From the Zeus showcase at Gamespot:

Quote:

PS: I hope ES doesn't remove the option to set the number of settlements at the game setup screen, cuz it's a cool option! I wonder what the maximum number of settlements will be like?

Max number won't be too high, if you had 30 settlements the games could take up to half a day

A few is more fun, because you have too play with more speed and alittle bit more aggresive, because if you control them you have an edge against the other player(s).

And besides if there is too many, it would spoil the fun when you fly in with a transport and make a clean sweep.

I don't like the settlements or the houses thing....

I dun liek them either, but if we have to have them than i want as many as possible.

Oh yeah, thanks Alexander, I forgot about that. I assume that means 5 settlements in addition to the original TCs. That sounds reasonable, and I'm glad to hear you can set the number!

[This message has been edited by Yamato (edited 05-22-2002 @ 12:21 PM).]

one that one mini map pic there looked to be approx 10-15

Number will probably be function of the size of the map and the number of players.

On a large map with 12 players, 12 settlements make sense, may be 18. On a small map with 2 players, 12 settlements is quite absurd.

Might also be function of the starting max population. Playing at low pop, each settlement has much more value than playing with large pop.

I also read that they spoke about 5 settlements in each game, but that was long ago, and as DeadlyVentures just observed, we saw much more than five of them on this recent ss, that one with the minimap and the throwing axeman.

there was 12 players in that SS remember...

Maybe you can't enter a poplimit at the setup screen, but only a number of settlements. We're thinking way to much AOK/C here. In that case, the total poplimit for a game (including all players) = the number of settlements * the number of villies a settlement can produce.

So, if 1 settlement can produce say 50 villies, the total poplimit for a game with 12 settlements will be 600.

Any thoughts?

I say 6 settlements in a 2 person game minimum, or lets have 3 per person?

Actually, I think we are thinking of them in terms of the victory condition. I think that having all of the settlements will just be something you do if your opponent is just procrastinating defeat or something. Sure you want all of the settlements you can have, but I think we will try to kill the enemy first anyway.

And they add to the population! They are huge strategic factors. And we need lots so that there are places to rebuild the TC when ones base falls...

The mroe I write however the more I start seeing the other side of the argument...

Oh well, 3 per person sounds good to me...

-Vladimir8

Are settlements things that can change ownership?

Are they generated same way relics were or are they set for each player (but not belonging to them until captured.)

Can they be destroyed?

I think too many variables and what about Team land maps will there be a guarantee of equal distribution and preseve some global randomness. I mean it is boring knowing there are 5 relics on each and every map.

Settlements change ownership
You obtain them by building a Town Center on one of them.
They can not be destroyed, but the Town Center on it can. You can then build your own TC on it and claim it.

yes, i agree, the more randomness the better.

*sigh*

Why on earth did I not think of this. No Predictability!

One notices the great number of settlements. KNowing one can make many more units than the oppoenent, you decide to use the goth infantry approach, and make tons of cheap units. The numbers eventually overwhelm him and he dies...

One notices there are only a few settlements. One knows that it would be better to concentrate on strong myth units and calvary since the sides numberically will be even...Your good troops tkae out his and he dies...

Ah I love strategic thinking. Great idea DD and ephestion...

-Vladimir87

I doubt the number of settlements would be randomised. It just seems too finicky.

As for a number? I would think more like 5-8 per player

Stone_Giant

I was thinking that two until I realised how hopelessly finished a player down 15 settlements would be. He is probably going to lose anyway, but that sounds a little too impossible... I guess it jsut increases the strategic value of settlements...

I change my vote to four...thats if it is not randomized...

-Vladimir87

While I like ESs thinking that 5 settlements in a 4 player game sounds optimal, I think having a lot of settlements would be great in some cases. For example I like to play big (6-8 players) free for all games and in those cases sometimes two players are just in the way of each other and you may not survive in your original location but might still be able to recover and win the game from elsewhere. The more settlements the better because if there are only a few they will all be in the way of (if not already taken by) the other players in the game. Victory condition is not such an issue in those games because it takes awhile just to get to the point where you are strong enough to take on all the remaining opponents, and by then probably half of them have been killed off in battle already so there's no need for them to be eliminated from the game even earlier because of a lack of settlements for them to regroup from.

I think 2 settlements for each player sounds good. If you get much more than that, settlements will begin to loose their value. I mean, why try to take this heavily defended one if there are 5 more over here?

Quoted from deadlydentures:

Because you want ALL OF THEM for the pop gain!! (And you don't want your opponent to have it for the same reason.)

to me, a better thing is for there to be just a few, that provide a large increase in pop. That way when you loose one, you will be alot of heart broken, and you will strive even harder, and work even harder for that one settlement. You don't want there to be too few, but i think 2 per player is good, if not on the high side.

Yeah you're right. If they were plentiful they would be just like any other resource and therefore while people COULD fight over partcular ones they might not unless they had to. Then again... pop limit isn't really like a normal resource and gives you something you can't get any other way... so I will stand by my opinion that it would be good if the game allowed you the OPTION to have a lot if you want to try it!

yeah, but expect bigger battles, and more intensity over the few settlements.

One won't be willing to sacrifice alot of resources and units for one settlement if its not worth it.