What would you do with 10 start settlers?

[ramses II.]

Funny question, indeed - but what would you really do?
Found 10 cities - or found 5 size-2 cities - or found 3 size 3 cities with 1 additional NONE settler for the wonderbuilding city?
What would you do? What would be the best strategy?

[Funxus]

Of course it depends on the continent, how large it is. But I'd probably try to settle most of them, and save a few to road I think. In the beginning of my games the size of my cities are usually 1 to 3 - fluctuating, so I'm not really for joinging cities in the beginning of the game.

[rah]

Assuming Diety.
4 quick cities. And build roads until I have warriors out exploring and enough for martial law. then 4 more cities, hopefully in good locations found by the warriors. Then as soon as I got monarchy, which shouldn't take that long with all these cities, build the rest into cities.

RAH

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

rah has the right idea.

I'd do more or less the same thing, except that I'd use the 10 to explore before founding. Getting a city down fast isn't as important in this situation as it would be when you only have 2 settlers.

So explore... pick up some free NON units, find some really good sites (shouldn't be hard with 10 exploring units) and get those first 4-5 cities down by about 3500. Then, get to Monarchy or HG quick, and found a few more cities... perhaps keeping 1 or 2 NONs, perhaps not, depending on the situation.

Again, assuming Deity.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Or, to keep it challenging... build 2 cities and disband the other 8 Settlers in the field.

[geofelt]

Assuming deity and NON-settlers. I would use the settlers to fan out in all directions, tipping huts. On a standard map, I would found 4 cities, or 5 on a large map, and build no more until monarchy. Each of the 4 /5 cities can build a warrior, a horseman and a settler before monarchy. The remaining NON-settlers will not found cities, but build roads and mines forever. The newly built settlers will be used to found new cities after monarchy.

[ramses II.]

I will test a scenario with 10 settlers. I will test the following possibilities:
a) 1 x size-4-city, 2 x size-3
b) 3 x size 3 + 1 NONE-settler for the wonder-city
c) 10 x size 1-city
d) 5 x size-2 city
I once had a game with 5 cities in 3600 B.C. (found three advanced tribes). It was one of my most successful games.

[rah]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
rah has the right idea.

I'd do more or less the same thing, except that I'd use the 10 to explore before founding. Getting a city down fast isn't as important in this situation as it would be when you only have 2 settlers.

Yeah, you're probably right to put a slightly higher priority on exploring prior. But since I haven't played an SP game in almost a year, my vision is a bit focused on MP. On a small map it's not a great idea to have your settlers wandering too far from home unescorted. The people I play with are a bit too blood thirsty for that. Their horses can show up quickly. And if you don't place a city down reasonably quickly, your opponents could be in monarchy before you settle your capital. AND that's not a good thing in our games

Rich

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by rah


Yeah, you're probably right to put a slightly higher priority on exploring prior. But since I haven't played an SP game in almost a year, my vision is a bit focused on MP. On a small map it's not a great idea to have your settlers wandering too far from home unescorted. The people I play with are a bit too blood thirsty for that. Their horses can show up quickly. And if you don't place a city down reasonably quickly, your opponents could be in monarchy before you settle your capital. AND that's not a good thing in our games

Rich

Quite true. I suppose it would depend on map size as well. I tend to do a lot of exploring on large and giga maps, just because I know the chances of running into AI horses is low. And even if I do, I can probably escape destruction

I normally don't wander too much because I don't like falling behind, but with 5 cities, one could make up for the research lag in SP easily.

In MP on those small maps you play on, being able to put 5 cities down at once would be devastating. Unless everyone else had those same 10 Settlers!

[Straybow]

"Let's play MP and let one guy have 10 settlers. I nominate me!" I think they'd want eveyone to have the same. It would be interesting to see a MP game with 10 settlers, especially if we knew that the players would choose slightly different strategies.

[rah]

I don't think the strats would be that different. It would be place cities down as fast as the happiness let's you. 4,8,12

[Julius Brenzaida]

Re: What would you do with 10 start settlers?

Originally posted by ramses II.
Funny question, indeed - but what would you really do?
Found 10 cities - or found 5 size-2 cities - or found 3 size 3 cities with 1 additional NONE settler for the wonderbuilding city?
What would you do? What would be the best strategy?

Silly question
I wouldn't worry at all for sure
No settler would embarass me a little more

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

It's a pity that you can't set up a game where you start with a Horseman (only) and can only tip huts hoping for a nomad, or failing that an AT.

[Julius Brenzaida]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
It's a pity that you can't set up a game where you start with a Horseman (only) and can only tip huts hoping for a nomad, or failing that an AT.

Well, isn't it not possible with a scenario
Anyway, one could decide to freeze its settlers once he has found an unit in a hut.

[rah]

The very rare % (if any) of getting a tribe or a nomad until you place your first city until very late would make this difficult.