Great Moments in AI City Placement

Fei Kelei

Pleased
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
319
Location
London
It's no secret to anyone that the AI sucks at city placement, but I've played a lot of Civ IV and I've never seen one this bad:
Spoiler :

It's common to see the AI stupidly settle on top of gold and deprive themselves of a high commerce tile, but settling on top of corn next to three gold hills? That has to win some sort of prize.
 
I've seen worse. For some reason, the A.I. likes to not settle on river tiles.

I disagree. Thats awful from the AI. Ive never seen that. Its made worse by the fact it can only *compete* with the opposing AI (or OP) for the additional gold tiles when they fit into border pops. Ive seen the AI found an awful awful city next to a strategic resource just so it can get its benefits. This post flies in the face of all logic, AI or otherwise!
 
I also notice the obsession of AIs when it comes to settle atop lone hills--isn't that poor, lonely hill worth mining!?

I also notice that the game's included mapscripts force bad settling spots, including ocean fish only reachable from a hill or oil only accessible from a food tile.
 
When I started playing, I used to place my cities like the AI does, thinking it knew what it was doing. :crazyeye:

Note to new players: The AI is giving a you wonderful tutorial on what not to do. :D
 
The thing I find so funny when it comes to city placement, is that the AI civs are horrible at it, but the barbarians always put their city right where I dotmapped my next one.
 
The thing I find so funny when it comes to city placement, is that the AI civs are horrible at it, but the barbarians always put their city right where I dotmapped my next one.

I have had this happen many many times. Its great to take cities exactly where you want them without building the settler.
 
Top Bottom