what if settlers had tech prerequisite?

[The diplomat]

One thing I have noticed in all civ games, including civ3, is that all games always start the exact same way. After the first city, you produce settlers to build as many cities as possible, in order to expand as quickly as possible. In fact, in most of my games, the beginning fells almost "automated", because I know what to do every time. Only after I have several cities, do I consider to game to "really begin".

So, I was wondering how to add more strategic alternatives at the beginning of the game.

What if settlers were not available at the very beginning, but required a tech in order to build?

If that were the case, then players could not automatically expand right from the begining. They would have to develop their cities, or build their military, until they discovered the tech that allowed settlers.

This might introduce more differences in the very early game.

What do you think? Perhaps, "writing" would be a good tech to be a prerequisite for settlers?

[Cyclotron]

People have been migrating before we were homo sapiens. It seems like a tech as such would be inappropriate for settlers. The way I see it, the game begins when it begins, and settlers are a kind of "first phase," but I can understand where you are coming from.

I think a good way to increase non-settler spending would be to make barbarians way more prevelant, and more complex than we know them to be in Civ3. If the world was scattered fairly thick with barbarians (not all of them hostile, but all able to defend themselves) your Civ would start off on par with them and you would have to develop your current holdings until you had enough space and power to challenge the other "great" civilizations. Growth would be slower but more constant, rather than sudden and then abruptly stopping.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
People have been migrating before we were homo sapiens. It seems like a tech as such would be inappropriate for settlers. The way I see it, the game begins when it begins, and settlers are a kind of "first phase," but I can understand where you are coming from.

I see settlers as more than just representing human migration. Since settlers build cities, and expand your empire, I see them more as the deliberate policy of expansion by the emperor.

Thus, you need "writing" because written records would be needed to manage more than one city.

Making settlers require a tech, would hopefully add strategy, and would loosely represent the concept that you need to reach a certain level of political development (writing) in order to control a vast empire. Before that, you are just a small king of one city that lacks the power to control large territories.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I think a good way to increase non-settler spending would be to make barbarians way more prevelant, and more complex than we know them to be in Civ3. If the world was scattered fairly thick with barbarians (not all of them hostile, but all able to defend themselves) your Civ would start off on par with them and you would have to develop your current holdings until you had enough space and power to challenge the other "great" civilizations. Growth would be slower but more constant, rather than sudden and then abruptly stopping.

excellent idea. There should be more barbarian encampments, some friendly, some agressive. (minor civs idea anyone )

This would force the player to be more careful in their expansion. Expansion would be less "automatic".

[hr_oskar]

I understand how you feel about the early game, diplomat, though I also disagree with needing tech for Settlers - especially Writing, which is IMHO very unrealistic. If any, I'd rather suggest Pottery (that would actually make the Expansionistic civs more expansionistic).

To phrase how I think it should be: improving your first city before expanding should be a more viable strategy, depending on things like your starting terrain, your civ attributes, etc.

Improving and elaborating the barbarians would certainly help, I think; I'm very disappointed with how they've been crippled in Civ3 when compared to the prequels. I think the strength of the barbarians, and most likely some other factors, should be modified so that the expansion of civilization would be complete not in the middle of the Ancient era, but rather in the early Industrial Age (RL example: late 19th c. imperialism).

In real history, the 'civilized world' only gradually expanded and was constantly under attack by those outside it.

Some players seem to dislike the barbarians in the same way they dislike disasters - because of some uncertainty, and frustrating set-backs to their building game. I don't understand this, as I simply see the barbs as another AI.

But yeah, now that I think of it, perhaps it should be possible to negotiate with them to an extent; that's how it was in RL, and would make the barbs less frustrating and more acceptable for the builders.

Yes, it's the minor civs idea - units but no cities or tech, and limited options in diplomacy. We're not talking about radical changes in the game system here - Civ3 has already set the course with its barbarian camps, complete with names and regular spawning of units.

[Inverse Icarus]

i dont like the general idea, because you know people would "dive" for the settler tech. whoever's capital city had better trade would get the tech first, and whomever's first city had more production would get more improvements / units.

it places a lot more emphasis on the first city

[Capt Dizle]

I would like to see a game where the population existed in the world as it did in reality. Neutral nomads and some early villages in sensible places, i.e. where food was available.

To incorporate these peoples into your civ you would need to use diplomacy and political means coupled with culture and military might.

There should be multi-levels of association between these peoples and your civ such as treaties and alliances with assimilation happening in stages (except by military conquest).

The free standing population on the board should have individual ethicity and religion. As pop is integrated into your civ this would change slowly over time but never to 100% unless you actively engaged in policies to force that. Which of course would have both advantages and disadvantages.

This will be the direction taken in the next great civ game.

