New School Settlers

[duckofspades]

Letting the AI play rather than the player. That's no fun at all.

Well, it's not like the settler would run of and build a city where you didn't want it. Your civ just expands when the people naturally want to move over the next hill. Could be intresting. In any case sounds like this isn't the case. So whatever.

 

[mi6agent]

this game getting more ... seriously

Moderator Action: please don't post inappropriate language on the forums

 

[cccv]

this game getting more ..., seriously

But less so if you read the edit on the OP and notice that the assumption he made based on some poorly worded translation wasn't even remotely true >.>

 

[Schuesseled]

having a city cap based on population wouldn't be such a bad thing, would stop you over extending yourself early on.

Each city can build a settler at pops of 3 then 5, 9, 12, 15 etc

So you can expand your numbers of cities from 1 to 2 , wait for both to grow expand to more, those 2 produce 2 settlers at 3 pop and when your mauin two reach 9 pop they produce settelers as well, now you have 8 cities waiting to gain more pop before they can build settlers.

Could be okay.

 

[I tech faster]

it was from a French artical, so thanks for getting the clarification

Link: http://www.factornews.com/news-2889...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The article says that workers are now built like any other unit. About settlers: they don't prevent population from growing anymore and will require the city to reach certain pop marks in order to be built.

 

[Shurdus]

Or Available to be produced after certain thresholds of population.

Why divert from the beaten path? For some units there is a requirement like 'requires iron'. Settlers can get a note like 'requires X population'. It fits the system, it works, and it seems clear enough.

 

[AlpsStranger]

this game getting more ..., seriously

Seriously? Half the thread has been discussing the fact that this isn't true, including 2KGreg himself, and this is what you post?

What is wrong with 33% of the people on this forum?

It's as bad as the most mindless of Bush bashing that was popular a few years back. I was no fan of G.W. myself, but I used to hate it when you could make up *ANY* story about Bush and people would believe it. I'm not saying you have to *like* Civ5, but could you grow up and READ what is actually being said before you form an opinion?

Is rationality too much to ask of *anyone* anymore? Is everyone so blind to their own psychology that they don't realize they are in some kind of hate-loop with Civ5? Pull your heads out of your posteriors and try to calmly, objectively digest new information about the game. If you hate it *after* playing it and giving it a chance, or at least after others play it and reveal more information about it, then it won't bother me.

As of now I am about to choke on my own bile every time I see an asinine little post like this.

 

[Shurdus]

Would you people please not quote mi6agent? It makes it so that he gets past my ignore list.

 

[Johnny Be]

Seriously? Half the thread has been discussing the fact that this isn't true, including 2KGreg himself, and this is what you post?

What is wrong with 33% of the people on this forum?

It's as bad as the most mindless of Bush bashing that was popular a few years back. I was no fan of G.W. myself, but I used to hate it when you could make up *ANY* story about Bush and people would believe it. I'm not saying you have to *like* Civ5, but could you grow up and READ what is actually being said before you form an opinion?

Is rationality too much to ask of *anyone* anymore? Is everyone so blind to their own psychology that they don't realize they are in some kind of hate-loop with Civ5? Pull your heads out of your posteriors and try to calmly, objectively digest new information about the game. If you hate it *after* playing it and giving it a chance, or at least after others play it and reveal more information about it, then it won't bother me.

As of now I am about to choke on my own bile every time I see an asinine little post like this.

This kids nowadays, don't know how to think before they speak!

I'm just kidding... I'm with you. I'm amazed with how unreflected some comments are. Civfanatics usually has a lot of intelligent people around (comes with the game type ) but I've seen some trolls here and there that make my blood boil!

 

[TheMystic]

I really think either mods should close this thread out, or force an update to the OP's post with the information Greg has provided. Misinformation is really a bad thing, and it's obviously confusing some users here.

 

[Shurdus]

THe OP got an edit, it is clear now... So that takes care of that.

 

[timtofly]

Since I do not play Civ 4, are there thresholds that have to be met in order to produce more settlers? This still may be a game mechanic that some people have not dealt with.

 

[Johnny Be]

Since I do not play Civ 4, are there thresholds that have to be met in order to produce more settlers? This still may be a game mechanic that some people have not dealt with.

No... In cIV settlers and workers were built using & instead of just (or shields in the old days). This meant that the city didn't grew while building these kind of units.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No, this system would take away gameplay. In Civ4, you have to make strategic decisions; building a worker or settler has opportunity costs, because it means your population growth stops and it means you can't be producing a military unit or building.
If you just got free settlers without giving anything up, and everyone expanded at the same rate, then you would lose the whole entire strategic decision of whether I want to focus on building a fast military, or rapid expansion, or focus on getting improvements set up early.

Removing the opportunity cost of choosing to build a settler would NOT be a costless simplification in a design sense.

Not if you had the choice of using a setter for a new city or +1 pop in an old one.

That would be the opportunity cost.

(Also are you focusing on high food to get those settlers or are you focusing on high production/research/culture/gold to get a military/buildings.)

 

[Ahriman]

Not if you had the choice of using a setter for a new city or +1 pop in an old one.
That would be the opportunity cost.

Hardly. Thats a no-brainer in the early game; a second city (especially one that works both its own tile and a second tile in the countryside) is way better than +1 pop in the capital.

The equivalent in Civ4; suppose you could whip out a settler with only a single population point; that would be a total no-brainer. Settlers cost way more than you get from a single citizen whipped to death, and yet people still sometimes whip out settlers.

It would also totally mess up the tile yield system; having to prioritize food income from tiles is way less important if you can automatically get free citizens without even having to grow much.

If you want more pop either in your own city or founding new cities, you should have to prioritize food, thats what its for. You shouldn't be able to ignore food but still expand.

 

[Schuesseled]

i like this new system of pop barriers to settling, no need to reduce pop or stop growth when building a settler, because your citis been growing already and has the excess population to build a settler when its hits that pop barrier.