No Settlers

[Russian King]

Some ppl say 7 civs aint enough-ok fine. 10will do for me, not much diff...
BUT even if i was like Roman, that would mean nothing to me SINCE:
A MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT At first, i was outvoted that for improving terrain you needed to remove a population from a city(at least they cant settle so i dont have the temptation) now the co. is telling me settlers remove 2 pop!!! THIS IS ABSURD ... if they build cityes with 2 pop-fine if they build cities with improvements-fine but WHY, i repeat: WHY did they do that? to have something to protect doesn't seem like a fair reeason 2me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. dont we have our whole civ already??? so what FIRAXIS are saying:

"Let them take your cities, just leave the settlers alone"

I PROTEST once again! if they fix the nuke and everything else is better than i've seen before, fine they can have my money for the game, otherwise: Dont hope for it!

±
That is what i posted in the original topic...
But really, I think its rediculous.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 04-29-2001 07:50 AM Some ppl say 7 civs aint enough-ok fine. 10will do for me, not much diff... BUT even if i was like Roman,

LOL, thanks! You see i play almost exclusively scenario's where the civilization limit is the most annoying of all limitations.

quote: that would mean nothing to me SINCE: A MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT [IMG] http://apolyton.net/forums/mad.gif[/IMG] At first, i was outvoted that for improving terrain you needed to remove a population from a city(at least they cant settle so i dont have the temptation) now the co. is telling me settlers remove 2 pop!!! THIS IS ABSURD ... if they build cityes with 2 pop-fine if they build cities with improvements-fine

Actually, you are in luck, because I think settlers will build cities with 2 population. BTW: This idea was implemented to prevent ICS.

[SK138]

The settlers may cost 2 population but they are putting a worker unit in to do all the roads, irragation, mining, etc, and they will probably cost one population, if any at all.

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

*sigh* read up on the literature, mate. The settlers will remove two units, yes, but all they do is found new cities. The improvement work is done by a new unit type, the workers.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Im going to have to change my strategy. In civ2, every city Id build, would first build a settler to go and build another city until the year 1500 or so. Now, its going to take longer. Oh well. I guesse its to prevent ICS

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by Ceci n'est pas Snapcase on 04-29-2001 08:39 AM *sigh* read up on the literature, mate. The settlers will remove two units, yes, but all they do is found new cities. The improvement work is done by a new unit type, the workers.

Yes I know about the worker unit... I even mentioned it!
It is ok if the worker doesnt remove pop and works for money or sumthing.
Yes the double pop settler maybe to prevent ISC(or whatever, infinite settler thing...) maybe they r right but at least make the cities more useful then .
fine-not much of a diff with the settlers(200%), but the worker unit shouldnt remove ANYTHING. let it work for shields instead!

[aCa]

Hahaha. This is funny. I really can't understand whats negative about removing 2 pop, only whats positive. Maybe you have to build a couple of soldiers before u can build a settlers. Then there is smaller chance that any civilizations will get eliminated in the beginning of the game. This is GREATE. Then we can argue against the ppl who wanted 10 civs in the game, becouse they very often said that 2-3 nations get eliminated in the beginning. Now we anyways end up with 7 nations .... later in the game also.... atleast this is how I see it.

What about closing this thread MarkG or DanQ?

aCa