A settler is not enough?

[Abaxial]

Current game - Mongols. On a continent with Japan not far to the south. Then I hear that Kyoto is facing a siege, so I send a few units down to see what is going on. Kyoto is surrounded by barb slingers, and has actually got down to zero strength, so I do a quick DoW and march in a melee unit. Then of course, I have to defend Kyoto against the barbarians, but I'm much better at that and chase them all away.

The thing is, the moment I took Kyoto, Hojo did his little animation which I think is meant to look like Seppuku while actually just being sheathing his sword, and all his units vanished. Now one of them was a settler. That could easily have wandered off and founded a new city; after all, everyone starts the game with a settler and no city. Inconsistent?

 

[japanesesamurai]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say

 

[kaspergm]

I guess OPs point is that Hojo was eliminated from the game even though he had a settler and could found a new city. And yes, that seems to be the game rule, once you've founded your capital, you'll lose the game if you lose all cities.

 

[japanesesamurai]

Aah okay, makes sense now

 

[Victoria]

No, playing chase Kupes elusive settler is not a game I want to play. He either has a cap or is dead, keeps it simple.

 

[MrRadar]

It has been like this in the franchise since the beginning. You found your first city - your nomad days are over. Defend your sweet home or go under, if you lose it.

I remember a game of Civ IV with Rhye's and Fall mod. I was playing as China and time had come for the Mongols to spawn on my northern borders. A swarm of units and a few settlers. On the first turn they settled their first city, other settlers moved elsewhere, and I noticed that they left minimal defense in the city. By chance I had some troops in the neighbourhood, so I just assaulted and took it. And all the Mongolian stacks were gone just like that. It certainly felt very strange, but what a relief it was

Some earlier installments had a setting that you could enable, requiring "complete kills". A civ isn't defeated until its last unit, whatever it may be, is destroyed. I remember once playing a Civ V game with this setting enabled. After I spent half of the game trying to find the last Spanish unit, which appeared to be a caravel roaming the oceans and giving Isabel a platform to denounce me again and again (via pigeon or bottle mail probably), I decided this option was not as cool as it sounded to be and never used it again.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

the better question is why did you not capture that settler beforehand?

 

[Bliss]

No, playing chase Kupes elusive settler is not a game I want to play. He either has a cap or is dead, keeps it simple.

Good ol' Age of Empires.

 

[cvb]

Some earlier installments had a setting that you could enable, requiring "complete kills". A civ isn't defeated until its last unit, whatever it may be, is destroyed.

Wasn't that standard Domination on civ1? I remember once having "conquered all". But one single Civ refused to give in and declare me victor.
So did I, refused to give in too and developed Satellites in order to see the last Gaulish city
Surprise, surprise, No more city.
Finally (dozens turn later ) I found the last unit wandering forever in the neglected eternal ice of the Arctic ...
... and preferred then winning space race.
.

 

[UWHabs]

Wasn't that standard Domination on civ1? I remember once having "conquered all". But one single Civ refused to give in and declare me victor.
So did I, refused to give in too and developed Satellites in order to see the last Gaulish city
Surprise, surprise, No more city.
Finally (dozens turn later ) I found the last unit wandering forever in the neglected eternal ice of the Arctic ...
... and preferred then winning space race.
.

Yeah, it was definitely annoying trying to figure out where that last settler ran off to.

 

[MrRadar]

Wasn't that standard Domination on civ1? I remember once having "conquered all". But one single Civ refused to give in and declare me victor.
So did I, refused to give in too and developed Satellites in order to see the last Gaulish city
Surprise, surprise, No more city.
Finally (dozens turn later ) I found the last unit wandering forever in the neglected eternal ice of the Arctic ...
... and preferred then winning space race.
.

Hmm, strange. Doesn't seem right, as units in Civ1 belong to the city which built them and even draw shield maintenance from it if above the free unit limit. And when you capture a city in Civ1, all the units it had built are gone from the map too, iirc. Conquest victory requires all cities captured, you capture the last city, all units of that civ must be gone.
Maybe your Gauls never founded their city? Lost the initial settler and only had the initial warrior to wander the world?

 

[Abaxial]

the better question is why did you not capture that settler beforehand?

Easily answered. I was approaching Kyoto from the NW, and the settler was wandering off to the east, and there were barbarian units between me and it.

 

[cvb]

Hmmh, was a settler an exception??? (in getting direct shield maintenance from its Home city)

Because you are right, starving the majority of units in the stack defending a city by occupying every shield-generating-tile was the evil standard siege tactic.

No unit should survive the conquest of its supplying Home city. Maybe an exception in the unit removal routine with the last city.

.

 

[MrRadar]

Hmmh, was a settler an exception??? (in getting direct shield maintenance from its Home city)

Because you are right, starving the majority of units in the stack defending a city by occupying every shield-generating-tile was the evil standard siege tactic.

No unit should survive the conquest of its supplying Home city. Maybe an exception in the unit removal routine with the last city.

.

Settler was an exception in that it not only required one production no matter what but also one food unit. I even fired up Civ1 to check if I remember correctly Under Despotism other units are free if their number is not over the city size number. Other governments require obligatory supply shield.

I can't recall anything about straggler units surviving capture of the last city. If play some game of Civ1 some time for old times sake, I hope I remember to pay attention to what happens in that case.

 

[UWHabs]

If you captured a city, I think the unit maintenance shifted to another city, no? I don't think capturing a city immediately killed all the units from it, but they would starve in the other city. Although that may be wrong, it's obviously been a long time since I played civ 1.