When, if ever, should you go Worker-Worker?

Zechnophobe · Jul 6, 2011

I think it is pretty much understood that worker is *almost* always the best first build. A few special cases may exist, but they are rare.

The question I've been considering lately, is when should you build a second worker immediately after the first? I used to think this was a terrible idea, but recently had a few starts where it didn't seem so bad. In fact, in at least one, it seemed rather good.

In general, the advantage is gained when you have a very fast growth square (Grass pigs, wet corn) and you cannot necessarily keep up with tile production. This is especially true when you want to do some fast expansion, but want the new cities to immediately work good tiles. You get workers improving tiles that won't immediately be needed.

Also, of course, is the chop benefit. Having a bit of extra worker turns early can let you chop that much faster, making up the short term growth pain of building that second worker.

Thoughts?

warrior38 · Jul 6, 2011

stealing a worker very early can also help

ecuwins · Jul 6, 2011

Agg/Fishing/Wheel starting techs and a ton of flood plain. Assuming you need/want fast cottages.

Mylene · Jul 6, 2011

It's not rare that i do a second one at size 2 before the warrior is finished, but at size 1 i never do 2.

kossin · Jul 6, 2011

I recall a floodplains heavy starting area where I went Worker-Worker. The city was growing too fast for the single worker to keep up.

lymond · Jul 6, 2011

Depending on the start and if I have strong food resources - think wet corn - I will time my second worker and 1s warrior such that I start the worker once the first food is finish - balancing this to growth for the next pop on a warrior - and then finish the worker out when the 1st worker finished the second improvement, which is hopefully food. So basically I when I grow to Size 2 I grow onto and improved tile and the worker 2 finishes very quickly. This has worked quite well for me recently.

Of course, there are several factors in which I would not do this, such as if I'm Expansive, or have decent unimproved tiles to work like high commerce - think FIN oasis or something. Or if I really do need to grow fast to start my first Settler do to close AIs, or if I'm doing a rush. Another factor is simply if having 2 workers is useless if for some reason I have nothing to improve/chop, i.e, no early BW or bad starting techs for my land.

Kid R · Jul 6, 2011

I do it quite often, maybe 20% of games. Or at least a second worker before the first warrior finishes. The big factor is the amount of forest - I'm an early chopper. I believe in the snowball effect of early free hammers.

Usually the first worker can just about keep up with improving worked tiles, OK he's a few turns behind but he manages. He can't do both chopping and improving though.

Zechnophobe · Jul 6, 2011

Kid R said:
I do it quite often, maybe 20% of games. Or at least a second worker before the first warrior finishes. The big factor is the amount of forest - I'm an early chopper. I believe in the snowball effect of early free hammers.

Usually the first worker can just about keep up with improving worked tiles, OK he's a few turns behind but he manages. He can't do both chopping and improving though.

I think this is how I was finding it too. I really like getting 20/40/60 extra production for various early game items, but spending 4 turns for each is 4 turns I could have used to get that 'good' square setup. Like a mine or similar.

Also, having a second settler able to immediately improve city #2 is pretty grand. Possibly even having a close resource square ready to go when the city is made. Feels very slingshotty.

AbsoluteZero · Jul 6, 2011

Pretty much never. If I needed a second worker that early I'd probably gamble and steal one.

Dirk1302 · Jul 6, 2011

It's some time since i played a normal civ game. But i went worker-worker quite often iirc, maybe with one warrior in between. I don't like growing on unimproved tiles building warriors and an early settler is often too risky or expensive. I often time growth of the city with working an improved tile, can be a mine of course. So i build a second worker until i can see a mine will be available in 4 turns, grow to work the mine in time, than continue with the worker etc.

Especially with early BW and a lot of chops the second worker pays out with interest. In the AW games i managed to steal a second worker every time, in AW3 i would have built or whipped a second worker early if i hadn't stolen one.

fibonacci112358 · Jul 6, 2011

Hmm... I always thought worker-worker-settler was the "default" non-costal build order, after it had been conclusively established as "optimal" in a strategy guide ages ago.

I've been away from this forum for a while, so I think I might have missed some major paradigm shift...

Fib

ecuwins · Jul 6, 2011

Or this...?

Agg and Mining starting techs to boot.

I like the grow to two/finish first food resource suggestion/s, awesome tip :cooool:

Dirk1302 · Jul 6, 2011

^Indeed, prime start for 2 early workers.

PeteJ · Jul 6, 2011

ecuwins said:
Or this...?

Agg and Mining starting techs to boot.

I like the grow to two/finish first food resource suggestion/s, awesome tip

You got a save for this start?

ecuwins · Jul 6, 2011

PeteJ said:
You got a save for this start?

Yep. It's emperor/normal/pangaea/no huts, events nor vassals.

AbsoluteZero · Jul 6, 2011

I think when he says worker / worker he means back to back without growing at all. This I almost never see fit to do.

Zechnophobe · Jul 7, 2011

AbsoluteZero said:
I think when he says worker / worker he means back to back without growing at all. This I almost never see fit to do.

Well, not necessarily back to back, but at least the first two units you finish building.

There is likely worthy discussion about whether or not getting the second worker anywhere before the first settler is a good idea.

fibonacci112358 · Jul 7, 2011

Hmm... I see.

I think starting the game with 30 consecutive non-growth turns might be a little bit weak.

By convention, I just assumed that "worker-worker" means 15 turns of non-growth (for the first worker), followed 3 non-growing chop-turns, sandwiched amongst 9 Growth-turns. I always understood this to be the "correct" build order (or at least "acceptable", if not optimal) in most circumstances. Is that what most people do?

The 12 overflow (plus production in the subsequent turn) would most likely go into a settler.

Mylene · Jul 7, 2011

A good example imo would be a capital with 2 strong tiles, and the rest is average like a hill maybe that needs a mine.
At size 2, another worker to help roading in to your next site while the first one maybe starts on those mines is good, especially on Deity you want to have the roads up quick and an unimproved second site (ideally with a strat ressource too) would just drop your research.

Um the Muse · Jul 7, 2011

fibonacci112358 said:
Hmm... I always thought worker-worker-settler was the "default" non-costal build order, after it had been conclusively established as "optimal" in a strategy guide ages ago.

I've been away from this forum for a while, so I think I might have missed some major paradigm shift...

Fib

Iirc, chopping a forest used to give you more production than it does now (like 50% more).

I can't recall ever building two workers back-to-back before I've built a single city except once where I hit my happy limit before I could build a unit in between (I built a wb first, though, so that might not count). After hitting four pop (or possibly when I hit the happy limit), though, I do it in any worker->settler pump city

When, if ever, should you go Worker-Worker?

Strategy Lich

Chieftain

Emperor

Deity

Deity

Rise Up! (Phoenix Style!)

Emperor

Strategy Lich

Deity

Deity

Chieftain

Emperor

Deity

Warlord

Emperor

Attachments

Deity

Strategy Lich

Chieftain

Deity

King

Similar threads