Do Workers cost 1 population to produce?

[Sarxis]

This was brought up in another thread as a side discussion, but I thought it would be good to get to the bottom of this (for myself mostly) by bringing it to the fore.

In Alpha Centauri, there is a unit called the 'Terraformer' which builds all of the tile improvements and tile modifications. It seemed to me that Firaxis was translating this idea over to CivIII in the form of the Worker unit. But, if it is true that the Worker costs a population point (one city worker/specialist converted in the Settler way), then the Worker isn't quite the same as the AC Terraformer.

What's the info on this?

[korn469]

yes they do cost 1 pop to build

[Sarxis]

So then what was the point of having both Settlers and Workers? Do they cost a different amount of resources to build? Or is there a difference in unit stats?

[korn469]

settlers cost 2 pop points

here is info from the civfanatics info center

Settlers and workers are also able to merge with a city, thus increasing its population. Conversely, to produce a new settler or worker, a city gives up not only the requisite number of shields, but also population points (2 population points to create a settler, 1 to create a worker). This added requirement makes settlers and workers very precious resources that you'll want to protect.

[Sarxis]

Ahh! Thanx.

You know, it seems I did see this a while ago, but I completely forgot about it. This is actually very kewl now, and makes sense to me.

Thanx Korn, you are wise in ways of CIV, and your CIV knowledge knows no bounds.

[red_jon]

Why do workers cost 1 pop in civ3, but not in SMAC?

[Jason Beaudoin]

Making a settler cost 2 pop points is a great way to guard against ICS.

[aaglo]

Red_Jon: Because Smac was designed that way
No seriously... The terraformer is really a machine, thus it doesn't require a large amount of population like the workers mostly do (remember the pyramids ect.). Though this is only a guess...

But keep in mind: the terraformer of SMAC cannot be added to the population, so the terraformer is considered as a normal unit (think of a warrior who has a shovel instead of a war-axe )

[Grim Legacy]

The increased cost of peaceful expansion is a very welcome novelty. I've always been more of a 'civilized' player myself, but this may just 'force' me to adopt more radical (read: aggressive) tactics. Hehehhe.

[Father Beast]

The Firaxis people said they often think of Workers (not settlers) as mobile poulation units. I'm guessing that they often use them to transfer pop from an overcrowded city to a struggling one.

Of course, for that to be Really effective, they would have to lift the limits that were in civ2 that kept you from adding to a city over size 5.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Father Beast
The Firaxis people said they often think of Workers (not settlers) as mobile poulation units. I'm guessing that they often use them to transfer pop from an overcrowded city to a struggling one.

Of course, for that to be Really effective, they would have to lift the limits that were in civ2 that kept you from adding to a city over size 5.

Actually, over size 7 = size 8.

The mobile population thing would still be rather costly, considering the production costs for building the unit and the risk of losing it by the hand of foes/'suddenly' appearing barbarians.

[Sarxis]

I truely hope that there will be no population limits for pop-transferring. A good city is worth living in, and rural citizens should always be able to become part of the urban environment.

And vice-versa, depending on the situation and the needs of the society.

[ajbera]

Does anyone know if you can add a worker to an existing colony to make it a city? Or does one have to have a settler settle on a colony spot to make a city? From a pop point perspective, it seems a worker should be sufficient, and I hope it is.

[Ozymandous]

Not sure about the last question but someone asked the distinction between settlers and workers earlier.

Settlers: Can only found cities, nothing else.
Workers: Can terraform only, not found cities.

(Edit)

Just thought of something.. Anyone know the results of disbanding a captured foreign worker or settler into one of your naturally founded empire cities? Does that city have unrest now, or have a greater chance of revolting?

[Sandman]

Does anyone know if you can add a worker to an existing colony to make it a city? Or does one have to have a settler settle on a colony spot to make a city? From a pop point perspective, it seems a worker should be sufficient, and I hope it is.

That defeats the purpose of having settlers at all. Why build settlers when you could just build workers for the same number of population points?

Having said that, I hope that when you use a settler to convert a colony to a city, it gets an extra population point to represent the colony.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


Just thought of something.. Anyone know the results of disbanding a captured foreign worker or settler into one of your naturally founded empire cities? Does that city have unrest now, or have a greater chance of revolting?

It has been revealed that every pop point born in one of your cities has a nationality. every settler or worker has pop points which still have nationality. you can even choose which nationality to put into your settler (if you have more han one kind in your city.

so, naturally, if you drop a captured worker into a city, the pop point added will be of the nationality of the civ you captured it from, or the nationality it was built as.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Sandman That defeats the purpose of having settlers at all. Why build settlers when you could just build workers for the same number of population points?

1 Settler = 2 pop points = 1 city
1 worker = 1 pop point = 1 colony
1 colony (1 pop) + 1 extra worker (1 pop) = 1 city (2 pop) (I hope)

You save no pop points by doing it the way I suggested.

1 colony (1 pop) + 1 settler (2 pop) = 1 city (2 pop? where does the extra pop go?)

Of course, there are still questions concerning cities. When a 2 pop settler founds a city, is it a size 1 or 2 city? Does the city number only reflect "loose" population, with the default center square worker not reflected in the city size?

Qusetions, questions...

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by ajbera
1 colony (1 pop) + 1 extra worker (1 pop) = 1 city (2 pop) (I hope)

They keep saying you lose the population point when a worker founds a colony. Whether it is overtaken by expanding borders or wiped out by an enemy the worker who made the colony is gone never to return.

David

[Sandman]

You save no pop points by doing it the way I suggested.

That is not the point. What I am saying is that the settler unit becomes useless from the start of the game if you can just build two workers. And Firaxis would not include it in the game if there was useless.

Settlers cost two pop points but only make a size 1 city. The second pop point covers the city square.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Sandman
That is not the point. What I am saying is that the settler unit becomes useless from the start of the game if you can just build two workers. And Firaxis would not include it in the game if there was useless.

Ahhhh...duly noted. I now see the error of my ways.

[Mihai]

As I understand, just the founding settler increase the city pop by one (from 0 to 1), any other settler included in the city will increase city pop by 2, witch is correct. That way you don't loose pop. Your worker cost you 1 pop, adds you 1 pop. Your settler cost you 2 pop, adds you 2 pop.

IMO this concept is the best metod to stop ICS.

[izmircali]

I hope the editor lets you change the "cost" of settlers. I'd like to re-do the world situation and have a settler cost 3 or more, to make ICS even harder, or even make settlers require a resource.

(Plus it might make small powerful civs an option)