I've decided to start a discussion that will, hopefully, teach us all about the power of the worker. This may be obvious, but I feel the need to start this discussion anyway.

The worker is, arguably, the most powerful unit in the whole game. Over-shadowing Praets, Immortals, Modern Armor, workers are the spine of the empire. Of course, I'm not talking in attack/defense strength (since civilian units like workers don't have such strength). I'm talking purely in the power to effect the entire game.

This all came about from my last 4 games. My previous build order was generally warrior/warrior/warrior/worker/chop worker/settler. I'd use the 4 (including the initial) warriors to kill whoever was close to me and take their capital. Obviously, this is only effective on levels Prince and below... or is it even effective there?

My recent games have gone worker/warrior/worker/warrior/settler/worker and I've never had more powerful games. Every game where I start with an early worker and then chop out a second shortly afterwards, I notice a superior tech pace, better land (peacefully even), larger military, and an overall stronger empire. I've also noticed that, in general, when I have an average of 2 workers per city, my games are usually smoother and I can concentrate on how I can best win instead of how I can best keep up.

I understand this is probably obvious (more workers = more improvements), but I feel like, perhaps, the worker is the more overlooked of units for those of us who play levels Prince and below. Defense matters, but defensive units obsolete. Workers never obsolete.

So I end on this assertion, and please feel free to challenge me: The worker is the most important single unit in this game bar none.

Worker first is generally the way to go, as working non-improved tile is subpar.
And as mentionned by most top-tier players:
"Build more workers"
About 1.5-2 by city (if there's jungle) is a good number.

Bah, workers are so overrated (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=298231).... :D

J/k ..... I guess most players would need a game without workers to fully realize how important they are. We in RR2 pretty much struggled badly until we captured justinian cap and the jewish shrine.... and we also let justinian to capture a barb city on the other side of our empire just for him to build a road through our land :D .

The truth is that improved( and worked ) land is power in Civ IV and you can't get it without workers or fast workers, yours or from the other civs

Nice SG, r_rolo1. I'm at work and can't read the whole thread without getting caught :D. So I'll take a look when I get home. It's amazing how overlooked workers are for those of us Prince and lower (at least from what i've seen/read). I feel like I could jump up 2 levels with the scores I'm getting on Noble now with a heavy emphasis on workers. Tonight, I'm about to win a domination in the late 1200s (which is the earliest I've ever gotten one besides a Rome/Pangaea map).

Of course, I won't be skipping Prince (yea me on Monarch is :lol:), but I think I'll be holding a much better hand when moving up tomorrow.

Yeah seriously, worker first. Very rare for you to want to do anything different, except occassionally workboat. (for the same reason)

If land is power, then workers are your power lines.

This all came about from my last 4 games. My previous build order was generally warrior/warrior/warrior/worker/chop worker/settler. I'd use the 4 (including the initial) warriors to kill whoever was close to me and take their capital. Obviously, this is only effective on levels Prince and below... or is it even effective there?

At higher levels, you aren't going to kill neighbors with warriors--they start with archers. However, if you play a high enough level that the AI starts with a worker, you can build warriors to steal workers rather than building them yourself.

So you build the warrior, find an AI, and sneak attack him to take a worker. Then you attack some animal or scout with the warrior. If it lives (65-70% chance), give it woodsman1. Then wander around forests and let yourself get attacked by a couple more animals (which is nearly completely safe except against the occasional lucky bear) to get woodsman2. Then go back to the AI city and steal every worker he builds.

The end result is that
1) you get a bunch of free workers--which you reasonably argued are the most powerful units in the game.
2) you severely stunt the AIs growth. He may not get a second city out

Point (2) is a mixed blessing. It opens up more room for you to grow, but depending on the geography, it may allow another AI to develop faster. Sometimes you can settle your own 2nd and 3rd cities in a way to cordon off the vacant land. (The barbs will settle it if you don't fogbust, but who cares about them). Sometimes, it's actually not entirely bad to have a powerful neighbor if you can get up to friendly--the two of you can trade with each other to run away from the competition, and eventually make it a two-man game.

I find that sometimes 1 worker can handle my capitol and then move on to city 2. So the happy cap can be a factor on how many workers you need, also the lay of th eland and the total turn number of the improvements you need to make. You should spend as few turns as possible in building the worker because that stops city growth. Whipping/stealing your workers may be the way to go for some civs.

Does this build order hold true in all circumstances (understanding the work boat exception)?

worker/warrior/worker/warrior/settler/worker

My question is, do you always have enough worker techs to make two workers in the first three builds? I guess by building two workers, you are in a better position to chop a settler and hook up the second city if it's not on a river or coast. There's nothing I hate more though, than having a worker with nothing to do, with no bronze working and no wheel and a dead warrior out there in the fields...

