Peace and forward settling

[acluewithout]

I'm trying to play peacefully, but before I get my first settler out the AI aggressively forward settles me, stealing all the good territory. Any tips?

I've tried starting with a builder and then going straight to a settler. But unless I'm settling within about 4 - 5 tiles of my capital, the AI nabs my spot. Problem is obviously much worse with low production starts because my first settler is even slower.

Emperor difficulty and above. Currently playing Vanilla, but will hopefully be playing R&F soon (as soon as Mac is patched and England rules the waves again).

 

[Spartacus73]

There is always some luck with this. If you have a civ start really close to you, there's a good chance they'll drop their 1st, 2nd or 3rd city in your direction before you can get a settler out. If you're set on playing peacefully, that's going to be tough. Not impossible, but an uphill climb. Good case where sometimes the game situation determines your strategy more than your initial plan going into it, i.e. if you see that forward settle happen quickly you switch to military units and some early war mongering instead of the peaceful settler expansion. If you do it in Ancient Era, warmongering penalties are low and you can probably play a relatively peaceful game after that.

How far away are you trying to settle initially? I'm frequently only going 4-6 spaces anyway, so a nearby civ that doesn't block that doesn't interfere too much. I might go a little further if there is a strong strategic interest (chokepoint, resource, natural wonder, forward settling someone else), but that's only if it's available. I also usually settle toward another civ first to prevent them from settling right up to my capital, but again that's map dependent. Low production starts are especially bad on Emperor and above as the AI already has a big starting advantage in units/cities, so if your capital isn't rocking right off the start you're just falling further behind, and someone's probably going to be coming for you quickly anyway.

So I'd say either restart the game if you get bad production/starting spot, or a very close neighbor instantly, or be willing to go with an early warmongering and ditch the peace strategy if it's not going to be feasible on the map you get.

 

[acluewithout]

My usual solution is early warmongering, but then that's just it. I'm trying to play more peacefully, so that's a fail.

If I have a low production start, I'm often trying to settle a little further away, which then just compounds the problem. And rough terrain can also be a factor. Jungle starts seem to cause the most trouble. Opening tiles are often just not that good - unless there are bananas on a hill or something - and then all my units are struggling with the terrain.

Maybe I should just settle closer and accept more low production starts / poor territory if I'm playing peacefully, or accept it's only really going to work with higher production starts or a little luck.

 

[Spartacus73]

I'll admit that I will frequently Restart if I get a bad opening spot. That may not be kosher with purists, but I'm not trying to set any records or claiming to be able to do certain victories in x amount of turns. I'm playing both for fun and a challenge, so usually play on harder levels to get aggressive AI/barbs, better starts for the AI, etc., but want a good starting city for myself. Also, I always see other people's screenshots of really cool starts next to wonders, cool terrain, etc, so sometimes I just like to restart a bunch of times to see if I get something that looks really fun.

After that though, I'm learning more to let the game take me where it goes. I'm trying to warmonger less, but if that's what the game gives me so be it. In my current game, I'm trying the Netherlands for the first time and was trying to be somewhat peaceful, but then was attacked by Washington after he quickly forward settled into my area. I knew he was going to do it but wasn't quite prepared and he took one of my 3 cities before I was fully mobilized, so justice demanded that I not only retake my city, but exact a heavy price from him. End result was 5 cities, including capital, taken from him and he's irrelevant for the rest of the game. I wanted to return to my peaceful ways, but then Cleo on the other side of me decided to do the same thing so 1 liberated CS later and a few of her cities and I'm trying to be peaceful again.

So even though it's not totally like I'm trying to play, it's still turned into a fun game anyway and I'm starting to steamroll at this point. Even have one Ally in the world since I have yet to start a war.

 

[Victoria]

After that though, I'm learning more to let the game take me where it goes. I'm trying to warmonger less, but if that's what the game gives me so be it.

The game wants you to war early and grow later. I used to play mostly peaceful over a year ago but with every patch they just made warring better.

If you have the space, expand into it, if you don’t expand into it, that’s my motto.

 

[Pietato]

The game wants you to war early and grow later. I used to play mostly peaceful over a year ago but with every patch they just made warring better.

If you have the space, expand into it, if you don’t expand into it, that’s my motto.

Your motto is weird.

 

[Victoria]

Your motto is weird.

Yeah, was a bit tired last night when I typed it, how about
If you have the space take it. If you do not have the space then make it.

