Defending the expansion: settler escorts

T

TimBentley

Deity

Joined

Apr 26, 2004

Messages

2,898

Location

Troy, MI

• Mar 9, 2005

• #1

Sending settlers without escorts is a dangerous act, as barbarians (which at this point there appear to be none, but I won't make a final judgement regarding that) and foreign nations could attack. The foreign nations are more dangerous in attacking undefended cities, in my experience. Nevertheless, building escorts slows the production of settlers and workers. Thus, a couple of settlers can be sent without escort, but unit production to defend them should be started soon. I'm not sure what to discuss in particular, but I didn't want to unilaterally create a policy.

 

DaveShack

Inventor

Retired Moderator

Joined

Feb 2, 2003

Messages

13,109

Location

Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)

• Mar 9, 2005

• #2

In my experience, unescorted settlers in previously explored territory are usually OK until two civs have the wheel, after which barb horses out of the fog become a real danger. In the roleplaying aspect of DemoGames we often get emotional about the settlers and thus almost always have escorts.

There was a memorable incident where a President lost track of which units had moved, and accidentally left a settler unescorted right next to an enemy, during wartime. That generated a lot of really good RPG material, and we had to work really hard to reassure that President (who shall remain nameless) that accidents happen so he wouldn't resign in disgrace.

 

V

vikingruler

King

Joined

Jan 11, 2005

Messages

965

Location

New Jersey, USA

• Mar 9, 2005

• #3

it doesn't need an escort if we see the squares. we will immideatly know if barbs appear so it's safe. but if we just see a few squares, and building a city on an unknown space would probably be only attempted if there are really nice resources. however we could send the settler on its own if a warrior is in the vicinity of the hopeful city space.

 

YNCS

Ex-bubblehead

Joined

Feb 16, 2003

Messages

3,098

Location

-4 GMT

• Mar 9, 2005

• #4

Right now, our warrior is near the likely location of our next city. However, if we're going to have an early war with the Indians, then we need escorts/city defenders.

 

mad-bax

Deity

GOTM Staff

Joined

Jan 24, 2003

Messages

5,242

• Mar 10, 2005

• #5

What President Daveshack said. No escorts unless we send settlers into the fog. He also said elsewhere that there have been no barbs seen yet or goody huts either. No barbs at all could be the setting for this game. Can't be sure yet of course, but it looks likely.

 

MOTH

Emperor

Joined

Aug 13, 2004

Messages

1,676

Location

mostly lurking

• Mar 23, 2005

• #6

I'm bumping this up as it appears this question is now very relavent. We currently have a settler that is failing to move.

It appears that the general concensus (6 out of 6 now) in this that it is ok to send settlers out unescorted if we see the lay of the land.

As for the current tactical situation, my opionion is that we need to get these settlers moving. We've got 2 now and should have another in just a couple more turns.

 

mad-bax

Deity

GOTM Staff

Joined

Jan 24, 2003

Messages

5,242

• Mar 23, 2005

• #7

My view is unchanged.

 

DaveShack

Inventor

Retired Moderator

Joined

Feb 2, 2003

Messages

13,109

Location

Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)

• Mar 23, 2005

• #8

Will an AI declare war and capture an unescorted settler? We're on +1 aggression level and are weak to everyone. Just a thought, I don't want to be the 2nd DG President in history to lose an undefended settler.

 

RegentMan

Deity

Joined

May 7, 2003

Messages

6,951

Location

Washington State

• Mar 23, 2005

• #9

I rarely use escorts. If we see where the settler's going, then we're fine.

 

B

Bertie

Prince

Joined

Feb 25, 2005

Messages

583

• Mar 23, 2005

• #10

Have we seen any barbs so far this game? I don't think they're a concern, unless we're entering the fog.

We do have a Dutch & Indian warrior wandering our boundaries, but both civs have plenty of room to expand. I usually find that they're more apt to attack me when they're running out of sites for new cities. However, I wouldn't suggest having a settler end its movement on a tile adjacent to a Dutch or Indian warrior: the temptation might be too much for them!

 

RegentMan

Deity

Joined

May 7, 2003

Messages

6,951

Location

Washington State

• Mar 24, 2005

• #11

Bah! Send our settlers right next to their warriors and have them flash them Braveheart-style!

 

Bill_in_PDX

Grumpy Submariner

Joined

Jan 18, 2002

Messages

1,880

Location

The Wilderness of Orygun

• Mar 24, 2005

• #12

I have no opposition to unescorted settlers at this point.

 

mad-bax

Deity

GOTM Staff

Joined

Jan 24, 2003

Messages

5,242

• Mar 24, 2005

• #13

DaveShack said:

Will an AI declare war and capture an unescorted settler? We're on +1 aggression level and are weak to everyone. Just a thought, I don't want to be the 2nd DG President in history to lose an undefended settler.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry Mr. President. I have never seen the AI declare war just to capture a worker or a Settler. At this point of the game they normally declare in order to reach OCN. If I'm wrong, and you have obeyed the instructions you were given then you are beyond criticism.

Honestly, we don't have time to build units to accompany other units for half a dozen tiles. It is just not cost effective, and we can't afford the time or indeed the loss of production to other needed things.

If we lose a settler then it will be a pity. If we fail to break out of this corner of the map it will be a tragedy.

 

YNCS

Ex-bubblehead

Joined

Feb 16, 2003

Messages

3,098

Location

-4 GMT

• Mar 24, 2005

• #14

mad-bax said:

If we lose a settler then it will be a pity. If we fail to break out of this corner of the map it will be a tragedy.

Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly.