The game spawns capitals too close to each other

It's been very hit or miss for me. Yesterday I started a game as Tamar. Decided to move my settler to another settling spot and bam... met Gengis on the first turn.
 
I agree capitals spawn too close. Playing Wilhelmina I met an AI warrior in 1 turn multiple times, sometimes it was Teddy, sometimes it was Monty or Hojo. With my capital being locked between coast and a hostile civ with an army of free (emperor) boosted warriors is pointless so I tried restarting I don't know how many times. 9/10 I start right next to another civ, it's very annoying. Point is, I don't want to start every game with a warrior rush, take out 2 or 3 civs before classical age, only to discover there are almost entire continents unsettled. I hope Fireaxis will fix this soon, or just return last spawnmechanic. It was fine/better.
 
I agree. It's just beautiful.

I don't care if they are close as long as my Capitol gets its full use of tiles. It's their second cities cramping me that irritates me.
This has been a problem for me. I've had to give up a couple of maps very early on because there was nowhere attractive to build a second city without running into loyalty problems.
 
I'm all set, bring it on!! :) Good video card & 32gb system ram.. However I rarely see any games use more than 8 gigs of ram (probably due to consoles).

My apologies, I meant a 960 card, not a 970.

On Topic
Game I started yesterday spawned 2 capitals close together...

I haven't seen them spawn that close on Gedemon's maps, but they
are free to move after the start, so they can easily end up that close.
 
Huge, continents, 10 Civs, 20 City-states. Capitals start next to each other 9 times out of 10.
 
I've played 4 games and it's been 50/50 for me so far. The first three games were on continents, huge. One was pretty evenly spaced, one I started so close to Tamar that she promptly conquered me, and on the third as Cree it took me ages to find anyone. I can't remember the number of turns but I want to say roughly 20 to 30 turns, maybe more, before I met anyone besides city states. It wasn't like I was starting on an island either.

The fourth game is the craziest. Fractal huge but from what I can gather so far (currently in the Industrial Era but I haven't been able to explore everywhere yet) most of us are on a single crazy continent in one half of the map while the other half must be empty because I've met all the civs (that are still alive). I'm playing as England and I was only able to settle two cities including my capital because I was surrounded by France, America, city states and an inland sea. Luckily, golden age to the rescue and now America is gone and France is rapidly falling. I can see 8 civs still remaining. Sparta has control of what used to be Japan. I've taken America. I still have no clue who the other two were! Russia seems to have been the lucky one with enough breathing room to have tons of cities and be way out in front. I've just declared a joint war on Russia with their neighbour India but it's not going well for India so far. Peters' got a bunch of Cossack corps and has already taken Delhi. I'm mostly concentrating on Russia's coastal cities and my redcoats are about to land. At least there'll be some liberation opportunities for a diplo boost.

So although I liked the breathing room of the Cree game where it took me a while to find anyone, this one as England is probably the most fun! Fractal is usually the best for me.
 
In Civ IV it was usually expected if you wanted to have second or third wave expansion you'd need to wipe out a neighbor or two (barring some odd map generation). Seems like VI is the same way.

Even then, it was atypical to have only one city at min distance be possible between two capitals on default settings. That's something you normally only see when crowding a map.

If we drop the pretense and accept this as a war game (reasonable in the current mechanic framework), then the "settle one city forces promise not to settle more dialogue" leading to obvious war with everyone nearby makes sense. Maybe that really is the best path for the game, it's not like Firaxis has ever made multiple victory conditions competitively viable with any consistency over the past two decades.
 
In my 2nd game I decided to play Wilhelmina. So I chose to play on an island plates map. Plenty of distance between Monty and I. I'm going to slightly forward settle him but it will come with a negative loyalty. Hopefully I've learned enough from gaming loyalty in my first run through to make it work. My 1st two governors are Liang and Amani. Liang because her fisheries combined with polders should make some rediculously strong coastal cities. Amani because her loyalty effects nearby cities. She can bye used to prop nearby cities or to negatively effect nearby enemy cities. Both actually with the right promotions.
 
I do agree it can be a little close. My latest game I was maybe 8 or 9 tiles from Tamar, and her second city became a great spot for my 3rd city.

Although it wasn't horrible, since there was a mountain range in between, so once I captured the first city, I stopped the war, and we really don't have any troubles with each other (other than her complaining about me occupying one of her cities). Even without that, I had a little space to expand behind myself if I really didn't want to go on the offensive.
 
It's also been about 50/50 for me but I have noticed several very close capitals in more than one game. This doesn't really bother me and I think it's easy enough to tweak the settings to get more space or simply use the restart option. You could also just try playing Island plates.
 
Something I'm noticing in Firetuner tests is sometimes the AI doesn't settle in place turn 1, which suggests they move their settler. I am curious if this has any impact on how often this happened. I thought the AI always settled in place 100% of the time but it appears not.
 
Something I'm noticing in Firetuner tests is sometimes the AI doesn't settle in place turn 1, which suggests they move their settler. I am curious if this has any impact on how often this happened. I thought the AI always settled in place 100% of the time but it appears not.

I seen this in the Twitch game I watched yesterday. If you watch after the 12:00 minute mark you'll clearly see the AI settled at the end of turn 2, which means they moved before settling. So India might have started further away in his game, but moved closer. I'm not sure about the Aztecs. I almost always settle in place myself, I always worry too much about "falling behind", so I don't like to move unless it's a flat square and I can still settle on turn one.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/229041126
 
Also noticed this in all of my R&F games so far. Just launched an immortal standard size game, and in 9 turns I had already met two civs, crowding me in from both sides. And this with only 7 civs in the game (one less than the usual number).

civ.png
 
It's definitely better than Vanilla. I no longer see the AI settler turn 1 which was just ludicrous.

But yeah too often I'm still running into other Civs on turn 2 or 3. It kills my buzz. The early game exploring is my favorite part. when there's 2 Civs met by turn 5 on a huge map it feels claustrophobic
 
I think that the main issue is the awful map generation...if there are only 2-3 decent regions for major civs, then it's normal that we end up with capital cities 9 tiles one from another, and large areas of the map either empty or filled with CS 3 tiles one from another along the same river
 
Top Bottom