Building Settlers, Losing Nary a Population?

[Maelhavok]

Hi Civ2 Fans,

I've been away awhile, but whilst playing I noticed that if you build your settler when the grain box is over half(unsure how much} the next tha box is full and ready to yield another citizen. With a granery, the following turn will show that you have hardly lost sheaves. I looked in the GLI (Good work guys) under S for settler but no mention. Does anyone know a thread that would show the % of wheat fill needed etc? I know I noticed this a while ago but I didn't think to much of exploiting bugs but now I have a different veiw of reaping benefits from proper city planning.

Carpae Deum,
Maelhavok

[Mixam]

I recall seeing it somewhere, but I can't remember the string. The reason it works is when the population drops when you build a settler you keep all the wheat you had. If it is now enough to fill the box you will not drop in population. Or at least that is how I read it

Edit: Oh and I believe they are starting to work on a Egineer/Settler string that has stuff like:
The lone Settler
None Settlers
Multiple Engineers Working as a Team
[This message has been edited by Mixam (edited May 11, 2001).]

[Bird]

Granary is irrelevant to what happens after building a settler.

[La Fayette]

Hello Maelhavock! Glad to see you back (I remember quite clearly your friendly behavior when that guy from Manitoba or somewhere started throwing insults; thank you again).

Here is what I know:
If the city building the settler is size 2, the size of the food box is 30 sheaves, but if there are 20 sheaves (or more) in the box when the settler is completed, those 20 sheaves are enough to fill the box of a city size 1, and your city remains size 2 when the settler is built.
This is not a bug. It is the way it works.
(if there is a bug giving results more performing than that, someone will tell us and I 'll be happy to use it, unless I consider it a cheat)

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by Bird on 05-11-2001 09:43 AM Granary is irrelevant to what happens after building a settler.

Don't believe that, Bird!
Granary is VERY important when building settlers.
Without granary you loose 1 food box when you build a settler.
With a granary you loose 1/2 food box (imagin the difference if your city is size 20!).
ICSers don't care: they are happy with small cities and hate building improvements, so they loose one food box and say thank you (since the box is small).
Perfectionists do care: as soon as their fat cities grow over size 2 or 3, they use either granaries or WLT*D.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[East Street Trader]

Welcome back Maelhavok.

When you build a settler the box contracts by one collumn (and you lose one citizen). So take a two citizen city, it has a box with three collumns and on completion of a settler comes down to one citizen and a box with two collumns. If it had just a couple of wheatsheaves in its foodbox when the settler is completed - or indeed any number up to (if it has a grain surplus of two) 18 - none are lost. The new, one collumn smaller, box will, after the settler is built, be closer to being full than before.

If the 2 citizen, three collumn box had more than 18 wheatsheaves in it then you lose some and the new, smaller box, will immediately be full - therefore generating a second citizen at the beginning of the next turn.

It is worth remembering two things about wheatsheaves while micromanaging. Firstly, in the turn on which the box is about to be filled there is no carry over of excess. So it may pay to re-locate your workers to get as close to the number of wheatsheaves needed exactly to fill the box. Secondly you get the new citizen - and the larger box - the turn after the box is filled. It is different for the shields box. You get the new building or unit on the turn when the box fills.

That can matter quite a lot when working out how matters stand as to martial law when both the shields box and the food box are approaching completion together.

The worst way to miscalculate is to build a settler in a size one city, counting on the food box filling in time to go to size two before the settler is complete. If you get it wrong you face either disbanding your city or, virtually the same thing, "delaying" settler production when the screen appears offering you that option. That's bad news cause all the accumulated shields are lost.

If you have some none shield grassland in the city's area, or ocean with the harbour improvement, (as well as plains and shielded grassland) then I find you can avoid this by switching the workers to lower your shield production for a few turns while keeping food production up. But I've occasionally started in on a settler onto to realise late that I can't take it through to completion nor cut back on shields and the shield box will get full before the second citizen is generated. So then you just have to switch production, often finishing up with some expensive something you didn't really want at all. And if the only units you can build are cheap ones you just lose marginally less shields.

Obviously it would be nice to time settler builds so as never to waste any food. But the need for settlers early makes that a bit unrealistic. I don't think we have much learning on the details of timing but someone helpfully gave me this tip a while back. A size one city built on grassland/plains which works a forest square can produce a warrior followed by a settler which will then arrive just exactly at the moment the city goes to size two. (As a cross check you must have 5 food in the food box in such a city when you start on the settler).

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Yes, EST, your last comment is right. For any production level, choosing to build a settler tells how many turns it will take to complete it. If you time the growth to the next size (easiest when size 1) to be one turn sooner, you end up with a settler and a size 2 city.

------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon

[Bird]

quote: Originally posted by La Fayette on 05-11-2001 10:54 AM Don't believe that, Bird! Granary is VERY important when building settlers. Without granary you loose 1 food box when you build a settler. With a granary you loose 1/2 food box (imagin the difference if your city is size 20!). ICSers don't care: they are happy with small cities and hate building improvements, so they loose one food box and say thank you (since the box is small). Perfectionists do care: as soon as their fat cities grow over size 2 or 3, they use either granaries or WLT*D.

