Start locations

[Pallander]

Hi! New at this page but not to the game. One think I find pretty annoying is the start locations. I could totally accept that you start at a random location. But I would really appreciate if you hade the option to start in certain terrain/areas. Like desert floodplain, north on the map like a true start location on a random map. Certain cilizations liek Brazil or Canada already have that added. I want my vikings to be up north, Cleopatra to be in a desert region with floodplains or having certain resorces near your start location. Like silk for China, iron/trees for Sweden, tea for India, certain resources that is important for a country/culture, a backbone for a civilization. Still random but close to your starting location.

 

[Naeshar]

There are starting biases for most civilizations, but not limited to that location. Like you noticed, Brazil has rainforest bias and tends to start centrally while Canada or Russia has tundra bias, starting in either north or south parts. These are applied only with "Standard" and perhaps "Legendary Start" options, but not "Balanced". It needs to be said, these biases have certain strength and are not always upheld. You can have inland England and Mali with little desert. There are biases for strategic resources too, Scythia and Mongolia should currently have Horses bias and Ottomans Niter.

You can mod this into your game, for certain biases be stronger and introduce new ones if you wish. They are located in Civilization.xml files, I think.
There are limitations though: if your map does not have certain luxury resources, you cannot bind China to always have Silk; and there is no way to position Norway to be always on the north hemisphere, you may only strengthen tundra bias, and even then they will be 50:50 in the north or south; beware of strong strategic resource bias like iron as it allows a civ to overperform thanks to access to these resources.

 

[Pallander]

Thank you for your help!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Starting Position is, IMHO, one of the weakest parts of Civ VI. The 'biases' are frequently only weakly applied (my favorite examples, re-rolling a game 10 times and never getting a start position for England on the coast or anywhere near it, and another time re-rolling half a dozen times trying to get a starting position for Nubia with a single desert tile) and the resulting First Cities spring up in terrain that has no relation to the Civ's Uniques.

One (partial) answer is a Mod which provides for more initial movement for Settlers. This allows you to move your initial Settler the equivalent of 2 moves in one turn to 'modify' an initial Start Position - as in, reaching the coast with Norway - before founding your first city. It ain't perfect, but it's a big help.

 

[AffineConstant]

A game mode where everyone starts out in a bad position, kind of like the Maori in VI, would be a cool option. Now everyone gets to wander around for a turn or two looking, or do you pick a "good enough" spot quickly to get a head start? It'd be fun as an optional game mode at least.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A game mode where everyone starts out in a bad position, kind of like the Maori in VI, would be a cool option. Now everyone gets to wander around for a turn or two looking, or do you pick a "good enough" spot quickly to get a head start? It'd be fun as an optional game mode at least.

The pair of Mods for More Initial Settler Movement and Extended Initial Vision allow you to both see more of the map around your nominal Start Position and also move your initial Settler to a better position quickly. It's not perfect, because you are dependent on the general area in which you started, but it's a step towards exactly what you are describing.

 

[pokiehl]

The best way to resolve this issue is to stop this trend of making so many civ bonuses so heavily terrain- and start-dependent.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The best way to resolve this issue is to stop this trend of making so many civ bonuses so heavily terrain- and start-dependent.

Given that the game has had issues with 'correct' or appropriate Start Positions since at least Civ V (going on 10 years now) I agree. I'm tired of waiting for the Firaxis team to get it right . . .

 

[Lord Lakely]

Starting Position is, IMHO, one of the weakest parts of Civ VI. The 'biases' are frequently only weakly applied (my favorite examples, re-rolling a game 10 times and never getting a start position for England on the coast or anywhere near it, and another time re-rolling half a dozen times trying to get a starting position for Nubia with a single desert tile) and the resulting First Cities spring up in terrain that has no relation to the Civ's Uniques.

Hard agree. Rerolling my start is my least favourite thing of the game. I think starting locations should be locked. Mali should always spawn their first settler on a desert tile, with at least three more adjacent desert tiles. Inca should always start on a Hill, adjacent to at least one mountain.

You're not telling me such things would be difficult to code.

(all that said, I personally thought civ 4 was a way worse offender in terms of lopsided starting locaions.)

 

[pokiehl]

Given that the game has had issues with 'correct' or appropriate Start Positions since at least Civ V (going on 10 years now) I agree.

