First City build order?

[zeeter]

I've never tried the worker gambit. However something doesn't make sense to me. Worker will work if you have the techs to take advantage of their improvements. Mining, Animal Husbandry, and Agriculture. I'm not sure what these improvements do without these techs. Can they still be used effectively?

My first build queue pretty much followed the Civ3 method
1. Warrior
2. Settler
3. Warrior/Archer if available or Barracks
4. Worker

I triend to change that up:
1. Warrior
2. Worker
3. Warrior/Archer
4. Settler

That didn't work so well because I found the Settler taking just as much time at 4th as it did at 2nd. Plus, by that time the barbs are running amok, which would threaten my warrior/settler "army" and also lessen the time between that 2nd city's first defense unit and the attacks of the barbs.

So, I'm back to Warrior - Settler - Warrior - Worker. Typically, in the early going I build something useful (building, worker, settler), something defensive, and alternate between the two in order to fight the barbs. This typically occurs until the discover of Iron.

 

[LeSphinx]

I've try warious starting queues in the same map to light up the best open strategies in the beginning.

For me, I do not construct wroker/setter instead the city is 3 Population size.
Meanwhile, I construct 1 or 2 warrior and 1 or 2 scout depending of the unit I have at the 4000BC.

When my first city is 3, I start to work on worker in order to improve the ressource alvailable.
Then, I construct a setter or a granary according to the situation.

LeSphinx

 

[UKScud]

The biggest reason not to expand is due to maintenance costs. Those only hit after your third or fourth city. Until then, you should expand as quickly as possible, IMHO.

That's why I think my builds make the most sense. Getting multiple city + warrior to defend/scout + workers building stuff is entirely what the extreme early game is about. The worker chop build does this extremely well (at the expense of tech).

It seems to me like you are saying that you can build your second city and then stop the expansion until your economy is ready to build the third without incuring the penalty.

Mind you, if you've popped a couple of huts and gotten money, then you might have upwards of 150g to pay for the thrid city's maintenance.

 

[zeeter]

It seems to me like you are saying that you can build your second city and then stop the expansion until your economy is ready to build the third without incuring the penalty.

Mind you, if you've popped a couple of huts and gotten money, then you might have upwards of 150g to pay for the thrid city's maintenance.

Is there some kind of guide to go by that tells me how many cities I should have at certain points? I find that sometimes my tech has to go down to 30% just to stay in the black.

 

[Astax]

Things I have been known to build first:
Worker <- if u got rice/corn/wheat and you got farming
Fishing boat <- when I play Spanish and I'm on a coast with fish, Good thing is the city grows while building, bad thing it only builds using hamemrs so it may take a while.
Obelisk <- No joke really when I dont need to build anything else
Settler <- yey :/ it does work sometimes, usually if I start near floodplains since after that my city can grow with no improvements from workers anyhow
Warrior <- initial scouting unit died prematurely or Im feeling paranoid on a small map. Usually I wont start with warrior just apend it to the list in middle of building soemthing else

As far as sending naked settlers, first settler yes, second and third I usually have a unit at the future city site. If you have animal problems you are probably planting the city too far away! The animals dont go into your culural borders! Also while planting far away beware the maintenece will be steep, I usualy pland 2-3 tiles away from Cap in a circle, to keep early maintenece down. Ofcourse if I need to secure a bottle neck I might venture further but I wouldnt go naked. If you are goign with a settler and you spot a critter, you might aswell plant the city right there if you think you wont get away from it.

edit: too much g before n

 

[Ghraabthar]

As I've progressed I find that its better to let your city grow as much as possible. I find that if you build a worker or a settler too early, you end up handicapping yourself. Also on the higher difficulties, founding a city isn't just a simple matter of building a settler and plopping down at the right spot. I usually send a worker and an archer up ahead to my desired spot. So usually I pump out a couple warriors first. Around city size 4 is when I look at getting a worker built. One thing you can do is that with Civ 4, when you change production you save what you've already built up. So if my city is close to growing in say 4 or 5 turns, I'll start up on a building, and once my city grows, I'll switch to a worker/settler. I also like to build a worker before a settler first, because chopping trees becomes a crucial part of your early game production. So my build order ends up being something like:

Warrior
Warrior
Building/worker
archer
settler
archer
worker

Its worked well in Prince and Monarch, I've been able to build up enough of an economic base to have a successful swordsmen rush to take out my nearest neighbor.

