Early City Development - tutorial by a pro

[ivj]

SuperPro does it again! This isn't an "all-around" strategy, just my favorite and something that's consistently put me on top of the game.

It's pretty simple. The idea is to max out your capital's happiness level right away - after which you can halt growth and start expanding. So, here's the general game flow:

1) I almost NEVER build a city on the location where I start. Most of the time, 2-3 extra turns will yield me a location that is MUCH MORE desirable, with as much as 3 or 4 resources on it. I also try to aim for a place in between some hills, which will likely have iron or copper later on in the game.

2) After I build the city, I set the "Emphasize Growth" option. I keep it that way for a while now.

3) I start pumping out warriors. One after another. Simultaneously, I'm watching my city's happiness level.

4) The point to stop pumping out warriors is when your unhappy faces = your happy faces. This is when I turn off "emphasize growth", turn on "emphasize production" and "avoid growth". By now, usually the city size is 6 or 7 (while most people don't even have a settler yet).

5) I should note that the warriors that I built I send out exploring, and probably doing a little early on harrasement. (see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137085). Note that when harrassement is used with this strategy, it's effect is amplified, because usually I'd have 5-6 warriors built by the time my city is size 6, and sending 3-4 of them onto one player who's bee building workers and settlers will scare the sh1t out of them. If you want, you can actually caputer their city often time.

6) Now that my capital's at max, I build a worker.

7) After worker I build settlers/warriors/archers. My capital is able to produce settlers MUCH faster than some other players' 2 cities with pop 3 each. And not only am I building settlers, I'm building warriors as well.

That's about it. The good thing about this strategy is that it gives you a lot of early muscle. If you use it right (which I do), I usually have 4-5 woodsmen level 2 warriors and 1-2 hillsman (or whatever it's called) level 2 archers. With those units I can do some SERIOUS harrasement, barbarians are no longer a problem, I'm not scared of anyone attacking me, and I have well-trained units that I can soon make into spearmen and axemen.

Like I mentioned earlier, this isn't an all around strategy, so use it wisely. If you start in a damn tundra or something, even at pop 6 your city won't do much good, so it's a good idea to expand early on (or even better idea to take 5-6 turns to get out of the tundra with your first settler).

This strategy consistently put me on top of the score (and when playing smaller maps, combined with some great harrasement, I'd be 1.5 times higher the next score). I know there are other strategies, but this works for me, and I suggest you give it a shot.

 

[Yao777]

See? Now this isn't a bad idea at all except that I hate waiting 2-3 extra turns to settle my first city because you end up behind. Look at it like this...

2 turns to settle city (means no research, but you can get around it depending on what civ you're using)
5 turns to make first warrior

In those 7 turns, I will have bronze working 1 turn away from completion, a worker done 2 turns after that.

Now if your civ starts with a scout, during those 7 turns you can ideally explore 14 tiles + radius of those tiles and maybe you'll find me. If you start with a warrior you're able to explore 7 tiles + radius of those tiles. If you find me or another civ in that amount of time, then you may be in decent shape to do your harass thing but most times you won't find a civ that close unless you're playing a small map.

However, I may give it a shot for MP but I still love the early advantage I get from worker/chop wood/settler rush thing.

 

[Dairuka]

It's pretty simple. The idea is to max out your capital's happiness level right away - after which you can halt growth and start expanding. So, here's the general game flow:

Gaining happiness is definitally a priority. I agree here.

1) I almost NEVER build a city on the location where I start. Most of the time, 2-3 extra turns will yield me a location that is MUCH MORE desirable, with as much as 3 or 4 resources on it. I also try to aim for a place in between some hills, which will likely have iron or copper later on in the game.

Three or Four Resources is Wonderful. However a River is more important. Especially for the strategy that you're intending on. Research is more important than even Iron; because if it takes you 25 turns to research Iron Working; while it takes me only 6-14. Who do you think is going to be affected more by getting an Iron Resource in his city tile? Especially since I'd be given the option to move my Archer Escorted Settler over to an Iron Resource, while you try to harrass me with your Warriors.

2) After I build the city, I set the "Emphasize Growth" option. I keep it that way for a while now.