Does this build order hold true in all circumstances (understanding the work boat exception)?

worker/warrior/worker/warrior/settler/worker

My question is, do you always have enough worker techs to make two workers in the first three builds? I guess by building two workers, you are in a better position to chop a settler and hook up the second city if it's not on a river or coast. There's nothing I hate more though, than having a worker with nothing to do, with no bronze working and no wheel and a dead warrior out there in the fields...

No, it doesn't. Generally you want to grow your capital into working the best high yield tiles before putting down a settler, but like everything in civ, it depends. If your capital only has wheat and sheep but your first new city will have pigs and corn, get the settler out earlier (because corn/pigs are probably higher yield than the 3rd resource your cap would work). Ultimately you want your empire to work the best tiles it can as soon as it can, so your build order will change depending on the map around you.

I usually play on quick and normal, where I obviously start with a worker or two. Generally, I agree with budweiser - due to the happy cap, my first worker can usually pull double duty, especially on quick. I also don't think you necessarily need to tech Bronze for chopping right away. I find that quickly improving a pig or corn plus a FP or hill is just as powerful in boosting settler and worker production.

Lately, I've been trying marathon a bit, and I seem to get better starts with warrior / warrior / worker; I mean, growing before I build a worker. Do any of you more experienced players have thoughts on this? I'm way too lazy to do careful math, but there's something about early tech pace, builds and worker actions that seems a bit off comparatively.

The switch from normal to marathon and the jump from noble to prince are the two things that are giving me trouble with that early build order. Building units relatively faster than buildings on marathon compared to normal (and having roads take 6 turns) makes for a rough adjustment.

After reading up on the differences between marathon and normal, and how the scaling is different, I have been tweaking my build order and research paths. I have come to the conclusion that beeling Poly or Med with the intent of founding an early religon will leave me with idle workers if I stay with the worker/warrior/worker initial build order.

So I end on this assertion, and please feel free to challenge me: The worker is the most important single unit in this game bar none.

No challenge here. I agree with you completely. As others have commented, one of the most-quoted tips from experienced players to the n00bs is: Build more workers.

In fact, I have read arguments that India's Fast Worker is the most powerful UU in the game. It's an upgrade to the standard Worker, which is already a critical unit. It never goes obsolete, and it doesn't require any special resources to build. Fast Workers FTW! ;)

I'm not sure that I agree with the Fast-Workers-Uber-Alles argument ... but then again, I've never actually played India.

The switch from normal to marathon and the jump from noble to prince are the two things that are giving me trouble with that early build order. Building units relatively faster than buildings on marathon compared to normal (and having roads take 6 turns) makes for a rough adjustment.

After reading up on the differences between marathon and normal, and how the scaling is different, I have been tweaking my build order and research paths. I have come to the conclusion that beeling Poly or Med with the intent of founding an early religon will leave me with idle workers if I stay with the worker/warrior/worker initial build order.

Well, i never go for an early religion unless I have a high commerce tile / FIN leader. Regarding the build order, I wasn't suggesting that it was done that way EVERY time. In fact, that's often sub-optimal with regards to growth and working improved tiles. However, the settler and 3rd worker are often chopped/whipped and with all the food improvements, the city grows extremely quickly. So, if I have floodplains or several food resources, I'm more likely to go with the worker/warrior/worker/warrior/settler/worker order since the city will grow into itself relatively fast.

Workers are by far the best build at the beginning unless you have seafood and the fishing tech.

With that said, let me point out that neither regular workers, nor the overhyped Indian Fast Workers, are satifactory in defending your empire from leaders such as Shaka!

Trust me on this :D

A key thing to remember about marathon is that workers are effectively 2/3 the cost on normal, 120 hammers versus 60 hammers. Therefore it is quicker to build you own workers and that means your capital can resume growth quicker. The lower relative cost of workers makes stealing them less effective on marathon.

Furthermore it takes 3 times as long to improve a tile but workers still only lose one turn moving onto a hill or into a wood. So to improve a hill in normal it takes 1 turn to move onto it and 4 turns to mine, while on marathon it takes 1 turn to move onto and 12 to mine for a total of 13 turns instead of the 15 turns you'd expect from scaling up the normal turns. That's a 14% reduction in time taken and that effect escalates as the worker finishes one job and then starts the next one sooner and finishes that job even quicker. This means you can get away with fewer workers on marathon to do the same amount of improvements. So they're cheaper and you can use less of them.

