Along with this (and I believe this has been discussed before) Settlers should not have to be produced, there should be an easy way to tell your citizens to become settlers and leave the city. They can also do it automatically. And someone mentioned that if you build settlers from a large city, you could lose 100,000 people yet your new city will only have 10,000. This should be fixed. Comments please...

Settlers should not be produced by
accumulation of sheilds but by overcrowding or some other reasons(lack of food,etc)so I agree with your point up there.

For building infra-structures like a road/irrigation, I wanna see "labourer units" like formers in SMAC. This levies of workers shouldn't be too difficult to mobilise from your city and once mobilised they will consume food just like settlers in Civ2. I really didnt like public work account thing in CTP.

Personally I think settlers should not eat up the food produced by the parent city. Why? just think about it! if you leave long away from your home wouldn't you prepare some provisions for the long journey? Just like that, settlers should carry some food from the city granary. I never heard of some supply wagons constantly supplying settlers from its mother city.

For the exact opposite, military units should consume food and I don't want supply mechanism in the game becomes too complicated so attached one unit of supply wagons for 6 to 7 mil units will do the job. The supply unit don't need to travel all the way to the city and the front but staying with the mil units should be enough.

I also agree with your idea that they shouldn't eat food. It does make sense. They should carry food from the granary or something. Any other comments on this?

quote: it should cause 1 unhappy citizen

That can be one of penalties for "forced migration". Good suggestion Joker.

As Joker suggested, we may control settlers with right tech or as I suggested, we may do it with bigger size migration from bigger size cities.

About settlement.
Same tribe,same continent-> direct ruling.
Same tribe,overseas->colony.
Conqured tribe, same continent -> colony.
Conqured tribe, overseas-> colony.

I'm still waiting to see your "David vs Goliath" I know I know you are a busy man.........

quote: Korn I don't think you really understand what I said about the AI. The AI is stupid/or will be(I hope not)so people will be discouraged to build many AI-contolled settlers during the initial stage of the game that effectively prevents ICS.(don't worry about building the infra we have labourers)

if the only way that civ3 can control ICS is through frustration then i don't want to play civ3

when i say colony, you could substitute, perfecture, province, territory, whatever name you want to but the basic thought is that expansion should take time...in SMAC with the cloning vat/planetary transit system/and telpathic matrix+orbitals you can expand like a virus over the entire planet in like twenty turns (and probably increase your population by like 100 in that time) with very little penalty...expanding in my opinion should take some form of assimilation time, even if it is your own bases that you are assimilating

i don't think of you so much as being the president of your civ, but instead i think of you as being the spirit of your civ, and i think that a player should have the ability to control everything but have rules governing their control...

about the david vs. goliath check out my newest thread

quote: if the only way that civ3 can control ICS is through frustration then i don't want to play civ3

and you know well it is not the only way

quote: expanding in my opinion should take some form of assimilation time, even if it is your own bases that you are assimilating

Assimilation.
Expansion by war "yes"
Expansion by settlement "no"

why should I have to assimilate my own people? that's too complicated. assimilating conquered enemy population would be enough.

quote: i don't think of you so much as being the president of your civ, but instead i think of you as being the spirit of your civ, and i think that a player should have the ability to control everything but have rules governing their control...

sticky little spirit stuck on the presidents' neck I rather say so its perception based on what the presidents see/hear.

1. Disasters. For example, several years of drought would send people leaving a region.

2. Overpopulation.

3. War.

The computer program should direct these people to either move from settlement A to settlement B or form new settlements. These settlements should start out as villages, then grow into towns and finally cities.

------------------
- Biddles

But if you accept the concept of a world with a "background" (sorry, I miss the proper word) of village, I suppose the "new settler" units must simply be a "seed" for town growth (by surrounding villages merging, or population immigration).

The "seed" concept can be

1) a nomadic tribe (a bunch of warrior and a chief) that by diplomacy or force fund a new city (but early populace must come from existing village).

2) a military unit that build some kind of fort (chose the historically appropriate term, please) that became an aggregation point of surrounding population (by force or by diplomacy, or simply because it exist and "barbarian attack" doesn't burn it in a few turns)

So we can simply take the Settler concept and dress it with a different name (not really different gameplay, because no dumb AI decisions are requested), but adding more realism by the way of different city early growth and by immigration concept.

Because you must put some development effort on your cities (to gain more immigration from village), it can also add some difficulty to ICS players.