It must include random events, random leaders, rebellions and civil wars, and have satisfying victory conditions other than the stupid conquer the world or build a spaceship stuff we have been playing.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by UberKruX
because you know people would "dive" for the settler tech.

I have been waiting for that argument.

I don't think it would necessarily be as big a problem as it seems. if settlers were on a different tech path than the military, then players would have a greater choice. The player that made a beeline for settlers would be able to build cities before others, but they would have a weaker military. Other players could choose to make a beeline for swordsman and have a powerful army but only one city.

So, it seems to me that players would have to balance better between expansion and the military. Players could not simply make a beeline for settlers, because they would run the risk of having weak cities against the other player that chose to make a beeline for swordsman instead.

I would also add that "pottery" does sound like a better choice for a prerequesite. It would make the expansionist trait better, and it is logical. Settlers would need pottery to store food on their journey!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
the stupid conquer the world or build a spaceship stuff we have been playing.

Hmm... jt, I knew you didn't like Civ3, but I was entirely unaware that you think the entire Civ series is stupid. Indeed, a revelation... how would you recommend we win such a game?

[Inverse Icarus]

it's a simple equation though, more cities = more production = more units.

plus, in a despotism, your city can only support 4 units free. that would be quite taxing on your treasury which would slow research.

researching with 1 city (especially a poor one) is horribly slow. even the most diehard of warmongers would get settlers ASAP.

[Jethro83]

I don't think that settlers should require a technology at all.

I definitely like the idea of making barbarians and minor civs more prevalent.

Maybe you should need to establish a mission post or something to help civilize the barbarians and let you build in their land. You could also take the alternate path and build a military like crazy and drive them out.

That way, you could either peacefully build up your culture and extend it to the barbarians via the missionaries you send to them, civilizing and painlessly assimilating them into your empire, or you could build up a huge military, and push them out to make room for your expansion. For this to be effective though, barbarians would need to have powerful units, since the warrior and horseman aren't enough to deter an attack from a warmongering player.

[Blake]

Many of the CTP2 mods have very high levels of barbarian acitvity and it's great fun, when there are armies of 4-5 barbarian units wandering the plains, picking off lone units, you need to build your own armies to destroy the barbarians or escort your settlers.

CTP2 barbarians are more like Civ2 barbs, they fight on par with player units and can capture cities, except they also form armies (stacks), and wont start a losing battle, they'll also try and run from a superier stack! So mostly they just mill around outside your cities, destroying any terrain improvements you build, and picking off smaller stacks of units.

Having dangerous barbarian hoardes is defintely a good way to make the early game more interesting than sending out settler after settler...

[hr_oskar]

Perhaps there can be a compromise with the tech requirement idea - having a series of different settler units, instead of only the basic one. The advanced settlers would thus require later tech.

E.g. 'Pioneer', costs only one pop, more shields, can execute worker actions, possibly has a defense value. More of a Middle Ages unit though (Engineering?).

---

'Barbarians' have played a role in the history of all the different areas of civilization in our history (China, Europe, Meso-America, etc). Many of the "civs" were originally barbarian tribes that fought their way into civilization and adopted the urban ways (which most invaders ended up doing), e.g. the Germans, Aztecs, Ottomans.

Barbarian tribes have sometimes been explicitly let into the borders of civilization by its leaders, in exchange for political or military support of some kind. I think barbarians as a source of mercenaries would be fun for the game, especially if it were properly simulated how this often turned in the hands of the civilized leaders (think Germans and Rome).

[Sean]

Question, if settlers require a tech, where does the first one come from, at the start of the game?

This could be solved with a starting settlement, but strickly speaking, that requires settlers to settle in the settlement!

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by The diplomat

I see settlers as more than just representing human migration. Since settlers build cities, and expand your empire, I see them more as the deliberate policy of expansion by the emperor.

Thus, you need "writing" because written records would be needed to manage more than one city.

There should be more barbarian encampments, some friendly, some agressive. (minor civs idea anyone )

I agree with you that settlers in this game are more than just a punch of aimless people running around and build a city some day (that’s human migration). Furthermore these people where send from the emperor to colonize and develop a certain area for the good of the Empire (think of it: you control them and you are the Emperor). And yes the beginning of every civ game is well rather boring: build a city and some defences build more settler and more cities than the middle came and now the game became very interesting (contact with other nations, war, peace, agreements,....). Making the production of a settler more difficult will surely enhance the rather slow beginning of a game and of course the Barbarians must be strengthened. At the moment they are nothing more than an annoyance and wiped out rather quickly in reality people were afraid of them and often leave their home and settled anywhere else just to escape them so they should be better represented in the game. Give them some cities and let them research a little bit so in the end we have a minor civ of course not able to win the game so there will be no Barbarians landing on the moon but a thread all the time.

