Adding Settler to a city..........

War4ever · December 28, 1999, 17:23

So we all know that once the city is past size 8 you cannot join a city with your settlers..... personally i think this is silly as big cities attract people..... hence the cap on 8 is unrealistic

Realism debate aside tell me if you agree with the cap on the city or think that any city past size 8 should allowed to accept new settlers ala join city button. Cheers

------------------
War is the answer when you need to strike first.

War is the answer when you think you should strike first

war is the answer when you think others may strike first.

Dino the Dinosore · December 28, 1999, 17:50

In CIV I the limit was size 10, which was also, like the size 8 limit in CIV 2, the max size after which you need an aqueduct. If adding a settler were to be allowed past that number, the program would also have to check if there's an aqueduct (or s.s. over 12 in CIV 2) before giving that option. I bet they were just lazy and didn't want to bother with the extra programming needed to handle that.

War4ever · December 28, 1999, 18:09

Dino.... that may very well be.... still don't you think that it is odd to put a cap on something like that ??

Crustacian · December 29, 1999, 08:58

I have always thought it was odd about the cap, especially when you think of the settler unit as 10,000 people. Like you said "large cities attract people." Large cities even attract enemies!!

Remember in the old versions of Civ how foriegn AI cities would "admire the prosperity" of one of your cities and join your civ?

------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

SmartFart · December 29, 1999, 19:43

Adding settlers to the city is almost useless feature. There is better ways to increase your population w/o losing precious unit.
I could imagine only one situation which can justify such an act:
-city is size 2 and you have 2 warriors in it
-enemy crusader park next to your city
-you have not enough money to rush-build offensive unit
-your settler is max. 2 squares away from your city and he is on square with road
-now if you add him to city,crusader cannot destroy it next turn
-max your tax rate and rush build at least horseman
-i never saw above described situation
Take care.

sf

shamrock · December 29, 1999, 20:54

I disagree, SmartFart. I think there is value in this feature and I take advantage of it fairly often.

Like many civers, I believe a big key to success is to expand, expand, expand! So by early mid game, I generally have LOTS of engineer units (about 3 per city depending upon ability to support) running around improving terrain and founding more cities in order to build more engineers. Eventually, depending on world size, you hit a plateau and you have more engineers than you know what to do with. Voila! Build them into small cities that need to grow one or two to get past that initial slow growth period or just to qualify for WLTKD.

Similarly, a city with several engineer units has a lot of wheat dedicated to their maintenance, thus stunting growth of the home city. Rather than disbanding the engineer, it's nice to get the extra population.

As for the original question, I don't like the size eight limit, but I'll bet Dino is right - it was probably a programming shortcut.

SmartFart · December 29, 1999, 21:01

Wait a minute...thot we talkin about settler,not engineer.

War4ever · December 29, 1999, 22:48

SmartFart.... i agree that it can seem to be a waste of resources.... but when a city is starving due to poor missmanagement of the leader

there are times when adding a settler/engineer to a city bigger than size 8 seems necessary.... sometimes i forget what i am doing

and i lose my settler cause i have him in an area where all the cities are too big.

------------------
War is the answer when you need to strike first.

War is the answer when you think you should strike first

war is the answer when you think others may strike first.