1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Colonists and Pioneers

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by TheBigFundamental, Dec 27, 2018.

  1. TheBigFundamental

    TheBigFundamental Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    74
    I'd like to open a discussion on the balance of Colonists and Pioneers.

    Some potential questions for discussion:
    1.) How satisfied are you with their placement in the tech tree?
    2.) Should they grant more/less buildings and populations (and if so, should their production/upgrade cost be changed) upon creating a new city? If so, which buildings should (not) be included and how much population should be included?
    3.) How often and in which cases do you use either type?
    4.) In which scenarios are they worth the increased culture&science cost and other costs, including opportunity costs, for example from losing the stuff from the city you're razing to make space for the new city and having to invest heavily in new buildings in the new city?
    5.) What would you change if you could?
     
  2. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,766
    I think the two units are fine....they just don't work for the standard playstyle. Most people finish their city building earlier in the game, they do the initial city rush, and go from there. That's not a critique on the units, that's just the way the game is played.

    Moving them earlier in the tech tree doesn't really help that, unless it significantly farther back. The other option would be putting Pioneers on Astronomy, so you could use them for a New World Land rush.

    Now that said, if you play on accelerated starts (starting at Renaissance for example) than the units do see use, and I think they work fine at that point.
     
  3. Enginseer

    Enginseer Salientia of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    3,200
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in California
    it's okay. It's a good help when you want to settle island cities for fun. I wouldn't like having to build everything from turn 1 as a settler.
     
  4. phantomaxl1207

    phantomaxl1207 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    628
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indiana
    I use Pioneers to pick up any remaining spots that near me to deny them from the AI Players; this to me is the most important reason to pick them up. I avoid settling in the Medieval Era till I get Pioneers. I usually try and save up 2000 Gold and 6 City Turns to upgrade Settlers, much better than spending 20-30 City Turns training Pioneers. I do think the opportunity cost for settling those Cities is pretty high initially. They take a while to pay off for themselves. It plays out like in Beyond Earth where you spend TR time feeding them till they become a good City. I would say I appreciate their initial Building selection and 3 Pop; they could use a few more tiles. The Gold spent on upgrading Pioneers is better spent their than Investing in Buildings.

    Colonists on the other hand, I have only used once or twice. Modern Era (and Renaissance) is better suited for taking other Player's Cities. I wonder if having Colonists start at ~8 Pop (instead of 5) would help them get started.

    They may be better at Astronomy for conveniences in settling overseas. Banking seems like a good choice as well.
     
    CppMaster likes this.
  5. CrazyG

    CrazyG Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,944
    Location:
    Beijing
    I use Pioneers pretty regularly.

    I've never used a Colonist.
     
    CppMaster, Grabbl and Gokudo01 like this.
  6. Zanteogo

    Zanteogo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Messages:
    432
    My feeling is both need to be moved way back in the tech tree but have their cost and effects changed to reflect this.

    I hardly ever use either one, because by the time to get them there are hardly any spots left.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  7. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,361
    I also use Pioneers pretty much every game (unless I'm Spain, then Conquistadors), but I don't remember a single time I've used a Colonist.
     
    CrazyG likes this.
  8. TheBigFundamental

    TheBigFundamental Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    74
    Thanks. In what situations do you guys use Pioneers if you're playing Pangea/Oval/Continents/similar maps? On such maps I find that Pioneers come too late or with too few buildings to really be viable. I don't think I've ever used a Colonist in a competitive game, unless I was already running away with the game.
     
  9. pineappledan

    pineappledan Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,688
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I use pioneers from time to time. Maybe once in 60% of games. I use them to settle strategics in extreme pockets of marginal land, backfilling places where I can squeeze and extra city, or far-flung islands, if Polynesia isn't there already :mad:

    I have never used a colonist. The only times I can imagine using one is if you:
    1. Wanted to raze a city to move it 1-2 tiles
    2. If it was an underdevelopped late game city, and replacing it with a colonist would put the city's infrastructure ahead.
    3. If you're a civ with strong policy and UA synergies which provide large incentives for taking the yields on conquer AND on settle (ie. an Authority/Imperialism Carthage who wants that sweet bank)
    None of these situations are likely, especially because it would mean halting whatever one of your core cities was doing to build a colonist instead, and that's often a part of the game where if I'm on a domination spree I'm not looking too intently at the quality of the cities, and I'm not interested in breaking conquest momentum to rebuild cities over just puppeting them and moving forward.
    A wonder on one of those cities, which at that stage in the game is fairly likely, also means I won't even consider razing it.

