Apolyton Civ4 PREVIEW (By Solver) - Part 1 online

[Jaybe]

I wonder how much settlers and workers cost in C4.
While Civ3 was 30s/2pop and 10s/1pop, the Rhye's of Civ mod (which is all I have been playing for the last year or 2) has settler costs STARTING at 120s/3pop and rising through the ages, and workers at 30s/1pop.

[Solver]

Building a Settler doesn't cost pop - or else with this model you'd just about never grow in population.

You can also build a city in a city which only produces shields (0 excess food), but expect that to take a looong time - 20 turns if you're lucky!

[Xmudder]

Originally posted by Solver
It eases Settler building? Sorry, no way. Settlers cost more, your cities can't grow while producing them, so you stagnate your population if you build Settlers too often... on this one you're going to have to trust me as I've actually experienced it .

Civ3 cities would grow while building a Settler, regain one of the 2 lost pop points probably instantly - they would likely have the same pop 1-3 turns after producing a settler as they had when they started on it.

So if I have, say, a size 3 city and I'm working Pastured Cows, Pastured Horses, and Farmed Wheat, and I choose to build a settler or worker, my city will stay at size 3? Or will is drop 1 or 2 pops when the worker/settler is completed.

You weren't clear if making settlers sucks pop growth, or sucks pop growth AND decreases city size.

[Harovan]

Good. I like this system.

[Solver]

So if I have, say, a size 3 city and I'm working Pastured Cows, Pastured Horses, and Farmed Wheat, and I choose to build a settler or worker, my city will stay at size 3? Or will is drop 1 or 2 pops when the worker/settler is completed.

It doesn't take pop. It only halts growth. In such a city, you would be able to produce a Settler pretty fine.

It's 100 shields, BTW. Well, theoretically - in reality, as said, it's 100 shields + food of the city producing the Settler.

[Jaybe]

Hammers.
Might as well get used to it sooner rather than later

[Solver]

I've played Civ4 and I still call them shields, so no way .

[Harovan]

It makes building settlers a tad bit easier, because it takes away the micromanagement between food and production. In Civ3, not all cities were equally good for building settlers. Grassland cities or cities on irrigated plains were ideal, better even with a food resource. Pure floodplain cities were food rich, but low on shields. Forest or hill cities were shield rich, but low on food. The two latter city types weren't so good for settler building, they needed a lot of micromanagement to be efficient, which the AI simply was not able to do.

In Civ4 all three city types can produce settlers, probably even equally well.

[Xmudder]

Originally posted by Solver

So if I have, say, a size 3 city and I'm working Pastured Cows, Pastured Horses, and Farmed Wheat, and I choose to build a settler or worker, my city will stay at size 3? Or will is drop 1 or 2 pops when the worker/settler is completed.

It doesn't take pop. It only halts growth. In such a city, you would be able to produce a Settler pretty fine.

It's 100 shields, BTW. Well, theoretically - in reality, as said, it's 100 shields + food of the city producing the Settler.

100 food/shields for a new settler? Losing that to a Lion must hurt!

I like the new system. In Civ 3 I kept yo-yoing around a certain city size - 2 cows, a river bonus grassland square or 2, no reason to be grow any larger until my worker got going, so I'd be jumping from 4 to 2 and back again.

This way, I can freeze a city's growth by building workers and settlers, so long as I don't need anything else, like military units or buildings

It also reduces the demand for a granary to jump back up quickly from pop loss.

Can you reveal how much Workers cost?

[MarkG]

no comment on my dual monitor photo?

[Harovan]

100 food/shields sounds harsh, but is probably justified. We still don't know how hard food and shields are to come by.

In Civ3 it was 30 shields and 40 food without a granary (in a city up to size 6), and 30 shields and 20 food with a granary.

[Solver]

Ralph - if you call that building Settlers easier, I agree. They're more costly in game terms, though, as you obviously see. I like the reduced MM, though, of course.

Nice bit: suppose your city is working a two 2f1s squares. Suppose it also has a 0f4s square and a 3f0s tile. If you start building a Settler, it will automaticaly switch to working the 0f4s and the 3f0s tiles, as that will build the Settler faster.

This all, of course, making losing Settlers a big pain. Don't let them go unescorted!

I don't remember how much a Worker costs. It might be 60 though.

[Atahualpa]

Isn't the settler thing exploitable? What if I build an expensive unit or building and before it's finished switch over to a settler? Thus I built it only with shields and grew in the meantime.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Solver
Ralph - if you call that building Settlers easier, I agree. They're more costly in game terms, though, as you obviously see. I like the reduced MM, though, of course.

Nice bit: suppose your city is working a two 2f1s squares. Suppose it also has a 0f4s square and a 3f0s tile. If you start building a Settler, it will automaticaly switch to working the 0f4s and the 3f0s tiles, as that will build the Settler faster.

This all, of course, making losing Settlers a big pain. Don't let them go unescorted!

I don't remember how much a Worker costs. It might be 60 though.

Yes. I didn't mean they can be built faster, I meant the reduced MM and the fact, that building settlers effectively does not depend on balance between food and shields anymore. It helps mainly the AI, but also less experienced human players. And it makes super settler factories (like 4 turn factories in Civ3) no longer a privilege of the human player (and hence bordering at exploiting), but purely dependant on the presence of many food, many shields and tile improvements.

Oh, I hope the AI has improved wrt the latter.

[Lorizael]

I'm pretty sure transferring production doesn't work the same way anymore.