To Settle or to Bulb?

[jarhead_leif]

When is the good time to settle and bulb GS?
I only bulb when I know Lib is on the way. I settle GS only in the OxCap.
Do you limit your settled GS then bulb others? Then, how many do you settle?

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

I never settle a GP. The GS is better off bulbing or making an Academy, the GE is a wonder or a tech, and the rest are GA fodder.

 

[Chase_2_Rabbits]

Why did you create a GS in the first place? You have a plan, right?

Settling becomes more attractive when you have the Mids to run Rep and if you are PHI. PHI = more great people, and settling them en masse with an Academy at a relatively early stage of the game can be effective. Oxford will also be easier to get up due to PHI University discount.

TBH though, I doubt you can ever beat the gains of the good ol' bulb 'n' trade.

 

[Prodeo]

I never settle a GP. The GS is better off bulbing or making an Academy, the GE is a wonder or a tech, and the rest are GA fodder.

The GM can also be used to mass upgrade pre-built units.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

The GM can also be used to mass upgrade pre-built units.

Forgot about that.

 

[Kadazzle]

Only time to Settle is if you get a Great Scientist really early, when the beakers you get from it being Settled outweigh the ones you get from it building an Academy. Other than that, bulbing is the way to go (if you already have your Acadamies).

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Bulbing with a GS early is like 4178712893y2896y32781 times stronger than settling will ever be. Civ is a game of snowballing early advantages, and a early bulb is always going to snowball harder than 6 or 9 beakers per turn.

 

[elmurcis]

If manage to get 2nd GS early enough, than I would think about another academy in high commerce city if I have that type city (I would make Academy if I have atleast 25 commerce in city that moment and it has potential to grow big and wealthy fast enough..)..

 

[pigswill]

If you're managing your GP production then you should know in advance what you intend to do with it. You can of course keep a GS on ice until its required. I rarely settle a GS (probably because I rarely build enough ).

 

[jarhead_leif]

Seems we have different type of moves of our own.
Any other thoughts or suggestions?

 

[BornInCantaloup]

First situation I'd think of that would justify settling a GS is when one's research is stunned by a reckless REx and bulb targets are lacking (most probably because player is struggling to reach the Classical Era/is far behind the AIs).
A stake when RExing, however, is to improve either your actual or potential research. It's easy to stun research when RExing but it's an indication that the execution was faulty. Distinction between actual and potential research is useful in that each new city you found will require some time to pay back.


On a general note:
The more turns remain in the game, the more settling is efficient. Thus, settling early in a long game is better than settling late in a short game.
Lack of bulb targets can warrant settling. This includes researching on a non-Liberalism /Education techpath.
Having other GS ready to pop is a factor.
Lack of commerce cities to build an or multiple Academies. // Extreme concentration of beaker multipliers in a single city.

Settling a GS is sort of a last resort kind of thing. Bulbing and building Academy are usually more appealing but one needs a little planning to take advantage of those.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Bulbing with a GS early is like 4178712893y2896y32781 times stronger than settling will ever be. Civ is a game of snowballing early advantages, and a early bulb is always going to snowball harder than 6 or 9 beakers per turn.

Even with "no tech trades" in a economically weak rush situation ?

I guess you could bulb math and then...hmm.

No tech trades really makes this a different game though. Suddenly gspies are god mode.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Even with "no tech trades" in a economically weak rush situation ?

I guess you could bulb math and then...hmm.

No tech trades really makes this a different game though. Suddenly gspies are god mode.

No tech trades is stupid, the only thing almost as stupid as no tech trades is no tech brokering.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No tech trades is stupid, the only thing almost as stupid as no tech trades is no tech brokering.

Ridiculous. Tech trades are the single most overpowering aspect in the game by a wide margin, to the point that tradeoffs become ridiculous. Having them ON in their current form is stupid, not vice versa.

I know! You could get a 25% multiplier in each city by building a library...or you could get a 300% boost on your POST MULTIPLIER tech pace by teching the right thing hurrrrrrr .

In SP, they are the single most overpowering way to leverage the AI, by far. In MP? The people in a trade alliance are the only people that win.

I love how people talk about "worse diplo" with tech trades...as if feeding the AI "favorable" trades (while still shafting them for enough to get the next monopoly tech + something useful) for +4 and war trolling is somehow applying a serious amount of strategy.

The only bad thing about disabling tech trades is that with them off, EP becomes king by a similarly wide margin.

Civ V beta is still crap, but it was a GOOD thing that they nerfed tech trades down into RA, which are still overpowered.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Even with "no tech trades" in a economically weak rush situation ?

Ah, yes! Rushing & crashing one's economy is a fine example to justify settling a GS. Classic.
Just like with RExing, I think it should be taken as an indicator that something "went bad" in the rush, if one comes to the point where settling becomes the best move.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ah, yes! Rushing & crashing one's economy is a fine example to justify settling a GS. Classic.
Just like with RExing, I think it should be taken as an indicator that something "went bad" in the rush, if one comes to the point where settling becomes the best move.

Actually you'd still want to bulb even if it's something crappy as long as you could trade it. But if you can't trade...it's that or golden age. With weak money and no easy way to attain more an academy will be dead weight a long time.

It's still not an ideal situation though. If you're doing this you're hurting and the rush didn't go as planned...though that happens sometimes.

 

[rfcfanatic]

The only GP I ever settle is GG. In fact, there's not much else to do with a GG apart from building a military academy.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

The only GP I ever settle is GG. In fact, there's not much else to do with a GG apart from building a military academy.

Lol wut? So you don't think super medics, nutcrackers, super flankers, and such are good?

@TheMeInTeam I know, I understand that tech trading on is fundamentally broken, but it's even less just simple tech trading, and more so tech brokering. At least for me, I will usually only trade my monopoly tech to 2 people before I have every single tech the AIs have.

 

[babar]

Snowballing from bulbs is well and good, but what about all those important techs you couldn't/didn't trade for that you got slower because you didn't settle the GP? That snowballs too. I think the situation is a little more complicated than the bulbing advocates make out. I'm sure bulbing is better, but not thaaat much better. (I play IMM/NTB sloppily, and only bulb occasionally. Settling works fine for me).

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Bulbing compared to settling is like taking 200 million from the lottery, instead of getting 300 million over the course of 40 years. You can make a lot more money with that 200 million upfront than you can with a little every month.