Settlers

[Seravy]

So...it's probably something everyone noticed already and I think I even mentioned before, but the AI sends out their settlers unprotected and it's ridiculously easy to take those empty cities from them, coming even with sawmill built if you time the attack right.
I might be able to implement some system to force the AI to escort the settlers with whichever unit is weakest on the tile they are moving from - if not done as part of settler movement, but as a separate thing after every unit is assigned to do their job, by searching for every settler and making sure at least one idle unit on the same tile goes with it - in theory that would work but the units might be unable to follow the settler if it's water walking, and that's pretty frequently the case, also if they get assigned to actually do anything else anywhere along the path, like go to the stackbuilding point, return to defend the capital, etc then the settler still remains unprotected. So this would not work very well.

So I just though of a different solution, that doesn't try to teach something way too complex to the AI, instead makes the game AI friendly. Something that might even improve the game on the whole, as it would be the same for human players.

What if settlers came with a unit (preferably swordsmen) already built-in? By that I mean, when you (or the AI) hits the build button, the settler unit does not disappear, instead it is replaced by a swordsmen of the same race, so the new city will have at least one unit defending it!

Since the starting cities also come with units in them, I don't think this would be too weird. In 1000 people you would expect at least some people to know how to use a sword. We might also consider giving settlers an actual attack rating to reflect that some of the people moving have some bare minimal military training. Not much, something like 3-4 swords at most (it would still be a single figure so that's really weak, however, it is enough for the AI to realize the unit is there and can be attacked...which is often not the case for 0 melee units since they have 0 military value)

Also if we do this, settlers should probably require a smithy, and they should probably cost at least 10 more than now, probably 20 more for lizardmen because theirs is much cheaper and the swordsmen they get is stronger.
1 Swordsmen can't stop an actual invasion, however it would be able to prevent the magic spirit takes 5 empty cities abuse that is now unfortunately the best strategy there is in every case you can afford going to war. Also the AI would not lose their first cities to stacks of 1 raiding neutral spearmen (yes I have seen the AI lose 4 cities to that once).
Whether the swordsmen inherits any traits from the settler or not is up to our decision, and by that I mean enchantments and adamant/mithril.
What does everyone think?

[namad]

I think that the ai's strategy is currently correct. If they escort their settlers then I can just kill them by taking their more weakly defended capital. Players are attacking those cities/settlers because they have to. If the ai built armies for each expansion they'd expand much slower. The player feels compelled to attack before losing all the territory. If I'm struggling to win the game I'll often just attack them as settlers or outposts so that it happens faster, and I don't have to worry about defending them. Once I'm at war my goal is usually to win, I can always backfill economically later during peace time. As such another fix for this could be to make it so that any city which is small enough is automatically razed after combat, forcing the player to either destroy those cities or allow the ai time to guard them?


That said I think your idea is a pretty good one. Although personally as a human player I don't really want to be feeding 1 weak military unit. In that I wouldn't built one. I also wouldn't think this change would benefit me. However you're right it would benefit the AI a lot. I think it will make the game more fun overall. So I think this might be the best option, to give out free military units.


I think the correct solution is to give everyone the SAME swordsman. As in literally. They all get a human swordsman (can only be enchanted via alchemy retort (not alchemist guild), gains no experience from barracks or war college but does from crusade or warlord). Races which have a strong swordsman shouldn't get strong settlers, and if those races have to pay extra hammer for those improved settlers then they'll just get slowed down.

In the explanation it's basically just the most grizzled population gets promoted to be a basic swordsman, but since he wasn't properly trained in the capital he doesn't get any specific bonus of any sort.
That said I think a spearman would benefit the human player more (human players often use two spearmen just to earn gold, but then comprise the real fighting force of halberdiers and magicians not measly swordsmen).
However the swordsman probably benefits the AI better against magic spirits and the like.

Another compromise you probably cannot code because it's probably impossible, is that the city could spawn the swordsman when the outpost phase finishes. The explanation could be that during the outpost phase they trained a city militia. In this case I think it would be fair to give the unit racial benefits, because race effects outpost speed. This way if a player attacks an outpost it can die unguarded, but if the player were ever to gain a city it would always have at least 1 defender?

[Seravy]

I think that the ai's strategy is currently correct. If they escort their settlers then I can just kill them by taking their more weakly defended capital.

The escort would only consist of one unit. Unless they play pure Life Magic that means nothing since it'll get refilled by a summoning spell anyway. Not that an escorting system would work properly, anyway so better not do that.

Although personally as a human player I don't really want to be feeding 1 weak military unit.

You sure about that? I don't think having zero units in a city is a viable strategy anymore, except on maybe easy difficulty, or if diplomacy guarantees everyone on the plane is unable to attack. Of course you can just disband the swordsmen after your better units arrive, assuming you have any but it is nice to have it there until then. Then again, 0.5 food is well worth the 0.5 unrest reduction for having an extra unit.

[namad]

I think that the ai's strategy is currently correct. If they escort their settlers then I can just kill them by taking their more weakly defended capital.

The escort would only consist of one unit. Unless they play pure Life Magic that means nothing since it'll get refilled by a summoning spell anyway. Not that an escorting system would work properly, anyway so better not do that.

