If the city grows in 1 turn, would it be worthwhile to produce a settler/worker/work boat in it or wait? (Assuming you have a place to put the city and and available tile for city growth) I think the answer is wait. What if it grows to the next size in 2 turns, 3 turns, 4 turns, etc.? At what point is it worthwhile not to wait and just go ahead and produce it? How fast must the setter/workboat/worker be produced in compared to the city size growth rate for it to be worthwhile?

It seems to me that if you dont start out with any workers, and your land can be improved agriculturally, then it is worthwhile first to build the worker and develop the land. If you do start out with a worker, warrior or scout finds one in a hut, lets say, do you produce the settler or wait? I think if you can chop a forest, then build the settler, otherwise wait. Workboats are interesting because they only develop 1 sea square with fish or crab in it and the city still grows while you produce it, so in the short term, its the best of both worlds, but in the longer term, you lose the unit.

I know its good to expand your population, both in the cities and by the # of cities you have. For example, get into philospical debate, questions like Would you rather have a city at size 3 or two cities at size 1? Which could you grow you the population with the fastest? Which could produce the most? I also know alot of it depends on resources and such.

It is well worth delaying starting the production of the settler 1 turn as long as you have an unused tile that gives better output than 2 food, 0 hammers, 0 commerce. If it has more hammers or food than that the settler will be produced faster than it would if you didn't let the city grow. I'd also be happy to trade 1 turn on a settler production for 1+ commerce per turn.

For higher turn delays, its a simple calculation if the extra tile gives additional hammers or food. Just calculate how long it will take to build the settler with the extra poduction, subtract the number of turns you have to delay, and compare to the production time without the extra tile. For cases where the tile does not give extra food or hammerss, but does give extra commerce, it's more complicated, but unless the commerce gain is very major (e.g. using a gem mine on grassland) I wouldn't delay the settler that much.

If the city grows in 1 turn, would it be worthwhile to produce a settler/worker/work boat in it or wait? (Assuming you have a place to put the city and and available tile for city growth) I think the answer is wait. What if it grows to the next size in 2 turns, 3 turns, 4 turns, etc.? At what point is it worthwhile not to wait and just go ahead and produce it? How fast must the setter/workboat/worker be produced in compared to the city size growth rate for it to be worthwhile?

Just to mention, work boats don't stop your city from growing.

Just to mention, work boats don't stop your city from growing.
They do if you work plains forest tiles to speed them up.

After careful thought, please tell me what you guys think: If you have more food surplus than production, then grow your city first by all means... build a warrior or a scout or a workboat in the mean time, if you have the same amount of food surplus as production then build a worker ASAP and develop the land. Also, chop for additional production... even chop a settler, worker, or workboat, if you can. If you have more than enough production compared to food -- then go Settler crazy!!! because production will help settler growth while it wont help City Growth.

I won't build a worker/settler in a small but growing city if I can finish some other needed unit in the amount of time that my city would be growing.

Usually, this means that if I've built my first two warriors in city #1 and there are still 4 turns to growth to pop 4, I'll build another warrior or two to let my city reach pop 4, then build worker/settler. I don't think you can have too many warriors in the very early stages. They'll either be popped by the barbs/AI or I can use them to scout or defend newly planted cities.

The main question is if you have the proper tiles and techs to exploit a worker. If you have agriculture + corn in your city or husbandry + pigs or something, by all means churn out that worker. That's like a +3 food bonus or something. But if you're stuck in the stone age, you'll just have a city and a worker who can't build anything.

Generally, I only start building workers right after a city has grown by 1, and don't start building settlers till it reaches size 3.

Generally, I only start building workers right after a city has grown by 1...

Lot's of players share this sentiment. I'm curious why. I've never seen much benefit in growing another population just so they can work a forested grassland or somesuch...

It makes sense if you have no worker tasks available and are going for a religion. Or if you build a workboat.

But those are the only exceptions I can think of...

Lot's of players share this sentiment. I'm curious why. I've never seen much benefit in growing another population just so they can work a forested grassland or somesuch...

Some leaders start with nothing for a worker to do until mining or BW, if you beeline for BW. It really does depend on your start, though.

