DO you always attack AI unescorted settler and start war no matter what?

Artifex1

Artifex1

Warlord
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
284
For instance Immortal, Attila, unescorted settler, turn 62.

Ghandi is between us so he is not my neighbor. 25 hexes way is his capital from mine.

Then i will have a weakened attila mad at me and a strong india as my neighbor, and strong maya behind them.
 
Do you need a worker and can you back up the fight you start? On immortal, he will show up fifteen turns from now with a little army. If you need the worker or really don't want that forward settled city, and can fend off his attacks, go for it. I would probably let him settle then pay Gandhi to attack. He'll wipe the city, your hands are clean and they hate each other forever.
 
Hard to resist, even I don't really need a worker. It avoid AI to have another city. I didn't do it only when I have settle my cities, don't need room or worker and want to keep this AI as trade partner.
 
If I'm Assyria, good heavens no! Let him settle first!
 
I always feel like I have more workers than I need anyway, so I generally put little value in them. I'd rather not start a war over something like that.
 
The reason I ask is that I just moved up to immortal from emperor. I keep hearing you have to steal settlers and workers left and right on immortal and that is a big difference from emperor.
 
9 times out of 10 I will take an unescorted Settler.

It's not just getting a worker. It's a real setback for the Civ that looses it.
 
If an unescorted settler is actually close to one of my military units (as opposed to a scout), yup it's going to be attacked because I have those type of units in locations to prevent AI from founding city near an intended future city site in the first place.
I'd still do it even if it wasn't captured as the free worker is just a bonus
 
I usually play King, or even Chieftain like now while I learn the in's and outs of BNW.

But Unless I can see the AI is about to settle some crucial, I just let them have it.

On a side note, why did they change it from previous Civs to where an Enemy Settler turns into a Captured Worker??? I thoroughly enjoyed being able to steal a settler if my enemy was too stupid to not protect them well enough.

Even these days, I always run 1 or 2 soldiers with my non-combat units. Don't want barbs or enemies trying to steal my people.
 
Almost always (I have to have military to survive first wave of enemy units). They usually hate me anyway and free worker is a free worker.
 
Artifex1 said:
The reason I ask is that I just moved up to immortal from emperor. I keep hearing you have to steal settlers and workers left and right on immortal and that is a big difference from emperor.
Click to expand...

Hey Artifex. Like you, I am moving up from Emperor. I think the emphasis on stealing workers is mostly in the very early game. 62 is a little bit late, and Attila will go berserk. Plus the DoW starts contributing to Ghandhi hating you a bit too.

DoWs in the first 30 turns are quickly forgotten, but 62 might be a bit late. If you really want the spot and the worker and are prepared to fight for it, then I'd do it. Otherwise, I'd wait until my army was big enough and then sweep the continent! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CGQ
[BTS] How the heck do I approach this start? Coastal but no fishing start (Shaka Immortal Game)
Replies
9
Views
2K
Henrik75
H
H
[BTS] Civ 4 Always War - IMM Questions/Discussion
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Henrik75
H
B
Blackbetsy HOF Attempts
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
7K
Spoonwood
S
H
CIV4 BTS - Engineering Attack GUIDE
Replies
4
Views
3K
Re-loader
Re-loader
L. Vern
My 4.5 Playtest Report + Feedback
Replies
5
Views
772
azum4roll
A
Top Bottom