Please help: Why are there so few places to build cities?

More spots (and really good ones at that) free up if you conquer the nearby wildlands. If cities could be founded anywhere, there would be that much less of a reason to tame the wildlands.

On map like that, I use a lot of Outposts to get what I need. I think it's random how much of the area can be settled. Sometimes I get tons of options and the next time, maybe one or two extra spots. Just need to use Outposts to grab the extra resources.

Set the map to "Fertile" lands - which will offer more spots for cities.  The AI does a fantastic job of exploring - you have to too.   Claiming available fertile land is bascailly the point of the game, and part of the lore of the world of elemental

The current metagame is about early pioneer spam, I personally have objected towards this but it is like that, you have to grab the land first, or grab it from your enemy.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Sorry the lack of fertile land spots is all my fault.  I told Stardock there was too much city spam and so they took it out.  Having said that, there are still ample opportunities to find spots most of which have been reported discussed in this thread:

a )  change your map settings to have more fertile lands

b )  reduce the number of opponents in your games

c )  crank out more pioneers and scouts so you can find the fertile spots before the AI does

d )  play on easier difficulties

e )  conquer your opponent's cities

Because some people spammed pioneers alot it was decided it would be more "fun" to force everyone to spam pioneers early rather than letting them expand at their own pace.

So do I need to restart my game? I don't think I'll be able to do much, because the last 3 games in a row, I can't get enough territory. Then when I do find a place (having to REALLY look hard for it) I have to rush to it, and often super high level monsters kill me before I can get there.

Pretty much my experience as well. Ya you'll probably need to restart and spam pioneers til you have 4 or 5 cities.. if you lose the pioneer spam contest at the beginning and don't have a min/maxed Sov you'll likely lose the game and may as well start over.

You'll quickly learn the game is all about the meta game.. and not about the game. Or you can do like me and shelve the game.. whatever works for you.

Restart? Why? Take the cities from your neighbors instead. They went through the hard work of settling them and building them up, and you get to take them for free.

My only frustration comes from the 15% unrest that comes with not being connected to the capital, which often is simply because there are no spots to settle that after a ZOC update for each still won't connect them.  And of course, to correct the problem, you need more pioneers to spam outposts which btw, will take longer because of the 15% penalty to construction.

You again.  You know, I have a thread in which I am winning on challenging, with the wussiest standard sovereign, without restarting, and while settling only two cities after my capital...

Every turn is documented.  No master scouts, no adventurer, no wealthy, no soloing, no pioneer spamming, no fireball Armageddon, and I have yet to use the despair scrolls I'm saving.

You may claim the game is unplayable all you want, but I think that you should allow other people to enjoy the game and try to get better.

And if you read that thread, you will notice that I am TRYING VERY HARD to convince the developers that the game makes it too hard to survive in the beginning, and that the AI is getting advantages that they should not at low difficulty levels.

But of course, it is so much easier to sound like a broken record "The game is unplayable, the game is unplayable"

There you go again putting words into my mouth. I never once said it was unplayable. When you're done LYING OVER AND OVER you can go bug someone else who doesn't min max like you.

 I mean seriously.. do you just like to harass people and make stuff up?

This is rich, coming right after I pointed you to a thread in which I play the worst standard sovereign and use none of my usual tricks.  A noncom in the Army used to say "There's no reason to believe that the guy who shot you in the back could not have beaten you in a fist fight".

As for your saying that the game is unplayable... you have multiple times stated that the only way to win is by minmaxing/pioneer rushing.  You have just suggested the other poster shelves the game.  This in my book come very close to saying "It's unplayable" and is the old litany I've been hearing from you since you graced these boards with your presence.

You mean back in 2010? Or during the beta? Nope.. there you go again with tall stories.

News flash, just because they listened more to you metagamer types doesn't make my opinion any less valid. The more you make up stories and attempt to invalidate my opinion with lies the more it shows you cannot have a rational discussion.

I suggested he learn the metagame.. or shelve the game. Whichever he prefers. But you do have an amazing ability to ignore complete sentences and cherry pick things and then distort them. I'll give you that.

Now if you're done hijacking yet ANOTHER thread to personally attack me with falsehoods maybe this thread can get back on topic.

