Don't get the fast worker love

[gaash2]

I don't think many disagree it's a tier 1 UU (I'm on the fence), but I see a lot of 'best unit in the game'. How does one get there? The main benefit seems to be improving hills on the same turn as moving, so get to work an improved hill tile 1 extra turn and get chops 1 turn earlier. Not exactly sure how to measure the value of the latter, but the former isn't actually particularly valuable. (Say even if you had 20 gold mines,that's only 100 extra commerce and 40 extra hammers *the entire game* of benefit from the entirely of fast workers produced.

The whole "it doesn't go obsolete" argument also isn't really a great one. Once most of your land is road-ed (and especially railroaded) are fast workers really that much different than regular workers?

What am I missing?

 

[SittinDown]

I think it's more that you can move and chop on the same turn than improving hills, and also that you can 2-move on flatland and farm (since food resources tend not to be adjacent).

Over the course of the game, it adds up, especially early, and especially if you want to chop out an important wonder, or speed up a rush.

...sounds like you get why they're good, but probably discount how much that is worth compared to others. (though i think you could just as easily argue that the Quechua is the best unit in the game as well).

 

[Ianrudy]

Worker steal is overpowered.. Worker steal a Fast Worker = Game breaker

 

[AcaMetis]

IMO, what really elevates Fast Workers is the fact that they are useful no matter your resources, neighbours or strategy. Military UUs can be fantastic units, but only if you've got their required resource(s), someone to attack during the era that they are relevant, and a situation where such an attack is viable. But you're always going to be using workers, and any small early game boost is welcome, so Fast Workers end up being (or at least looking like) a really good UU.

 

[Swordnboard]

Imagine a world where many improvements require 2 moves (hill, forest, or just long distances) to access. Then the first improvement finishes 1 turn earlier with a fast worker, like you mention in the gold mine example. But this means he can start the second improvement sooner too, so that one finishes 2 turns early, the next one 3, etcetera. So in your goldmine example, a fast worker would actually net 1+2+3...+20 = 210 extra turns of improved gold, or 210 hammers and 1260 commerce! That example seems a little ridiculous and assumes you only have one worker doing everything, but since chops are so powerful and perfectly suited for the fast worker it's actually not that far from the truth.

That being said, I prefer Quechua, war chariots, immortals, and perhaps cho-ko-nu as the strongest UU's.

 

[lymond]

I will simply say that it boils down to two things - better early game and more stuff faster. When you apply this to the game and have experience and a strong understanding of the mechanics, you learn the value of a unit like the fast worker, which IMO is the #1 UU. The value of the fast worker increases with difficulty as well. If you are a casual player and not into the micro game needed for success on higher levels, or just plain pro play, then this doesn't mean much to you. Benefits would be passive in that case of a less experience or casual player.

The most important thing about Civ IV is the early game. This is not even debatable. Talkin' 'bout railroads, late game stuff, or even obsolescence is irrelevant. Those "1-turn-earliers" are huge and all add up to a strong foundation for the rest of the game.

So basically "what you are missing" is the finer details of the game and, of course, worker management.

 

[Fippy]

Yup FW are great,
on high diffs they can be the difference between getting stuff like GLH or not by chopping faster,
as Swordnboard wrote you get a bit quicker and everything adds up.
Also they can be moved around more efficient, adding roads here and there..

But Quechuas are clearly #1, sorry Lymo
I mean they are so broken that Incas are banned from many HoF games (and make leading games there impossible to beat with other Civs).
And for regular deity games, secure barb defense (+ easy barb city taking) should be rated higher as well.

Fast Workers are fun thou, while playing Qs feels like cheating to me so..
i much prefer FW.
War Chariots and Immortals are also broken, but they are at least not always reachable (in time).

 

[Fish Man]

I will simply say that it boils down to two things - better early game and more stuff faster. When you apply this to the game and have experience and a strong understanding of the mechanics, you learn the value of a unit like the fast worker, which IMO is the #1 UU. The value of the fast worker increases with difficulty as well. If you are a casual player and not into the micro game needed for success on higher levels, or just plain pro play, then this doesn't mean much to you. Benefits would be passive in that case of a less experience or casual player.

The most important thing about Civ IV is the early game. This is not even debatable. Talkin' 'bout railroads, late game stuff, or even obsolescence is irrelevant. Those "1-turn-earliers" are huge and all add up to a strong foundation for the rest of the game.

So basically "what you are missing" is the finer details of the game and, of course, worker management.

Yeah, agreed. But I still think quechas are the best. Playing as the Inca is basically like starting as a deity AI because you get 2-3 extra free cities, a couple free workers, and enough money to research all the way to math or more at 100% (from city capture gold). That advantage is simple broken.

 

[SittinDown]

Now I want to take the old Micro Challenge series by Kossin and do them with Inda / Fast Workers and see how much I can beat the "Nightmare" difficulty.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/micro-challenge-central.499254/

I, II, and IV would all play differently with a FW. I and IV especially are very worker-heavy.