For example, I am playing my first time as Alexander and was utterly shocked to find that my first worker (first unit built) couldn't do anything (starts with hunting and fishing... no campsites available in my quadrant of the continent, only corn and sheep and plantation/winery spots). I beelined for BW and picked up mining on the way, but one hill had forest and the other had sheep on it (I didn't think about putting a mine on the sheep hill and replacing it when the pasture came available, but this is only my third Monarch game).

edit- BTW, I usually chop my first settler to get copper, if it didn't pop up in my first city radius, and to have another city providing tech from commerce.

My $0.02,
SR
- Now playing Alexander, SP, Monarch, Standard Continents conditions, standard speed, 8 civs.

For example, I am playing my first time as Alexander and was utterly shocked to find that my first worker (first unit built) couldn't do anything (starts with hunting and fishing... no campsites available in my quadrant of the continent, only corn and sheep and plantation/winery spots).

With Corn, Pigs, or Sheep available, I'd still start out with a worker while researching toward Agriculture or Animal Husbandry. There are very few situations in which your first worker absolutely cannot start improving a resource. The biggest exception would be seafood but, even then, I prefer land-based food improvements to sea-based and would build a worker first if I could give him something to do.

Now, if, as DaveMcW suggested, you're going for a religion, then I could see how a worker first may not be able to do anything. But, in general, if my first worker won't be able to improve anything without additional research, I don't go for a religion (I very rarely go for the early religions anyway). Bronze first is a very good exception to the rule, though. If I go Bronze first, there's a decent chance I'm looking to get the pop-rushing started early. You grow to 2 pop while researching up to Bronze, start dumping some hammers into a worker, switch to slavery and pop-rush the worker. It's a slightly more efficient way of building your first worker (who should look to improve a food resource ASAP).

I know I should have played it differently, but my neighbor, Saladin, had the only nearby marble spot under his second city and I was attempting my second CS slingshot. I figured the axe rush was the only way to get that resource but I admit I wasn't really playing to the strengths of my position (a massive +4 :food:, +2 :hammers: +1 :commerce: in just two tile improvements). I even had copper, and a floodplains in the second city level 1 radius and pigs in the fat cross and 2 Gold and a floodplain in city site 3, if I can beat the enemy to it. It should be a cakewalk to CS but I haven't slingshot yet.

malekithe, I like the way you suggested to rush the first worker. It would have fit perfectly into my nefarious plans.

Lot's of players share this sentiment. I'm curious why. I've never seen much benefit in growing another population just so they can work a forested grassland or somesuch...

True.

But what if that 2nd population will be able to work a flood plain? The 3F means less time spent building the worker, and an extra commerce point throughout the duration of that build.

I think there's a few other special resources that, if you wait to the 2nd population is created will allow a similar outcome.

But what if that 2nd population will be able to work a flood plain? The 3F means less time spent building the worker, and an extra commerce point throughout the duration of that build.
The thing is, you spent 8 turns growing to size 2 - assuming you had another 3F tile to work at size 1. And that second flood plain only reduces the build time on the worker from 15 turns to 12. So even in this case, your worker is coming out 5 turns later.

Yeah, you get some extra commerce out of it. But 5 extra worker turns are likely to make up for that.

But what if that 2nd population will be able to work a flood plain? The 3F means less time spent building the worker, and an extra commerce point throughout the duration of that build.

I think there's a few other special resources that, if you wait to the 2nd population is created will allow a similar outcome.

That 3F tile has an identical effect on the worker as a 2F 1H tile would. Namely, it will add only 1 additional production point to the existing 4 production points. So, you delayed starting your initial worker by 8-11 turns in order to be able to build him in 2-3 fewer turns. I'm not a fan of that trade-off if, in those spare 5-8 turns, your worker can improve a food resource. The 1 extra commerce from the floodplain is mostly inconsequential. You'd likely be getting 10 commerce with only one population. That extra 1 commerce only amounts to a 10% gain, and only for a very short duration.

Also, another time I'd possibly delay my first worker is when I know there's a decent chance of stealing one from a neighbor. That should be a non-issue at lower level games, though, where your opponents don't start out with a worker. In those situations, you're going to want your first worker before the stolen one could get back to you.