 

[remconius]

I've never tried the worker gambit. However something doesn't make sense to me. Worker will work if you have the techs to take advantage of their improvements. Mining, Animal Husbandry, and Agriculture. I'm not sure what these improvements do without these techs. Can they still be used effectively?

Many civs start with agriculture, the wheel or mining. And the first worker typically takes 15 turns, which gives you enough time to develop one or two worker techs, depending on on your starting resources.

 

[UberCivver]

I have been doing the worker-chop since the beginning and I pretty much stick to it. Most of the civs I start with have either mining or agriculture, which allow me to build a farm or mine while waiting for bronze working. This has worked for me since the beginning and on difficulties up to Prince.
Here is my original thread with my strategy which involves getting three cities AND a guarenteed religion.
-UberCivver
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=135748

 

[Carboni]

I agree with Ghraabthar 's building order. It is the same as mine. I would pick archery as my first tech to research so that maybe, just maybe that second military unit would be an archer.

The worker gambit does not cut it. If it takes me 15 turns to crank out a worker and to 6-8 turns to grow, I will be stuck on population one for 21 turns. The worker will be improving, but not fast enough to make a difference for that first population increase.

Early population increase is essential. Workers improve land resources, but only the population works them. I rather err on an undeveloped resource being used than have a developed resource left unused.

 

[dar]

Yah, if the stars align like "dar" says, I usually do that... but NOT if I have to wait for the tech...then I go for the warrior

That was just an extreme example. I tested quite a bit when i first got civ4 to determine which method worked out faster. Except for low resource starts, or starts with cows and without agri/hunting as a starting tech, the two are pretty much neck and neck (i tested for 3 cities, a barracks & 3 archers) when ignoring early religion. When you factor in forest chopping however, worker first becomes more and more attractive.

 

[dar]

The worker gambit does not cut it. If it takes me 15 turns to crank out a worker and to 6-8 turns to grow, I will be stuck on population one for 21 turns. The worker will be improving, but not fast enough to make a difference for that first population increase.

Of course you will also be cranking out settlers from 6 turns to as little as 3 turns with a double chop, ie: you catch up in growth during periods when your city would otherwise be stagnant while building settlers.

 

[dh_epic]

Civ 3 people are totally stuck on settlers. I recommend trying a few other strategies (with the appropriate technologies)

- Warrior, Barracks, Worker, Horse Archer, Horse Archer, Horse Archer, Horse Archer, Horse Archer, Horse Archer, Archer, Settler, Horse Archer (Tech: beeline up to horse archers, and then grab bronzeworking afterwards)

- Warrior, Worker, Archer, Settler, Oracle (Tech: beeline up to priesthood, stop back for bronzeworking, and try to time the oracle with a major medieval technology)

Also, don't underestimate the value of building missionaries. The number of people who "found and forget" religions is startling, and they're the same ones who complain that the AI always hates them because of their religion. Convert aggressively.

 

[Carboni]

Of course you will also be cranking out settlers from 6 turns to as little as 3 turns with a double chop, ie: you catch up in growth during periods when your city would otherwise be stagnant while building settlers.

Or magnify the growth of a booming city. The warrior / warrior / worker / warrior / settler build order doesn't prohibit this tactic. It can crank them out faster, with a tree chop and a bigger city, and have a working economy to keep you alive in the tech race.

The worker chop, you need have three things.

