NONE Settler or New City?

[Duke of Marlbrough]

When you find a NONE settler (wandering nomads in a hut), or start the game with an extra one, what do you do with it?

I always have kept it a Settler and not built it into a city. I figured that the shields and food it saved in support outweighted the benefit of the extra city.

Anybody care to concur or disagree with some hard facts?

As a side point:
If you find a hut with nomads inside of it that are a NONE Settler, should you take several turns running it back to your cities and having it work there, or build up the area it is in where you will eventually settle? I don't mean completely build the area up, just some roads and irrigate spots where cities will go.

Lets assume there are no other civs on the continent, so defense is not a major priority.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Of coz it's always better to have a settler unit that requires no support. But sometimes you will have to consider how fast you want to build a score of new cities - particularly when you are just starting the game and are trying to landgrab as much as possible before opposing civs move in. And if you have one extra city in the beginning, can pump out units and consolidate your position faster. Usually I'll use the NONE settler to develop my capital awhile, then send it to found a new city nearby.
Also if that free support settler unit is too difficult to pick up (e.g. on a small island on the other side of the world), will just build a city there instead of going thru all the trouble of bringing it back.

 

[starlifter]

posted July 03, 2001 03:42 AM
When you find a NONE settler (wandering nomads in a hut), or start the game with an extra one, what do you do with it?

Usually, I will keep it and make roads for the first settlers to get to their new city sites ASAP. Sometimes, however, rivers or ideal terrain might outweight keeping it, esp. if you can get to Monarchy fast given city site choices (0 shield support, only 1 food).

I always have kept it a Settler and not built it into a city. I figured that the shields and food it saved in support outweighted the benefit of the extra city.

That is my general opinion, too.

If you find a hut with nomads inside of it that are a NONE Settler, should you take several turns running it back to your cities and having it work there, or build up the area it is in where you will eventually settle? I don't mean completely build the area up, just some roads and irrigate spots where cities will go.

Roads, roads, roads. Irrigate a spot if founding a city soon. Minimize transit time, maximize use.

 

[Kev]

Love the NONE units in general! NONE settlers - later becoming NONE engineers - are great to have and just one good reason to go hut-hunting.

** possible spoiler for GOTM players **

There are times when I will use a NONE settler to found a city pretty quickly. In the most recent Game of the Month, I was given a NONE settler pretty early although it was quite a distance from my capital. Right around this spot was a GREAT spot for a science city as it encompassed two whales and two silk. I felt like this was a decent trade-off, and built a city there. Nicely enough, I was given a NONE settler in a later hut on the same starting continent.

I seem to remember a discussion in which the game will only allow a single NONE settler from huts per continent (assuming you keep the settler and not build a city). I guess if you get one early enough and you are on a large enough continent with additional huts then it may be a decent gamble to build a city with a NONE settler (after a few improvements perhaps) and hope you get another one in a later hut on the same continent. Worked for me (luckily).

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock

[This message has been edited by Kev (edited July 03, 2001).]

 

[Smash]

You are substantially more likely to receive a nomad if you don't allready have a NON settler present.So build!

 

[starlifter]

posted July 03, 2001 01:49 PM

You are substantially more likely to receive a nomad if you don't allready have a NON settler present.So build!

Except for the early NONE horsemen/chariots, my favorite hut goodie is a NONE settler. I almost never ever get one though, and have never understood why. On big maps, I do get several over the course of a game, but I can't recall the last NONE settler I ever got on a "normal" or "small" map.

However, you can "make" NONEs if you want. It takes a little time, and costs about 140 gold, but you simply found a city near another civ's city, and then build/buy a settler before that city reaches size 2. The result will be a disbanded city, and a NONE settler for your effort.

Of course, you can pay the huge bribe price to get NONE settlers in enemy territory, too.

It is such a coincidence that this thread is discussed just at I faced a "NONE" decision in GOTM 6.... to build or not to build.

---- Begin GOTM 6 Spoiler Warning -----

Yesterday, the little island just southeast of the Human's starting position has a hut... that hut gave me an advanced tribe, but I hated the location. So I disbanded the city by building a settler, which I fully expected to be attached to Delhi or Calcutta, and then move to the proper location and re-found the city. But... unbeknownst to me, the Celts were actaully closer, so the setter was a "NONE"... this delayed founding the new city because I was not going to "waste" a NONE on a city. So it becan roading & irrigating... and it removed the swamp that was in the exact best city spot, too! Later, I brought in a "regular" supported settler to found the city.

