I've been starting most of my games "warrior - worker - warrior - settler". This seems to work out OK, but lately I've been wondering if it's really optimal.

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but does anyone have any thoughts on this point?

thanks,


Waldo

The thread 'How do you start? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168006)' might be an interesting read for you.

I also have learnt a lot from reading the Succession Games (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=168) threads.

Talk about the proverbial can of worms...

Well, the main reasoning behind building a warrior rather than a worker or settler first is (a) the city doesn't grow when those last two units are being built; (b) when they are built, they need protection from barbarians; and (c) unless you have a resource nearby that's workable thanks to one of your starting techs, that worker isn't going to have much to do until you discover Bronze Working and/or some worker techs.

So really, it depends on your start. You probably should build a Warrior first, but you may wait even longer and build a second Warrior (or Scout if you have hunting). You should delay the first Worker if you need to do more research to ensure he's useful; and depending on nearby food resources, you may have to wait longer for the city to grow to size 2 or more.

It depends of the situation, but I usualy don't build worker before settler. I prefer fast growing city start. So I am happy if I can find near my starting point some flood plains or oasis or some food resources, something that mean 3 food. If are 2 of those, it is better. If it is adiacent to river and provides 1 gold is even better.
In all this cases I start with worrior and than settler. With some little micromanagement you can finish the worrior exactly when the city reaches the size 3.
If I am targeting cultural victory I build worker just after the settler and than it depends, I can build another worrior or the second settler.
I know, it is very risky this start, but you end up having 3 cities early and the barbarians start to appear later. The only threat early in the game are the wild animals.

If the starting point is on the coast and I have fishing as starting tech and if there are sea rescouces inside city borders I build working boat first than settler, than worrior...

I play Prince, and sometimes i start out with a barracks. It depends on my situation and resources obviously.

I usually don't finish the barracks right away though. I just let it go to grow my city a bit. Then I'll switch to a worker once the capital is getting good.

Then I'll build a settler, and at this point I'll send my initial scout (warrior) back to escort the settler. At this point I work on getting wheel and bronze working.

At this point I finish my barracks, set up my second city..and start pumping axes.

I play prince/monarch. A recent revelation to me is the importance of early commerce. Mining that hillside beside a river, instead of using a forest-grassland, is shockingly large.

Example. You play your capital and get, lets say 16 beakers, at 100%. I use a worker to develop 2 more commerce, so I get 18 beakers/turn. I actually have a more than 10% increase in research. I will get to a 250 beaker tech 2 or three turns ahead of you. In the early game, when you need BW and have to balance improvement vs military techs, this is a crucial advantage.

So, if gold or ivory is around, you can bet I get that puppy pumping out commerce asap. Huge payback.