I think you're mixing up what happens when your pop grows and what happens to the food box after building a settler. Granary is certainly important when growing, but it has no effect on what happens to the wheat shields when you build a settler.

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 05-11-2001 11:12 AM ...someone helpfully gave me this tip a while back. A size one city built on grassland/plains which works a forest square can produce a warrior followed by a settler which will then arrive just exactly at the moment the city goes to size two. (As a cross check you must have 5 food in the food box in such a city when you start on the settler).

Sorry, EST, but your numbers don't add up. If the city is producing 3 shields per turn, it will produce a settler in 14 turns (42 shields), at which point you'll have 19 food in the box, and you'll get the dreaded "disband city?" message. Maybe you need to produce two warriors or a horse/phalanx (8 or 7 food in the box, respectively).

I think it's always better to grow the city to size 2 as soon as you can, then max out the shields. In the optimal case, you generate 20 shields while growing (working two grassland squares for 1+1=2 shields and 2+2=4 food), spend 10 on a warrior and 10 to start a settler, then produce the settler 6 turns later (working a grassland and two forests for 1+2+2=5 shields and 2+1+1=4 food). This way I produce my settler five turns ahead of the grass+forest method, and the advantage will keep growing. If I produce a second warrior before starting on settlers, it costs me two extra turns, and I'm still 3 turns ahead.

[Maelhavok]

Thanks Civ2 Fans,

Your welcomebacks, threads and insights are a real boon to this old warhorse. I don't usually micromanage but I do sometimes now in the early game attempt to time arrows, sheaves, and shields. I'd rather be smiting the infidels, but gotta walk fore you run.
P.S. I just found the arrows inside the city management screen that switch alphabetically to my cities. Perhaps I'll micromanage more now.
P.P.S. To the French General - You needed no defence from me as I recall, but that particular ignoramus rankled my feathers. I'm not normally given to nationalist propaganda, but I am a veteran American combat soldier (retired) And simply put were it not for the French there would be no Americans. I salute you and your country. Viva la France!

Maelhavok

[East Street Trader]

Thanks, DaveV.

I tried putting the numbers in while making my previous post but left them out when I could't make it add up. Thing is, though, I've followed the tip in play and had it work. I must be misremembering or misdescribing the method so I'll remind myself when next playing and post a correction.

But your method, anyway, looks superior. You need a grasslands/plains city which has at least one shielded grass square and two forested squares within its radius - far from uncommon preconditions. For some reason I had never thought of putting both of my size two city's citizens to work in forests (God knows why not when 5 is the first of the magic numbers for shield production). Come to think of it, I suspect I may under use forest squares generally. Once roads are down there is something seductive about the four icons of the grasslands/plains square so I tend to be working unrivered forest only temporarily for purposes of micromanagement. But that ignores the power of the shield.

I have a doubt though about your method during the very earliest stages. While those two forest squares are being worked your city produces only one arrow. So taxes and beaker production are hit. As compared to the speed of the method in producing the settler I can guess the taxes aspect is trivial. But early on every last beaker has its significance.

Although I passed on (inaccurately perhaps) the above tip I usually go a different route. I like to start a new city building settlers straight away. That requires a unit to be on hand from elsewhere to provide martial law once the city gets to size two. Early on the somewhere else will be units from huts tipped before founding a capital and later it will be warriors cranked out from some shield rich city and rehomed in each new city as it founds. Your new cities work flatland squares, have no problem with the settler arriving too early, and, I suspect, the city grows at the fastest rate.

But I'll have to try that approach against your method taking account of how the two methods affect the time when the city gets back up to size two (it starts with no wheatsheaves at the moment the settlers are built under the two forest method, if I follow it right, I think) and also taking account of taxes/beakers.

It is because I follow that method that I occasionally run into the city which you suddenly realise will produce it's first settler too soon. If you found on a forest square and forgetfully set the city immediately to build a sttler you are heading for that situation. It's OK if you have a non shield grassland in the radius because you can then salvage the situation by cutting back on shields for a time. But if the radius is all plains/shielded grassland/hills/mountains then doing this is a mistake and you must switch production.

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by Bird on 05-11-2001 01:47 PM I think you're mixing up what happens when your pop grows and what happens to the food box after building a settler. .

I don't think I am mixing up anything.
Here is precisely what I wrote:
'Granary is VERY important when building settlers.
Without granary you loose 1 food box when you build a settler.
With a granary you loose 1/2 food box.'
Test it by yourself, Bird.
This is the truth. This is the way it works in civ2.
(save a game and try building settlers in one city, with and without granary; you'll see).

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[debeest]

I have to agree with Bird here. When you add a new citizen, your food box empties -- or half-empties with granary. When you build a settler, you lose one citizen and your food box shrinks one column, with no effect on the amount of food in it (unless it was less than one column short of full).

