How are archeological sites generated?

[Blitz Spearman]

Simple question. Anyone knows if archeological sites are totally random or if early game war has any effect on their generation?

 

[Scarpa]

The designers stated during development that the sites were based on earlier battles and such. While there have been plenty of observations about the sites specifically not making a ton of sense (razed city sites for CSes for example), I'm pretty sure they are not random.

 

[Sagax]

The battlefields of the past can definitely form a site in future - next time pay attention to your fights against barbarians. As for secret sites, they seem to be more random.

 

[joncnunn]

In addition to battle sites, I've seen them on tiles in which in early game I saw ruins.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've also never seen an archeological site placed on a tile that has a later game strategic resource (coal/aluminum/oil/uranium)

 

[GWashington]

Yep, as the others said early fights can trigger one. One time I found one right beside my capitol (which sucked), so be wise where you battle.

 

[whyidie]

I've seen too many ruins that just didn't make sense. Worst was a city states razing a city statethat that wasn't in the game.

 

[Halcyan2]

From my experience, most of them make sense.

However, in certain areas of the map (particularly remote CS terrain with no major civ presence), the game has to make up events in order for the sites to be distributed equitably.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Once someone discovers archaeology, events or no, it has to place all the sites. That is where the ones that don't makes sense, like Riga razed a city founded by Valleta, come from.

 

[jlim201]

Yep, as the others said early fights can trigger one. One time I found one right beside my capitol (which sucked), so be wise where you battle.

Whats wrong with it being right next to ur capital? That is where I would want it because your capital probably has the greatest bonuses for culture tiles. It is usually bad to make an Artifact with a Site within working range because it gives a lot more culture when worked and possibly more tourism.

 

[reddishrecue]

Yep, as the others said early fights can trigger one. One time I found one right beside my capitol (which sucked), so be wise where you battle.

you could make landmarks when the archeaological sites are within city radius.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Whats wrong with it being right next to ur capital? That is where I would want it because your capital probably has the greatest bonuses for culture tiles. It is usually bad to make an Artifact with a Site within working range because it gives a lot more culture when worked and possibly more tourism.

Because GS get planted near the capital, which sort of resurrects the academy-on-strategic-resource problem.

 

[GoStu]

From my experience, most of them make sense.

However, in certain areas of the map (particularly remote CS terrain with no major civ presence), the game has to make up events in order for the sites to be distributed equitably.

Should they actually be distributed equally though? That might provide some incentive to pre-industrial war. Warmongers and conquerors get more interesting landmarks and artifacts than boring peaceful empires.

 

[Blitz Spearman]

Should they actually be distributed equally though? That might provide some incentive to pre-industrial war. Warmongers and conquerors get more interesting landmarks and artifacts than boring peaceful empires.

That's what made me ask this question, actually. I love to wage wars, so maybe I should wage them earlier, if I am going to war anyway, if that means better landmarks.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

From my experience, most of them make sense.

However, in certain areas of the map (particularly remote CS terrain with no major civ presence), the game has to make up events in order for the sites to be distributed equitably.

The CS ones don't bother me I can stretch my imagination to believe CSs are out there trying to settle cities but it fell through and that's why they remained a CS. What irritates me is pre-Renaissance civ artifacts on continents those civs didn't have access to before astronomy. That's just weird.

 

[Dralix]

Should they actually be distributed equally though? That might provide some incentive to pre-industrial war. Warmongers and conquerors get more interesting landmarks and artifacts than boring peaceful empires.

There should be ways to generate antiquity sites through both war and peace, and there are. I don't think they should generate the same number of sites in every Civ's territory (and I have no reason to believe they do) but there should be some amount of equity of war vs peace when it comes to site generation.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Oh? Perhaps some brave but doomed adventurers set sail when everyone else said it was crazy, there is no other land. They made it all the to your continent, only to be eaten by a panther. Or perhaps they married native women, and their exploits were passed down as legend. But their ship and the stuff they brought with them is now buried under a man made hill which no one remembers is actually a barrow.

 

[Bad Wolf]

Has anyone ever seen an archaeological site that wasn't spawned either by barbarians or ancient ruins? I got the impression from the devs that they would be spawned by wars between civs, too, but I have literally NEVER seen an artifact resulting from anything other than ancient ruins or barbs.

 

[Amask]

Yes. .

 

[NukeAJS]

Has anyone ever seen an archaeological site that wasn't spawned either by barbarians or ancient ruins? I got the impression from the devs that they would be spawned by wars between civs, too, but I have literally NEVER seen an artifact resulting from anything other than ancient ruins or barbs.

Fighting other civs definitely makes archaeological sites. Razing a city practically guarantees one. It seems.