|
Author
|
|
Topic: Starting units |  |
|
colossus
Chieftain
Hong Kong
Nov 1999
|
 |
posted February 04, 2001 22:09
  | 
 |
 |  |
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
King
formerly known as don Don
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted February 05, 2001 03:12
   |
|
| |
I don't think I ever saw this suggestion before… something actually new!It's a good idea, too. |
bagdar
Chieftain
Turkey
Jan 2001
|
|
posted February 05, 2001 03:36
|
|
| |
recently, this came to my mind also, and I believe at least a warrior with a settler would be fine. |
The Viceroy
Chieftain
London, Great Britain
Nov 2000
|
|
posted February 05, 2001 03:41
|
|
| |
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
Warlord
Switzerland
Dec 2000
|
 |
posted February 05, 2001 11:22
|
|
| |
Yes, but this unit must be a defensive Unit..... |
Henrik
Warlord
of the Angaracks
Dec 2000
|
|
posted February 05, 2001 11:24
|
|
| |
In freeciv it is possible to start out whit a bonus explorer. |
EnochF
Prince
Seattle, WA
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted February 05, 2001 15:47
|
|
| |
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
Chieftain
Hong Kong
Nov 1999
|
|
posted February 06, 2001 01:08
|
|
| |
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
Chieftain
London, Great Britain
Nov 2000
|
|
posted February 06, 2001 04:09
|
|
| |
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
Warlord
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted February 06, 2001 06:28
|
|
| |
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
Emperor
"Life is a swirling cesspool of despair."
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 16:46
|
|
| |
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
Prince
Seattle, WA
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 18:53
|
|
| |
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
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
|
posted February 10, 2001 14:02
|
|
| |
Start with 2 warriors period. And an already founded city.Or 1 warrior, 1 horseman, and an already founded city. |
joseph1944
Chieftain
Napa, Ca. USA
Jul 2000
|
|
posted February 10, 2001 14:24
|
|
| |
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
Warlord
of the Angaracks
Dec 2000
|
|
posted February 10, 2001 16:10
|
|
| |
You know i allready sugested that.
I don't mind though since evryone else has been ignoring my post. |
Urban Ranger
Emperor
The City State of Noosphere
May 99
|
|
posted February 11, 2001 09:43
|
|
| |
An alternative is, when you start your first city, you automatically receive a powerful defensive unit named Palace Guard. That way, you can't be killed right off the bat.The Palace Guard unit can't be bought. You get one when you are (re-)building your capital for free. |
Henrik
Warlord
of the Angaracks
Dec 2000
|
|
posted February 11, 2001 10:30
|
|
| |
What if you change capital? If you get a new palace guard everytime you change capital you could end up whit lots of these guys. |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