 

[starlifter]

PS, you can actaully see what I am talking about in the GOTM 6 thread, in the GOTM section.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/Forum20/HTML/000109.html

I posted a picture of the 1000AD map, including the little island and my "NONE" that happens to be busily irrigating the swamp for a future settler to use in founding a city! The place to look is southeast of Delhi & Bombay (or about 5 squares northwest of Bengal).

By Kev:

I seem to remember a discussion in which the game will only allow a single NONE settler from huts per continent.

An interesing discovery. Is it actually true? I have never looked for this pattern, and so have never noticed it. All I know is *gimme* more NONE settlers!! I love 'em <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>.

EDIT: Add link and fix typo.


[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited July 04, 2001).]

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

It can't be true. I have two from the same continent (also in GOTM 6). That's what brought up my question. I have always kept them as NONE, but now that I have you guys to ask, I threw it out there.

Maybe it has to do with difficulty level. When I play diety I hardly ever (never) get a NONE settler from a hut. But in this game I have 2 already.

Kev:
I know the exact spot you are talking about in GOTM 6 and am using the NONE settler to get the spot ready for a regular settler that is coming up.

I was surprised that I got a NONE settler from the huts, I had actually forgotten that it was even a possibily since it had been so long. I always play on Diety, so maybe that has something to do with it.

And stop posting GOTM 6 spoilers in here.... I am only up to 975 BC. (I can only play for about a half hour each day, some of us have lives )

 

[Az]

I NEVER spoil a NON-Settler.

 

[starlifter]

Parts of this current topic are related to this thread, FYI:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/Forum1/HTML/000436.html

 

[henmike_sigo]

Read a thread over at Apolyton that paralleled some experimenting that I was doing with huts. It said that if you build a city with a NON settler and then tip a hut in the same turn, there is an greater increase in the likelihood in getting another NON settler.

From a programming perspective, I can see them adding extra points to whatever randomizing variable that determines what pops out of a hut.

Also, as a side note, I've noticed that there MAY be extra points awarded if it's a FIRST time hut tip. While experimenting, I noticed that on the 1st tip it seemed that better goodies were generated than on subsequent (units, money or tech vs barbarians). Anybody else done any experimenting in this area?

 

[SlowwHand]

Build 2nd city on good site with all speed. The rate of science improves greatly.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I never though the quick boost it may give would make up for the lasting savings on not needing support.

Besides, any settler can be used to build a good city, why use a NONE? Just to get it done quicker. Is savings those ten turns or so really worth it?

I still feel that a NONE stays a NONE. Saving the needed support (even at a Monarchy) seems to outweigh the benefit of getting a city for 'free'.

 

[Bud2998]

I never EVER waste a NONE settler on a city. It saves the support, even if it is very little, and I use it to build roads, irrigation, and mines. I'll take the several turns to get it to my main part of my nation, even if I do have to travel overseas to get the settler.

 

[Smash]

You can make nons later if you want.Slap down the city.Its like starting with an extra settler

 

[SlowwHand]

Smash, it looks like the possible challenge exists.
Do vs. Don't.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[cichlid221]

I have the same dilema in some games where the engineer-type units are exceedingly tough to get, like the Midgard scenario in TOT. When I get one, I have to be very careful not to build a city with them, because they're irreplacable.

In your case, if your civ is small, you should build a city right away, or after a few local improvements, because it will have a lot of time to grow, and your "investment" will be worth it.
If your civ is large and old, and especially because there are no enemies on the continent to compete with that may colonize there first, use the settler to build infrastructure and maybe a road to the place you want a city, and send a settler from a nearby city to build it there. Alternatively, you could just build some fortresses nearby, some roads to the nearest city, and make a defensive base.
A third option that I'd NEVER consider is to add the settler to a city. I only do this when there is a food crisis in a city, and it needs to grow 1 or else it will die on the next turn.

 

[cichlid221]

Originally posted by henmike_sigo:
Read a thread over at Apolyton that paralleled some experimenting that I was doing with huts. It said that if you build a city with a NON settler and then tip a hut in the same turn, there is an greater increase in the likelihood in getting another NON settler.

From a programming perspective, I can see them adding extra points to whatever randomizing variable that determines what pops out of a hut.

Also, as a side note, I've noticed that there MAY be extra points awarded if it's a FIRST time hut tip. While experimenting, I noticed that on the 1st tip it seemed that better goodies were generated than on subsequent (units, money or tech vs barbarians). Anybody else done any experimenting in this area?

Yes, I have, and I've noticed that certain units get certain prizes. This may not be true, but with one type of unit (I can't remember which one) I only get tech, settlers and new cities. With another, I think it's a diplomat, I mostly get enemies.