So im wondering which is best to build first.

Typically my strategy so far has been to produce warriors/scouts until my population hits 3 then to produce a settler then a worker.

But i was thinking that if i produce the woker first then i can start improving the terrain which would greatly speed up settler production anyway.

What do you think? sound strategy? alternatives?

I like to beeline to Bronze Working and then use my worker to chop-rush my settler. This sometimes mean I have to forgo early religion, but I can always pick up Confuc--erm, Zoroastrianism later (my realistic religions mod).

In a hotseat game i'm playing with my brother and sister, i decided that i would build a worker before a settler. I'm pretty sure that they both built a settler before the worker. I built my second town only a couple of turns after they did. But it depends on yours situation. If I have a food resource, then I normally would build the worker before the settler. if not, then the settler before the worker.

A worker takes about 1/2 the time a settler does. Thing is, if you build the worker, the chop gets you another worker instantly, followed by a settler once both do a chop. Therefore if you're cool with the chop-method, worker will always net you better than a settler to open.

Worker first. I know I'm probably the odd duck here but I beeline for a couple of tile improvement techs before bronze working. I prefer to improve my best 2 tiles before I start chopping, otherwise I feel like I'm chopping trees for hammers that I could get for free.

I usually play as Gandhi, go for Polytheism first, then Bronze Working. Wait for the population to hit 3 (producing warriors in the meantime), then build a worker (~15 turns) and chop-rush a couple of settlers.

If i have enough trees i usually go 2 workers in a row. I make one then i chop another then they both chop another settler basically in 4 turns. Then they chop a unit then another worker. Then i run off to where i hopefully settled by trees and chop a settler then another worker and another unit repeat.

Sometimes i change it up. But im getting consistant about 2 back to back workers then settler/worker combinations with units as i need.

I chop enough workers to just evaporate my forest then i smack down mad development.

It is situational. In my current game I had crabs, cows and gold, plus a river/coast location. As Qin, I went Warrior/Worker/Stonehenge/Settler/Workboat then Warrior/Settler/Worker, and repeat. My worker mined the gold, then chop-rushed Stonehenge and the first Settler, by then I had Animal Husbandry and I added the cows.

At this point I'd sealed off two thirds of the mini-continent I shared with Louis XIV and Beijing was a powerhouse.

Worker.. For the same reasons many people said before me.

A settler takes three times longer to make than a worker.
My basic opening is to build a barracks first since enemy attacks are limited to animals by the time it is built.

If i have enough trees i usually go 2 workers in a row. I make one then i chop another then they both chop another settler basically in 4 turns.

Much more than that, I'm afraid. Workers don't chop a forest in one turn.

I build warriors until my population hits size 4, then whip out (slave rush) a worker. Then chop a worker and a settler as usual.

It's usually preferable to get a worker first, simply because you can then improve tiles while working on a settler. With a settler first, your growth curve will be VERY slow indeed. Still, in some situations, you need that first settler NOW, and it can be worth the tradeoff.

Side issue - I notice tons of people really chopping like crazy at the start of the game. That's certainly a worthwhile strategy, but by no means is it a no brainer. If you cut down every forest in sight, you get an initial boost, but long-term you do hurt yourself (less health in the cities, no chance for lumbermills, etc.) Just want to point that out to anyone reading, lest they think that chopping everything in sight early on is the only way to go. :)

Can someone tell this newbie, I just got the game after years of CIV II, what is chop rush? How much pop do you loose say on a 3 city, 1 or 2 pop points? The game looks great, although it keeps saying on am at min specs while I can select the higher levels and it plays fine, none of the black terrain etc.

Anwyay, I am sorry if this is a silly question, but it's a cool topic. I have broze but don't have slavery set up as a civic yet.

Can someone post with the specific steps etc, or what happens.

thanks in advance

Chop rushing is using the worker's "chop" ability (gained with Bronze working) to chop a forest tile, which gives you hammers towards the nearest city's current production. You don't need slavery to chop, and you don't lose any populations.

"Whipping" comes with slavery, and you lose population depending on how many hammers you've already produced. If you just started production, you'll lose several pop points. If you were almost done, it will cost only 1. It will tell you how much pop, if you mouse over the button.

to share my experience of a recent standard/pangea game on noble as the the chinese (financial/industrious), I started on the ocean with two clam resources, 2 lakes, and the rest forest/forested hills. I decided to not chop anything.

Despite having only 2 other modest cities and 3 tiny artic resource grab cities & complete the national wonder requirements, Beijing ended up building every single wonder besides the Hagia Sophia & the Three Gorges Dam, and I had a healthy tech lead the entire time running at 100% science.

Every single great person (probably near 20 by the end of the game, mostly great prophets but a mix of everything) I added as a great specialists into Beijing other than a few great merchants i sent out to explore and upgrade my army. I am now deciding whether to take it easy and just take a diplomatic victory or continue to conquer the worl.