Concerning reasons not to build a worker first. Here are a few ideas when you might want to diverge from the normally strong worker-first strategy. If you start with hunting building another scout can be effective and then you'll need a warrior to guard you capital or maybe steal a worker (to slow down a neighbour's development). If you go for an early religion or two (say Izzy on a lake) then growth might be prefered especially if going for a double holy city where a second lake tile would speed up research.

Uncle JJ--So workers are effectively 2/3 cost on marathon. But it takes much less time (relatively speaking) to steal them and bring them home. So if anything, I think worker stealing is MORE effective on marathon. I usually declare on 2 neighbors and turn their capitals into worker farms. I rarely end up having (due to isolation or some quirk of geography) to build any of my own. In fact, I often end up executing some captured workers if I have to maintain the choke for a really long time and my empire hasn't grown enough to support the maintenance cost of more workers.

So workers are effectively 2/3 cost on marathon.

I thought civilian units were still 3x the normal speed :hammers: cost :confused:

The problem I always seem to have on Marathon if I build a worker first is that I either have nothing for them to do when they're built (teching takes longer in comparison) or it will take too long to get to the second thing they can improve.

Frequently the start BFC is almost filled with trees and without Mining as a starting tech it seems to take forever to reach BW. I'm not very used to Marathon but when I tried it recently I practically found myself needing to spam archers and rush another AI just so I could lose some unit costs! I even start with a barracks and granary if possible but it still always comes down to spamming units as they're all that's left to build.

With marathon, I'm guessing the optimal starting strategy will usually involve working tiles that provide any commerce at all. I've found myself considering 1:food:2:commerce: tiles pretty reasonable at that early stage.

With marathon, I'm guessing the optimal starting strategy will usually involve working tiles that provide any commerce at all. I've found myself considering 1:food:2:commerce: tiles pretty reasonable at that early stage.

That's exactly it. Working a 1:food: 2:commerce: tile has you popping your worker at an ideal time with respect to getting that tech.

BFC aren't always filled with trees. But the worker-first tactic usually is best used when combined with already having a useful tech and resource in your capital BFC. For example, agriculture and having corn/wheat/rice in your BFC. You definitely want to get a worker ASAP. Gems/Gold/Silver is another resource in your BFC that you'll want to get a worker first especially if starting with mining. Even if not, mining is a cheap worker tech and you'll probably get it before getting the worker.

EDIT: Some start tech/BFC combos make worker first a silly move, though. Like Hunting/Mysticism with no Phants/deer/fur/etc in the BFC. In this case, I'll probably go warrior/worker to let the city grow a bit while teching whatever worker-tech is smart for the resources in the BFC. Any civ starting with the Wheel is worth building a worker first IMO, since if there's absolutely NOTHING for him to do, he can at least start building roads to the resources while you tech towards getting them.

The worker is, arguably, the most powerful unit in the whole game. Over-shadowing Praets, Immortals, Modern Armor, workers are the spine of the empire. Of course, I'm not talking in attack/defense strength (since civilian units like workers don't have such strength). I'm talking purely in the power to effect the entire game.


I think your right on that :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXmaVSsIDCg

I thought civilian units were still 3x the normal speed :hammers: cost :confused:

It's weird. The settler on marathon does cost 3 times the normal cost, 300 hammers is lot and seems to take forever :rolleyes:. But all other units, military units, workers, workboats, missionaries, spies, and executives are all 2 times the normal hammer costs. The lower costs of spies and missionaries can be said to favour (slightly) games based on espionage, religious shrines or culture victory. Marathon is so different from normal I don't consider them comparable in any meaningful sense.

I think your right on that :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXmaVSsIDCg

Oh god. I've never held back so much laughter in my life! My boss is looking at me like I'm insane. I'm lucky she didn't catch me LOL!

Marathon is so different from normal I don't consider them comparable in any meaningful sense.

It's wierd. It takes me less time to finish marathon games. My last 2 marathon games: 4-6 hours. My last 2 normal games: 7 and 8.5 hours. I'm always so nervous in my normal games (because 1 mistake on normal = 3 mistakes on marathon) so I scrutinize everything. It works out, I still win (albeit later), but I enjoy Marathon games more.

yes, worker is the strongest.
and that make india shines.

Also the Mausoleum is a tremendous UB.

Gandhi is one of the best warmongers. Asoka is up there too.

How do you worker steal with a warrior when you move next to the worker your turn ends? The worker then moves away. You need to have promoted warriors, extra move in forest/jungle or hills to pull this off.

You need luck scoottr. I don't know how many times I have scouted a very close neighbor but never saw a worker to steal, even with the help of a hill and running around his city. It's like the worker sees you coming and keeps moving around to deliberately miss you! Sometimes you see the worker on the outside ring of the AI bfc improving a tile but from my experience this doesn't happen nearly enough. I'd rather just build my own workers because if you don't get lucky then your further behind.