Yeah, sound advice. I tend to do this as well if I'm situated on a flood plains. That way the dumb city planner doesn't put it on a Forest Resource when I don't have health problems, or a shortage of Hammer Production. Stupid AI.

3) I start pumping out warriors. One after another. Simultaneously, I'm watching my city's happiness level.

Lots of warriors is nice; but I usually use them as cheap military presence. Wouldn't it be better to beeline Hunting --> Archery for more useful units? Or if using your strategy, go put your city down beside a horse resource, and spam Chariots and Horse Archers. Afterall, you won't have to wait 12 turns for Bronze Working, to gamble on whether or not you'll get a Copper Resource in one of your hills.

4) The point to stop pumping out warriors is when your unhappy faces = your happy faces. This is when I turn off "emphasize growth", turn on "emphasize production" and "avoid growth". By now, usually the city size is 6 or 7 (while most people don't even have a settler yet).

I usually have my first settler out in 24 turns by using the Hill/Plains + Worker + Chop Rush strategy. You're trying to tell me you can reach 7 population in less than 24 turns? Sure; if you used the World Builder to make Flood Plain/Grassland/Hills with Pig Resources ontop.

5) I should note that the warriors that I built I send out exploring, and probably doing a little early on harrasement. (see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137085). Note that when harrassement is used with this strategy, it's effect is amplified, because usually I'd have 5-6 warriors built by the time my city is size 6, and sending 3-4 of them onto one player who's bee building workers and settlers will scare the sh1t out of them. If you want, you can actually caputer their city often time.

Harrassment is nice, but it's easily ignored. Not to mention if your enemy has a river in his city, hes producing far more research than you. Chances are he'll outclass you by pumping out a mass of Archers before 2000 BC.

6) Now that my capital's at max, I build a worker.

Theres a Maximum? I didn't know that. Why didn't you build a worker 40 turns ago BTW? How are you getting so much growth without the use of Farms anyways? Wouldn't 60 turns be more realistic, especially since you don't have any Worker's to net you a Luxury Resource leading to mass unhappiness before you even reach 6 population?

7) After worker I build settlers/warriors/archers. My capital is able to produce settlers MUCH faster than some other players' 2 cities with pop 3 each. And not only am I building settlers, I'm building warriors as well.

Why Warriors? I just... Why? Why not Archers? Better yet, why not grab a resource tile already, since your enemy by this time would more than likely have a copper or horse resource connected? Warriors don't stand up to Chariots or Axemen very well. Even with promotional bonuses.

That's about it. The good thing about this strategy is that it gives you a lot of early muscle. If you use it right (which I do), I usually have 4-5 woodsmen level 2 warriors and 1-2 hillsman (or whatever it's called) level 2 archers. With those units I can do some SERIOUS harrasement, barbarians are no longer a problem, I'm not scared of anyone attacking me, and I have well-trained units that I can soon make into spearmen and axemen.

Barbarians around 2000 BC, will probably have a city around your city at this point since you're not really expanding. Even with 5-10 warriors; I doubt you'll be able to remove the three archers they have defending said city. With the exception of Noble Difficulty and under; you can't expect me to believe you can have a 7 population city with no unhealtiness, or unhappiness issues, and a bumload of production well before 2000 BC?

Like I mentioned earlier, this isn't an all around strategy, so use it wisely. If you start in a damn tundra or something, even at pop 6 your city won't do much good, so it's a good idea to expand early on (or even better idea to take 5-6 turns to get out of the tundra with your first settler).

I don't agree with said strategy due to many downside points that can be drawn out through simple mathematics. I don't see any use for this strategy except on Noble Difficulty for Multiplayer; and even then, it's at best a poor strategy which more seasoned players would probably scratch their heads at. Unless you were flukey enough to start right beside somebody, and sit five warriors on their Horse Resource, you'd be massively outclassed before the AD's come.

This strategy consistently put me on top of the score (and when playing smaller maps, combined with some great harrasement, I'd be 1.5 times higher the next score). I know there are other strategies, but this works for me, and I suggest you give it a shot.

