1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Remove Settler Capture

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Archon_Wing, Sep 11, 2017.

  1. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,173
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    NobleZarkon likes this.
  2. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    2,638
    Location:
    Lucerne
    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.
     
    Manifold likes this.
  3. Zuizgond

    Zuizgond Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    337
    Or make AI less stupid about protecting their settlers...
     
    Japper007 likes this.
  4. Arent11

    Arent11 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    298
    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.
     
    Manifold likes this.
  5. Japper007

    Japper007 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    269
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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
     
  6. Amrunril

    Amrunril Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2015
    Messages:
    816
    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.
     
  7. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,222
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    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.
     
  8. Corozivu

    Corozivu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    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) .
     
  9. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,222
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  10. Art Morte

    Art Morte Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Messages:
    174
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  11. Scrum Lord

    Scrum Lord Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  12. stinkubus

    stinkubus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    454
    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.
     
  13. Art Morte

    Art Morte Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Messages:
    174
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  14. Arent11

    Arent11 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    298
    You could treat great people, traders & settlers similar to spies. Once captured, you can demand them back via diplomacy or pay for their release.
     
    Turrdy likes this.
  15. Canadian Bluebeer

    Canadian Bluebeer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    220
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    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.

    :D
     
  16. Sostratus

    Sostratus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    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!)
     

Share This Page