Growing while chopping settler (small tip)
- Thread starter Willburn
- Start date
pigswill
fly (one day)
By building the settler from chops only you lose the production bonus to settler building from spare food (which goes to growth instead) so it sounds like a lot of micro-managing with little overall benefit. As Andrei V pointed out using early chops means you lose out on later and more productive chops. There's also the bonus from mathematics.
I'd rather use chops for buildings you get additional bonuses for (any wonder if you're industrious, courthouses for organised etc).
That doesn't mean that I never chop for settlers, like everything else it depends on circumstances, but I wouldn't chop for settlers for the sake of a (non-existent) benefit.
I'd rather use chops for buildings you get additional bonuses for (any wonder if you're industrious, courthouses for organised etc).
That doesn't mean that I never chop for settlers, like everything else it depends on circumstances, but I wouldn't chop for settlers for the sake of a (non-existent) benefit.
Andrei_V said:
I agree. In fact I think this would hurt you in the long run because you are losingout on a certain number of turns of use of both the settler and what you are building. If for example It woudl take 10 turns to build the building and grow and 3 forests to choop the settler then you will finish both around turn 20 whereas if you focused on building and growing before switching to settler creation you coudl finish the settler earlier and have use of the building for an extra 10 turns. To borrow a term from the pker forums this seems like an extreme case of FPS (fancy play syndrome) that will ultimately hurt you in the long run.
An idea: settlers and workers are no longer built, but instead are grabbed from the food/population somehow, sort of like a pop-rush. Ie, you want to build a worker, subtract 60 breads from the stored food (including subtracting X number of population if needed); settler subtract 100 breads.
Basically, the settler or worker takes his food with him when he leaves the city. Although with this approach 60 & 100 breads is probably too high a price. I'd say try to find a number such that when a city is small it causes a population loss (ex: you drop from 5 to 4 population when creating a worker) but very large cities might have enough hanging around in their granaries to send out a worker without even dropping.
Basically, the settler or worker takes his food with him when he leaves the city. Although with this approach 60 & 100 breads is probably too high a price. I'd say try to find a number such that when a city is small it causes a population loss (ex: you drop from 5 to 4 population when creating a worker) but very large cities might have enough hanging around in their granaries to send out a worker without even dropping.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
It somewhat worked like that in previous civs. It was not a better system or anything.
Also the possibility of instant-workers or settlers does not sound appealing to me at all. Right now you have to time when you want a worker or settler and commit to them. It is a whole lot more fun that to instant-build them.
Yamps
Deity
Necro...Overflow mechanics is different in BtS, this thread was for Vanilla.
Well, you don't have to wait at all to build them right now. You can produce them in one turn; a nice combination of chop-rush & pop-rush gives you instant workers/settlers. If you use pop-rush the only thing you have to wait for is your population to grow enough to crack that whip, basically the same thing as the idea (lets call that Idea #1, because more ideas are coming below - I just threw Idea #1 out more to start a discussion than anything else).
Yes, I think it was like that in CivIII (I started with III, never played I or II). Probably players didn't like having to "kill" people to produce settlers and also might have said something like "why can't I use my hammers to do it?".
So, why does producing a settler need to effect growth/food at all? Idea #2: cut out all this stopping growth thing, produce it just like anything else. I think the concerns are that to create a worker/settler you should need to contribute some food (they eat, right?), not just hammers. But by that logic shouldn't military units as well?
Idea #3: Require a separate number of minimum bread and allow the rest to come from either hammers or bread.
Personally, I don't consider chop-rush as an exploit. Your city has a limited number of forests, use them as you see fit. But, the AI should be chop-rushing too (especially at the higher levels) and in my experience they don't (should I call this Idea #4? Nah, let's not).
this is a common way of having a settler. i sometimes build sth, let'S say granary, when workers show 2 turn to end the chop, i change to settler and press enter. then i switch back to granary and continue chopping so on.
if you will get your settler in such pauses don't put very much time between or your production will rot.
however, an easier way is this: you can also pre-chop multi forests and complete them in a few turns once you pick settler.
so you don't have to do so much build changes in city screen. i didn't read all 67 posts so probably this should have been talked about.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
This thread is very very old...but it's fun to see that scrubbing (people calling this an exploit 
) was alive and well back then, too.