Perhaps thats why it's for a smaller map; You'd seriously and honestly have to start RIGHT beside the person, and they'd have to have literally zero room to expand. Even on map size, "Small", your opponents could simply work around you and grab that Copper Resource you didn't see; while you tirelessly try to prevent him from grabbing the Iron with your mass of Warriors and Archers.

 

[Ex-Cop]

Interesting idea. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[MSTK]

This is a multiplayer strategy, right? I think the OP should make this more clear.

 

[Gufnork]

This is on low difficulties I assume. The happiness limit on Emperor is four and decrease by one each level, I think. The problem I see with it is that since it takes you so long to get that first settler, you might lose a prime position. A chopping strategy will have atleast two settlers by the time you get your first so you might find yourself boxed in.

 

[Yao777]

I play plenty of multiplayer, and this strategy can help, but I need to heavily modify it because once I get archers, I don't build warriors. The only time I would use it is if I my starting location had no forest.

 

[ivj]

Dairuka instead of *****ing so much, why don't you suggest your OWN strategy, or improvements to this one. Rather than saying "it sucks", say "we can make it better by...".Moderator Action: It appears he was being quite constructive in his criticisms. You aren't.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Oh and yes I only play MP if you haven't noticed.

 

[Yao777]

He did make suggestions, you just didn't read them. I don't feel I should have to point them out again like I did my own post on your other thread so you can comprehend. Once again you just try to insult anyone who has any criticism of your "strategy". Since I don't wanna be back in grade school again because that is how your thread makes me feel, I won't be posting in this one anymore either crybaby.

 

[ivj]

Yao seriously, stop coming in to every one of my threads and telling me what to and not to do. Your opinion matters less than you beileve it can.

 

[Dairuka]

I'm currently in the process of making my, "Emperor Difficulty: Three City Start Strategy."

It's taking longer than I expected due to alot of ironing in my strategy; especially as new helpful mathematics seem to pop up every hour here on the forums. However, I should have a full step-by-step strategy up by the end of this weekend.

Anyhow ivj; since you chose to cry rather than retort to my many counter-points. I suppose I have nothing more to say on the subject.

 

[Astax]

THe game is balanced enough that trolling around for 2-3 turns won't kill you off. It may be difficult to obtain religion, but that still isnt the end of it. Personally I dont troll aroudn with my settler, I plant on second turn the latest, and that's onyl if I see something a lot better or if planting at current spot might exclude some fish resource from my second city because I cant plant the second city in area to get it since it would be too close to my capital. Usually I start with 2-3 resources in my cap city radius anyway.

I'd liek to point out that score isnt everything. One game, which was unfortunate for me, the continent with my opponent was too far from me to get to by a galley :/ So he had a pretty much a bye to expand. He was flaunting that he had a higher score than me... when I landed with cavalary and rifle man to meet his medival army of crappy units and started to raze the hell out of his cities.

 

[UKScud]

Some interesting ideas. I'll certainly given them a go to see if they work.

I have little doubt that it is a mixture of circumstances that gives you the good start.

 

[Mallow005]

Once again, which difficulty have you tried this on? Is it for multiplayer only?

 

[ivj]

yrah
MP ONLY

 

[Vizzini]

1) I almost NEVER build a city on the location where I start. Most of the time, 2-3 extra turns will yield me a location that is MUCH MORE desirable, with as much as 3 or 4 resources on it. I also try to aim for a place in between some hills, which will likely have iron or copper later on in the game.

So... what you're trying to tell us is that you don't play Civ IV?

There is no reason to wait or try to lock down resources unless you're saddled with too many desert tiles (or you're one move from the coast). Your Cultural border expansions allow you to gain access to any resource - whether that resource is within your city's "fat cross" or not.

The most important thing you can do early on, besides defending your city, is get your borders expanding and you can't do that by moving around being silly trying to find resources your workers can't work and your culture would allow you to own later anyway.

This strategy consistently put me on top of the score (and when playing smaller maps, combined with some great harrasement, I'd be 1.5 times higher the next score). I know there are other strategies, but this works for me, and I suggest you give it a shot.

It has been stated in the other thread you referenced - your strategies only work against idiots.

 

[ivj]

"So... what you're trying to tell us is that you don't play Civ IV?"

huh?