    If this is going to become a more palatable option, Colonists need to be cheaper, and I would even argue they need to have a unique building specific to cities they settle. The benefits of modern urban planning and starting a city from the ground up at that late stage would mean you could argue for some % modifiers on a colonist-settled city. Maybe give all colonists a building that gives +10% to all yields in the city, like a late-game throne room.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2018
    CppMaster and civplayer33 like this.
  10. TheBigFundamental

    TheBigFundamental Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    74
    Does anyone know how often (and how well, I guess) the AI uses Colonists and Pioneers?
     
  11. Enginseer

    Enginseer Salientia of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    3,200
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in California
    It's an upgrade version of Settler, so whenever they feel a need to expand(use a settler) then they'll use colonists and pioneers.
     
  12. infidel88

    infidel88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Yuggoth
    Anyone cared to use math about Progress settlers building everything in one turn being better than pioneers? I am constantly using this strategy.
     
  13. chicorbeef

    chicorbeef Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,313
    Gender:
    Male
    Where are you getting that much Production though? You'd need to flood the city with Production routes, probably invest in stuff.
     
  14. CrazyG

    CrazyG Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,944
    Location:
    Beijing
    If there are small islands I use Pioneers. I use them on Continents more than Oval.

    If i reach turn 120 and there is a good settling spot, but I never build a settler for it. I just wait to till the pioneer, it helps your short term culture and science to delay settling. Of course, this depends on when you research banking, but its a pretty good tech and its only pre-req is a pretty good tech.

    Also, occasionally I use a pioneer to grab coal that gets revealed. I think the Colonist could have an earlier tech position.
     
  15. infidel88

    infidel88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Yuggoth
    There are couple of ways. For example cooperation belief makes this strategy almost a perpetum mobile, as you have new citizen and new building every turn. And even without it you get bonus :c5culture::c5food::c5gold: from progress and industry policies. Plus on top of that cheaper buildings with industry. And buildings from earlier eras get some bonus to to :c5production: dont they? Within 10 turns you can get your 1:c5citizen: city to 11:c5citizen:, getting 10 cheap buildings (granary, walls, market, council, shrine and so on), gaining 10:c5culture: scaling per turn. Thats why Im asking about math - is the culture worth to wait? I believe it is, but thats just a belief :)
     
  16. civplayer33

    civplayer33 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    605
    That's from Imperialism, not Industry...I sorta doubt this can work and in any case a Colonists purpose, IMO, is to get a half usable city up ASAP after you burned your enemy's city for war score, for example, and have it contain at least some basic (defensive etc.) buildings on the turn you found.
     
  17. azum4roll

    azum4roll Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    175
    Gender:
    Male
    I used a Colonist on the only settlable place on the map - a one-tile stone island with one fish and 4 coal (on 2 separate nearby 1-tile islands) that's somehow not claimed by the Mayans who settled all nearby one-tile islands.
     
  18. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,223
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    A question. Why pioneer cities start with Harbors but not Lighthouses? Why don't they start with walls?

    The walls, I might understand. It could encourage players to completely raze enemy cities (unless they are really good) and replace them with pioneer cities, as these ones would start better protected. Although having colonist starting with walls and castles would leave a niche for them: providing safe footholds in enemy territory.

    But why not lighthouses? Unhappiness is already high due to the lack of infrastructure, missing connection to the capital is just too much.
     
  19. Enginseer

    Enginseer Salientia of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    3,200
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in California
    Because it used to have a Lighthouse back when Harbors did naval connections. Now Lighthouse does naval connections and we swapped it up. We don't want instant city connections from settling one-tile cities. A lighthouse's production cost also gets lower and lower as each era goes by so it's only a slight delay which is much better than losing a free harbor for a lighthouse.
     
  20. pineappledan

    pineappledan Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,688
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    The fact remains that colonists need a niche of some sort, otherwise they have nothing to offer over annexation/puppeting of a pre-existing city. 99.9% of the time, City plots aren’t available at that stage of the game unless you burn another city down.

    What can a colonist bring to the table in modern era that a city which has existed for 2+ eras can’t?

    My thinking is that they could get a free building That is unique to colonists: City Hall. +1:c5food::c5production::c5gold::c5science::c5culture:, and +10%:c5food::c5production::c5gold::c5science::c5culture: in the city.
     

Share This Page