Start Position bug - only 3 squares away!!

[aeldrik]

Hi to all,

don't know if it has happened to others, but for me it's been already twice!
My start position is just 3 Squares away from the first CPU, I can see him at game start!!!!

To those of you saying this is not a game, but a game feature:

If there is a minimal distance set in for starts, it's definitevely NOT WORKING, and if not, it should be added quite fast!!

 

[angeleyes]

I've also seen 2 AI capitals settled only three squares from each other....

Asperge

 

[Adam7Eight]

I've also seen 2 AI capitals settled only three squares from each other....

Asperge

Same here... on a huge map with only 10 civs.

 

[aeldrik]

I should have added I'm playing on a huge map with continents, standard number of players, low sea level, Epic game speed.

 

[MrCynical]

Yes, this is rather irritating. Civ 3 had a minimum distance between starting locations based on the size of the map. It never went below 6 even on tiny maps, so this problem didn't occur. I can't think why they have removed this in Civ 4, since it is now not uncommon to find an AI that has been crippled from turn 1 by starting 3 squares from another civ.

 

[Trumbo]

Had this happen to me. The Arabians starting settler was one square from my Indian warrior, so I whacked h im and got a worker out of it. A few turns later Saladin came around and sued for peace, but his score never changed (he had 13 points) for as long as I played the game. Saladin the Ghost?

 

[The Condor]

I am serious in saying that in one of my games like yours aeldrik on a huge map (rare for me) with continents and eighteen civs I had a Japan settler start next to my warrior undefended and I bet you will never guess what I did. Wrong, I killed him in 4000 b.c. and had to deal with one less civ in the game. Thankfully and yet oddly he turned out to be the only civ sharing the continent with me (pretty good size) besides the barbs.

Edit: Darn you Trumbo and your lack of getting interrupted by the please visit our sponsors page! Also, Tokogawa had only thirteen points when I killed him too but it thankfully went down to 0 the next turn.

Ha! I beat you to a pic:

I killed the settler in 4000 b.c. but the game didn't say he was dead till the next turn when I took a picture. It was awesome!!!

 

[angeleyes]

Wow! And did you get 2 warriors out of that one settler ???

Asperge

 

[theos]

Wow! And did you get 2 warriors out of that one settler ???
Asperge

???

He got a Worker as expected, visible just to the SE of Mecca in the screenshot.

 

[angeleyes]

???

He got a Worker as expected, visible just to the SE of Mecca in the screenshot.

I'm only joking, i just don't like the - three units graphics - never use them ....

Asperge

 

[The Condor]

This happended to me again with *gasp* the japanese on a duel-sized eighteen civ pangaea where I got to kill the warrior (amazingly I had really bad odds) and take the settler allowing me to start with a worker really earlier in the game and not have to put up with Tokugawa's s**t.

 

[Barbara917]

I will post here as I am a new member and don't want to initiate a thread for fear it has already been discussed. In searching the forum for my problem I thought it might be related to this problem. I have had 3 occurrences of the the game beginning with a defeat. I didn't even get to see my initial settler and scout. I just got a black screen with a message that I had been defeated. It was still 4000 BC. this just doesn't seem sporting to me. I have a list of three losses with the skills of Dan Quayle in the Hall of Fame due to this problem. Has anyone else experienced anything similar?

I can add that I was using a large Lakes map with temperate climate and sea levels average. Everything was pretty much default except that I had selected Catherine of Russia as my Civ each time.