One issue in this game continues to bug me

[KingHalford]

(reposted from main thread)

9 out of 10 planets I roll put 4 out of 6 Majors right next to one another, with a couple outlying.

Vic explained this isn't by design but by the efficiency with which the planet calculates where cities would be located to maximise their efficient existence and that's fair enough.

Been thinking about this a bit and whilst I actually think putting you next to Majors probably makes the game more interesting (I can see some people getting bored just swallowing up Minors for 50 turns) now that the Minor Regimes are actually dangerous I think that's less of an issue now.

I propose there is an option on setup to either allow the player to choose which Major Regime that is spawned to play as, or an option to force separation of the Major Regimes if so desired (as happens in the Beginner difficulty), and leaving the existing system as the default setting.

Sometimes I think it'd be nice to have the space to expand a bit more leisurely without the immediate pressure from powerful neighbours on several sides: sometimes you can have aggressive Majors on three borders. I don't always want to be in an immediate rush for land with three other neighbours, because whilst that can be fun, and I know that you "can" be friends with some of them, more often than not you can't be and remaining friendly with them usually allows them to become so strong and take so much territory that facing them down in the end game is very difficult. I've posted a link to a picture showing what can happen when you allow this (and whilst I was loving that ridiculous war so much, I think it should be just one of many end-game scenarios).

What do people think? I'm not asking that anything be changed, just an extra option that might allow people to choose a less intense start for when they're not in the mood for the usual "baptism of fire" experience. The game is currently rather difficult even on Regular.

https://imgur.com/ZIzJLho

I have considered the likelihood that starting yourself further from the Majors might allow you to steamroller them more easily, and I think this is something that could be a problem with my suggestion: some people might play like that, win more easily and claim the game is boring (seen this happen in several games over the years!)


Edit: I should just add one last point, I tend to play on Militia start on the larger end of Normal-Large planets. I've decided to try 1 Army start to see if this changes things, it might well be that I just suck and I need a boost in the early game, but I still think the option to choose which Regime you play as on the map would be cool.

[zgrssd]

I somewhat prefer having at least 1 major border. Because if our borders meet, they will stay there. With minors I first have to get a peace deal.
But I usually end up boxed in between 2 majors, wich then end up both declaring war on me.

But I agree some starting options would be nice. Some options that can change where the game places you.
Equatorial start - if you want to be in the middle
Pole Start - because you want one direction you do not have to worry about
Nearby Majors yes/no
Even a way to limit the amount of majors, possibly all the way to 0 enemies.

[AttuWatcher]

but I still think the option to choose which Regime you play as on the map would be cool.

I would love this.

[MatthewVilter]

I do find the simulationist style of starting conditions appealing but I think having more options to tweak map generation and the starting political situation can only be a good thing (as long as they are presented to the player reasonably well).