Make Settlers Obsolete

[TW_Honorius]

1. The AI builds settlers all game long.
2. When you get to later eras, nothing but cities exist.
3. Settlers settling starts wars.

So how about we make settlers trainable for the first 3 eras of the game or make them obsolete after a certain tech, that would make the game a lill better don't you think?

 

[CivOasis]

On huge maps, there's often huge gaps, esp. on marathon, even in the modern era. Plus, three very powerful resources (aluminum, oil, uranium) all appear late game. Settling a city *can* be preferable to going to war for ammunition.

 

[ImperialSteeze]

I wouldn't mind if the cost of settlers went up by your number of non puppeted cities.

 

[AriochIV]

Seems to me the problem (if there is one) is with the AI, not with the availability of settlers.

 

[Ranos]

I see no problems at all.

1. As long as there is space for a settler, the AI should be able to build settlers.
2. What's wrong with nothing but cities existing?
3. What's wrong with wars?

 

[JamesCivFan]

@Ranos

I agree about your 1st and 2nd points. About the 3rd though, there have been many complaints here and in the 2k Forums, about how many wars are being constantly waged. So, I disagree with that completely. Wars are not bad per se ,but way too many wars are indeed bad/boring (same goes with "way too much peace" of course).

 

[PieceOfMind]

Seems to me the problem (if there is one) is with the AI, not with the availability of settlers.

I agree.

I think it's a pretty silly idea. I mean, we might as well make declarations of war obsolete and that'd solve problem 3.

 

[tarsier]

settlers only start wars if the civ making the DoW is already teetering on the edge.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

AW HELL NAW !
Just make happiness matter for the AI or make settler cost increase exponentially with number of cities.

 

[Artingel78]

That is pointless.
If you obsolete settlers after Medival Era that will be a big handicap for Japan and well Spain and Ottomans.
This 3 nations are NOT good so don't make them more weaker.
You need settlers after Renesiance Era because most players raze cities and then settle there own cites there.
With that game will be much longer and much boring because you need to prepare your settlers before that technology.

AI build settlers all game long

That make game more better.Because you have choice between to destroy only Capitol city but risk to AI have

Pay back time

Or completely destroy there cities.

Multiplayer games will last to infinity.
So that is bad idea.
And i think this thread have to be moved to "Ideas & Suggestions.

 

[Tatran]

A very good idea.
The settlers were already a very unbalanced factor since civ2.
It's also more in the spirit of civ5.
More city states + capturing barbarians camps should give an option to become a city or being destroyed.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It's also more in the spirit of civ5.

The spirit being make the human palyer feel at every opportunity that the AI plays by different rules ?
Humans can't expand as fast due to happiness constraints and need late settlers more than AI players.
No one wants to see the Russians come from another continent just to plant a city over your road netword in 1900AD, but from time to time your caravels discover an uninhabitated island worth colonising or you raze two badly placed AI cities to make room for a good new city.

 

[Tatran]

^^

No one can build settlers, including the AIs.
You simply capture cities/camps/city states.

 

[turtlefang]

If space exist, then settlers should be able to be used. Don't really see a problem with it. And latter in the game, its usually me starting the wars not the AI.

 

[zarakand]

I'd like a new kind of settler available after the renaissance era, one that costs a lot more than a regular settler. It would be nice if it costs something like the hammers of a wonder and then let you build a city with 2-4 population and a few basic buildings (granary, aqueduct, library, monument).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd like a new kind of settler available after the renaissance era, one that costs a lot more than a regular settler. It would be nice if it costs something like the hammers of a wonder and then let you build a city with 2-4 population and a few basic buildings (granary, aqueduct, library, monument).

That would be a good idea. In certain Eras, you get a new "settler" that is much more expensive than an old settler, but starts the city with some buildings. (like late start games have cities with a few starting buildings)

Say
Renaissance Settler: 300 hammers... starts with Granary, Library, Monument, Walls

Modern Settler: 1000 hammers... starts with above + Aqueduct, Temple, Marketplace, Workshop, pop 2

 

[zarakand]

Thinking about it, I think it would be nice to have a project wonder that you build to enable this feature like how the Manhattan Project lets you build nukes.

It could come at the Renaissance and be called the Colonization project enabling you to build "super" settlers that have these features.

 

[RD-BH]

or ...
... in the spirt of Civ5
... eliminate player choice
... remove settler unit from Civ5
... have the map create locations to settle (ala Kohan 2:KoW)
... automatically settle locations when culture expands

 

[GoodSarmatian]

^^

No one can build settlers, including the AIs.
You simply capture cities/camps/city states.

The problem is that AIs expand faster and more aggressively. If you remove late expansion it would hurt the human more.

 

[Nightshades]

Well it's a bit ridiculus when the AI settles on some god damn arctic island after researching satellites.