I'm hoping we see some improvement for this in beta4 (what's essence?). But I don't want to take away choice like your first suggestion (if every tile is the same, there is no choice).

I actually prefer 5/2 locations to 4/4 because it quickly becomes 6/2 from the farm or even 7/2 if it's twilight bees. orchard.

There actually was some improvement done in 0.915 - now material+grain must be over 6 in total or the tile is not possible to settle in. This, I think, prevents the AI from putting down cities in those 3/2 or 2/3 locations instead of the much better nearby tiles.

Also, congratulations on the longest title I've ever seen.

Yeah you're right, equal to or higher than 6.

All starting positions should have tiles you can settle in though, if you don't get those that's bugs in my book.

We will see what beta 4 brings, I'm sure the playing field will change given the new tile yield.

Sorry to disagree, but I would like to see more things done to make the first city LESS important instead of more important.
... Ok I am not sorry , But I think boosting the research and production of your capital is a bad idea.
I did write them a huge post about the current cities in another thread, so they know how I feel atm. And hope they will use 1/10 of the ideas . Also would like to see less "rush" for a 2nd and a 3rd city, mostly because I feel I need to put that one down at first.

To not go too much offtopic I would like to have inspiration require some certain research so you cant cast it off turn 1, so you dont have to do it every single game on turn 1. Would help the "You have to do this". and then move enchanted hammers to earth magic lvl 2, or earth magic lvl 3.

That said, the map generator should be a little better to equalize starting positions.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I've seen lots of maps where the starting location had nowhere to build, and others with one or two poor tiles in an otherwise barren landscape. Experienced players may appreciate the extra challenge but newer players, on levels normal or below, should be presented with a decent starting location.  A good starting location is a force multiplier and the developers could easily use this, instead of crippling the AI, to adjust the game for lower levels - with the bonus that a rich base, with plenty of resources and useful goodies will make the game more enjoyable for beginning players.  The best tiles don't have to be in plain view - it took me a while to learn that it's useful to look around a bit before settling!

I would argue that production is more important than growth in the early game - the faster you can build improvements and train units, the more competitive you'll be. I haven't seen much reason to differentiate cities thus far - hopefully that will change in the next beta. I think some improvements should be mutually exclusive - you can't have both in the same city. Improvements should only be effective if the resources they require to operate are available to the city where they are built. I would like to see domestic trade routes - where surplus resources from one city can be sent to other cities where they are needed. I'd also like to see a bridge as a level 2 or level 3 improvement so cities built on a river bank can expand to the other side of the river.

Kongdej is right on the money here (I think, heh, if I read the post correctly); making better starting cities, "giving" it to the player, loses a golden opportunity to diversify and enjoy more equally-viable-yet-different games.  For example, I don't think it should be possible to cast both Inspiration and Enchanted Hammers on a city upon opening--you ought to have to choose (do I research prestige and rush, or inspiration, or enchanted hammers, or...?).  Those opening "must-do" buffs should be the magical versions of Civics tech improvements, and that makes the game more replayable, because they all boost your out-of-the-shoot direction in differing ways (and you cannot do them all at the start; some will be better for different starting spots and sov builds).  The more "rigid" (to use Kongdej's appropriate term from another post) the opening game, the less fun.

I don't see any reason NOT to equalize the starting locations. There can still be variations in materials, food, shards and the types of other features, but getting a really good or poor starting location can throw the whole game out of whack and adds a degree of variation the game just doesn't need. A lot of players on here will reload until they good a good one, and so long as the game encourages players to do that, it hands a huge boost to the player, which is silly when most of us are complaining about how easy the game is.

I agree that most of us beta testers are veteran 4x gamers, but that's why there are so many levels below Normal (and the base level can be challenging if the player spends lots of time smelling the roses).  However (and I speak with the experience of someone who has done both ambling around and efficiently exploring/expanding), if you want to play optimally (and many gamers do by nature, I think), there is very little room for creativity.  You get rush and pioneers and other cities and the important research as fast as you can, and there seems to be one narrow way to arrive at this (with very minor exceptions, like switching a build priority between workshops and pioneers, and choosing which things to rush, rather than casting Enchanted Hammers).  I've now found the Hard mode to be too easy when I follow the "rigid" formula because I expand/grow in power faster than the AI can, which means they never feel like they can threaten me (and on a medium map, they never have a chance to catch up).

