Safe to say, a settler getting destroyed by a flood is a pretty good case for save-scumming (or is it scum-saving?). I keep my disaster settings at the default of 2, but this still happens. Is there some way to prevent the one-hit destruction of civilian units? Some little checkbox I missed? Maybe an escort helps?
Settlers and Workers Getting Wiped Out by Disasters
- Thread starter steveg700
- Start date
reddishrecue
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,442
You need better luck with those units they will die out in disasters.
shaglio
The Prince of Dorkness
I hope you found the one response well-thought-out, informative, and helpful to you in your situation
I, personally, can offer you no help since I always change the disaster setting to 0 in my games. Although I will say that I don't shun save-scumming in your own personal 1 player game.
Leyrann
Deity
I can't remember ever actually losing a civilian unit in a disaster, so I can't really be of help either, except that I know there's at least one mod out there (Better Balanced Game, a multiplayer balance mod that also makes a slew of other adjustments, some of which might not be desirable for single-player games) that makes them immune to disasters.
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
Yea it sucks, beyond like making sure they never end a turn on the actual river tile.
No real solution but you don't need any case to save scum though-- just do it.
Yeah, personally I try to avoid save-scumming. A builder I wouldn't overly care about, but if an early settler gets wiped out, then yeah, I'm either going back, or I hit the restart game button. I don't want to start on a sour note.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2020
- Messages
- 769
Have had it happen with my initial settler as well.
Moving along flood plains is the most risky terrain, so be prepared that it might mean losing the game on turn 2.
Moving along flood plains is the most risky terrain, so be prepared that it might mean losing the game on turn 2.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Well, you know the risk is there. Just avoid moving through floodplains. You can lose damaged military units to flooding as well.
Generally speaking, you should avoid improving floodplains before constructing a dam. Or you risk losing many valuable worker charges.
Floods are as devastating as fires, perhaps more so, and the game shows this well.
Generally speaking, you should avoid improving floodplains before constructing a dam. Or you risk losing many valuable worker charges.
Floods are as devastating as fires, perhaps more so, and the game shows this well.
reddishrecue
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,442
I've lost whole armies to incoming blizzards.. A few survived but it was like Hitler trying to go to WW2 Russia and his troops died to the blizzards.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
That's bad design. Depending on the type of game in question, it's close to objectively bad.
Though in Civ 6 context, it's more of a nuisance than a serious balance issue in most cases. You might need some spoiler-ish information, or just to remember all the possible disasters and be mindful of ones that will randomly delete units. Once you know these things, the risk is functionally eliminated. Which is a reasonable argument to not put such a "gotcha" in the game in the first place.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2020
- Messages
- 769
Not sure I agree there.
If I move my settler along that risky territory instead of immediately settling on turn 1, then I am taking a calculated risk that can backfire.
I might just as well run into a barbarian nest and lose too, and that's fine as well.
If I move my settler along that risky territory instead of immediately settling on turn 1, then I am taking a calculated risk that can backfire.
I might just as well run into a barbarian nest and lose too, and that's fine as well.
It's a pointless risk, as the end resalt is the game is aborted before it evens starts. Meaningless stakes means meaningless risk. A setback is more challenging than a "game over". Better to simply knock a settler back to where it came from the proviso turn.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2020
- Messages
- 769
They are not meaningless risks though, because why otherwise would I move the settler?
Rhetorical question of course, because I see that a nearby spot is superior to where I'm standing now.
That there is some risk associated with that is completely fine for me.
You can always settle in place on turn 1 if you dont want that to happen to you.
Leyrann
Deity
I think his point is that if it were to happen, you just reroll and it doesn't matter.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
That depends how obvious it is offhand that you can lose your settler.
Moving adjacent to a hostile unit is a different class of mistake than not knowing the exact consequence of a potential random event. It's not even clear to an unspoiled player that a flood would kill a settler. You can damage units with a cannon, but you can't damage or kill workers/settlers with those at range for instance.
Nothing in the game gives notice along the lines of "Warning: moving here can cause you to lose instantly". That's kind of important information, though.
It's less bad than t4 barb scout because it has more counterplay. But it's still bad design, UI design if nothing else.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2020
- Messages
- 769
Which I do (reroll a fresh start that is), but that also means that my random start near Mt. Roraima (where I was headed) is now gone, and I have to make do without it in the next game.
If there was a great start, no need to move the settler and the point is moot.
If the settler gets moved and dies from disaster, so what? There's no conviction of having been better off settling in place or not spending extra time avoiding a floodplain.
Like I said, better to have tossed back the settler back to where he started and effectively lost a torn (which is hardly trivial at that stage of the game).Sometimes inconveniencing a person is a harsher than simply ejecting them.
Personally, it's usually less about my opening settler being wiped out than the disaster that wipes out either the first settler that I built, or my early unit. Like there's times that it's basically unavoidable to end on a floodplain if you need to cross to get to a city spot on the other side, and if you get unlucky on that one turn, the penalty is way too steep.
Similar threads