You don't have to pioneer rush to win. Pioneer rushing helps things if you don't know how to play but they're plenty of other strategies. I am 2/3rds of the way through a game where I started with 3 cities in the midgame where a huge war started. I ended up steam rolling through and taking over another civ with a doom stack which gave me all the cities I need to work towards an endgame army. 3 cities. I don't consider 2 pioneers much of a rush. If people can't play without pioneer rushing that says something about their ability in the game. 

Now you're just attacking him as you have others in other threads including myself, if I do remember correctly. Your shortcomings as a strategy gamer isn't our fault. 

Yay More personal attacks. Anyone else wanna take a shot? Seems to be a theme here for anyone who doesn't agree.

Love how you personally attack me, after his slanderous comments, and accuse me of being the one doing personal attacks. So let me get this straight.. if someone lies about you, and you defend yourself by calling out said lies. That's a personal attack?

But

THAT isn't?

This the twilight zone or what?

I'm sorry, everyone. I didn't mean for this thread to start a fight.

Nah you're fine. People just like to attack dissenters it's not your fault. We certainly want you to post any questions you may have. Don't let this scare you from future posts.

(unless of course its not toeing the line in which case you see what I have to deal with so you might wanna think twice about that)

Bottom line is this. You have to go in and either spam pioneers or prepare for an early rush. Either via a min/maxed sov or unit spam. If you are the type of player who likes to peacefully build up an empire, deal with diplomacy and play a game as it comes In my opinion this isn't likely a game you will enjoy. You need to go in with specific strategy and execute it. Otherwise you will likely be overwhelmed by AI growing too large and dog piling or get blocked/trapped by a big baddie etc, etc.

I disliked the limited spots because of this exact reason. The AI is going to spam pioneers and with limited spots you have to go in with a way to counter that as the first order of business.

This is a piece of the metagame.

Now the strategy you go with will be  based on the metagame.. not the game. That same Metagame knowledge which is common place for many who have played in the beta makes it quite easy for those people. For newer players they can scan the forums for various discussions, or trial and error.

These are the people who are attacking me. Those who are extremely knowledgeable in the metagame.. and believe that its perfectly fine as is. Where I take the position that the metagame should be for the HIGHER levels of a game rather than the entire basis of the game. Of course its hard for them to conceive of any opinion other than their own as being correct.. so every time I post I have to deal with their constant attacks and attempts at invalidating my opinion.

As an entirely neutral observer with no knowledge of any previous interactions here, your post looks like you're trashing the game as only being playable one way.

That said, I suck and am in much the same boat as the OP.

I find that I either rush civ research or die to monsters before I can make a dent in other factions through the other paths.  Most maps I just die.

The maps are sadistic, horribly unbalanced from player to player.  When you're not one of the sides that starts with three or four easy settlement spots, you're not going to win as a "so so" player.  The sides that got those easy starts will steamroll the others.

I don't like being accused of lying.  I may be an asshole, but a liar I am not.  You accuse me of cherry picking your sentence.  Ok, I'll analyze the whole post.  Here is it:

Pretty much my experience as well.

This is because you're a very poor player.  The game has problems and original poster is a new player.  You claim to be a beta veteran, but you also claim that you cannot expand in the beginning, and that one needs to "restart and spam pioneers til you have 4 or 5 cities.."

As I pointed out multiple times since, this is untrue.  I pointed out my latest play through, where I could not build more than two cities because the other spots were too close to dragons, slags and obsidian golems.  Even the two safer spots later stirred dangerous beasties.  The game worked out just fine.  I notice that you conveniently ignored this part in your next few posts.

if you lose the pioneer spam contest at the beginning and don't have a min/maxed Sov you'll likely lose the game and may as well start over.

Absolutely not true up until Expert difficulty.  Once someone has bothered learning to play the game, the AI can be easily rolled with your trained troops.  Yes, if you lose the initial expansion, you have to switch your research to war footing, and make plans to ramp up production.  But a good player is not one that sticks to his plan when circumstances change. A good game does not have to allow you to win by sticking to a plan once the first step did not work out.

On Expert this changes, but the OP was not talking about Expert.

