Chaining cities versus pumping from one city?

[Larwin]

Ok I want some ideas on what works for other players. If I have good food production would using a capitol as a settler/worker pump or would it be wiser to run it til 2 or three citys switch to adding buildings I need. By chaining would mean growing new citys with thier own garrisons then sending a settler and/or a worker for the next city. I guess using one city for a main supplier of workers and settlers could work but chaining might be better?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

It depends, really (as it always does)

I try to create workers/settlers from cities with either high food (especially a huge surplus) cities OR from cities with a lot of forests for chopping. High food cities can either whip settlers/workers (3 pop whips for a settler - 2 if imperialistic) or just build them with the food surplus.

Low food cities without a lot forests should never be asked to build workers/settlers or whip (except maybe for the granary)

An exception can be a city at it's happy cap and no immediate chances to grow that cap.

 

[cseanny]

In addition to what Teller said,

Land and leader will dictate a lot of it but in general I prefer to use my Capital as a settler/worker pump. In most cases I do this in one of 2 ways. First, I'll get a worker started while making warriors to happy cap, then get a 2nd worker, build a few more warriors to fog bust (or Archery Immortal+), then continue settler/worker pump. This way delays strategic resource hook up so you need more warriors to fogbust but isn't generally a problem because growing to happy cap gives you an edge in early research/production.

The 2nd way is to go worker>warrior to 3pop then regardless if the warrior is finished or not I go settler (generally 3improved tiles and 1 chop)>worker>worker> then continue growing to happy cap while making warriors. This lets you settle a quicker 2nd city with enough workers to quickly grow/improve both cities.

My second city would then grow to happy cap while workers get bronze/horse hooked up and chopped a couple of units. Then both cities would start on a settler which as timing would have it, usually happens pretty close together. As you were growing your 2nd city/chopping a few units your Capital would already have been at happy cap for a while and should have been making more workers (once at happy cap).

So this would let your early game look something like 5-8 workers, 4-5 warriors + 2 axe or chariot, and 4 cities in the 1600-1200 BC range. Depending on your leader/forest/land around you it's always nice if you can squeeze in a Library somewhere so you can get an early GS for whatever you choose.

 

[Choggy]

Don't know if this helps, but (ignoring production tiles) the amount of turns it takes to generate a settler is dependent on the spare food per turn, not how much is utilised in your BFC. Therefore a small city with a couple of worked food resources with plenty of extra food spare makes a great settler farm. One that city has grown you'll find it'll take more turns to get settlers out because that extra food is being used to support your increased population.

Since a city's population doesn't increase whilst you're building settlers, it might be better to use a settler farm to build all the settlers you need first and then allowing it to expand.

 

[OneLeggedRhino]

Best option is usually to chop settlers. Or grow a food city to size 6, whip a settler, then build other stuff while you regrow. Minimize the turns where you're not growing.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Ok I want some ideas on what works for other players. If I have good food production would using a capitol as a settler/worker pump or would it be wiser to run it til 2 or three citys switch to adding buildings I need. By chaining would mean growing new citys with thier own garrisons then sending a settler and/or a worker for the next city. I guess using one city for a main supplier of workers and settlers could work but chaining might be better?

Really, you should do both.
If your capital is your only city assigned on worker/settler duty, then it will never develop.
If your newly cities take on the task by themselves, expansion/development will be painfully slow.

More crucial matters concern :
- how to weight horizontal expansion vs vertical. Or infrastructure/wonders vs workers/settlers.
- how to balance + maximize production and commerce.

Hints :
- what tiles do you want to work ? (Inside & outside your cultural borders --> how many settlers do you need ?)
- At what size can you whip a city ? How long will it take to grow there, compared to slowbuilding at a lower size ?
Those strongly determine the benefits from growth and the needs for it.

Random :
- Assuming trade network, your first few cities yield a net gain in production (always) and commerce (difficulty dependent).
- Early garrisons are seldom needed in the very early game, unless you want to raise your happy cap. Early units are best used fighting barbarians, imo.
- Travel time matters for early settlers / workers.
- Make sure you really need what you need. Does what you need fit in a plan ?

 

[ChanceDanger]

You may also want to consider if you're running with Expansive or Imperialistic as traits, because in those traits it is only hammers that are multiplied into production and not food. So IMP leaders want hammers being worked during Settler building and EXP leaders want hammer tiles for their workers if you want the production bonus.

 

[shakabrade]

Don't forget that whip hammers (30 per population) also get imp and exp multipliers.

 

[coanda]

You should generally be trying to grow to work the best tiles you can. If you can grow to work really good tiles with your capital, then you don't want to make a worker or settler there. The same for new cities if there are really good tiles that they aren't working yet. If all of your current cities can grow to work good new tiles with worker improvements that they aren't using yet, you probably have over-expanded and shouldn't be making workers or settlers anywhere for a bit, until you've grown a little.

 

[ahcos]

Why exactly is everyone voting against building workers in new cities? I often face the situation that i build a new city just for a military resource right next to it, and there's basicly nothing the city can grow on for an eternity, or it actually has good tiles but i don't have the workerturns to improve them. In those (very common) cases i often build workers with one strong improved tile, or maybe even settlers if i know that i can wait a little longer for the settler.

Building worker or settler first in 1pop cities isn't necessarily a bad thing, it depends on the game and on the city.

 

[RD-BH]

Not voting against ... just very situational.

If I found a city with two food resources ...
... 1) I improve the two food
... 2) I grow to 4x pop
... 3) I work 2x cottage
... this can certainly be used to build settlers even at 2x pop
... but only the situation informs me whether I need settlers at 2x or 4x.

Personally,
... I prefer that 2nd city to be production.

 

[vicawoo]

Until you receive building modifiers, growing 1 size to add a mine provides the same benefit wherever.

However, growing at a smaller size costs less food and often less excess hammers (since when you run out of special tiles you usually make mines or cottages).

So usually the priority is growing a city to their special tiles, then when maintenance costs significantly offset new city output, growing to mines/cottages might surpass workers/settlers. If you're about to work unimproved tiles, that city or a close one should start on a worker.

If you're waiting for a monument border pop and the outer ring has superior improvable tiles, then sometimes I'll just build a worker and send my original worker away, since you won't be working the a newly improved inner tile after the border pops anyway.

Finally, once research pace becomes a limitation, the capital often has to build a library soon and run two scientists (since it has a higher cap and the palace), which means other cities have to pick up the worker/settler load.