Although personally as a human player I don't really want to be feeding 1 weak military unit.

You sure about that? I don't think having zero units in a city is a viable strategy anymore, except on maybe easy difficulty, or if diplomacy guarantees everyone on the plane is unable to attack. Of course you can just disband the swordsmen after your better units arrive, assuming you have any but it is nice to have it there until then. Then again, 0.5 food is well worth the 0.5 unrest reduction for having an extra unit.

I'm not saying I'd leave the city undefended, but yeah, there might be a pair of rangers a turn or two behind the settler. In which case you're right I could disband the swordsman if I wanted. I didn't mean to say this change would harm the player, just that it wouldn't benefit them. The player knows when it's safe to leave a city undefended (usually only for a turn or two) and the AI doesn't, and sometimes takes 12 turns to get a guard there.

What did you think about my thoughts though regarding the swordsman not getting any racial bonuses? or not getting adamant? or not getting war college bonuses? which of these should it get, which shouldn't it get? Should klackon settlers yield swordsmen with +2 defense, and should that cost them extra hammers on the settler? what about barbarian settlers? They'd cost 33% less but end up with axes.

[Seravy]

I think the benefit for the human player is, they can afford sending the settler out earlier, since there will be something defending the city until the real defenders arrive. Or in case no real defenders are needed, it won't fall victim to random neutrals spawning next to it. Either way the main purpose is to help the AI of course.

I don't think a beastmen settler coming with a high men swordsmen would make sense, it implies they are mercenaries, and not built as part of the settler in you own city.
The swordsmen that spawns has to be "the" swordsmen unit for that race, which implies it has the racial stats and abilities. However, it does not need to retain any modifications, such as experience, adamant, enchantments, etc, although it probably makes more sense if it does.

You are right, spawning the swordsmen only after the city grows is harder to do, and it would accomplish less, too. The AI would still lose all their cities to the magic spirit, just the human player would not get to keep them.

My reasoning by the way is, if you have 1000 civilians going somewhere and you want that to happen in any organized manner, you would need some sort of a police or military force among them, both for protection and to make sure they do what you want them to. Whether that force is trained by the city as well as real military, or is a weaker police force that skips war college, is really up to our imagination. However as the settler itself comes with the experience and adamant, I think the "police" should, too.

[Nelphine]

To be honest, late mid game and onward (basically after any early game wars are over), i only garrison cities for the unrest. I try to maintain a mobile defense force to actually protect things, and I've gone for years without a garrison at all in some cities.

However, this helps against neutral raiders/monsters immensely, and food/gold is rarely a problem, so I like the idea. I've never used the magic spirit tactic but I've occasionally destroyed outposts randomly.

I wouldn't bother with experience/adamant etc, but the main purpose of the swordsmen existence is to let the wizard use magic. So I'm not against it either, just don't think it's high priority.

[namad]

I guess it just makes all the settler production cost discounts and on the flip side swordsman cost increases a bit unbalanced, but I guess you could just change all that?
Perhaps all the new settlers just cost old cost+that races swordsman cost, that would probably remove any concerns about any race gaining "free" hammers towards their swordsman?

[Hadriex]

Seems like a good idea.

I don't really see players abusing this to get extra swordsman. I mean, you have to make the settler, walk it out to a location, and then plant it. I don't think settlers need to have their cost adjusted in most cases.

Lately I've been starting to wonder if the player might need a discount on settlers. Or perhaps an arcane spell that produces a setter. I like to pick a powerful race and spread them around, but it's so slow, and the AI is so fast, that I feel I can't play that way. It seems like it's better to just let them settle my lands and take the cities then to make any attempt to build them on my own.

But yes, I think swordsmen are a very good idea. And I do not care even slightly about settlers as a game unit. I never attack them anyway because the AI will punish me with combat spellcasting.

[Seravy]

Meanwhile, something else. Do you think the AI builds settlers too much? It's certainly annoying to lose all the good spots in the early game to them, but the plane is only that big and there are 3 wizards in there so I think it's inevitable? The original game had the AI restricted to 1 settler at a time and it was...awfully slow and pretty much slowed down the AI to completely non-thereatening levels. The current restriction by the way is 2 settlers/continent and 3-5/plane total, depends on land size.
Is there a need to change this, if yes, any good ideas how?

I'm thinking along the lines of "do not make settler unless the city has at least 4 units guarding it" though that probably causes no slowdown at all. It only takes the AI the first 2-3 turns to have that many hell hounds or whatever in their capital.

[Nelphine]

As mentioned in the other thread, the AI on huge landmass, expansionist, only has 24 cities (finally finished exploring). They are all on his home continent although it looks like it's at least 4 that happen to be attached - does that give it different continent ID'S? That might be why it's slow. It's 1415, and at least 2/3 of his continent is not settled.

Actually that's backwards. It's all 1 ID, so if it had been split up he could have water walked to more.

There's only 1 other island in the whole plane, plus a few single tile islands, none if which have cities.


So maybe the problem is that on huge they're slow due to only one continent, while on small or fair they're super fast because of adjacent islands to colonize simultaneously.