Interesting Start

[Minou]

Thought this was an interesting start. I opened this map and though "Yum, free Settler on T1!" However, I was not able to figure out a way to capture it. Besides being one of those rare but not impossible "Free Settler" starts, the opening was interesting to me because there are 3 Buenos Aires Warriors "illegally" occupying the same tile.

Test 1: Settle a city, then declare war.
Nothing happens upon settling, but when war is declared the Buenos Aires Settler and Warrior are booted out of borders. Interestingly, the 3 Warriors not in our new borders are also moved to their own tiles The Settler is now covered by a Warrior and can't be snatched.

Test 2: Move Warrior onto Settler, then declare war.
The Settler is not captured, and neither unit teleports away (I think normally when you declare on top of a civilian unit, your unit is teleported away?). After I end the turn, the Settler founds a city.

Test 3: Declare War, then move Warrior onto the Settler.
This is the option that should capture the Settler. Bizarrely, instead of taking the Settler, the Warrior ends up fighting one of the Buenos Aires Warriors that was positioned on a different tile.

Unfortunately I did not save the file but the whole experience makes me curious about whether different rules operate before Civs have founded their first city and why the clustered 3 Warriors did not just each spawn on their own tile.

 

[fy00sh]

How would you be able to move the warrior onto the settler without first settling a city? The warrior starts out on the settler, and the only way to get a 1-movement tile next to the warrior is to settle a city, right? Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Planktonic]

I've run into something like this before.

Afaict, the only way to (possibly) capture the settler is to leave both your warrior and your settler in the same place with no other action for the first turn. The AI will not (afaict) settle a city on a tile occupied by your warrior, and cannot move its settler to the tile occupied by your settler. So it will have to move its settler to the bananas, and will probably move its warrior off the bananas. Then, on turn two, you can declare war and attack the AI settler on the banana tile with your warrior. As soon as you capture it, all the other warriors will disappear.

 

[Planktonic]

Hmmm... thinking about it more, could it move its settler onto the tile with three warriors already? That I don't know...

 

[Aurelesk]

Test 3: Declare War, then move Warrior onto the Settler.
This is the option that should capture the Settler. Bizarrely, instead of taking the Setters.

Did you try to Declare War, then Settle the City then move the Warrior on the Settler? I may be wrrong, but if you are already at war, settling the City should not push back the Settler away.

Maybe the game is not able to proceed to capture a Settler when you do not have a city yet?

 

[Timewarp]

Be careful about trying to move your settler to a better location. This happened to me, I moved my settler to another location planning to settle on turn 2, but oops the trade city DID settle, and there were no valid city locations for 3 hexes away from where it settled.

Oops!

 

[PiR]

why the clustered 3 Warriors did not just each spawn on their own tile

Because of the mountains?

 

[Planktonic]

Maybe the game is not able to proceed to capture a Settler when you do not have a city yet?

Just for the record, the game *will* allow you to do this. On two occasions I've captured a settler on turn one, before founding any city of my own.

 

[PSG]

I have had Polynesia's settler land on the beach next to my warrior before....