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by debeest on 05-16-2001 12:29 AM When you build a settler, you lose one citizen and your food box shrinks one column, with no effect on the amount of food in it (unless it was less than one column short of full).

All right, but what comes after?
Does it not cost you 1 food box without granary and 1/2 food box with granary to come back to your previous state, the one before building the settler?
It seems to me that Bird and you are telling me a story close to the one of the guy falling from the Empire State Building and saying "up to now, it's OK' when he reaches the 40th floor.
... probably due to my bad knowledge of english. I'll check tonight.


------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[debeest]

Ah, now I believe I see what you mean. When you build a settler, you lose a citizen. You're talking about the cost of replacing the citizen. Or, you might say, you're talking about what happens to your food box when you replace the citizen. You have a point there, but it's a general point about the value of granaries rather than a point about the cost of building a settler. Bird's comment, in response to Maelhavok's original post, was addressed to the DIRECT effect on the box, not the down-the-road effect. Granary has no effect on what Maelhavok was discussing.

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by debeest on 05-16-2001 03:07 PM Ah, now I believe I see what you mean.

Thank you debeest.
I checked last night and reread the whole thread just now.
IMO neither you nor Bird wrote anything wrong, but what Bird wrote first might be misleading for people who don't know exactly how the foodbox, the building of settlers and the granary work (which is precisely the case of my friend Maelhavok who started the thread).
Here is what Bird wrote: 'granary is irrelevant to what happens after building a settler'.
This is true IMMEDIATELY after building (what happens then has been described several times in the thread: the city looses 1 in size and the foodbox looses 1 column and keeps the number of sheaves it would have if no settler had been built on that turn).
But what happens next?
1) Without granary the city grows again along with its food surplus and 1 foodbox is needed before the city comes back to its previous situation (the one just before building the settler).
2) With granary, only 1/2 food box is needed (provided that the number of sheaves remaining is at least 1/2 of the box).

Summary: Building settlers
The settler is the only unit with a double cost (in shields and in sheaves)
The cost in shields is always 40 (or the equivalent in gold in case of rushbuilding)
The cost in sheaves is 1 foodbox (reduced to 1/2 foodbox with a granary and somewhat careful managing).
It is advisable:
1) Not to build a settler in a city size 1 (since it kills the city).
2) To follow Dave's advice (see above) in a city size 2.
3) To build a granary previously in a city size 3 or more.


------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

Forgot to mention that it can be highly advisable to build a settler in a city size 1, if you do that away from any nearby city of yours, in order to get a NONE settler.

BTW Maelhavok, what does 'nary' mean? (My dictionary is quite thick though).

[Ribannah]

Nary is a contraction of "never a", as in "nary a cent".

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[La Fayette]

Thanks, Rib.
I should acquire an elf dictionary to understand all veterans in the world.
Is there any bookshop close to Enroth?

[Bird]

More on rah's point: building settlers with your first (and only) city can work well if you build it on iron (particulary at 2x production). You can crank out several settlers very quickly, which might help if counterbalance the negative effects of low trade terrain. I'd rather have the trade, but you can't always get what you want (you can try sometimes, but you just might find.....).

[rah]

If you crank out more than two, you can have food support problems. And what do you do with the settlers while you wait, if they tip huts, you might get a city. They can road their way out, or move as far as you dare to claim territory. But you're right, sometimes you do have to do something a little different when the trade specials are rare.

RAH

[Bird]

Two settlers might be the max (maybe 3 depending on the terrain and how much food you can store before building the first one), but you'll get four cities down quickly that way. Barbs have a tendency to pick on you if you get too many cities early, so you also need to build quick defenses. It helps to pick up bronze from a hut, but what are the odds of that (plus your tech tree will be screwed up). If you tip a hut and get a village, too bad, time to change course!

[rah]

And don't forget about building a settler from your capital when it is still size one (IF IT"S YOUR ONLY CITY) does not disband your capital and DOESN"T subtract ANYTHING from your food box. This is a great cheat for getting a capital that started on gold to a larger size faster. Build a settler right before it goes to size two, let it grow to size two the next turn and then merge the settler back in. (i prefer to use the settler for expansion, but some people like to grow the city)

RAH

[East Street Trader]

Getting an advanced tribe from a hut while building a settler in my only city is one of the situations I have sometimes got into when I';ve had to change production and either finish up with some expensive unit that I didn't want or face the 50% penalty incurred by changing from a unit to a building.

An additional option occured to me the other day which certainly works quite well a bit later on (when I occasionally tell a new city to build a settler straight away and then realise later that it's going to arrive too soon). What you do is switch to a more expensive unit but with the intention, as soon as the food box is full and growth to size 2 is imminent, to switch back to the settler. Obviously you still lose a few shields but, unless the miscalculation has been gross, it is only a few.

Now this may not work very early (because you may have no more expensive unit available). But if you were lucky enough to have acquired Trade then you could switch up to a caravan and then down again.