Automated Settlers

[FoenixPhyre]

Hi

Stupid question probably but should or shouldn't settlers be automated? I automate them right now because its easier then dealing with them each turn but i'm assuming that its better to have a human controlling them then the computer? if settlers aren't automated then what is most important for them to do? build roads? mine? irrigate? etc...

thanks

 

[ElephantU]

Human control is better, but there is a trick that an automated settler CAN irrigate something with no water source nearby SOMETIMES. You cannot control what it does; it may wander off or build a road instead. Most helpful if you are the Mongols in central Asia...

What is most important depends on the game you are playing, the era, and your style. ICS players build one road and then go build a new city. Perfectionists argue over irrigating versus roading first (they will do both, just the order matters). Ultra-perfectionists may be trying to build a trade-road-exploit (trade road along S-D route terminating in "station" city outside city radius).

One you left off your list is Fortification...

Building roads first gets you more Trade, while irrigating first gets you more food. Irrigating a grass before Monarchy gets you nothing. Roading a square you are not working with a citizen also gets you nothing. But then, you might be connecting two cities together for defense purposes...

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Automated settlers are a waste of resources. They just will not stay in their own city radii.

 

[AnarchyBoy]

Fonenix, I have wished so many times that I could just automate my settlers for the same reason you mentioned: it takes each turn so long when you have to decide what each of your 150 settlers is going to do. I wish I could set cities to auto-build for the same reason. Taking away some of the micro-management would really make this game more fun.
That being said, if you automate the settlers they'll just waste your time and resources, and do everything but what you make settlers to do.
It's one of the problems with the game, I guess.

 

[funxus]

You can automate cities, chosing between military advisor or domestic advisor governing your cities. I have never used it though, but think it's as bad as automated settlers I like the production list you can make in, IIRC, AC and Civ3, still I want to be in charge and rule my empire even if it takes time.

 

[ScottTheTwisted]

I usually use automated settlers in the late game on my home continent. By this time i've usually expanded my empire, so there isn't a lot going on outside the cities in my home land. For this reason I usually leave about 1 engineer per 2 cities and set him on automate. My cities are already completely developed with farmland, RR, and mines where needed, so basically the engineers are just there to clean up any pollution my cities produce. However, in the rest of the game when i'm still developing automated engineers are much too stupid to be trusted with the more inmportant tasks such as roads and irrigation.

 

[Titi]

I never use automated settlers, since they don't really help.
Imagine a city with only grassland and one or two forest within its radius. The automated settler will chop the trees and thus reducing this city shields production !
At least, that's what I saw them do.

 

[Garvarg]

One good time to automate settlers/engineers is when you are building an a small island that is only large enough for one or two cities. yea sure the don't often do what I would do first, but they cant so too much wrong and they will clean up pollution without advice.

 

[Marlos]

Originally posted by Dark Ascendant
Automated settlers are a waste of resources. They just will not stay in their own city radii.

I have never automated settlers in my years of playing this game. Unlike AnarchyBoy, I like all of the micro-management and enjoy controlling hordes of settlers/engineers. Typically, I will have one (or two, depending on terrain) settlers/engineers per city working the squares around that city.

I know that I would be outvoted on this point, but I consider the "automate the settler to get irrigation without access to water" trick to be a cheat. I would never use it in my personal games, or in a GOTM.

 

[Enforcer Talen]

I automate them sometimes, usually to just keep them busy, then I'm off, building new roads and cities.

 

[mgeary]

I automate later in the game , when I have more important things to take care of. I like to decide what needs to be done first. That way if it turns out to be wrong I can't get mad at them.

 

[Ace]

Automating settlers/engineers is wasteful. They tend to wander all over the map and do not use "human" reasoning when buildings stuff.

The only time you should automate one is if you are trying to irrigate a square that is not adjacent to water. Otherwise, automating them is a good way to "loose" them. In late game with a large civ with a good railroad net, the automated engineer will "disappear" and for all the good he does you, he might as well be down a "Al's bar" having a cold one.

ps: If you do automate one, be sure to write down its home city so you can find it later.