What the Devs have in mind is how the game is supposed to be played. What they favor automatically bleeds into their design choices and the most efficient strategies usually reflect that bias. I'm just saying they have a very severe war bias in Civ 6 and that adversely affects the power of non-war biased strategies.

All things in game are measured relatively. So is redundancy. Religion/Entertainment Districts aren't redundant because they don't provide a benefit. They are redundant because there are mutually exclusive choices that are far more powerful in the game to utilize. The opportunity cost for using something determines its power in game and whether it is redundant or not.

 

[LuckyAC]

Given my own egregious forward settling, I can't begrudge them too much.

 

[Siptah]

Given my own egregious forward settling, I can't begrudge them too much.

That's very much the thing. When I'm playing a peaceful builder game, I forward settle the AI a lot since I need space and won't conquer cities.

 

[Gort]

I feel like the whole "You're settling in MY LANDS!" diplomatic mechanics need an overhaul. At the moment, AIs can get annoyed at you for forward settling, but there's no real indication of what they'll consider to be forward settling, and what they'll not consider to be forward settling. It would be good if the settler lens would show you areas where you could settle without annoying AIs, and who'd be annoyed at you if you did it in a particular location.

It would also be nice to be able to designate "expansion areas" for yourself, and the AI would know to avoid those areas if they wanted to keep on your good side.

 

[Leyrann]

I feel like the whole "You're settling in MY LANDS!" diplomatic mechanics need an overhaul. At the moment, AIs can get annoyed at you for forward settling, but there's no real indication of what they'll consider to be forward settling, and what they'll not consider to be forward settling. It would be good if the settler lens would show you areas where you could settle without annoying AIs, and who'd be annoyed at you if you did it in a particular location.

It would also be nice to be able to designate "expansion areas" for yourself, and the AI would know to avoid those areas if they wanted to keep on your good side.

And of course that could also allow for disputes if you and an AI have the same "expansion area".

 

[PlayAsPericles]

Sorry no peacemongers allowed in Civ 6(6 is actually War in disguise).

How can they deter peaceful play without forcing the AI to piss you off? Forward settling is the 3rd best way to encourage war behind clumping start positions together and making warmongering extremely profitable.

"Oh but you can play peacefully" If you're thinking this you completely missed the point.

Yup. And that takes away a bit of what i loved about the civ series. All the great replies about ways to deal with it are much appreciated but at the same time it seems they are purposely trying to make this WAYYYYY more war focused of a game which IMHO is a shame as war mongers don't need any more excuses for war. If it was an occasional thing it wouldn't be so bad but it is EVERY SINGLE GAME after the recent patch.

 

[psyde]

it is out of control. i get the idea of 'cutting you off', or 'antagonizing you', but the ai's forward settling should be the same idea of what we do as humans. settle in the direction of the opponent, but don't be ridiculous about it and skip 15 tiles in order to do so - just settle in the player's direction.

 

[Leyrann]

Yup. And that takes away a bit of what i loved about the civ series. All the great replies about ways to deal with it are much appreciated but at the same time it seems they are purposely trying to make this WAYYYYY more war focused of a game which IMHO is a shame as war mongers don't need any more excuses for war. If it was an occasional thing it wouldn't be so bad but it is EVERY SINGLE GAME after the recent patch.

On the other hand though, how many real world nations became powerful without warfare?

 

[Phoenix1595]

it is out of control. i get the idea of 'cutting you off', or 'antagonizing you', but the ai's forward settling should be the same idea of what we do as humans. settle in the direction of the opponent, but don't be ridiculous about it and skip 15 tiles in order to do so - just settle in the player's direction.

I agree. I don't understand why the AI forward settles soooooo far away from it's main territory, usually bypassing closer quality sites in favor of subpar locations next to me or another civ. Often, I see the AI forward settle towards me and other civs located on one side of a continent while leaving large swaths of quality land open on the other side of a continent for AN ENTIRE GAME. I get that the concept of forward settling is suppose to rile human players to war, I really do, but I would much rather play a game where the AI maximizes city location sites' quality rather than to antagonize me. A stronger AI, resource wise, is a better competitor to me than a merely annoying one.

 

[MyOtherName]

it is out of control. i get the idea of 'cutting you off', or 'antagonizing you', but the ai's forward settling should be the same idea of what we do as humans. settle in the direction of the opponent, but don't be ridiculous about it and skip 15 tiles in order to do so - just settle in the player's direction.

Humans are ridiculous about it, often tending to claim as much territory as they think they can get away with.

 

[nzcamel]

it is out of control. i get the idea of 'cutting you off', or 'antagonizing you', but the ai's forward settling should be the same idea of what we do as humans. settle in the direction of the opponent, but don't be ridiculous about it and skip 15 tiles in order to do so - just settle in the player's direction.

Like human players don't do that lol

 

[psyde]

Like human players don't do that lol

yeah, okay. but do you get my point? i mean, the ai can't adjust the way a human can with extreme forward settling, and imo should be toned down for the sake of the ai's survival and in turn the player's experience.

 

[EgonSpengler]

imo should be toned down for the sake of the ai's survival

That's a valid point. I play at Emperor, and the AI is so poor that a city settled too close to me is just the part of my empire my tax collectors haven't reached yet. In general, I don't think the problem with the AI is that it's too aggressive, but right now it just throws Settlers away.