In Civ 5, start issues don't feel nearly as egregious because very few civs are so terrain dependent.

I think these big bloated Civ 6 abilities that give yields to every possible permutation of terrain/feature/resource tile yields were a mistake for many reasons, including this.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In Civ 5, start issues don't feel nearly as egregious because very few civs are so terrain dependent.

I think these big bloated Civ 6 abilities that give yields to every possible permutation of terrain/feature/resource tile yields were a mistake for many reasons, including this.

I'e always felt that any 'terrain or climate' dependent advantages should be game specific.

That is, if in your game England starts on the coast, they should be eligible for a Sea/Naval Unique. IT SHOULD NOT BE A CERTAINTY without some other actions on England/the Gamer's part, though. Note that in game terms, "England" sat on their island from 4000 BCE to about 900 CE without any particular naval expertise or unique abilities. Not exactly a good basis for a continuous, starting Naval Unique.

There could/should be a bunch of peculiarly 'English" Naval Uniques, ranging from the current Royal Naval Dockyards to Sea Dogs to Battle Cruisers and other English-Unique ships and naval opportunities, but an England that starts in the middle of the desert will have no use for them, and shouldn't be saddled with them to the exclusion of more useful capabilities IN THAT PARTICULAR GAME.

And the game should have an option for Historical Start - not necessarily on a copy of the 'real world', but starting the Civ in something approaching to Real World conditions. In the case of England, on the coast, on an island just off the continent, possibly with another Civ on the same island (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, depending on the size of the map, of course). This would be dicey for the many, many Civs that are not in their 'starting positions' in 4000 BCE or didn't exist in any recognizable form until long after: even the Celts are about 3000 years in the future, while Greeks, Romans, Persians, Turks, All the Slavs (and England, of course, which wasn't even occupied by a recognizable 'English" population until sometime after several post-4000 BCE migrations) are nowhere near where they wound up when they first became recognizable: without some kind of 'mobile start' their Starting Positions would have to reflect their later, historical (or more accurately, 'Popular History") identity rather than their actual place in 4000 BCE.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I'e always felt that any 'terrain or climate' dependent advantages should be game specific.

That is, if in your game England starts on the coast, they should be eligible for a Sea/Naval Unique. IT SHOULD NOT BE A CERTAINTY without some other actions on England/the Gamer's part, though. Note that in game terms, "England" sat on their island from 4000 BCE to about 900 CE without any particular naval expertise or unique abilities. Not exactly a good basis for a continuous, starting Naval Unique.

There could/should be a bunch of peculiarly 'English" Naval Uniques, ranging from the current Royal Naval Dockyards to Sea Dogs to Battle Cruisers and other English-Unique ships and naval opportunities, but an England that starts in the middle of the desert will have no use for them, and shouldn't be saddled with them to the exclusion of more useful capabilities IN THAT PARTICULAR GAME.

And the game should have an option for Historical Start - not necessarily on a copy of the 'real world', but starting the Civ in something approaching to Real World conditions. In the case of England, on the coast, on an island just off the continent, possibly with another Civ on the same island (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, depending on the size of the map, of course). This would be dicey for the many, many Civs that are not in their 'starting positions' in 4000 BCE or didn't exist in any recognizable form until long after: even the Celts are about 3000 years in the future, while Greeks, Romans, Persians, Turks, All the Slavs (and England, of course, which wasn't even occupied by a recognizable 'English" population until sometime after several post-4000 BCE migrations) are nowhere near where they wound up when they first became recognizable: without some kind of 'mobile start' their Starting Positions would have to reflect their later, historical (or more accurately, 'Popular History") identity rather than their actual place in 4000 BCE.

