Starting units

[colossus]

The original civ2 allows for starting with 1/2 settlers. We can extend the concept to create more varieties on starting units:

1.)2 settlers(as in civ2)
2.)1 settler +1 horseman
3.)1 settler +1 warrior
4.)1 settler +1 archer

This way, everyone can do some early scouting without the burden of supporting the unit, also narrows the advantages of someone starting with double settlers.

[Straybow]

I don't think I ever saw this suggestion before… something actually new!

It's a good idea, too.

[bagdar]

recently, this came to my mind also, and I believe at least a warrior with a settler would be fine.

[The Viceroy]

Yes, like this .. I remember back to the CIV 1 days ... that extra settler was wonderful, and in many games lasted right to the end .. 2000AD .. Although I doubt that a warrior or Archer would be so beneficial at 2000AD .. it does add a early exploration/defence possibility.

Actually, my only reservation is that it could be used to wipe civ's out before they have even built the first unit ..maybe there should be some rules governing instances of settler+unit .. so nobody starting close together gets a unit (min of 10 moves away from closest civ, including river journey).

------------------
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon

[rixxe]

Yes, but this unit must be a defensive Unit.....

[Henrik]

In freeciv it is possible to start out whit a bonus explorer.

[EnochF]

An idea that occurred to me a few weeks ago is the idea of fertile land appearing in the tribes' starting locations. CTP had the foresight of starting every tribe on a river (unfortunately, it was usually a river in the forest, but that's neither here nor there). I was thinking maybe every tribe would start on a river, and there would be two tiles of a special terrain type, called Fertile Land or something (which would essentially be like Grassland except it produces an extra food and extra production) along your starting river, within view of your first Settler. Fertile Land would only occur in starting locations: it appears nowhere else, and you cannot terraform any terrain into Fertile Land.

I just think it would be nice to give every civ's capital city a slight boost in the early game.

[colossus]

quote: Originally posted by The Viceroy on 02-05-2001 03:41 AM Yes, like this .. I remember back to the CIV 1 days ... that extra settler was wonderful, and in many games lasted right to the end .. 2000AD .. Although I doubt that a warrior or Archer would be so beneficial at 2000AD .. it does add a early exploration/defence possibility. Actually, my only reservation is that it could be used to wipe civ's out before they have even built the first unit ..maybe there should be some rules governing instances of settler+unit .. so nobody starting close together gets a unit (min of 10 moves away from closest civ, including river journey).

But even in civ2, if the 2 tribes start close enough to each other, one tribe can still wipe out the other one(by some units from huts) without giving the tribe the chance to produce any defensive unit.

I still remember in a world-map game, I started in N. America, and have my NON archer followed and chased an enemy's starting settler to the tip of Alaska. That enemy settler cannot found a city, lest it be immediately destroyed by me. So it remained the lone settler until the bitter end!

[The Viceroy]

Colossus,

Very much my experience also .. and thats why I think its important not to let a person start with a military unit when your close by to other civs.. at least you had to move to the hut to get your unit.. which I think should not of happened .. Gold or science maybe ..




------------------
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon

[Grumbold]

I'm all in favour of a faster start with slightly less luck involved. If simply founding a city gave you a 1-1-0 no support unit that would limit the instant kill possibilities (to steal someone else's militia idea -WesW?)

Starting with 1 settler, 1 horseman, 1 improvement unit/second settler and a radius of 3 tiles discovered would be my preference. That allows a chance to pick a good close spot for settling and begin exploration immediately. Otherwise the time taken to build your first defensive unit, exploration unit and next settler is too dependant on how good your original starting location was. Being lucky enough to start on a river near a couple of good specials guaranteed you much better expansion than someone starting on a featureless plain.

[Theben]

This is a good idea. But if a second settler is to be sacrificed for a combat unit it should be a good one; i.e. an archer or a horseman/chariot.

I disagree about the "fertile land" concept. I roam too often with my early units looking for a great starting location anyway, so it's no use to me.

[EnochF]

I also like the idea of starting with a Settler and another unit, hopefully one with a 2 movement rate. I'd probably just reload until I got either two Settlers, or a Settler and a Horseman/Chariot. I'd feel a bit cheated with just a Settler and an Archer, though.

[DarkCloud]

Start with 2 warriors period. And an already founded city.

Or 1 warrior, 1 horseman, and an already founded city.

[joseph1944]

How about a settler and Explorer and then you don't have to worry about defeating another civilization. Send this suggestion to Firaxis, they might just like it.
Henrik you are right. I just went back and looked. Sorry. However they should still send this to Firaxis.
------------------

[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited February 10, 2001).]

[Henrik]

You know i allready sugested that.
I don't mind though since evryone else has been ignoring my post.