How do you worker steal with a warrior when you move next to the worker your turn ends? The worker then moves away. You need to have promoted warriors, extra move in forest/jungle or hills to pull this off.
I suppose I should let somone that actually does this answer...
I think it is done by being at peace, being next to the worker with movement point, declare war...
(or as you say, woodsman II warrior)

war, take worker with first move, go back home.

One improved pig: 4 food surplus (the guy working it gobbles up 2).
One unimproved food resource or a flood plain: 1 surplus.

A worker is going to do much more than improving a single resource... like chopping out additional workers/settlers for nice snowball effects.

Very true. I find it's usually best go gobble up as much land as possible with max emphasis on horizontal growth in most cases - more workers lead to more land. Too many players for my liking prioritize working cottages and vertical growth when they should be crashing their economy. They tend to think the quicker they work cottages the better they will be - this is usually false. 15 cities will eventually pass and steam roll 6-8 earlier developed cities.

Use the worker to push the expansion in most cases.

if you start with a lot of forest in your capital, two worker start before growing is essential

if you start with a military resource in your capital (bronze or horses), two worker start is essential

if you start with alot of seafood in your capital, two worker start is essential (build mines or chop work boats)

if you play multiplayer (which i almost always do), two worker start is essential unless you get attacked and switch over to warrior / archer if you do

in other words, always start with a worker and 99% of the time second build is also a worker, using the first to chop out a second worker after getting bronze

Very true. I find it's usually best go gobble up as much land as possible with max emphasis on horizontal growth in most cases - more workers lead to more land. Too many players for my liking prioritize working cottages and vertical growth when they should be crashing their economy. They tend to think the quicker they work cottages the better they will be - this is usually false. 15 cities will eventually pass and steam roll 6-8 earlier developed cities.

Use the worker to push the expansion in most cases.

Not exactly sure I follow. "Vertical" means city infrastructure, and "horizontal" means REX?

I agree. Worker rules.

Not exactly sure I follow. "Vertical" means city infrastructure, and "horizontal" means REX?

Vertical expansion means growing the population of your cities, usually by adopting the HR or Rep civics. Bigger cities are more productive and usually have a significantly better economy, meanwhile they of course claim less land and resources. So an empire of 5 cities with an average size of 10 is roughly equivalent to a "horizontal" empire with 10 cities with an average size of 5.

So an empire of 5 cities with an average size of 10 is roughly equivalent to a "horizontal" empire with 10 cities with an average size of 5.

Only temporarily. Eventually the person with more land and more cities will greatly outproduce the former, hence quicker space races with 30 cities than someone with only 8, more units produced from 20 cities than someone with 10, etc. If left unchecked, the person with more land always comes out ahead.

So it's important to know when to go vertical and when to look to the horizon.

It is only a temporary thing, until the economy is sorted out. I often use the vertical expansion strategy and limit the number of cities early on as long as I have copper or iron. Once I have HR, courthouses and a load of catapults it is time to expand and I attack the AI which has overexpanded and crashed its economy. The AI is a lot more powerful than my empire according to the power graph but its economy is crap and it's military is backward and spread out. Most of its power is stuck in garrison troops the other side of its empire. So my SoD is concentrated power that just rips through 4 or 5 cities (before he gets longbows) and then I make peace for gold or a cheap tech. Now I might have 5 good cities and 5 crap ones but my economy can deal with the costs and research fast. That AI is left with a bad economy, 8 crap cities and is still backward, plus its military power is broken.

A concentrated vertical expansion can be used to overrun a much bigger but weak empire that has overexpanded and is underdeveloped. The attack has to be timed correctly but it can a very effective way to get land the AI has developed for you. Meanwhile your economy is well established and sound and can afford the new cities.

AS you know JJ it's all situational. The only real benefit I can see of fewer cities and an immediate vertical strategy is on Deity and perhaps some testy Immortal maps. The reason?

Research, not production. If someone has 5 cities at 10 pop average and another person has 10 cities at 5 pop the only advantage vertical has gained is research. Most cities don't offer more than 12-15H. This is important because the 5 city player will probably not have more than 3 production cities early in the game while a 10 city empire could easily have 7-8 cities which produce 9H or more.

So although the Vertical has the same population points that doesn't equate to better production. In my example they would have very close to 50% less production. It then becomes a cat and mouse game as to who can gobble up more cities and turn their land into an earlier powerhouse.

If you're talking about fewer cities to a beeline tech you then face the problem of having many many fewer cities than a horizontal person does and are forced to wait for a good tech. In that time the horizontal approach could easily have grabbed so much land that they are in a much stronger position. I'll take more cities vs fewer cities on any level besides Deity.