False starts?

The Rook · March 20, 2002, 14:35

Sometimes the computer will start you off in some really crappy locations. Do you guys take that as a challenge, or just start over?
Also, how long do you look around before planting your first city. The AI seems to immediately found it's first city on turn one. Sometimes I will look for an optimal Settler building ground. However, the longer I take to plant the city, the harder it seems to catch up.

Inverse Icarus · March 20, 2002, 15:39

i'm a real stickler about starting positions, but i play diety so it all evens out.

i restart my game if i dont like where i am, and each time i start i do some quick scouting with the settler and worker to find a good spot. then i reload the 4000 BC autosave to get there faster :-D

godinex · March 20, 2002, 16:21

I ever use the magic combination for the perfect start location: Crtl+shift+Q take a try.

ACooper · March 20, 2002, 16:40

I never, ever restart and I frown at those who do but, alas, it is your option to be a wimp if you want to.

Just kidding!

(But I don't restart ever)

Jawa Jocky · March 20, 2002, 17:23

I play at least the 1st 1000 years. If its bad I just retire and watch the replay.

I swear the game will give you a worse start every time you re-start with the same settings.

Tarquelne · March 20, 2002, 18:41

Consider your starting location an extra, and unpredictable, difficulty level modifier... say + or - 2 to the difficulty level, though a difference of 1 would be most common. If you want to start a game at a specific diff. level, and your starting position is too good/poor, I think it only reasonable to restart. Sometimes it's fun to take the extra challenge of a poor starting position, and sometimes its fun to romp over the AI by virtue of a good postion... but not always.

I enjoy Diety, but I don't enjoy most Diety games nearly as much as I enjoy an Emperor level game with a poor starting position. So I restart Emperor level games pretty often, to get a "poor" position. There could easily be people who play one difficulty level above the difficulty level they have fun at, but make sure they get a good starting position.

Also:

In my experience Arch. maps are harder than Con., which are harder than Pan. (Because military conquest isn't as easy, for me, at least.)

Elucidus · March 20, 2002, 20:46

Shoot, I never get past the middle ages any more. I'm always restarting. Of course that is because I am always testing new units or buildings and stuff.

But I here it is a fun mod.

Inverse Icarus · March 20, 2002, 21:30

the first two ages, and to a lesser extent the third one are always the best ages for me. as a warmonger i love fighting with ancient weapons en masse. after all is said and done (and the AI colonized every possible square in existance) i get bored of the game and end up ICBMing everyone.

Elucidus · March 20, 2002, 21:41

Dienstag · March 21, 2002, 02:08

I restart all the time, and I'm not especially proud of it.

[Slightly off-topic Deity rant]
I tried Deity just the other night (been playing on Monarch) and I was floored. Started many games, got one to about 200 AD. In that one, I survived only by the AI's seeming unawareness of my existence (although the 2 I share the main island with did just start asking for money...so this may bode ill...).

So I ask this: On high difficulty levels, do you play to get ahead in some area (science, money, territory, military)? Becuase I just can't see how to do that, what with the AI bonuses. I have never before known the fear of half a dozen enemy units roving by my capital 5 turns after I build it (turns out they were heading for a barbarian camp). On an Archepelago map I BEELINED for mapmaking (I was the Americans), and still had 18 turns of research to go when I noticed that both the Aztecs and the Iroquois had it.

How am I supposed to compete with that, or, better, why would I want to?
[/Slightly off-topic Deity rant]

...but even in normal Monarch games, I restart a lot based on my start. If there's a civ 4 squares away, I don't cope very well. Plus, I really really don't like being forced by terrain into awkward city positions. Like, if there's mountians or sea in what would otherwise be the perfect city spot. If the only way to get a swath of fertile grassland in a city's radius is to build that city one square away from a fresh water source. Things like that. I'm probably a little excessive about this. When I first heard that your city radius expanded with culture, I thought I my problems were solved....alas, no.

Tarquelne, out of curiousity could you explain waht you do with a bad start on Emperor? I'd be interested.

notyoueither · March 21, 2002, 02:21

I agree with Tarq. It can be fun to play out a poor geographical start. I can guarantee that no other win will ever be as satisfying as one grabbed from the ashes of early defeat, at least for me.

I play Emperor. I build plenty o settlers to begin with. Then I focus either on city development or war. War if there are significant AI cities close enough. Building if not.

In any event, war should begin no later than the discovery of Chivalry. If you do not go to war, you will likely never get enough room to fully develop the destiny of your civ.

I set my science to max until I meet at least 2 or 3 other civs. Once I have sufficient contact, buying is cheaper than researching. Later, during the late Medieval or early Industrial it should be possible to gain the lead in tech.

Salve

Dienstag · March 21, 2002, 03:26

Thanks for the insight, notyoueither.

I gotta play some more on the harder levels to adapt my strategy. Knowing that it can be done without inordinate exploits is reassuring, though.