 

[lymond]

But Quechuas are clearly #1, sorry Lymo
.......
i much prefer FW.
.

I really meant this by my statement . I realize how powerful Qs are, but not much into the Q game.

 

[gaash2]

Imagine a world where many improvements require 2 moves (hill, forest, or just long distances) to access. Then the first improvement finishes 1 turn earlier with a fast worker, like you mention in the gold mine example. But this means he can start the second improvement sooner too, so that one finishes 2 turns early, the next one 3, etcetera. So in your goldmine example, a fast worker would actually net 1+2+3...+20 = 210 extra turns of improved gold, or 210 hammers and 1260 commerce! That example seems a little ridiculous and assumes you only have one worker doing everything, but since chops are so powerful and perfectly suited for the fast worker it's actually not that far from the truth.

That being said, I prefer Quechua, war chariots, immortals, and perhaps cho-ko-nu as the strongest UU's.

Haha fun example, but clearly not even remotely realistic, though yes that is a benefit I overlooked.

 

[ArchGhost]

I think some of it comes from the combination along with leaders. Both Indian leaders get the Fast Worker as part of the package and it makes Asoka in particular quite eclectically advantaged, he can do alright in nearly all situation by saving turns and maintenance. Gandhi is already PHI + SPI so it's just more icing on a great cake.

 

[Bibor]

What am I missing?

The fast worker shaves off a turn for each non-flatland tile you improve.
It doesn't work for forested/jungle hills, but in the early game, when you're improving targeted (spread) tiles, it kinda compensates for these.

The benefit of fast workers resides in the number of bald hills and forested/jungle tiles you are planning to clear.
If you improve/clear a 100 of these in your game, you shaved off a 100 worker turns, double that if you use 2 workers for the job.

You can also look at it like needing to have 1 worker per city, instead of the suggested 1.5 - 2, so it's like a super-early Hagia Sophia.

It's true that their benefit starts dropping rapidly as you clear more of your land, but by that time you got the benefit out of them.

It is also true that Quecha and War Chariot share the "top tier UU" tag with the Fast Worker, and yes, in many cases these early combat UUs are superior, but the fast Worker is superior in isolation games and if the AIs are simply too far to fully capitalize on the two aforementioned units.

 

[sampsa]

You can also look at it like needing to have 1 worker per city, instead of the suggested 1.5 - 2

Well... Many strong players habitually have less than 1 worker per city. It's not the amount, it's how you use them. Nevertheless, your point is certainly valid and FW is a very strong UU imo.

 

[Bibor]

Well... Many strong players habitually have less than 1 worker per city. It's not the amount, it's how you use them. Nevertheless, your point is certainly valid and FW is a very strong UU imo.

I thought the general principle was not to work unimproved tiles and have an adequate number of workers that make this possible?

 

[sampsa]

True. That certainly doesn't require 1,5 workers per city.

 

[Fippy]

I always work some unimproved tiles, for some time.
Biggest Civ myth, never work unimproved tiles

It's not about avoiding that, but making your good cities strong quickly (which can involve not spending time on another worker, so other city x can have a cottage instead of forest).

At some point you can look into avoiding playing by such rules
Hmm yep it's advanced gameplay ofc, if you have somebody new who wants tips..
sure you can tell them you want more workers.

 

[sampsa]

I think a reasonable counter-rule to "never work unimproved tiles" might be "never improve tiles that you are not able to work soon". Of course, the better player you are the less need there is for any such rules.

One example where you should habitually grow on unimproved tiles (especially if we count lighthouse coast as unimproved) is a city that will be running many specialists soon. I think over 1 worker per city is needed only if there is a LOT of forest/jungle to clear.

 

[Fippy]

Yup, lighthouse coast works great as example.
(non-river) improvements are not urgent in cities like this one

Spoiler :

Used one of my sgotm test saves if you wonder about the weird stuff
Here forests are fine until workboats & lighthouse, ofc you would want to chop at least one as help thou.
Cottages 1w and 1nw i consider luxury.

But i also have games where i get 4 workers with only 2 cities at that point,
stone starts with bad surrounding lands and chopping into Pyras for both building them & getting failgold work as nice example.

 

[Windsor]

I think a reasonable counter-rule to "never work unimproved tiles" might be "never improve tiles that you are not able to work soon". Of course, the better player you are the less need there is for any such rules. .

The problem with your counter-rule is that it's not specific enough ("soon"?) and it makes it easy for players to go "Oh, I'll just work that forest a few turns" rather than seeing it as a problem they need to address asap and suddenly they're in the industrial era and wonder why the noble AI are out-teching them because they forgot.

It's just a fact that too few workers and working unimproved tiles is one of the most common and worst mistakes low level players make. The opposite, focusing too much on improving tiles is never a significant mistake players make.

There's a few simple rules you can follow religiously all the way to immortal. Treating unimproved tiles as the devil is one of them.