Revised Settler Rule Proposal

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Alright, there have been some concerns as to some people being left out of Settler auctions. There is also the issue of the central Government getting new tiles to hold for future players.

Currently, the proposal is that a Settler has 8 "shares" representing the eight tiles immediately around it when it founds a city. And that the additional tiles added are the central governments.

I propose that these rules be changed to the following:

A Settler unit has 8 shares which can be bid on. These shares get ownership of the first eight tiles brought into the civlizations cultural influence. Precedence will be given according to the bid price with the individual with the highest winning bid getting first choice, the second highest winning bid getting second choice and so on.

Four of the shares are the property of the city that builds the Settler and may be auctioned off or assigned as the city sees fit.

Four of the shares are the property of the central government and may be auctioned off or held in order for the tiles to be used later for auction or for new players to choose as their first tile as the central government sees fit.

How does this sound?

[Aeson]

I think it sounds much better than closed market Settlers. Since a Settler is in effect nothing more than bidding on tiles, I can't see why a tile auction would be open, but a Settler auction closed.

Since this is about settlers:

Maybe it would be better if we didn't bid on Settlers, but on the tiles the Settler eventually claimed. Essentially that is what we are doing now anyways, but doing so before we actually have the tiles claimed is problematic.

The city that produces the Settler would be in charge of founding the new city, and at that point regular bidding on tiles would be available. This would avoid problems that would arise if the city site is claimed by another Settler (ours or AI's) first, or a change of plans was made in transit (found a city cause there's Barbs/AI about to attack... new resource has just been uncovered, ect.)

That would pose the problem of why a city would then build any Settlers of course. One reason to build Settlers is once you have gotten cities connected by roads so it opens more markets. Since 2 cities will grow faster than 1, there will be more overall demand for goods, and more money to be made, even if you aren't represented in the new city. Then of course there will be the benefits of having more tiles to bid on which helps everyone.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

But what if someone wants to try to outbid others for all eight shares and control the Settler? Perhaps someone has a specifc place they wish to send the settler?

Currently the people who own the shares would have control over where the Settler went and settled. I could see the group who bid on the four "City shares" making a deal with the central government where the central government might not sell their shares in return for them settling in a specific spot.

[Aeson]

Well, maybe control of the Settler could be sold. I can see a lot of problems arising with 8 people trying to equally decide where a city will be founded in any case, so it might be necessary anyways. If no one buys control, then the city would be in charge.

What happens when there are 8 people who bought in and whoever has control settles on a penninsula that has 1 land tile in it's radius? This just seems like something we want to avoid completely, and the only way to guarantee that is wait until a tile is owned before it is bid on.

[Aeson]

Another idea would be to allow the owner of the Settler to have the F/P/C from the city center and control of where it's placed. Then the (8) tiles are bid on after the city is founded. Since no one owned the Settlers for our first 3 cities, no one will get those city centers.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

True, so perhaps we should bid on "Control of the Settler" and that includes first choice of tiles.

Then the city would have half the remaining initial tiles and the central government half the remaining initial tiles with city getting the lesser of the half.

[TORARADICAL]

I said this somewhere else, but can not remember where. The decision of where the settler is to go should be made before the tiles are bid on. This way we won't have to worry aboot there not being 8 tiles when the city is founded.
And instead of an auction perhaps a set amoont of entry. Like $1000 per share or something.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by TORARADICAL
I said this somewhere else, but can not remember where. The decision of where the settler is to go should be made before the tiles are bid on. This way we won't have to worry aboot there not being 8 tiles when the city is founded.
And instead of an auction perhaps a set amoont of entry. Like $1000 per share or something.

Thats going to take a long time, when people are collecting < $20 a turn. Tiles are only $250 or so, why not base it on that?

[mrmitchell]

I like the idea. But I want to see more city control. 6 shares city, 2 federal.

Local

[TORARADICAL]

Thats going to take a long time, when people are collecting < $20 a turn. Tiles are only $250 or so, why not base it on that?

Well I was planning on proposing that instead of auctions there be a set price of $1000 for unfinished squares, and $2500 for finished ones.
My other price proposals are $1000 for a worker, and $2500 for a military unit.
You will no doubt be saying that it will take a long time, but if players gain money each turn then it will not take long, as I have seen in the FGame I am playing with on my own.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by TORARADICAL
Well I was planning on proposing that instead of auctions there be a set price of $1000 for unfinished squares, and $2500 for finished ones.
My other price proposals are $1000 for a worker, and $2500 for a military unit.
You will no doubt be saying that it will take a long time, but if players gain money each turn then it will not take long, as I have seen in the FGame I am playing with on my own.

But finished or unfinished the squares produce different things in different amount varying their actual worth.

[TORARADICAL]

But finished or unfinished the squares produce different things in different amount varying their actual worth.

Then an alternative I would suggest be $250 per food, shield, or gold.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by TORARADICAL
Then an alternative I would suggest be $250 per food, shield, or gold.

That's pretty much what the current formula does.

[TORARADICAL]

That's pretty much what the current formula does.

Well there has been none mentioned to me other than a possible 250 for 1, 400 for 2 and 500 for 3, which just isnt really all that logical, as the more that it has if not an equal proscribement of advance should be more.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by TORARADICAL
Well there has been none mentioned to me other than a possible 250 for 1, 400 for 2 and 500 for 3, which just isnt really all that logical, as the more that it has if not an equal proscribement of advance should be more.

500 for 3? Where'd that come from. The actual tile pricing can go up to around $3000 minumum bid for a good tile. More I suppose if it has a resource on it.

The original $MiniGame we had to bid on our intitial tiles. Some of them went for over $4000 each.