So like an English civ and a Scottish civ would both be on Honshu and France would somehow be in Korea or Manchuria.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I think the problem of wasted started possitions have multiple reasons:
- Unpolished (to say the least) world map generation. We can always look at community mods and to previous iterations of the serie to see better works regarding map generation. One element that is a clear sign of a turn in the wrong direction by Firaxis is the progressive reduction of maps sizes, something that by default reduce the number and size of usefull zones for the proper bias terrains.
- The maximisation of district adjacency bonus feels overdone. In their basic premise districts are OK but I would like to ballance them in things like limit their placement to be continous to others districts of the same city, with a tech/transport based max distance from the city center.
Knowing the arrangment of a few starting tiles could lead to such significative bonus synergy that ceratainly ruin many unlucky matches.
- A more flexible starting mechanic could offer players some time to find a proper place to found their first city. Something not exactly like Humankind's nomadic Neolithic era but with some of that liberties to explore and found maybe villages before turn your selected one into your first city.
- About terrain and/or resource based custom specializations I think is better to limit them with a few conditions. For example to found your first city and then advance to Ancient Era you would need to find and select certain kind of subsistence to be your stable food, things like wheat, maize, raice or potato gives you the Agrarian society bonuses, cattle, reindeer, llama or horse provide the Pastorial society bonuses, while fish, shellfish or whales allow the Maritime society bonuses.

 

[pokiehl]

One element that is a clear sign of a turn in the wrong direction by Firaxis is the progressive reduction of maps sizes,

This is a misleading claim. Civ 5 map sizes were all bigger than Civ 4’s, except Huge was the same size.

Civ 6 map sizes are much the same actually. Duel, Tiny, Small, and Standard are all in fact bigger than in Civ 5. Large and Huge are smaller.

A more flexible starting mechanic could offer players some time to find a proper place to found their first city. Something not exactly like Humankind's nomadic Neolithic era but with some of that liberties to explore and found maybe villages before turn your selected one into your first city.

We already have this. You start the game with a warrior for a reason. There clearly is an intent for the player to struggle with the tension of settling immediately or risking time to explore for a better spot. Removing this tension would be such a bad idea.

About terrain and/or resource based custom specializations I think is better to limit them with a few conditions. For example to found your first city and then advance to Ancient Era you would need to find and select certain kind of subsistence to be your stable food, things like wheat, maize, raice or potato gives you the Agrarian society bonuses, cattle, reindeer, llama or horse provide the Pastorial society bonuses, while fish, shellfish or whales allow the Maritime society bonuses.

I don’t understand what this would add at all. If you already start by those resources, then you’re using them and receiving their bonuses. Why does it need to be continually overcomplicated?

What do we gain from a random label popping up and deeming me “pastoral” if I have horses as opposed to…simply improving and working the horse tiles and getting their bonuses?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What do we gain from a random label popping up and deeming me “pastoral” if I have horses as opposed to…simply improving and working the horse tiles and getting their bonuses?

The problem lies with the game's not modeling accurately the value and consequence of the Horse to civilizations that had it. This is far more than just being able to build mounted units.

Having an animal large enough to carry a human faster and farther meant that the human was several times more efficient at hunting or herding other animals, and made a pastoral lifestyle viable compared to agriculture. It offered an alternative to simple 'hunter-gathering' or settled farming to feed a large group and allow the differentiation that is the mark of 'civilization'. Pastoral economies in Central Asia, among other things, exploited mineral resources like tin, copper, and iron, may have invented lost-wax metal casting, certainly invented the spoked wheel chariot (and spread it in all directions, to China, Greece, Mesopotamia, and India) and produced some of the earliest known sophisticated decorated textiles. In other words, Pastoral is an alternative to the single Civ mode of: Settle Down Immediately Found A City Or Else Lose The Game that has persisted ever since Civ I.

Of course, the other side of this is that, accurately, in 4000 BCE the Horse is not generally available to all. The Domestic (and Domesticatible) Horse was derived from 4 breeds, only native to a sweep of land from Mongolia to western Poland and not appearing until introduced by humans to anywhere south of the Black and Caspian Seas and so anywhere in the American, African, Australian continents, the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia or probably Europe (the breed in Europe was the smallest of all 4, barely the size of a modern pony and so much less useful for building a pastoral economy around)

We've done without any decent model of pastoralism for 6 iterations (and numerous off-shoots) of the Civ franchise, so doubtless the game will survive without it for a few more, but more variety in possible Starting Strategies would not be a Bad Thing, IMHO.

 

[awesome]

I wouldn’t mind having more (especially passive) bonuses based on starting locations and resources, and I think eurekas were a step in the right direction.
Like let’s say that Aztec always gets Jaguar Warriors, but if they start on coasts, then they get the UB feitoria instead of Portugal.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don’t understand what this would add at all. If you already start by those resources, then you’re using them and receiving their bonuses. Why does it need to be continually overcomplicated?

