great no-AI PBEM - poll #2 - starting settlers

[Socrates]

Please vote in the poll order !

How many settlers will we get at the beginning ? One, two or three ? This is essentially to accelerate the game pace in the first turns. One settler will be on the coast, but if two or three, not mandatory.

If one settler : we'll have 1 worker too.
If two settlers : we'll have 2 workers (or discuss).
If three settlers : we'll have 3 workers (or discuss).
No military units at the start I think (or discuss).

I'm rather for 1 settler, but won't mind if more are chosen. Since the game will last for a very long time, I don't care if it lasts a little longer (yeah, it may feel a strange way of thinking).

[Arghis]

i agree for no military at start

[akots]

Don't know how to play with 3 starting settlers at start since never tried. Hence, voted for one.

[Beam]

krys, imo this poll is not put together correctly since relating the number of workers to the number of settlers only has been mentioned as a sideline once or twice and not as a main feature. Not sure if and how ppl came to their votes but this is not as multiple settlers were intended to work in speeding up the game early on.

[Socrates]

Not sure I understood it all, Beam, but the vote is only about the number of SETTLERS. I hope everyone is OK with that. The number of workers is of less importance, and is not part of the vote. Once we have decided on the number of settlers, we will quickly decide on the number of workers (here for example). Anyway, it looks like the "one settler" option is winning. ;) I hope these are real votes BTW.

[Beam]

quote:If one settler : we'll have 1 worker too.
If two settlers : we'll have 2 workers (or discuss).
If three settlers : we'll have 3 workers (or discuss).

This is apparently what we are voting for. And the voting options (One, two three) do not really add more info to that. I'd say repoll and I really don't care if we start with one, two or three settlers. More settlers means a quicker start of the game but if ppl are happy with a slower start no prob.

[akots]

quote:Originally posted by Beam
... More settlers means a quicker start of the game ...

Not sure about it. Certainly, it would be slightly more rapid. The problem is that you have to settle all three cities rather soon in the unknown terrain. Otherwise, there would be some unkeep cost to pay from the tiny treasury we get at start with 3 workers as well contributing. This is not a good option IMHO.

IIRC, GOTM 26 at CFC had 2 starting settlers. Qitai said it was too much for him and ended up pressing spacebar till 1000BC. He then somehow settled at 1000BC, started to play and even posted some AA spoiler but how the game ended remains a mystery, at least to me. I have not played this GOTM due to RL problems but Bremp won it with Palace jump to remote island. Since then, Palace jumps to remote areas were banned in GOTM.

Sorry, it sounds like off-topic but multiple settlers at start can lead to weird games IMO.

[Beam]

If you want to stockpile the settlers (the number of workers should not be in this poll) go ahead. In Desp. the treshhold for units is 4/city so even 3 settlers and 1 worker at the start will not cut in the budget. Building 3 cities from those 3 settlers early means a cumulative treshhold of 12 units at turn 4 if build like city-tile-tile-city. Of course there is some luck involved when deciding where the settlers move but isn't that the same in every first 5 turns in Civ?

[anarres]

I've tried starting with more than 1 settler a couple of times, but I find choosing a spot for your cities much more random and luck-driven than with 1 settler. Usually, by the time I am ready to settle my second city I have already scouted a good site with a warrior, which you are simply unable to do with more than 1 starting settler.

I guess this means I vote for 1. :)

[akots]

It is supposed to be archipelago map. If the settler are stockpiled, and if a player does not have enough room for 3 cities or does not want to go for a dense build? Then, one or two of the settler would be just sitting waiting for mapmaking to be researched and galley to be built. Also not good. But really don't know.

Re: the polls. Who is going to be the 8th player, btw? Now we have 7 (??) if I understand correctly (??). Apparently, the 8th player has to vote. Hence, the polls can be open until all 8 perspective players vote. For now, there are only 6 votes cast. :)

Is there an option to make it an open poll? Like we know who voted how? Don't know if it is useful or not though...

Edited: cross-posted with Anarres who actually voted so this poll is apparently decided. Demogame-ISDG experience hurts sometimes. :)

[Socrates]

Apologies to Beam, it was indeed not that clear, though the 1st question only speaks about settlers. I added the "(or discuss)" mention when I wasn't sure of what to do. But it looks like more people want only 1 settler (and so 1 worker, that's for sure !). If anyone apart fom Beam prefers to start with 2 or 3 settlers, raise your voice ! That's why I wanted people to express their vote in posts and say why they voted this or that.

[Arghis]

if i had 3 settlers and one starting point that do not please me, i had the 1 or 2 remaining join my capital to increase production ...

[Socrates]

Well, this one is clear : we'll start with one settler ; the game will last longer, but we'll also have more control on our starting position. This also means we'll get one worker, like in the Epic game. And of course no one will get a 3rd unit, even Kemal with his Chasqui scout (not the 1st time I say it, but if no one says anything, then I assume you all agree ?).

We're all seafearing, except for Eldakkar. But we're all meant to start by the sea.