Builders- when and how many?

[planetfall]

Recently I learned that creating a builder in the first few build queues is not the most productive plan. I used to create a builder in my first few builds at immortal level. But following recommendation to create a settler asap was a better plan, I learned that lack of initial builders is really not very bad. Builders are more essential for resource acquiring than for product boasts. I had been using a rough ration of 4 builders to 5 cities.

Ok, that's background, now the questions: [for immortal and deity level games]
1-- when do you normally start with builders for production/food bonuses? why?
2-- what is your normal builder to city ratio? why?

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

As all things civ, it depends, especially the first ones.

Generally speaking, you want to minimize the builders you build early, because every one you build will increase the cost of the next one.
A high level strategy (used in competitive multiplayer iirc) is to forego the production of builders almost completely, until you get Feudalism/Serfdom for the +2 builder charges, and only then start to get a mass amount of builders to improve your infrastructure.
Generally I play along that line myself (though not as strict since I prefer single player or playing multiplayer with friends against Deity AI), and what I usually prioritize is instead to get a large amount of settlers out as fast as possible.
While getting settlers out doesnt increase your production as a builder would do (improving lands, especially building mines or chopping), it does add to the overall production that your empire has, and it does increase the number of trade routes you can potentially get (which does create production assuming they are internal).

The only times I do go out of my way to get an early builder is if I need a particular eureka, I really need to chop (usually I save this for Etemenanki if the game allows for abusing it), or if my lands are extremely unproductive (hardly any production yields), or if I want a particular luxury to sell off early for extra gold (or for some reason really need more loyalty).
But usually, you can secure enough food and production early on (which is the two yields you want to focus on above all others) by settling in good spots and making sure that you manually work the high food/production tiles to help your city grow.

Either way, the key to knowing how many builders you "need", is a question that usually arises in the middle game (especially when you have Feudalism).
At that point your cities should be relatively undeveloped tile wise, and you ought as usual to prioritize food and production, and to maximize the return yields.
Farms usually dont pay off that much (they only give +1 food unless you make a huge cluster), but mines do (+2 production), hence you want to maximize the amount of yields that an improvement gives you (+2 from improving a tile is simply better than +1 after all).
I thus usually make it my priority to get plenty of those up, assuming that I still have positive food when working those tiles.
And the key metric to look for when deciding for how many builders you "need", is to try to improve the number of tiles equal to the number of population each city has.
Thus if you have 10 cities with populations ranging from 1-9 for instance, you want to make sure that (roughly speaking) you have enough builders that each of your 10 cities roughly can work as many improved tiles as their population demands.
Which means that some cities just get 1-2 tile improvements for the time being, while others get closer to 9 (assuming the tiles are worth improving).
Obviously some exceptions apply, for instance if you have some unimproved lands (wonders especially) that naturally have high yields, in that case you "save" a builder charge since you cannot improve it anyway while working it as before.

 

[planetfall]

Great, just what I was looking for. I recall "just do enough" and reviewing my play, I have been over doing, and can go faster with less. I don't know if it is the same for you, but I have learned that if by middle game I have a market or harbor then the game progresses about 10% faster. {based on 2 test games, but hard to remember to do it}. I've finally learned that river goddess does pay off in long run, as it is one of the few that does add amenities/happiness. It's only 1 per/city, but every slight advantage can reap rewards.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Great, just what I was looking for. I recall "just do enough" and reviewing my play, I have been over doing, and can go faster with less. I don't know if it is the same for you, but I have learned that if by middle game I have a market or harbor then the game progresses about 10% faster. {based on 2 test games, but hard to remember to do it}. I've finally learned that river goddess does pay off in long run, as it is one of the few that does add amenities/happiness. It's only 1 per/city, but every slight advantage can reap rewards.

Comm hub, holy site and occasionally harbours are the "best" districts to go for early on indeed.
Focusing on campuses is usually a trap for weaker players, since you build it at the expense of expanding your infrastructure (more cities, more tiles to work), and it only propels you faster through the tech tree while you often dont need the science at that stage anyway.
Especially if you force end turns without teching stuff (semi exploit for PC only), you keep the number of your researched techs low and thus reduce the cost of new districts, which is key when expanding fast.
Having more science is thus counterproductive, since you dont want to be teching much anyway, whereas getting trade routes or a faith economy up directly translates into expanding faster (assuming golden age monumentality if going the faith route).

 

[vorlon_mi]

@Oberinspektor Derrick , do you sometimes find the need for an early builder to get a strategic resource, like iron or horses?
Or do you settle on top of those?

By the time Niter or Coal become relevant, it's no longer the early game.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

@Oberinspektor Derrick , do you sometimes find the need for an early builder to get a strategic resource, like iron or horses?
Or do you settle on top of those?

By the time Niter or Coal become relevant, it's no longer the early game.

Very rarely, when I rush the ai I use warriors and archers for a prolonged time, as I mostly use a crusade based rush. Warriors and archers last for a long time then, and can be supplemented with heavy chariots if needed.

By the time I unlock swordsmen and horsemen I usually have pretty much wiped my neighbour by that time if I played it correctly, and if there are some cities remaining I am almost guaranteed to get iron or horses by that time (since I most likely have 3 of my own cities settled and took over several ai cities).

The most important situation where I need swordsmen (which are better than horsemen for an early rush since their promotions are better and they pair with battering rams), is in the odd case where I didn't take over enough cities to permanently cripple the ai and/or be safe on loyalty, and the ai got medieval era tech units out. In that case swordsmen or horsemen have utmost priority.

If you see that you are close to unlocking the tech and have unimproved iron in your borders, it's not a bad idea to improve it rather soon though. But the question is always if you really need swordsmen or not, because if you aren't doing war the answer is usually no.