Does anyone starts their game with settler first build? If so why?

I heard that it's doable with imperialistic civs especially if capital is settled on plains hill but my rationale is better to have 1 city size 5 working resources by turn 40 (normal speed) than 3 cities size 1 still building their first worker.

My understanding is that it is somewhat justified by weak starting techs (have a hard time improving specials in the early turns) and enough hammers to get the bonus.

My problem with it is the maintenance hit on higher levels really slows down getting to certain techs...like pottery/writing.

StuntedAzrael,

I believe it was mathmatically proven that Worker first or Growing to size 2 can yield a faster Settler in most situations.

a faster Settler

Settler first will always yield a faster settler.

But everything else will suffer.

Settler first will always yield a faster settler.

But everything else will suffer.

Expansionists with wet corn next to them come close, but I think it will cut close to 2-3 turns afaik.

Sometimes it's used on Deity in packed environment to grab a spot that would be unavailable otherwise. Especially if a fast worker wouldn't have much to do because the needed techs take quite some time to discover:

Charly, HRE, is my favorit leader for playing on crowded maps (at least on pangea). His traits and starting techs allow some very funny and different strats, backed by a very powerfull UB.

1. You start with a scout, which is great for huts
2. You have a decent chance on a religion
3. Settle on a plains hill, work another 2 hammers tile, do a settler first start while teching on a reli. You will be surprised how incredible fast you will have your settler out (about 15 turns), Go warrior or archer then worker in in your second city, do another settler in cap immediately after the first one is done, same build in 3rd city then in second, warrior/archer in capital after settlers... ...you will have 3 cities BEFORE barbs enter your territory any you very likely will be even on deity among the fastest civs to have 3 cities (around turn 33):)

Settle these cities aggessively towards the AI, pref. on hills and stuff some archers in, you should do fine, also power-wise. Use your advantage and try and keep the lead in expansion. Crawl somehow towards CoL with rathauses and you are fine

For that reason, IMP is a great trait to offset weak starting techs/a weak starting location if you can scrape together 4 base hammers from the start. I have founded multiple cities before workers in extreme cases. For similar reasons, Charly and Justinian can shoot for an early religion without suffering much economically.

Settler first will always yield a faster settler.

But everything else will suffer.

It depends on the land, really. But looking at it in my head, I think I was wrong. I think for MOST cases a Settler first is faster, but for some cases Worker first or Grow to size 2 -> Settler may be viable.

I could definatly see going settler first with justian on some maps... Especially if you have like pigs + cow + all forests and corn + gold nearby or something and you are able to work at least 4 hammers.

For that reason, IMP is a great trait to offset weak starting techs/a weak starting location if you can scrape together 4 base hammers from the start. I have founded multiple cities before workers in extreme cases. For similar reasons, Charly and Justinian can shoot for an early religion without suffering much economically.

This is very interesting. Going for an early religion and compesating for lack of worker techs with an early settler.

I personally have never done the settler-first strategy, since I always suck when playing as Imperalistic leaders, but I would definitely do it if it was deity pangea and I settled on a plains hill with a plains hill stone or marble (or vice versa, same thing really) for 5 hammers. Maybe even with 4 hammers.

As Snaaty said, Being imperalistic with the right hammer configuration you can you can get 2 settlers out 2800 BC. That's early enough to get archers in before the barbs enter borders even on deity so this opening is very strong. I still wouldn't go for an early reli as you'll need archery and bw (for whipping workers at size 2). Once the first workers come out you'll probably need AH/AG as well so still much to research.

Only good if that gives you a critical site. Everything else sucks.

I guess starting with a scout could prove useful or if you immediately settle the capital and see 2 gold resources just out of your reach, with a river + desert tile (floodplains!).

@Duckweed, hard to say really, these 3 cities will indeed stay quite small and helpless for some time as they're working unimproved tiles. A more conventional worker first start gives you a good capital which pumps out settlers with ease. With such a capital it's not unusual to have 3 cities ~ 1800 BC anyway. But by that time the first improvements will be up near capital in the settler first empire too and the other cities will be a bit more advanced, should be possible to have whipped a worker in each by that time.