Hmm, with financial/industrious I would have gone on a chopping spree with that one for sure. Cottage up and mine the hills for a financial power house.

Maybe run beaurocracy, while my other towns produce military to take over the world!

I guess what i'm saying is that it depends on your situation. in this game i built a settler first, but not until I had built two work boats, a few warriors and the stonehenge. Then finally a worker.

By focusing on my industrious trait instead of financial, I came out ahead. But it had a lot to do with my starting position. Stuck up on a peninsula near the tundra, I was boxed in by isabella and fredrich so the settler-first was to try to grab some more territory and copper, but I still was pinched for decent grasslands to cottage-sprawl.

Side issue - I notice tons of people really chopping like crazy at the start of the game. That's certainly a worthwhile strategy, but by no means is it a no brainer. If you cut down every forest in sight, you get an initial boost, but long-term you do hurt yourself (less health in the cities, no chance for lumbermills, etc.) Just want to point that out to anyone reading, lest they think that chopping everything in sight early on is the only way to go. :)

Lumber mills come much too late to be relevant and are really only good with RR as well. The early advantage of chopping is much greater IMO. The health can be a bigger issue esp at higher levels but the ability to grab and connect more resources quickly more than alleviates that issue as well so I am coming around to thinking that chopping is in fact a no brainer although I haven't done it as much as some, I think I will start.

Another point: Does anyone know the regrowth algorithm. I try to leave some forests near undeveloped tiles but regrowth seems to be fairly rare.

Lumbermills start to get good when the game is basically over(railroads and replacable parts?). Chopping a forest down early IS a no-brainer. Let's see: Do I want what is basically a free settler at the start of the game(3x30 hammers), or do I want to keep those forests to get a measly +1 health at the end of the game so my city can be size 20 instead of size 19?

Common sense dictates that turning those 3 forests into a settler in the VERY EARLY GAME is the best investment. Do you want an extra pop or an extra city, a city that can potentially generate 19 other pop over the course of a game? The answer is given allready.

Here is a silly question on this. If I am about to build the unit when I get the 30 shields, do you loose most of the benefit? Meaning I have 1 turn to go when I get the chop bonus. Is it wasted? I have not tried it yet, one game only so far and it's not done.

Sorry for the newbie questions.

Lumbermills start to get good when the game is basically over(railroads and replacable parts?). Chopping a forest down early IS a no-brainer. Let's see: Do I want what is basically a free settler at the start of the game(3x30 hammers), or do I want to keep those forests to get a measly +1 health at the end of the game so my city can be size 20 instead of size 19?

Common sense dictates that turning those 3 forests into a settler in the VERY EARLY GAME is the best investment. Do you want an extra pop or an extra city, a city that can potentially generate 19 other pop over the course of a game? The answer is given allready.

I disagree. You couldn't pay me enough to chop a forest, if my capital starts surrounded by foodplains and no hills.

Chopping is powerful, but still situational. <--- the real no brainer

I disagree. You couldn't pay me enough to chop a forest, if my capital starts surrounded by foodplains and no hills.

Chopping is powerful, but still situational. <--- the real no brainer

Don't forget chopping on tundra can be a waste. I'd rather have a usable tile with +1 shields than a completely unusable tile.

I would built settler most of the time, unless I'm financial or great resources situation; then worker. And forest value is very important, especialy on high , levels and you could get a lot of staff and build more useful improvemnts, then on raw terrain.

Here is a silly question on this. If I am about to build the unit when I get the 30 shields, do you loose most of the benefit? Meaning I have 1 turn to go when I get the chop bonus. Is it wasted? I have not tried it yet, one game only so far and it's not done.

Sorry for the newbie questions.

No, Civ4 carries forward the shields to your next production item. The only ways to "lose" production are to change production in the middle of building something and then never come back to finish building it, or to work on a wonder and have another civ build it first.

I disagree. You couldn't pay me enough to chop a forest, if my capital starts surrounded by foodplains and no hills.

Chopping is powerful, but still situational. <--- the real no brainer

Still why keep the forest. You have tons of food with FP and each unhealthy costs you only 1 food. It is a bit psychological that we don't want unhealthy cities we want everything perfect but really happiness is more important esp in a high food city. And you are not going to have all FP w/o some mountains or other shield tiles around.

Worker first. I try to not chop so much. I can use the forest tiles when I need JOMH to finish a non-worker/settler item. Shaving that extra turn off can make a difference at times. Not to mention I kinda like health benefit I get from forests even though I don't really need it early on. The reason I go for a worker first is so I can get those resource farms in place. When building workers or settlers a 6 food pig farm beats ANY hammer tile i have seen. Sure, some come close, but having a city with 2 or 3 farmed resources will pump em out quick. I have early cities that can produce settlers in 6-7 turns without cutting any wood. Do I chop? sure, when there is a production bonus for a given item. Getting 60 hammers for a single forest when building city walls (IE) with stone makes those precious forests go a long long way.