"There is no reason to wait or try to lock down resources unless you're saddled with too many desert tiles"

Here's one: if I can get my city to develop much faster than yours and make 3-4 warrios and send them over to you, I could station them on your strategic resources and harrass the hell out of you, while you're still growing your borders.

"It has been stated in the other thread you referenced - your strategies only work against idiots."

Funny how I don't see YOUR strategies that work against GENIUSES.

 

[Vizzini]

Here's one: if I can get my city to develop much faster than yours and make 3-4 warrios and send them over to you, I could station them on your strategic resources and harrass the hell out of you, while you're still growing your borders.

If we're that close, knock yourself out. Please warrior rush and camp my resources. Pretty please? With sugar and spice? I'll even put 'em in a trade deal to get you to commit to that. Your warriors won't be able to stop me from developing (because I play with Raging Barbarians - there's no such thing as an unescorted Worker or Settler or undefended tile improvement)

... because if we're really that close whoever gets the culture jump first is going to win. I'll leave it to your "superior intellect" to figure out what's going to happen to your capital city and all of those resources you so carefully claimed when my 14 to 20 culture per turn cultural border swamps you.

Like I said.... you don't play Civ IV, or if you do you play Multiplayer against a bunch of abulatory mushrooms.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

ivj, you are rather slow to get the point. It seems you just can't understand why some people so offencive to you.
One new player enter forum and read strategy posts to learn some tactics. And here he observe post by some SuperPro with "guides by pro". A lot of people naive enough to follow you "strategies" wich was provided by generous "experienced" player, that simply counld't be wrong. That kind of people mostly looking for win buttons and instead of explaining reason of strategy and tactics, you are providing them with doubtful ways of playing, pretending to be ultimate.
And no, I'm NOT going to describe tactics I use, cuz that'll put enemy to advantage against me. And please answer what "Pro" are you if you called skirmisher Mongolian UU?
Next, your strategy:

5) I should note that the warriors that I built I send out exploring, and probably doing a little early on harrasement. (see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137085). Note that when harrassement is used with this strategy, it's effect is amplified, because usually I'd have 5-6 warriors built by the time my city is size 6, and sending 3-4 of them onto one player who's bee building workers and settlers will scare the sh1t out of them. If you want, you can actually caputer their city often time.

If you harass, than you are first to be spotted. If you are first to be spotted then opponent will set his warriors on critical defence position. And you can wait there for eternity cuz only new players wouldn't have one warrior. By the time you posess 3 or 4 of them opponent would gain already decent army WITH worker that will improve at least one cell - wich already provide him with advantage - more production/food, and you got to pray there will be no archers.

After I build the city, I set the "Emphasize Growth" option. I keep it that way for a while now.

I start pumping out warriors. One after another. Simultaneously, I'm watching my city's happiness level.

Let me guess...If you got no at least three resources such as pigs and sheeps to provide you with shields AND food you just retire? Or play tell how can you empathise food and build 5 or 6 warriors?

Now that my capital's at max, I build a worker.

Strange how you can get that amount of resources to afford production of warriors and reaching pop limit without improving any title?

This strategy consistently put me on top of the score (and when playing smaller maps, combined with some great harrasement, I'd be 1.5 times higher the next score).

Great. The worst thing to tell new players. To think that the higher the score - the better youe civ are. And main mistake - when 1000 or so player think that that 500-600 player got backwards military and can be ignored as a threat, but surprised when his cities fall one after another to that "backward", uncultured player, who got top army but weak score.
And last question, most important - how many turns it'll took(at normal) to pump 5 warriors on standart several plains and grasslands with one/two 1/2 0/3 hills?

 

[ivj]

Phyr_Negator I don't even need to answer your question, just read this:

"This isn't an "all-around" strategy"

Let me repeat it for you to make sure it doesn't just fly out of your next ear:

"This isn't an "all-around" strategy"

"This IS NOT an "all-around" strategy"

"THIS IS NOT AN "ALL-AROUND" STRATEGY"

So please stop asking me stupid questions similar to "oh but what if you're on a one-tile island in the middle of the ocean, how is your warrior going to harrass me huh?"