Blocking value is usually important so i think it'll be a good start most of the time. There are all sorts of variations on this theme btw, i remember a game where i was imp and started with seafood, started settler switched wb finished settler just before decay started worker. Settled the settler near gold ~ 3000 bc. Had a very good start this way.

^My new thread is a very good case to test the difference. Try Worker->Settler at pop2->Settler and calculate the gain, you'll see how is the settler 1st opening.

It's easy to prove which one is better. First of all, both :food: and :hammers: get converted to :hammers: for both settler and worker. Secondly the city works best yield square for that task. In best case scenario the second tile being worked is just as high-yield as the first one.

I'll use marathon speed game as an example here.

So here we go. Regardless of what the initial squares produce, settler will always take 300 - 120 = 180 more hammers to build. If Expansive or Imperialistic traits are present, only core :hammers: get +50% bonus, so 2:food: 2:hammers: production city will make (imperialistic) settlers at 5:hammers: speed and (expansive) workers at 4:hammers: speed. Question is therefore how long it will take for worker to get meaningful improvement build.

Case one: settler before worker.

Time taken is 300 / 2X (where 2X is production of two squares in the best case scenario above.)

Case two: worker, then settler.

Time taken is 120 / 2X + 300 - 2X * Y + [(300 - 2X * Y) / (X + Z)]

120 / 2X is time to produce one worker with starting squares
300 - 2X * Y is the time taken to produce settler with starting squares for period Y before improvement is build by worker.
[(300 - 2X * Y) / (X + Z)] is what is left of the settler production reduced by that starting square yield X and improved square yield Z.

We can then take away x from the equation by asking which Y and Z values produce settler in case 2 at same speed as case 1, thus

120 / 2X + 300 - 2X * Y + [(300 - 2X * Y) / (X + Z)] = 300 / 2X
or
60 / X + 300 - 2XY + [(300 - 2XY / (XZ)] = 150 / X


Complicated? Not at all, since Y and Z values are something everyone can read up on civilopedia!

^My new thread is a very good case to test the difference. Try Worker->Settler at pop2->Settler and calculate the gain, you'll see how is the settler 1st opening.I may do that i haven't played it yet but read Snaaty's comments. Should be an interesting comparision. Worker first, settlers out at size 2 means ~ 20 turns delay for first settler, the first city can still be settled without escort (watch out for panters and wolves :lol:, you need to fogbust your destination) Second will need escort now since barbs will enter borders at that time.

Without trying this'll get you started sooner in an ideal world i think as the worker more or less doubles (or even triples) output of the tiles you work but now you may be too late to block off some critical site. But that was already mentioned as being the advantage of double settler first.

@Duckweed, I tested both scenarios, worker first->grow 2->settler ->grow 3 (because of 3 resources) -> settler is indeed far superior to settler-> settler first. I had suspected it to be faster but not by this much. So if i continue your challenge it'll be with this save :D.

Spoiler until ~2400 bc about Duckweed's challenge

But i almost lost the imo crucial rice/ivory/sugar site. 2 turns later and it would have been gone as Alex's settler was approaching. I had time enough to nick the horse site (on the hill). In the settler->settler first scenario i was only just in time to build archers.
So your observations were spot on. Good start actually as i got AH and archery from huts.

^My new thread is a very good case to test the difference. Try Worker->Settler at pop2->Settler and calculate the gain, you'll see how is the settler 1st opening.

:crazyeye:

Maybe I should have done this. I actually went settler-settler. Yes, 2 straight settlers at size 1 ... and yet the plan seems to be working?!? :crazyeye: I was only playing to see how far behind this start would be. I'll post these results in your thread shortly.

@Duckweed, I tested both scenarios, worker first->grow 2->settler ->grow 3 (because of 3 resources) -> settler is indeed far superior to settler-> settler first. I had suspected it to be faster but not by this much. So if i continue your challenge it'll be with this save :D.

