Yeah, I had the idea for a two city challenge where you got to choose where to settle. But Civ unmodded doesn't support it.
News: GOTM 93 - Starts 1 August
- Thread starter neilmeister
- Start date
Also health will be an issue. No fresh water, no expansive trait, and no grains on the starting island. Could be partly offset if we have fish/crab in the fog to the right. Not much to trade for the AI resources either.
Unless I lose out on seafood to the east, I'll settle on the marble. Won't need wheel or an early worker for marble access if I settle on it...just masonary.
Looking harder and harder as a one city play. May choose the challenger save just to avoid the AI for a bit.
cas
Unless I lose out on seafood to the east, I'll settle on the marble. Won't need wheel or an early worker for marble access if I settle on it...just masonary.
Looking harder and harder as a one city play. May choose the challenger save just to avoid the AI for a bit.
cas
cas - Why don't you find a better spot for your second city, move your palace there, and then give away the island spot to the first civ you meet? Not exactly one city, but close.
Now you know why I pre-settled the cities when I did the 3-city challenge map a couple of years ago
I think I'm likely to settle in-place (unless there's more seafood 3 tiles to the East that would motivate moving eastward). Settling on the marble would give a faster start which is nice, but setting in-place allows the capital to have a higher overall production, which I think will be better long term. I think that's important because that capital is not going to be much use other than as a production pump for settlers, workers, galleys, etc.
Way too weird & unnatural for us. Bummer.
We'll pass. What's next?
Just trying to provide some variety.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 27,097
We got your back
Ronnie1
Deity
magicgunnar
Chieftain
I like weird scenarioes!
Yeah, I wouldn't worry. No-one has done anything wrong here.
People's tastes differ, and no-one's ever going to come up with a single game that is to everyone's tastes. I personally appreciate the variety of different scenarios, but there's also nothing wrong with some people deciding a particular scenario is not for them. I personally can think of particular games that I've avoided playing because I didn't like the set-up (For example, I don't really enjoy playing at deity level), but I'm still happy with the fact that games that are not to my tastes exist because I know other people do enjoy those games.
People's tastes differ, and no-one's ever going to come up with a single game that is to everyone's tastes. I personally appreciate the variety of different scenarios, but there's also nothing wrong with some people deciding a particular scenario is not for them. I personally can think of particular games that I've avoided playing because I didn't like the set-up (For example, I don't really enjoy playing at deity level), but I'm still happy with the fact that games that are not to my tastes exist because I know other people do enjoy those games.
Agreed... I liked it even better when it was the original idea (i.e. that catured cities would have autorazed)... too bad the game did not allow that.
Still, this sounds like a fun (i admittedly a bit unusuall) challenge. I hope to get time to start it tis evening, but real life will probably cause a dealy until Wednesday or so...
Still, this sounds like a fun (i admittedly a bit unusuall) challenge. I hope to get time to start it tis evening, but real life will probably cause a dealy until Wednesday or so...
Back to discussing strategy in this game... I suspect an interesting key decision is going to be, how quickly should we settle the settlers?
The recent GOTM with 2 settlers starting on different continents seemed to show that settling 2 cities almost straight away doesn't really harm you. But I wonder if settling 6 very quickly could be a different story if you have maintenance costs from so many undeveloped cities. The map type will prevent you settling them too quickly since you have to build a galley first, and being financial and having lots of water will help the cities pay for themselves in the early stages of the game. On the other hand the ban on building further settlers suggests holding one or two of them back for the possibility of finding better land later on. Or for sites where the AI insists on settling cites in silly locations so capturing its cities is not an option.
The recent GOTM with 2 settlers starting on different continents seemed to show that settling 2 cities almost straight away doesn't really harm you. But I wonder if settling 6 very quickly could be a different story if you have maintenance costs from so many undeveloped cities. The map type will prevent you settling them too quickly since you have to build a galley first, and being financial and having lots of water will help the cities pay for themselves in the early stages of the game. On the other hand the ban on building further settlers suggests holding one or two of them back for the possibility of finding better land later on. Or for sites where the AI insists on settling cites in silly locations so capturing its cities is not an option.
What am I missing? Except that we can't build any settlers, how is this 'OCC-like' game different from any other?
The original concept was OCC-Like. We could only have six cities and all could have multiple national monuments.
But if the setting was made OCC, we wouldn't be able to build any cities at all.
So, it is just like you say: limited to 6 prebuilt settlers; no OCC flavor remaining.
Similar threads
- Sticky
