Remove Settler Capture

[Archon_Wing]

I've brought it up in previous threads about the game being too easy, but IMO I think this would help a lot, as this is one of the worst ways to take advantage of the AI. So I think Settlers should either be destroyed upon capture, or turned into a builder.

I don't think capturing settlers really adds anything to the game either, and considering how it can be abused would think the game would be much better off . It is silly for me to wait until a rival settler declares war, and I basically get a free foward settle on them regardless.

 

[Siptah]

I completely agree. I want it back like in civ V (?), where captured settlers just turn into builders.

Or I want an immigration mechanic and a captured settler starts a city with a foreign population (so like in Age of Wonders) that may be very unhappy if you declare war on the civ where the people are from and might possibly change sides at some point if you don't manage to bring population of your civ into the city.

 

[Zuizgond]

Or make AI less stupid about protecting their settlers...

 

[Arent11]

I've brought it up in previous threads about the game being too easy, but IMO I think this would help a lot, as this is one of the worst ways to take advantage of the AI. So I think Settlers should either be destroyed upon capture, or turned into a builder.

I don't think capturing settlers really adds anything to the game either, and considering how it can be abused would think the game would be much better off . It is silly for me to wait until a rival settler declares war, and I basically get a free foward settle on them regardless.

It's just unlogical. Why would you be able to capture foreign population & settle a city that is loyal to you? That you could *enslave* them and use them for cheap labor is another question.

 

[Japper007]

Only thing this would change is that you'd then wait a few turns till the AI founds it's city and capture that instead.

Problem isnt that it remains a Settler, problem is that the AI can't defend itself at all

 

[Amrunril]

I agree in principle that settlers should be captured as builders rather than settlers, but I do think the balance importance of this issue is overstated. In multiplayer, it's rarely going to be an relevant, as settlers as important enough that players will protect them regardless of what happens after capture. In single player, you can take serious advantage of the high-difficulty AI, but why would you? You're free to set the difficulty however you want, and if you choose a high level, it presumably means you want the challenges that come with the AI's bonuses at that level.

 

[Disgustipated]

That you could *enslave* them and use them for cheap labor is another question.

Converting to builder makes the most sense. The way I see it, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't know what was wrong with the way Civ5 (and I believe Civ4 as well) did it. Even with the limited chargers of builders, I don't see why they couldn't do it. I suppose they wanted to increase conflict in the first half of the game. But it was unnecessary IMHO. And still, getting a free 3 charge builder would be worth it for many people to declare war.

 

[Corozivu]

I have to give a big nope! to this idea. Going after a civ early on and seeing a settler inside the next city on the hit list keeps the pop and hammers spent on the settler „in the game” rather than wasting them . So you invest in your military hoping to punish a neighbour who goes for an early expand . And if the how can a foreign settler found a city under your banner question bothers you, think how easy and „peacefull” you can get 3-4 cities from a peace deal without having any revolt or any drawback of any kind in your new cities (theres the dimplomatic penalty issue but meah who cares about that) .

 

[Disgustipated]

Seems like this can be changed in the Units XML, trying it out now

edit: Hmm, doesn't work. I suppose that line in the XML file is just for show. Or maybe there's something else I have to change.

 

[Art Morte]

I agree, captured settlers turning into builders would be much better. Kinda nonsensical that you can make people from other civ found a city for you.

 

[Scrum Lord]

What if instead a captured settler became a special unit called "captured settler". Such a unit would not be able to found a city, but perhaps you could bait the opponent into trying to rescue it. Or you could have captured settlers as bargaining chips in the diplomacy trade screen. Or you could sell the settler in friendly territory for a small amount of gold, or even in the settler's original territory to appease an AI opponent. Just brainstorming.

 

[stinkubus]

Or make AI less stupid about protecting their settlers...

A thousand times this. If the settler even has an escort most of the time it will separate from it and move right next to one of my units. It happens so frequently I have to believe it's deliberate. Getting an early settler is so disruptive to the AI's "strategy" that they never recover. Maybe some of the AI bonuses could be toned down a bit and they just get to begin the game with an X-city empire (X determined by difficulty)?

After a few games you can also get a feel for where the AI will settle, and if you put a unit on that particular spot then they never build the city.

 

[Art Morte]

After a few games you can also get a feel for where the AI will settle, and if you put a unit on that particular spot then they never build the city.

Haven't really had a problem with this, rather with the fact that it's too easy to block the AI settler's path. They may start going around, but then after a couple turns you can move your blocking unit out of the way and the settler chooses the initial route again. And then you move to block him again. And repeat.

 

[Arent11]

What if instead a captured settler became a special unit called "captured settler". Such a unit would not be able to found a city, but perhaps you could bait the opponent into trying to rescue it. Or you could have captured settlers as bargaining chips in the diplomacy trade screen. Or you could sell the settler in friendly territory for a small amount of gold, or even in the settler's original territory to appease an AI opponent. Just brainstorming.

You could treat great people, traders & settlers similar to spies. Once captured, you can demand them back via diplomacy or pay for their release.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

It was civ5 that flipped them into builders.

I kinda like grabbing settlers after the barbarians snag'em. Usually because is way over on another continent and I can plop the city down for the most annoyance factor to my about to be targets.

 

[Sostratus]

In the sense of getting a return on producing military units, this is great- but then, early cities don't start with walls and are pretty weak, so a reasonable early military force can capture them. I think the unbalancing comes from the AI being forced to forward settle you. A warrior escorting a settler 20 hexes from home, right near your capital? You only need 1-2 units to get that settler, which you likely have lying around for barb defense anyways. There's no warmonger penalty in the ancient era, and their army is far away in their capital- so you don't even need to defend. If they toned down the forward settling weight, those settlers wouldn't be vulnerable very long (since they like to form very contiguous empires.)

I don't mind the promotion of conflict, but forward settle+ settler stealing in conjunction is too much in single player. (We don't have to exploit it, but we will- and I think it cheapens the struggle of the early game, much how finding a t5 El Dorado in Civ5 could. Only, it would be like additionally taking 500 gold from your opponent!)