Spoiler until ~2400 bc about Duckweed's challenge

But i almost lost the imo crucial rice/ivory/sugar site. 2 turns later and it would have been gone as Alex's settler was approaching. I had time enough to nick the horse site (on the hill). In the settler->settler first scenario i was only just in time to build archers.
So your observations were spot on. Good start actually as i got AH and archery from huts.


I hope to see your another modern war demonstration.;)

Well need to survive the early game first. This sort of games is not the most relaxing to play. If you go unscathed until bribing time all is well. If one civ attacks you probably all is still well but it's hard to defend against multiple attacks.

Expansionists with wet corn next to them come close, but I think it will cut close to 2-3 turns afaik.

Why would wet corn help? Expansive only helps Worker :hammers:.

Why would double settler first be any good, the question is if settler then worker can be better than worker then grow then settler...

^To steal the best sites, not bothering about defense.

Seems like this would only be useful if you're on a very crowded map with AIs that aren't too warlike.

With no defense i meant settling before barbs enter borders. You can do it on a crowded map with aggressive ais too but you need to settle the cities on hills in that case or they'll be too vulnerable.

Seems like this would only be useful if you're on a very crowded map with AIs that aren't too warlike.

I settled my capital on turn 1 in the deity warmonger challenge and proceeded to create 2 quick settlers and nothing else. I just used the 3 scouts I popped from huts as fogbusting (and, of course, using the help of the AI archers :lol: ). I'm sure that if I didn't do this I would have lost at least one of my two city sites.

Why would wet corn help? Expansive only helps Worker :hammers:.

Last time I checked wet corn has the highest food output to start with. The question was if settler first always gives a faster settler then worker first..

I settled my capital on turn 1 in the deity warmonger challenge and proceeded to create 2 quick settlers and nothing else. I just used the 3 scouts I popped from huts as fogbusting (and, of course, using the help of the AI archers :lol: ). I'm sure that if I didn't do this I would have lost at least one of my two city sites.

Do you think you were better off doing that rather than building a worker first?

I once was playing Genghis Khan, and I didn't have anyand I saw an opportunity to settle my capital on a 3-hammer plains stone tile. I also had a forested plains hill to work right off the bat. 6 hammers * 50% = 9 hammers. 12 turns for a settler, which I settled behind my capital at a nice site on this peninsula, so it was protected from barbs and AI and needed no garrison for a while. 2 turns transit = increased production after 14 turns.

After that, I proceeded play "normally," cranking out *2* workers, building some scouts, etc. That game was phenomenal.

Compare that to worker-first. 6 hammers. 10 turns until worker is finished. Then it's going to take 4-5 turns to build any useful improvement, at least. So that's 14-15 turns for increased production. A little longer than the settler-first. Plus, it's bound to be less of an increased production than settler-first. Even irrigated corn only increased your production by 3 (production defined as food + hammers). If it's non-irrigated corn, or irrigated rice, or god-forbid, non-irrigated rice, then it's much worse. Whereas settling a new city will get you +4 production and +1 commerce (hammer and commerce from base tile, + some forest tile). Plus you get to fogbust with territory.

In extremely special cases like this, I would say settler-first is "the superior." But in general, without the bonuses specific to building settlers, and without the insane # of starting hammers, worker-first is better.

@pi-r8, i also played Duckweed's game, both scenarios. 2 settlers first ensures too critical sites on that map. I tried worker->settler->settler too. This gave me a better position around 2400 bc but i almost lost a site, one turn later and it would have been gone. So the arguments sofar in this thread settler first if you want to grab a critical site otherwise start with a worker hold up very well.

@Zeiter, stone tile + forested plainhill gives an enormous boost to settler production. I would have placed the second city towards the other ais however, time enough to get an archer in before barbs enter borders. A city with an irrigated corn produces more than 2 cities working unimproved tiles btw. It grows much faster after which worker/settler production in this city alone is also faster than worker production in 2 unimproved cities. And you still need to begin with a worker in both your cities, in the worker first scenario you already have one by that time. The difference is significant as i learned from Duckweed's game. Then again your example is more extreme, you're effectively working a 7 H output tile while building a settler in this case from scratch.