So far, I have found the best strategy FOR ME, is I first build a barracks then a warrior or three, depending on the land area I have to explore. Then it's a worker or two until i have two food bonuses up and running. Then i can build settlers at will. IF I start on the coast and have a food resource (fish,crab,ect) I get a workboat done asap. Let the food from the crabs build the worker, the crabs and the farm build the next worker, and then as many settlers as i can place. I like to have a 3rd worker fairly soon, so i can chop in one turn.

The other thing to keep in mind is the production rollover. With 12 food being converted with 8 hammers gives a production of 20. If you only need 5 to complete that worker, let those 15 rollovers apply to a military unit or building that has no production bonuses. Get that built then go back to workers or settlers. While building the non W/S your city gets to grow. And because it's a food powerhouse it grows fast.

Workboats before workers (almost no chance of losing a fishing nets to AI pilliaging either early on)
Workers before settlers
Farms before mines

someone mentioned tundra. I concur; tundra is the only thing i dont chop. Its the only type of square that is hands down better forested.

worker first for me too, and i chop everything down as well. you get your first 2 cities up and running so much faster that way - even if there's no hills, watermills and workshops fix your production issues soon anyway

Well, I Always go for a .......... well, I don't always go for either. I see whats around me. If there are tiles that will work well after being worked-on, then I go for worker to get tile benifits. If there are many forest close by, then I may also go for the worker & chop a few trees.
If I start near a sea tile that can be worked, I go for a work-boat first, then a settler before the worker. If there is not much around me that can be worked, I go for a warrior then a settler & find a nice place to have a 2nd city.
Other day, when playing as Incas, I started with warrior, warrior, settler, stonehenge. With my 2nd city supplying the workers.

nick the worker from a neighbor, build stonehenge, build a settler :)

Still why keep the forest. You have tons of food with FP and each unhealthy costs you only 1 food. It is a bit psychological that we don't want unhealthy cities we want everything perfect but really happiness is more important esp in a high food city. And you are not going to have all FP w/o some mountains or other shield tiles around.

I'm not keeping it for the health bonus. I'd chop it, if I had hills. I said there were no hills.

I'm a chopaholic and I almost always build a worker first (unless the civ doesn't start with mining, then I might build an extra warrior explorer first).

I like to have LOTS of trees - build worker first, chop a warrior, another worker, and then chop 2 settlers, and ideally be able to do a chop or two for stonehenge in my capital too - but all this requires quite a few forests. Very few forests survive in my empires.

Lately I've been into chopping a 2nd worker almost immediately so I can double chop or start improving my capital while still chopping. This is especially glorious if you have a money resource like gems or gold on a hill by your capital, since you can have 1 worker mine it while the other keeps a choppin and you get a nice early research bonus!

Chop chop!

I usually only use lumbermills in tundra areas (where chopping leaves a wasteland of a tile) or in rare cases of cities I found late that will be weak in production. I'd rather chop and use watermills or even workshops.

Perhaps when I finally bump up beyond Noble I might consider less chopping for the health benefit, but I doubt it.

I can't believe this thread is still going. :)

Why wouldn't you build a worker first? Wait until your city has just increased in size and then start building your worker. Unless your city is growing incredibly fast the best time to do this will probably when it hits size 3.

The worker pops out and you chop rush your settler and then your city can keep growing and you can found a new one. This keeps your zero growth time to a minnimum and gives you a worker and a settler in only a few more turns than just building a settler.

chopity-chop. warrior or two(until choping is allowed), worker settler worker. no forests survive!

Well, I Always go for a .......... well, I don't always go for either. I see whats around me. If there are tiles that will work well after being worked-on, then I go for worker to get tile benifits. If there are many forest close by, then I may also go for the worker & chop a few trees.
If I start near a sea tile that can be worked, I go for a work-boat first, then a settler before the worker. If there is not much around me that can be worked, I go for a warrior then a settler & find a nice place to have a 2nd city.
Other day, when playing as Incas, I started with warrior, warrior, settler, stonehenge. With my 2nd city supplying the workers.

Same here, it depends on the map.

Going for the settler first before a worker is like building a settler before a granary in civ3. It gets you your second city faster but your fourth city will definitely be slower. In the long run, getting those food bonuses and hills improved will get your settlers out all that more quickly. Plus you get some time to explore and research resource-revealing techs before you decide where to place your cities.

The only time I don't build worker first is when I'm spiritual and I have a coastal food resource. That lets me build a workboat while growing and grabbing a religion. Since I'll be slower to get to worker techs and can still get the turbo growth a developed food reource gives you via the workboat, the worker is less urgent.

My personal best so far is with Saladin:

Warrior, warrior, worker, settler, archer, Stonehenge, wall, granary, Oracle...