[campmajor!]

Sounds interresting! Both the tech-settlers and the minor civ/barbarians thing. Though I agree with Uber that everybody will rush towards the required tech. Because even if you have iron working, you still need iron! And the more cities the better the chance of a source in your territory!

Barbs should play a larger role in civ3. Becaus now if you have your whole continent settled they don't show up anymore. So give them a marine-type unit like the berserker and let them do raidings! Just like the Vikings did and later the pirates would do.

That would make them more dangerous! Also it would be cool to hire them to wage war for you!

[fittstim]

Much like what hr_oskar suggested, I've been playing with several variations on settlers for months. My problem was that the civs expanded like crazy during the early BC era and pretty much did nothing but build up their military afterwards.

Settlers cost 4 pop. and can not be added to an existing city.

Refugees cost 3 pop. and have wheeled movement (no mountains or swamps).

This has certainly slowed the insane expansion during the early parts of the game. Now civs are still expanding around 1000 AD and beyond.

I would recommend playing with the # of pop required for a settler (or some other attribute which might effect the settler expansion craze) before initiating something as drastic as a tech requirement for settlers.

[XarXo]

I always believed that the very first knowledge that each civ should have was FIRE, also, another thing, when we start we can build roads and irrigation, but in the tech tree they don't appear inside a known knowledge.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I would like to see a game where the population existed in the world as it did in reality. Neutral nomads and some early villages in sensible places, i.e. where food was available.

Jimmytrick, I remember same old great hopes in Civ3 suggestions forum. A main steering from usual early "settler way", indeed one I too would hope some innovative developer will try.

Of course in late stage of exploration you should be able to build colonies where you want one, more like a "seed" that attract people from surrounding and from others part of the world (think about America colonization from Spain, Portugal, England...)

There should be multi-levels of association between these peoples and your civ such as treaties and alliances with assimilation happening in stages (except by military conquest).

As far as the model can be simple enough for human learning limits and current (game level) AI ...

The free standing population on the board should have individual ethicity and religion. As pop is integrated into your civ this would change slowly over time but never to 100% unless you actively engaged in policies to force that. Which of course would have both advantages and disadvantages.

Well, not sure about the change limit. I mean, give me time and I'll change culture a lot, but I'm more for mutual "blend" effect.

Of course it means we should split Civ Culture into many aspect, as Social Engineer element in SMAC, but not as a matrix you can simply chose, more as a original mix of traits that you can influence and try to direct by general orders and fact: build many temple and cathedral and your people will enhance the religious trait; build barracks and fights succesfull battles and you can turn your civ more on militaristic...

You must change all the buildings and Wonders effects, because you should be able to model your Civ more in a "RPG like" way to forge its culture by actions (and politics act) than by a preset "unique trait" you must live with for 6000+ years.

This will be the direction taken in the next great civ game.

It's a good opportunity, but I bet this can't happens from Firaxis: they simply are not ready to take the risk of changing a winning horse, IMO.

It must include random events, random leaders, rebellions and civil wars, and have satisfying victory conditions other than the stupid conquer the world or build a spaceship stuff we have been playing.

Well, I don't think that current winning condition are really wrong, more bad implemented (half finished?), maybe.

[Zachriel]

I would suggest different techs for settling different types of terrain. For instance, grassland would require no tech, bronze working for plains, iron working for hills, engineering for tundra or desert.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Zachriel
I would suggest different techs for settling different types of terrain. For instance, grassland would require no tech, bronze working for plains, iron working for hills, engineering for tundra or desert.

now theres an interesting concept... 4 or 5 settler units.

but theres no way to limit one to a certain terrain, as the "allow cities" variable is terrain based, not unit based.

awesome idea though.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Zachriel
I would suggest different techs for settling different types of terrain. For instance, grassland would require no tech, bronze working for plains, iron working for hills, engineering for tundra or desert.

Zachriel, this is a great idea! It may not be implementable within the current game framework, but it is great! I would love to see it implemented in some way...

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm a pessimist, so it comes in handy sometimes.

what if you started in a huge jungle / tundra?

recall HVC (how very cold). that would suck

[vondrack]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i'm a pessimist, so it comes in handy sometimes.

what if you started in a huge jungle / tundra?

recall HVC (how very cold). that would suck

Well, that's a good point. The terrain generator or the starting location placement routine might need a tweak or two to prevent such things... or, it could be left to the player to restart. Even now, I restart many games, if I do not like the geography for one reason or another... (dammit, everybody knows now I suck... but I guess most people restart at least sometimes, so if certain starting locations were REALLY screwed and unplayable, it would probably not be a big deal even if not specifically treated by the programmers...).