I never, ever delay my first worker for the sole purpose of getting to work an extra tile earlier. There must always be some other compelling reason; but those reasons are fairly rare.

Well maybe my strategy is a bit off. The way I see it, I need to have border cities expand without wasting their time on Obelisk. So I try to build stonehenge or get a cultural leader. Usually I'll do Stonehenge with Gandhi since he's industrious. That means I have only mining and mysticism to start off. I like getting Meditation first so I can have a religion, then I do BW.

So with that strategy, there's not much for a worker to do for the first 20 turns or so, unless I have a mine, and even then it's not really worth making a worker for. But I find I just don't miss a worker that much in those early stages.

Remember, stunting a city growth means it'll always be 10 turns behind everyone else throughout the game. Can someone point out the hole in my strategy?

Remember, stunting a city growth means it'll always be 10 turns behind everyone else throughout the game. Can someone point out the hole in my strategy?

Well, in addition to the fact that getting an early religion is a crap-shoot on higher difficulties (and of dubious value), there's a gaping hole in that statement I've quoted above. If you're stunting your city growth for the express purpose of improving a food tile, there's a decent chance you will come out ahead in the end. I would argue, instead, that by not producing a worker when there are useful tasks to be done, you are falling further behind.

Well this takes us back to the other issue - how do you expand the borders of your non-capital cities in the beginning? The reason I don't make workers when I start off as Gandhi is that with just Mining to start off, there's not much for them to do. And I like Gandhi because he can build Stonehenge easily and take care of this border issue. Also, since he has a fast worker, he can catch up on development even though the worker gets built later.

But if there are strategies to expand the borders of new cities without having to build an obelisk, I'd certainly like to hear them.

Husbandry - can you get to that with Agriculture or do you need Hunting for that?

But if there are strategies to expand the borders of new cities without having to build an obelisk, I'd certainly like to hear them.

First of all, you don't have to expand the borders of new cities right away. You can plan your placement knowing that you won't be able to work the outer ring for a while. If you need copper now, don't place a new city 2 tiles away from the copper.

When you do want to expand them, though, there are many options available. Rushing an obelisk is often attractive as is chopping or pop-rushing a library. Completing a trade route to a neighboring civilization so their religion can spread is another alternative (though less reliable). You can found a later religion (Confucianism is a favorite). You could get up to Caste System and run an artist for a couple of turns in a new city. You could beeline to drama in order to either build theaters or take the culture slider up a notch. Early religion or stonehenge are far from the only (or even the best) ways to expand your borders.


Husbandry - can you get to that with Agriculture or do you need Hunting for that?

Animal Husbandry requires either Agriculture or Hunting. Getting both first will allow you to research it faster, though.

Also, since he has a fast worker, he can catch up on development even though the worker gets built later.

You can catch up on completing the improvements, but you won't catch up on having enjoyed the benefits of the improvements sooner. I don't believe there is any faster method than being Craetive or using 'Henge/Obelisks for early border growth. Folks who skip these things are focusing more on placing additional cities with the most vital resources in the first ring instead of maximizing resources per city which also tends to have everything in the second ring forcing you to grow. Make sure the Copper is in the first ring and you can afford to pop the borders much later with a Library, Temple, or Theater.

Ah ok. I tried using Frederick this time, much better. Since he has hunting, you can research either husbandry or agriculture based on what tiles you have. Then you can just time a worker to exploit the tech as you discover it.

You know, I think I'm just used to Civ1/2 rules, where workers (settlers in 1/2) require food from the host city for maintenance. Or Civ 3 where they actually reduce the city size.

On a side note, it looks like you don't immediately need religion either, so beelining for CoL, esp. if you build Oracle, is a good way to grab Confucianism. You get it just in time to keep your cities happy as they grow to 5 or 6. I'm still a fan of getting an early religion - the money benefits of a holy city can hold you up while you work your cottages.

At any rate, thanks for the tip. :)

Advantage of going warrior/worker at size 2 means you get a second explorer earlier so more chance of popping huts. Advantage of going worker at size 1 means you start improving tiles earlier. It depends on how soon you're going to have improvable squares and priority of exploring vs earlier growth.