 

[Esperr]

Im pretty sure the design meetings for civ were just a white board that said, "Kill everybody lol". They have made peaceful play so much worse then early domination.

 

[bonafide11]

Im pretty sure the design meetings for civ were just a white board that said, "Kill everybody lol". They have made peaceful play so much worse then early domination.

It's just going wide is such an advantage, and there's no quicker way to go wide than conquest. I prefer wide empires to tall from Civ V, though I would like to see a better balance between the two.

I also think loyalty has sort of had the opposite effect of what we wanted. Instead of slowing down conquest, it requires you to go faster to take out their capital and other main cities so you can get them before the cities rebel.

 

[Spartacus73]

I also think loyalty has sort of had the opposite effect of what we wanted. Instead of slowing down conquest, it requires you to go faster to take out their capital and other main cities so you can get them before the cities rebel.

That's so true. You frequently can't just take 1 city to punish them or create a little buffer and then do Peace and move on. You have to quickly take out a big chunk of cities in the vicinity until you have enough Loyalty mass to sustain. Instead of a small military force to grind out one city and hold it, you need a stronger force to Blitzkrieg multiple cities within 10-15 turns to "flip" them.

 

[Melchizedek]

I also think loyalty has sort of had the opposite effect of what we wanted. Instead of slowing down conquest, it requires you to go faster to take out their capital and other main cities so you can get them before the cities rebel.

Yes. I think it would be neat if loyalty had more staying power and were collected throughout the game on a hex by hex basis instead of only affecting cities. Loyalty could affect tile yields and flip individual tiles, as well as causing city rebellions. I also think civs should start out with a chunk of initial loyalty in their region that would continue to operate for awhile even if the cities were taken, so that taking all nearby cities as soon as possible wouldn't always be a dominant strategy. I'd even like to see a spy mission that could revive loyalty to the original civ later in the game.

 

[Spartacus73]

Yes. I think it would be neat if loyalty had more staying power and were collected throughout the game on a hex by hex basis instead of only affecting cities. Loyalty could affect tile yields and flip individual tiles, as well as causing city rebellions. I also think civs should start out with a chunk of initial loyalty in their region that would continue to operate for awhile even if the cities were taken, so that taking all nearby cities as soon as possible wouldn't always be a dominant strategy. I'd even like to see a spy mission that could revive loyalty to the original civ later in the game.

That sounds like it would make conquest really difficult, if you couldn't even raze cities to eliminate loyalty pressure from another civ. It would basically just encourage/require everyone to grab as much land as possible as fast as possible with settlers, as well as attack new cities of other civs as soon as possible before they could build loyalty into that "land".

 

[eleven11]

I'm trying to play peacefully, but before I get my first settler out the AI aggressively forward settles me, stealing all the good territory. Any tips?

I've tried starting with a builder and then going straight to a settler. But unless I'm settling within about 4 - 5 tiles of my capital, the AI nabs my spot. Problem is obviously much worse with low production starts because my first settler is even slower.

Emperor difficulty and above. Currently playing Vanilla, but will hopefully be playing R&F soon (as soon as Mac is patched and England rules the waves again).

I play Immortal and I've had luck using the new loyalty system in certain situations. If you want peaceful then its going to be 50-100 turns before this will work.. if it ever does. Loyalty is fickle sometimes and determined in part by the other civ.

First step is to expand around the city that took your spot. Second step is to chop in population. This is the long, peaceful play so it helps to take Audience Hall and remove any housing limitations through policies or buildings. Ensure you are always in a golden age. Then you either wait for them to hit a dark age or you use governors, Entertainment projects and policies to flip it. I had one game as Mapuche where I flipped over a dozen cities peacefully.

 

[Chibisuke]

yea loyalty system has made it more advantageous to kill them quickly right at the beginning so they can't build up too much population, especially on Deity play. Personally I think the whole loyalty system sucks and needs an overhaul. It was just a new way to increase difficulty through micromanagement. Golden Ages in Civ V were fun. Golden Ages in Civ VI are not fun, they are just something to be managed in order to avoid too many dark ages which could ruin your game.

As for warmongering vs peace, if you start right next to an AI civ on high difficulty setting, they will attack you if you don't take them out. It will happen at some point, usually very early on if it is Deity. If its Sumeria or Scythia, be ready for some pain ;0

 

[Victoria]

If its Sumeria or Scythia, be ready for some pain ;0

Sumerian is easy, scythia is not.