What do we gain from a random label popping up and deeming me “pastoral” if I have horses as opposed to…simply improving and working the horse tiles and getting their bonuses?

I could see these be similar to the corporation bonuses, but for bonus resources. Agrarian villages might add more value to your farms etc.

Like let’s say that Aztec always gets Jaguar Warriors, but if they start on coasts, then they get the UB feitoria instead of Portugal.

Why would Aztecs get access to a feitoria?

 

[BuchiTaton]

This is a misleading claim. Civ 5 map sizes were all bigger than Civ 4’s, except Huge was the same size.

Civ 6 map sizes are much the same actually. Duel, Tiny, Small, and Standard are all in fact bigger than in Civ 5. Large and Huge are smaller.

This is a misleading claim, some simple maths show us that both average and upper limit are lower in CIV6, the max size is also more relevant since is the one that shows the real capacities of the game.

960	1144	+184
2016	2280	+264
2772	3404	+632
4160	4536	+376
6656	5760	-896
10240	6996	-3244
4467.3 average (CIV5)	4020 average (CIV6)	-2684 less and -447.3 less average

After all should not be expected for the more recent game to allow bigger maps as computers improve?
Also remember CIV6 have districts turning the lack of tiles more evident.

We already have this. You start the game with a warrior for a reason. There clearly is an intent for the player to struggle with the tension of settling immediately or risking time to explore for a better spot. Removing this tension would be such a bad idea.

Starting warrior add to the "tension" of reboot the game after look around and find utterly uselles surroudings.
A game like AoE that deal way better with tension and decision making have an actual competitive community were both regular and nomadic starts are ballanced modes, the key for both to work is that each player starts with a few villagers that can be asigned to different tasks since the beginning, CIV can have this turning improvement into actual population units(buildings) as villages(also districts).

I don’t understand what this would add at all. If you already start by those resources, then you’re using them and receiving their bonuses. Why does it need to be continually overcomplicated?

What do we gain from a random label popping up and deeming me “pastoral” if I have horses as opposed to…simply improving and working the horse tiles and getting their bonuses?

The food resources that you find in the "Neolithic" Era can be worked by your villages(improvements) to start to get yields even before have a proper city. The one of these villages that you decided to invest more to turn into your first city will be precisely because there you found the proper place to get both the possible default terrain/resource related bonus of your specific civ, but additionally you get a thematic "legacy" bonus for that match.
For example if you grow your first city from (wild) Horses you advance to Ancient Era as a Pastorial civ so your Pastorial Villages (pastures) shelter Warrior denizens instead of the regular Loborer denizens plus allows to train the special unit Horse Archer in Classical and Medieval eras.

So there is not an extra complication (like built, move and consume redundant units like we already have in CIV6), there is an exclusive selection of a thematic bonus for each match corresponding to the situation that affects your game onwards.

 

[pokiehl]

This is a misleading claim, some simple maths show us that both average and upper limit are lower in CIV6, the max size is also more relevant since is the one that shows the real capacities of the game.

960	1144	+184
2016	2280	+264
2772	3404	+632
4160	4536	+376
6656	5760	-896
10240	6996	-3244
4467.3 average (CIV5)	4020 average (CIV6)	-2684 less and -447.3 less average

People don’t play on an average of all available map sizes. This is a very strange way of looking at it.

People play on an individual map size. You said there was a trend (there isn’t). Most civ 6 maps are bigger than their civ 5 and civ 4 equivalents. That’s a fact. Seems really cut and dry to me.

Judging by achievements, large and huge are not the most popular map sizes anyway. So most players are in actuality playing on maps that are bigger than they were in civ 5.

 

[BuchiTaton]

People don’t play on an average of all available map sizes. This is a very strange way of looking at it.

People play on an individual map size. You said there was a trend (there isn’t). Most civ 6 maps are bigger than their civ 5 and civ 4 equivalents. That’s a fact. Seems really cut and dry to me.

Judging by achievements, large and huge are not the most popular map sizes anyway. So most players are in actuality playing on maps that are bigger than they were in civ 5.

For sure a CIV5 city is the same than a CIV6 districts city.
A 6 years newer game with the map covered by districts for civs with wasted terrain related bonus that commonly needs you to restart the game is a map size related issue.