One worker. It has to be made and several of its turns committed to chopping trees.
Bronze working. It must be discovered first before this tactic is viable. For the worker gambit, a civ would have to commit themselves for bronze working from the get go.
Forests. You need to have access to trees. Clear cut around your city and you loose long-term production. Cut away from the city and you need turns to get there and may need protection. If you start on floodplans or a jungle, then forests are scarce in your vicinity.

 

[EridanMan]

Not to beat the dead horse - but my strategy (based on my worchop-start)

City #1
1 - Worker <- the _only_ 'sure thing', not sure how this would work if I didn't start with mining (so far, I've played persians and Russians, both start with mining). Worker + Bronze working = ramp up production ASAP.
2 -Warrior (chop)
3- Warrior (shields from last chop), 5 turns - One chop = 2 warriors. One for my city, one as mobile-production protection
4 - Settler (chop), 10 turns - Take the second warrior and find your second city spot - move the worker back and escort that settler out to its new city location.
5 - Warrior,Warrior/Archer (chop), 5 turns - Depends on a lot of things, how vulnerable do I feel (I'll probably be much more defensive when I move up to Monarch for my next game), both 2 warriors allow me to protect 2 workers much faster...

At this point I hope I have the wheel - if I do, I build a road to the new city, before I get there, I chop once in the new city to:

City #2
1- Worker (worker #1 chop)

With that cities worker- if I've produced a spare warrior at city 1, I move that warrior to protect the worker and start chopping

City #2
2- settler/archer (Worker #2 chop) - how vulnerable do I feel? expand if I'm comfortable, otherwise defind

City#1
5- settler/archer (Worker#1 chop) - Same as above.

After this - Its entirely a 'play it by ear' game... and even above can vary highly... I've done (out of city #1)
1- worker
2- warrior (chop)
3- warrior (remaining sheilds)
4- warrior (chop)
5- warrior (remaining sheilds)
6- warrior (chop)
7- warrior (remaining sheilds).
OR
6- archer (chop)

in 15 turns from my first worker, I have six warriors (or 4 warriors and an archer), who were able to easily overwhelm a very close rival, giving me my #2 city as fast as if I'd built a settler.

Either way - this all depends on having plenty of forests near-by- but I don't go overboard with the chopping - just enough to get the first few units out.

 

[walkerjks]

In games where I built a worker first, I'm often beat to polytheism.

If I reload the exact same game and wait for 2 or 3 population to build a worker, I find I can get polytheism just fine. (This is on Prince level.)

A worker-first strategy, in my mind, will crucially cripple you in getting those first sciences, especially when on a polytheism/monotheism track

In my mind, any strategy that depends on getting to any specific technology first is bound to fail at higher difficulty levels. I try to remove as many dependencies as possible.

So ask yourself - what am I getting from having an early religion? Is there any way I can replace that benefit in another fashion? Just a thought, since if it's tight on prince, you may lose the race every time on monarch.

 

[Jeger]

I tried a new strategy last night that worked great (although it went against my settler rush tendencies.) The basic theory is that two points population allow you to work two more squares, which is the same as one new city. However, it is faster to get those two points than the settler, and doesn't give you another city youi need to defend. I have not tried this on Monarch yet, but this resulted in an easy victory on Prince.

First build a worker and start out researching agriculture.

Then maximize your city growth until it hits the happiness cap. While it is doing this, take more food at the expense of hammers or commerce. Use the worker to increase food output only. You should be able to produce a couple military units and buildings during this time. Research things that let you use your worker for better food or roads or mining. Once you are getting close to the maximum, start building some mines.

Then, redistribute your population for no growth. You should get some great production, and maybe have a specialist available once you can use them. Build archer/settler pairs to found new cities - build archer first. Each new city follow the pattern of growing until cap before building a settler. The first worker should hold you for a while, but later you will need to build more.

I am trying this tonight on Monarch.