Unescorted Settlers

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
the problem with outpost in PTW and conquests is they give no greater LOS than a unit does and they dont stop barb camps appearing like having a unit posted does.

I don't know if this is a problem - what is an outpost but a regular unit sitting on a little wooden platform? It's not realistic to have it see more than this (think hundreds of square miles).

[Nikolai]

But it should have some guarding by default, no?

[vomitus]

Re: Unescorted Settlers

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
in one of the many reviews read

There is an danger involved in sending out a settler unprotected.
That could be threatened by wild life

Lions and tigers and bears OH MY

I wonder If building an outpost help keep you see wild animals?

What are your thoughts on this ?

There should be no reason that settler units should be attacked by wild animals. Keep in mind that every unit in Civ is an abstract of a real idea.

Settler units can simply be assumed to carry enough simple weapons to fend off wild animals. In wild Africa 6,000 years ago, people could simply carry spears with them. A group of humans all armed with simple weapons could easily hold off something like a tiger. In modern days, the settlers carry rifles.

Unlike a military unit like riflemen, settlers are much weaker due to no formal military training, and the presence of noncombatants such as children. So the abstract notion of settlers in Civ as it is now, makes sense.

[Commander Bello]

I am quite astonished to learn that obviously people really send out unprotected settlers.
As someone already pointed out above, the risk is much too high in comparison to the gain and under almost any circumstances you may have produced the escorting warrior while you were waiting for the necessary population to build up.

[AeonOfTime]

I hate having to build units to protect my settlers (unless I have some ready). Instead of doing that, I added a new settler unit via the editor, much like the 'Seasoned Settlers' in colonization: it has the same defense than a warrior. It costs more than a regular settler, but takes less time to build than a settler/warrior combo. It's a good tradeoff for less micromanagement IMHO.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
I am quite astonished to learn that obviously people really send out unprotected settlers.
As someone already pointed out above, the risk is much too high in comparison to the gain and under almost any circumstances you may have produced the escorting warrior while you were waiting for the necessary population to build up.

It's a bet. It's not real life, we can take some risk for the sake of an early start.

Usually I take this risk very early, patrolling and exploring the area with a warrior and keeping a loose escort on the settler: not enough to save it any time, but enough for many early barbarian approaching.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
I am quite astonished to learn that obviously people really send out unprotected settlers.
As someone already pointed out above, the risk is much too high in comparison to the gain and under almost any circumstances you may have produced the escorting warrior while you were waiting for the necessary population to build up.

Whether or not it's worth to defend your settlers is a decision dependent on several factors. Often it's not neccessary, and you'll only loose important time doing so.

[Az]

I just wanted to hop in and say that a "wild animals" barb unit is the most stupid idea since ever.

[Senethro]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
I am quite astonished to learn that obviously people really send out unprotected settlers.
As someone already pointed out above, the risk is much too high in comparison to the gain and under almost any circumstances you may have produced the escorting warrior while you were waiting for the necessary population to build up.

You may also be surprised to hear that unescorted really works. In SMAC I played a Morgan ICS game in which all new settlements were unescorted and only 1/4 got base defenders which were automatically moved to the perimeter settlements.

In comparison with a more cautious style, after 100 turns the unescorted game was 50 turns ahead of the escorted game. RESULT!

[Koriand'r]

i never ever build defensive units for CP

cIV will be the same.figure out how the lions work and avoid them,or whatever

I just wanted to hop in and say that a "wild animals" barb unit is the most stupid idea since ever.

QFT

[Jaybe]

As cheap as settlers are with civ3 default rules, I am not surprised at people sending them out without escort.
Playing games based on Rhye's of Civ mod, where settlers cost anywhere from 120 to almost 300 shields and 3-5 pop points through the ages, you're bleepin' RIGHT I escort them!

BTW, Rhye has been a betatester and has probably had some influence on civ4.

[Koriand'r]

in that mod though,it probably isnt even worth making new cities after some point imho

[Proteus_MST]

You should assume that a large trek of people has some rudimentary defensive capability.
There won´t be many trained warrios among them (maybe a few who already are too old to be on active duty and now live their lifes as civilians) but even untrained peasants should be able to defend themselves to a certain degree with makeshift weapons (hammers, pitchforks, scythes and the like)

[OzzyKP]

Yea, let the AI do it, and take theirs.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Jaybe
BTW, Rhye has been a betatester and has probably had some influence on civ4.

You sure? And how do you know? I thought that was secret? You're one too perhaps? Aha! Got you!