Forward settling is out of control

[psyde]

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.

yeah. it's a great idea on firaxis' part to cut off the player's land expansion, but it's just too extreme right now.

 

[darkace77450]

Sorry to bump an old(ish) thread, but the extreme degrees to which the AI goes to forward settle players has been irking lately and I wanted to voice my frustration.

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.

There's a difference between the AI doing something annoying to you to hinder your attempts to win and the AI doing something obnoxious just to annoy you, and the forward settling in this game is definitely of the latter variety. In most cases there's no reason (read: it's not beneficial) for an AI to plop a city down right next to yours; they're programmed to do so to create an artificial speed bump to the players, and that kind of ar

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Forward settling to the point where you can't defend it is throwing.

It's fine as a concept, but the AI shouldn't do it unless it's thinking about war. Long range cities have a lot of pitfalls to defend.

 

[LoneDragon]

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.

They seem to lose a lot of settlers to barbarians. I've captured quite a few barbarian settlers and I'm always seeing City State settlers that I'm pretty sure they could only get from capturing barbarians.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

I don't even try to beat the settlers, I start with slingers and warriors and kill/capture anything that gets close

 

[magha77]

When you build a settler, the recommended spots for settling are where they always settle. If you keep those spots in mind and fill them with a range unit of some sort, then it seems to take care of it. If you are in the mood for a free settler, they literally come to your ranged unit for easy picking.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I've captured quite a few barbarian settlers and I'm always seeing City State settlers that I'm pretty sure they could only get from capturing barbarians.

Yes - in my current game Germany sent an unescorted Settler from their continent to mine, bad move lol. My suzerain Jerusalem has a Settler sitting and I have picked up a Barb Settler and and a Barb Worker. If the AI is going to forward settle they should at least send some units with it as well

 

[LoneDragon]

Yes - in my current game Germany sent an unescorted Settler from their continent to mine, bad move lol. My suzerain Jerusalem has a Settler sitting and I have picked up a Barb Settler and and a Barb Worker. If the AI is going to forward settle they should at least send some units with it as well

I wonder...if you levy the military of a CS with a settler...do you get control of the settler?

 

[Rosty K]

I wonder...if you levy the military of a CS with a settler...do you get control of the settler?

No, civilian units (intended for builders, but settlers too, as a result) stay with them.

 

[Josephias]

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.

I always felt this diplo mechanics miss the "New World" explorer planting the flag and saying "i claim this land for King X or Queen Z". Maybe it could be an option that your explorers or military units could "plant a flag" that stated you intend to expand to an specific area (3-4 tile radius?). However, you should keep units around or it would fade away (and it will eventually fade if no city is built in some time)... but then ¿should it have a cost? ¿what happens when two flags collide? ¿Should we open the option for land trading? (i.e i'd be happy to trade you two farmland-appropriate tiles for that gold hill... you have other one, anyway...)

 

[Leyrann]

I always felt this diplo mechanics miss the "New World" explorer planting the flag and saying "i claim this land for King X or Queen Z". Maybe it could be an option that your explorers or military units could "plant a flag" that stated you intend to expand to an specific area (3-4 tile radius?). However, you should keep units around or it would fade away (and it will eventually fade if no city is built in some time)... but then ¿should it have a cost? ¿what happens when two flags collide? ¿Should we open the option for land trading? (i.e i'd be happy to trade you two farmland-appropriate tiles for that gold hill... you have other one, anyway...)

I'd love claiming land, and wars over claimed land that isn't actually owned by anyone.

 

[UWHabs]

I always felt this diplo mechanics miss the "New World" explorer planting the flag and saying "i claim this land for King X or Queen Z". Maybe it could be an option that your explorers or military units could "plant a flag" that stated you intend to expand to an specific area (3-4 tile radius?). However, you should keep units around or it would fade away (and it will eventually fade if no city is built in some time)... but then ¿should it have a cost? ¿what happens when two flags collide? ¿Should we open the option for land trading? (i.e i'd be happy to trade you two farmland-appropriate tiles for that gold hill... you have other one, anyway...)

I think in a lot of cases it's just too easy to defend lone cities right now. I mean, if I sent a Settler across the ocean, and planted a city, as long as I have one decent unit with the settler, I should be able to withstand any barbarian invasion.

Never mind being able to buy units in this new city. My current game I had a warrior and settler which settled on a new land (well, it was the opposite edge of the Pangaea, but there weren't any civs nearby). I was England so I got a free swordsman. The warrior was already injured and died, but the swordsman held the barbs off enough until I could buy a knight in this new city. This is a city 30+ tiles from my mainland, size 1, and somehow I can scrape enough resources to get a Knight there?

IRL, many "civs" had settlements that they abandoned because they had trouble defending them. Almost wish there was a mechanism where if you plant a city within 5 tiles of an already established barb camp, then they suddenly spawn an army and try to take you out, like they do once their scout gets back to camp. That would be a neat little mechanism in trying to defend the "new world".

 

[juanpavo]

Regarding AI forward settling, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you intend to capture an AI capital at some point, forward settle as close as possible, put up some walls, build an encampment, and then when the inevitable war happens you have a nice place to launch a surgical strike.

 

[steveg700]

Ideally for me, the AI should be programmed to consider forward settling as an agressive act. So it does the math of "is this someone I'm willing to go to war with". And if yes, it sends a settler with a number of military units and forward settles - as an explicit provocation it's ready to defend.

Sometimes a forward settle is the best a civ can do. Civ VI maps are cramped. On a huge map, I remove two civ's and 2/3 of the CS's, and there are still plenty of civ's crushed together, with some poor buggers in the middle relegated to being the Austria-Hungary of that game.

 

[Victoria]

Sometimes a forward settle is the best a civ can do

The trouble is they do not sensibly forward settle, they go right up against your boundaries, it has to be a troll move

 

[agonistes]

The trouble is they do not sensibly forward settle, they go right up against your boundaries, it has to be a troll move

I call this "snuggling."

 

[nzcamel]

I call this "snuggling."