I don't think having an optimal path is always a bad thing, but it would be cool for the AI to use several counters to this looming inevitability (like forming alliances earlier on to combat the player's growing power, and certainly not paying tribute/making the player more powerful--Civ has done this well, making it almost impossible to exploit the AI via diplomacy, because they tend to get very ornery when you "threaten" their ability to win).

Also, I agree (I think) with Steven, who seems to be saying that it's not conducive to begin the game with a city buff that you really need to use.  There is truly no better way to use your opening mana than by immediately casting Inspiration, and if you do not do this, then you will be hamstringing yourself in a cascading fashion (because slower tech leads to slower growth and building and troop/kingdom strength, which allows the AI to get ahead of you and bully you).  What could the design idea be for having this?  Rather, if you had to earn each "method" of boosting your kingdom (research boost vs. production vs. money/hiring/training, as opposed to being able to do them consecutively) and they were all viable paths to kingdom strength, the game's replayability would be enhanced from the very beginning.

But most of those new players WON’T be rerolling until they find a good starting location, and will just put up with what they get the first few times round. As an advantage it’s one that only applies to experienced players and 4x veterans. If anything it puts new players at a disadvantage.

More than anything, it’s not a question of easy vs. hard, but of adding extra variation, the consequences of that and whether it’s adding anything to the game. Even in AI vs AI situations a great starting location could lead to one AI steamrollering the others even earlier than might otherwise happen. It would be like giving players a random amount of money at the start of a game of monopoly: just not fun.

It’s not about variety either: it should be possible to have plenty of variety in starting locations (some have more food, but less materials, or more shards, but no gold mines) without making certain locations outright BETTER than others. So I say again, what does the present situation actually ADD to the game?

As to the variety of opening strategies, what if the city spells simply cost more to cast (not necessarily maintain) and you started with just enough mana to cast 1 right off the bat?  Or you could save your mana for combat to help fight more monsters nearby so you have some choices on how to start.  Not sure if that would cause early-game balance issues though.

I have to disagree as well.  I think having a variety of starting locations is fine.  I think you should try a 3/3 city or a 4/2.  Not everything should be perfect all of the time.

As far as the bonus, I don't think it should be granted to the biggest city.  I think it should be granted to the city that the sovereign is stationed at.  Now you have a big choice.  Go out and explore, or stay at home and gain a bonus to production and research.  That would be better, than just givinig it to the biggest city.  It could be the "oh crap the King (or Queen) is here, I better it my crap done bonus."

You can work on the name!

I'd like for the ability to start with an additional gold mine, food resource, metal mine, shard of type, essence, etc. via tha Sov's/Faction's creation options.  This would add alot of meaning to the initial city being these things would be why this spot was chosen for the capitol in the first place, and would allow one to 'guaranty' their preferred location while also giving additional ways of specializing in a certain school of magic or building armies with all the gold you would get with the additional gold mine or making a wheat producing power house and so on.  This might help with the whole 'CtlN thing' too.

Hell, could go further & have multiple choosings of the same resource (the point cost would double for each additional? so 3 gold mines would be 6 points), now this would allow for some awsome startups, would eliminate the 'CtlN thing' all together, any mage would love to start their capitol in the middle of their ideal shard mix, a warlord would love to have several gold/metal mines, etc. - I would lean towards this possibly balancing it's self out while adding a ton of spice

Fast expand or immediate build up?  Oh wait, since all starting locations are the same, plus Derek said more is better and build queues can be moved around at the player's discretion, then that means I can follow a near no brainer opening strategy every time.  No thanks OP, I think Kongdej is right on the mark here.  Let's all hope beta 4 doesn't turn into an early city spam rush.

When it comes to early game fun, FE has one very solid advantage over its 4X competitors, namely heroes. They do keep the player busy during that boring colonization phase.

I dunno, I can normally secure one expansion site fairly quickly but unless I'm very lucky any sites after that are perilously close to slags, umberdroths and other beasts that are way beyond my ability to fight early on, and which always attack my cities if provoked; others are guarded by really serious enemies like drakes and shrill lords who are a threat to the city for much of the game, whenever the whim takes them to attack directly rather than spawning minions.

I know that the monsters also present a threat to at least some of the AI players, as there's the occasional message that someone (usually Magnar, for whatever reason) has been wiped out early. On the other hand, I half suspect that AI Altarians somehow get a secret Master Scouts-type bonus as their cities and outposts are always guarded by powerful monsters. But that's another rant entirely.