^pi-r8, i also played Duckweed's game, both scenarios. 2 settlers first ensures too critical sites on that map. I tried worker->settler->settler too. This gave me a better position around 2400 bc but i almost lost a site, one turn later and it would have been gone. So the arguments sofar in this thread settler first if you want to grab a critical site otherwise start with a worker hold up very well.

What about situations where you either have

a) heavy forest tiles and only one food resource with weak starting techs or

b) you have one of those seafood-heavy starts w/o fishing and limited if any good land food

and are imperialistic?

Also, how could one tell that they need a good site some distance away before building the settler first?

I've considered settler first in the past but have rarely had much success with its advantage via anything but a lucky guess...but it seems that worker first is playing the favorable odds.

I've used Settler first with Justinian up to Immortal level. I wouldn't do it all the time, but if you have rivers and can get at least 4 hammers to start, you can have your two cities finish their workers while you get worker techs done.

A river is nice so that you can found both cities along it for the extra two commerce from trade routes without having to build roads, since you won't have workers yet, even if it means overlapping the fat cross some.

What about situations where you either have

a) heavy forest tiles and only one food resource with weak starting techs or

b) you have one of those seafood-heavy starts w/o fishing and limited if any good land food

and are imperialistic?

Also, how could one tell that they need a good site some distance away before building the settler first?

I've considered settler first in the past but have rarely had much success with its advantage via anything but a lucky guess...but it seems that worker first is playing the favorable odds.I have had B) without very impressive land resources. Settler first researching fishing switch wb with fishing in switch back when wb finished at size 2 works very well. You now have one tile improved near capital and your first settler ~ 3000 bc. With fishing it's probably better to start the wb.

You can't tell but you can sometimes guess from the mapscript that you may have to hurry your settler. The opening of the game is often a bit of a gamble anyway, more so when imperialistic. I don't think i would consider a settler first start if not imperialistic or without >=4H to work from start for the 50% bonus.

I use settler first often as Charlemagne is my favorite. I like to grab land fast or box in an ai at the very start. But I never tried settler>settler. Seems to slow for me.

If you are IMP, you can go settler first if you have the hammers. You can make a warrior or a scout while both cities grow to size 2 at which point you can whip your first workers. I think slavery plays a part in this deal.

If you reseach AH or BW, you can use settler 1 to secure that resource very early, possibly negating the need for archery.

Also, you can use the settler first opening to your advantage on GEM as Julius Caesar. :) Just settle 1 north, and work the highest hammer tile with your other citizen. You have 7:hammers: for the base total, + 3:hammers: for imperialistic. 10 total, and that's not including the city center's free food.

What is this GEM you are talking about?

Giant Earth Map. It's a mod that makes a map that's huger than a huge map. Presumably, like the earth map included on regular CIV, the start locations are fixed (though that's a guess based on DMOC saying anybody using the GEM would always start in the same place with Julius Ceaser)

Although it doesn't make a map quite as large as the frankly insane map that DMOC posted in the 'largest map size anyone's ever WON on' thread.

Giant Earth Map. It's a mod that makes a map that's huger than a huge map. Presumably, like the earth map included on regular CIV, the start locations are fixed (though that's a guess based on DMOC saying anybody using the GEM would always start in the same place with Julius Ceaser)

Although it doesn't make a map quite as large as the frankly insane map that DMOC posted in the 'largest map size anyone's ever WON on' thread.

Yes, starting locations are fixed. The romans start on flatland and there's a 3 hammer hill tile that can be settled up 1 north.

If you're lucky enough to have a plains hill stone/marble nearby with another forested plains hill adjecent, you could go settler first, settle on the plains hill stone/marble, and build nothing but imperialistic settlers at size 1 from the 2nd city! 11 recources/turn at size 1!

This could free up your capitol for other things, like wonderspam or so. You already settled on stone or marble as a bonus for this. Hmmm, does an ind/imp leader exist?

Yes, Augustus... very very solid leader overall :)