Everything that works well is an exploit, after all
. Even some things that don't work well are exploits if a bad player has trouble with them.
) was alive and well back then, too.Everything that works well is an exploit, after all
. Even some things that don't work well are exploits if a bad player has trouble with them.This thread is very very old...but it's fun to see that scrubbing (people calling this an exploit
Everything that works well is an exploit, after all
yes TMIT. most threads are very old already. except a few ones which are started by new posters. this forum has so few visitors nowadys and people write in all threads they can find
we want civ5!
Yeah, I came across it while searching for explanations regarding production loss of on-hold items.
And figured, what the heck, go ahead and start a new conversation from a 4-year-old one.
i assume you don't know the acticity of this forum in 2007/2008.
well, anyway, it will be good again soon i hope. maybe fall 2010?
http://www.civilization5.com/
WARNING: THREADJACK
Took a look at that Civ V page. Had never dared hope that CiV was coming so soon!
OMG *hexes*
BTW I'm pretty satisfied with the volume of posting here myself, and still satisfied with Civ IV as well.
Ooh boy. Hexes. I was kind of hungry for hexes in Civ about 10 years ago. Nowadays I'm more indifferent, the ruleset seems to have done a good job of dealing with square tiles. Ultimately I think the biggest gain will be the less artificial-looking terrain. Well, if it draws new players, I'm all for it, the more the merrier.
I'm a little worried about what hexes will do to the BFC - it's hard to imagine a hex-based BFC shape that will tesselate imperfectly, and meanwhile the imperfect tesselation of the BFC is part of its strength, from a gameplay perspective.
Fortunately though the number of factors to consider for city placement has grown a lot since the old days, so maybe I'm worried unnecessarily and there will still be plenty to fret over when placing our Civ5 cities.
Took a look at that Civ V page. Had never dared hope that CiV was coming so soon!
OMG *hexes*
BTW I'm pretty satisfied with the volume of posting here myself, and still satisfied with Civ IV as well.
Ooh boy. Hexes. I was kind of hungry for hexes in Civ about 10 years ago. Nowadays I'm more indifferent, the ruleset seems to have done a good job of dealing with square tiles. Ultimately I think the biggest gain will be the less artificial-looking terrain. Well, if it draws new players, I'm all for it, the more the merrier.
I'm a little worried about what hexes will do to the BFC - it's hard to imagine a hex-based BFC shape that will tesselate imperfectly, and meanwhile the imperfect tesselation of the BFC is part of its strength, from a gameplay perspective.
Fortunately though the number of factors to consider for city placement has grown a lot since the old days, so maybe I'm worried unnecessarily and there will still be plenty to fret over when placing our Civ5 cities.
sorry, i know it was out of topic. i am just anxious about this.
mariogreymist
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,201
All this is doing is trading forests for food, and it's not an exploit. There certainly are times when it is an advisable tactic, like when food is scarce and growth hard to come by while forests plentiful. With most capital locations though, food is fairly plentiful, and using a settler build to burn off whip unhappiness while saving forests to chop out key early wonders is a generally stronger play. The real trick is knowing how to use food to aid in building those wonders, even when happy caps are at 5.
To do that, spend one turn building a worker (a turn when no chopping will be completed), then whip for 2 pop, and get the overflow for your wonder, and use the worker to chop. If you do this just as you're hitting pop 6, it's easy to get two extra workers out in four turns (with micro) while adding almost half of the whip production to the wonder. Master this, and you'll never curse the failgold for the GWall ever again.
And even that's not an exploit...just utilization of the rules for maximum benefit.
To do that, spend one turn building a worker (a turn when no chopping will be completed), then whip for 2 pop, and get the overflow for your wonder, and use the worker to chop. If you do this just as you're hitting pop 6, it's easy to get two extra workers out in four turns (with micro) while adding almost half of the whip production to the wonder. Master this, and you'll never curse the failgold for the GWall ever again.
And even that's not an exploit...just utilization of the rules for maximum benefit.
Similar threads