Then you say "You'll quickly learn the game is all about the meta game.. and not about the game."  This to me means that the game is not winnable within the game. Metagaming means to go beyond the ruleset, to game the game, to go outside the game's lore and sprite in order to win. You have been making this claim in many posts.  You're not worth the time for me to look it up, I will go by memory.  You claim that unless one plays a minmaxed/operpowered side (which can be seen as metagaming) one has no chance. 

Nonsense.  In other threads, I pointed to playthroughs of mine where I take standard sides to victories on ridiculous.  My Procipinee experiment is also positive proof that the game can be won by the rules, even with a poor start.

And finally

Or you can do like me and shelve the game.. whatever works for you.

To any reasonable person, this means "As far as I'm concerned, the game is not worth playing, and I advise you to shelve it".  Not being a reasonable person, I read it as "I'm a poor player, I failed to adapt to the game, and my fragile ego will be spared if I make other players give up like me"

And finally, yes, I can minmax, I enjoy minmaxing, and I enjoy beating the game on ridiculous with a minmaxed sovereign.  I also can beat the game without minmaxing, and I have taken standard sovereigns to victory on ridiculous in 1.00.  And I am not the only one.

You, Fistalis, are a troll.  You are not trying to learn to play the game, you are not listening to advice, and you keep telling people that the game is worse than it is.  You completely disregard anyone who points you toward ways in which you can improve your play, and you try to prove that the game requires 'dirty tricks' to win.  It does not.  You can't win, because you are inflexible, and probably not particularly bright, either.

Metagame = using knowledge Not available in game. IE the fact that the AI is going to spam pioneers. You continue to distort what I say, personally attack me and accuse me of various things and then have the nerve to call me a troll. WTF is wrong with you?

You seem to have so much of the metagame memorized that you think  If anyone doesn't know the metagame its that they are horrible players. Then you wonder why I say this game is about the metagame and not the game?

This is exactly what he is doing, and he is ignoring the dozens of play throughs that show the game can be won through varied means.

This is also UNFORTUNATELY true. I have dedicated at least half a dozen threads and probably more than a hundred posts trying to get that across. Veteran players can deal with the sadistic starts, but a new player will be overwhelmed.

My latest thread is trying to prove to the developers that the AI is getting a huge advantage on levels supposed to be fair, and this is turning players off the game.  Good players, honest players, not trolls we can do without.

Not at all You're the one you stated..that not spamming pioneers takes most of the viable strategies of the table.  That is what YOU said.

Then when I suggested you Try with a few cities and not min maxing sov or for unit production..(IE other metagaming Practices) that the only available option was research.

So which is it? Are there MILLIONS of ways to win.. or are there a few all based on metagaming? Because you have stated both.

1. How did I use knowledge not available in game in the play-through I keep pointing at?  Standard race/sovereign, and not once have I used any of the particularly effective tactics. (if only because Procipinee/Pariden have none available to them)

2. This is not what metagaming means.  Not in mathematics, not in military science, and not on the first google page. Learn the language. Using knowledge not available in the game is metagaming, but metagaming is not just that.

3. We have already established that you consider building more than two pioneers "spamming pioneers".  We also established that a large map can have up to 60 settleable locations.  Knowing these two things, I will let people make their own conclusions about the mental capacity of those who consider "The Ai will build more than two pioneers" a revelation.

Many things, but right now, I'm enjoying trying to make you look not too bright (which you may be) and a troll (which you act like)  I do not how well I'm succeeding, but I have high hopes. 

And you brought this on yourself, by doing what Psychoak, Emperor_Nero, and I have pointed out, namely vocally painting a false picture of the game.

Your picture. You stated that Not spamming pioneers removed a large swath of viable tactics. That not having a min maxed Sov removed the other.. and that not min/maxing for unit production removed another. And only left you with research...

YOU STATED ALL THIS, and when I repeat what you said You accuse me of painting a false picture?

Then when I suggested you Try with a few cities and not min maxing sov (IE other metagaming Practices) that the only available option was research.

So which is it? Are there lots and lots of ways to win.. or are there a few all based on metagaming? Because you have stated both.

I've already stated my opinion. That is metagaming and/or spamming pioneers or lose. But you have stated the same thing.. then accuse me of painting a false picture while swearing there is many many ways of winning.

You change your stance in order to pick fights with me then call me a troll..