Settlers

[MAMBO]

Every time I start a new game I have only one Settler. What's up with that? Does it depend on what Civ you select? A good friend of mine says he ALWAYS gets two Settlers. Of course, ne normally chooses the Americans too. Any ideas????

[ColdWizard]

playing on deity level always gets 2 settlers

[ferenginar]

You can get two settlers at all other levels of difficulty, I'm not sure of the rules that dictate what you get, but it is dependent on the starting reseach granted and on the starting terrain. If coldwizard is right then it also depends on the level, I have not yet played deity, but it sounds plausible.

Ferenginar

[drake]

Whats wrong with 1? Gives you a better challenge.

[MAMBO]

Thanks for your responses Coldwizard and ferenginar, however,
I have mastered all levels and always had two settlers regardless
of terrain or starting research. Actually, I'm not the one with the
problem - its my friend. I was merely asking for him. He always seems to get just one settler regardless. One settler puts you at an initial disadvantage right out of the gate!

My latest endeavor is trying to conquer with the large map size. Its the only one I've yet to conquer. Every one is too spread out. It becomes a game of intense strategy and coordination.

[CoolLizy]

I think it's random. I usually only get one. I know in Civ1 you'd randomly get an extra settler.

[duke o' york]

MAMBO - to conquer, use ICS and just spread until you find another civ. Take them, move to another continent and keep building new cities. You will always need a steady flow of settlers and units to defend your cities/take the AI's so many usual strategies go out of the window. This can be a fun way to play, especially if you are dumb like me and just pursue the ICS theory rather than implementing it appropriately: I end up just sending my ships across and settling new lands next to whales or fish before discovering that my new invasion base is on an island with nothing but forest squares and one other special out of its radius. This can make for even more fun. Conquest is a fun way to win, but AC is more satisfying. Don't try and change from one to the other midgame and still expect a good score. Although keeping a pet city is always fun too.

[jc011]

just something i noticed in a game.. In emperor, the AI always starts out with two settlers plus a phalanx!!! what cheapos!!

[CoolLizy]

Hopefully, in Civ III, on higher difficulty levels the AI is simply smarter instead of having to cheat more often.

[Dell19]

Yes that would be definately better! One problem though, I could no longer blame my defeats on the computer cheating...

Sometimes I have one settler and sometimes two settlers.

[Magnus]

I believe that if you start in a good place (no nearby civs, good land abnd plenty of it) you willget the 1 settler and one or zero fee techs. Start in a nasty area with a couple other civs right net door and you wills ee the extra settler and perhaps 2 or 3 more starting techs. I dont know the rule behind it, but this is simply an observation of playing hundreds of games.

[CoolLizy]

Sounds reasonable.

[MAMBO]

Originally posted by duke o' york
MAMBO - to conquer, use ICS and just spread until you find another civ. Take them, move to another continent and keep building new cities. You will always need a steady flow of settlers and units to defend your cities/take the AI's so many usual strategies go out of the window. This can be a fun way to play, especially if you are dumb like me and just pursue the ICS theory rather than implementing it appropriately: I end up just sending my ships across and settling new lands next to whales or fish before discovering that my new invasion base is on an island with nothing but forest squares and one other special out of its radius. This can make for even more fun. Conquest is a fun way to win, but AC is more satisfying. Don't try and change from one to the other midgame and still expect a good score. Although keeping a pet city is always fun too.

[duke o' york]

Really sorry about that.
Right....... ICS stands for infinite city sprawl. The technique is to found a city and when it is big enough (this can be straight after building a defensive unit), build a settler. Send this settler to build another city. Repeat this until the map is covered in your cities or you need navigation, etc. to get to more land that you can settle. It is called infinite city sprawl although the game will not allow you more than 264 (I think) cities. This is the best way to get an enormous score, although frowned upon by some purists.
In case you weren't aware, although I realise I may be stating the obvious, a pet city is when you have taken control of the whole world, but are planning to win by launching the space ship and so you leave a single city of one of the other civs to ensure that the game does not finish by conquest. This city will of course continue to pump out troops, so a ring of fortified mech infantry will mean that the other civ will play no further part in the game and you can build a massive score with only the barbs to worry about.

[MAMBO]

Thanks for the words of wisdom, Duke. Its always so fascinating to hear from other Civ-atics. I enjoy reading their versions of conquest. Yes, infinite city sprawl, that's appropriate. I typically can't do that until I've evolved to a higher form of government than despotism and at the deity level on a large map that can sometimes take longer than you'd like. Triremes really can't get the job done on this map so without Navigation you're pretty well handcuffed unless you meet a few other Civs in the meantime. In my opinion, other than the true test of battling other human players, the deity level with large map is a great test of strategy, patience, and supreme test of resource manageability.

MAMBO out!