Well, my settings probably wouldn't help if you're taking static, unguided pictures (but at the end I'll tell you how you can get decent images without a tracker). I used a full frame camera (Canon 6D) with a ultra-wide 14mm f2.8 lens. In the first and last pictures the ISO was 800 and exposure time was about 2minutes 7 seconds. The middle picture I used ISO 400 (less sensitive to light) but compensated with a longer exposure of 2 minutes 32 seconds. If you're wondering how I could take such long exposures without getting star trails, it's because I was using something called a star tracker. It is basically a mounting system that you align with true north (using Polaris as a reference), then, when you turn it on, you can take much longer exposures because the tracker rotates at the same rate as the stars, thus allowing the camera to track the stars. The downside is, whatever is in the foreground will get blurry as the foreground (landscape) will appear to be moving during exposure (because the camera is moving). For that reason, you sometimes need to take some static (non-guided) pictures just to get a clear, non-blurry foreground image which you then replace your blurry foreground with in Photoshop. (I only did that on the middle image).
The start tracker I use is the iOptron Star Guider Pro:
Ok, so what if you don't what to spend $500+ on a star tracker; how do you get decent images with much shorter exposure times? Well, as you probably figured out, the wider angle lens you can use the better as it will allow for longer exposures before star trails are obvious. Also, the more wide open the aperture the better. The lens I use (on a full frame camera) is the Rokinon 14mm f2.8. It is a manual focus lens, but when shooting stars, auto focus won't work anyway. You usually will want to set your aperture as wide open as possible to allow as much light as possible (f2.8 in my case). You can find good used copies on Ebay for under $300. For night sky photography it is a very decent lens that gets the job done at a reasonable price.
You will definitely need to have your camera on a tripod. Then, to set focus so that the stars are nice pinpoints you will want to zoom in on a bright star as much as your camera will allow, then manually adjust focus so as to get that star to appear as small as possible (this will not be full hard-stop at infinity). If your camera has "live view" use that as it is easier to tell when the focus star is at it's smallest - difficult to do through the optical viewfinder. It will usually be somewhere just short of infinity. Once you have the focus set - DON'T TOUCH IT.
Next, you have to determine what is the longest exposure you can take before you will start getting star trails visible. Well, this of course depends on the focal length of your lens. Also, remember if you are using a crop-frame camera (like a Canon 7D, or 80D, etc), then your effective focal length is about 1.6x (I think it's 1.5x for Nikon) of your lens' focal length. In other words, if you had a 14mm lens on a crop frame camera, then you have to treat that like a 14 x 1.6 = 22mm focal length. There are a couple different formulas floating around on the internet. One you will probably see is the "rule of 600". I'll tell you right off, that rule doesn't work well for today's digital cameras. A better rule is the rule of 500. (Still not perfect, but better). Basically, you divide 500 by the "full frame equivalent" of your lens' focal length to get the max time in seconds you can expose before you get star trails. It's not a perfect rule but will get you in the ball park. Your results may vary.
Example: I have a full frame camera and a 14mm lens. Using the 500 rule: 500/14 = ~36 seconds.
Example 2: I have a crop sensor camera with a 14mm lens. 500/ (1.6x14) = 500/22 = 23 seconds.
So, as you can see, the focal length has a significant impact on exposure time you can get away with.
There is another rule that is even better called the NPF rule. That one is a more complicated formula that takes into account the aperture, the focal length and the "pixel pitch" of your camera. Fortunately there is an iPhone / Android App called "PhotoPills" that will calculate this for you. It is a much more restrictive formula. For example, using my Canon 6D with a 14mm lens at f2.8, the "500 rule" says I can expose for up to 36 seconds, while the NPF rules says I should really keep my exposure limited to under about 20 seconds. I would say, start with the 500 rule, then look at the results. If you're not happy or see too much star trails, back off the time by increments of maybe 5 seconds until you find a shutter speed where you're happy with the results.
Ok, so if you can only take an exposure for a short time without using tracking, how do you get that dramatic detail? Well, the only option if you are shooting wide open is to increase the ISO. If you took static shots with the ISO I used (400 / 800) the results would not look very good. I'd say start with ISO 3200 and go up or down from there (probably up) to get results you're happy with. Of course with higher ISO comes a penalty in the way pf increased "noise" which will tend to make the picture look "muddy." But there is a solution for this too! Instead of taking a single, say 25 second exposure, take a succession of 15-20 exposures as quickly as you can. Then, there are programs available called "stackers" that will allow you to pull in all 15 or 20 exposures and it will "stack" them. Somehow the program is smart enough to determine what is noise and what is an actual star, and it does a fantastic job of eliminating the noise. The programs available depend on whether you have a iMac or a PC. For iMac there is a program called "Starry Landscape Stacker" that I like. There are similar programs for PC/Windows. But if you stack several photos and thus eliminate the noise, you can still get dramatic photos even without the tracker.
Bet you thought it was going to be a simple answer 8^)