I think the title is pretty self-explanatory, but here it is: When you start a game, how long are you willing to let your first settler wander around, looking for that ideal spot for your first city? At what point does looking further become a losing proposition because of lost turns? Obviously, I'd like an ideal start, but if there's not one in the first nine squares, I've got to either go looking or live with what I've got. Sure, I'd like a cow, a river, some silks and some wheat, but I don't want to spend too long before founding a city. I want that citizen working, dadgummit!
How long do you let your first settler wander?
- Thread starter Aabraxan
- Start date
MAS
Deity
I move one tile if:
1#This move will get the city on a river.
2#This move will get the city a(n) (extra) cow in his 2-tile radius.
3#This move will get the city a cow in his his 1-tile radius (assuming this doesn't undo the other points I've mentioned)
4#The city is one tile away from the coast (salt water) I'll move it ither away or on the coast.
In exeptionally bad starts I' might wander around to get a better spot, assuming I can't just generate an other start. (in a contest for example)
Power in this game grows exponentially, so the first turn(s) is (are) the most importand one(s) in the game as it will multiply your power the most later in the game.
If you are going to use a turn to move your settler, then this move must improve the situation enough that you can quickly gain back what you lost. The more turns you spend moving, the harder it is to gain back what you lost, because each turn you lose an exponentially bigger amount of power.
EDIT: I forgot to mention: To move the settler OFF a food bonus. (Because the city center always gives the same food, so the bonus gets wasted)
1#This move will get the city on a river.
2#This move will get the city a(n) (extra) cow in his 2-tile radius.
3#This move will get the city a cow in his his 1-tile radius (assuming this doesn't undo the other points I've mentioned)
4#The city is one tile away from the coast (salt water) I'll move it ither away or on the coast.
In exeptionally bad starts I' might wander around to get a better spot, assuming I can't just generate an other start. (in a contest for example)
Power in this game grows exponentially, so the first turn(s) is (are) the most importand one(s) in the game as it will multiply your power the most later in the game.
If you are going to use a turn to move your settler, then this move must improve the situation enough that you can quickly gain back what you lost. The more turns you spend moving, the harder it is to gain back what you lost, because each turn you lose an exponentially bigger amount of power.
EDIT: I forgot to mention: To move the settler OFF a food bonus. (Because the city center always gives the same food, so the bonus gets wasted)
gmaharriet
Ancient Crone
I never move more than 1 and that for the reasons already posted above...to get on a river, near a food bonus, or to get off a bonus grass or food tile directly beneath me.
Virtual Alex
King
I move 1 to get on a river, get on a coast, or get off a bonus. Almost never more than 1 though.
WackenOpenAir
Deity
If there is a food bonus, that is worth moving several tiles. Moving to a 5food surplus spot would easilly be worth like 4-5 moves probably.
The reason we all move 1 tile is because you can't know whats beyond there anyway.
Only if the start is really terrible like in the middle of a desert and you have reasons to assume better land is out there, there is good reason to start walking without knowing where too.
My reasons to move in C3C:
-Get to coast: not worth moving unless you play sid on archipel and want that curragh to explore immeately
-Get to river: worth 1 or 2 moves when agricultural, doubtfull if its worth even 1 move when not aggri.
-Get to cow in 21 radius: worth several moves. Even moreso for an aggri civ who can make it 5fpt.
-Get cow from 21-9 radius: certainly worth moving if it doesn't get you away from other things.
-Move away from BG: most likely not worth a move unless this BG is needed to reach a critical shieldcount (for settler factory)
The reason we all move 1 tile is because you can't know whats beyond there anyway.
Only if the start is really terrible like in the middle of a desert and you have reasons to assume better land is out there, there is good reason to start walking without knowing where too.
My reasons to move in C3C:
-Get to coast: not worth moving unless you play sid on archipel and want that curragh to explore immeately
-Get to river: worth 1 or 2 moves when agricultural, doubtfull if its worth even 1 move when not aggri.
-Get to cow in 21 radius: worth several moves. Even moreso for an aggri civ who can make it 5fpt.
-Get cow from 21-9 radius: certainly worth moving if it doesn't get you away from other things.
-Move away from BG: most likely not worth a move unless this BG is needed to reach a critical shieldcount (for settler factory)
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,763
I moved the poor guy around for 12 turns once. I typically move my settler every game in C3C (I can't recall doing that in Vanilla), usually 2-3 turns to look around. But hey, that's perfectly allright for the average Monarch-player. You get those turns 'back' later in the game.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
I rarely move it. I will move it under any of 4 conditions:
1) I start on a food bonus
2) I am not next to fresh water and I can get to some
3) I am playing a 20K game and there is coast nearby.
4) There is a playing that is obviously better a tile away for some reason.
1) I start on a food bonus
2) I am not next to fresh water and I can get to some
3) I am playing a 20K game and there is coast nearby.
4) There is a playing that is obviously better a tile away for some reason.
Thanks for the responses. It looks like the consensus so far is that one move is OK.
I've always been willing to move 1 space, 2 if I see something good. (If I start next to a mountain, first move is always to put the worker on it to see what he can see). Beyond that, I've been reluctant to move much more than 1 or two moves because of lost turns and the exponential factor that MAS mentioned.
WackenOpenAir,
I have a question. You called a move to a river "doubtfull if its worth even 1 move when not aggri." I consistently make a 1-tile move if it'll put me next to a river, regardless of my civ's traits. I do this to avoid having to build an aqueduct later. I'd much rather use those turns building troops. Is there something in this analysis that I'm just not seeing?
I've always been willing to move 1 space, 2 if I see something good. (If I start next to a mountain, first move is always to put the worker on it to see what he can see). Beyond that, I've been reluctant to move much more than 1 or two moves because of lost turns and the exponential factor that MAS mentioned.
WackenOpenAir,
I have a question. You called a move to a river "doubtfull if its worth even 1 move when not aggri." I consistently make a 1-tile move if it'll put me next to a river, regardless of my civ's traits. I do this to avoid having to build an aqueduct later. I'd much rather use those turns building troops. Is there something in this analysis that I'm just not seeing?
WackenOpenAir
Deity
Aabraxan said:
An aquaduct will be build pretty late. It then is a one time investment of 100 shields.
Moving 1 turn, costs you 1 turn for your complete empire.
Losing the first turn means you will always remain 1 turn behind with your whole empire.
Now suppose you build your aquaduct at turn 60. Do you think a whole turn for your empire (all shields, commerce and food combined) is worth less than the 100 shields for the aquaduct? - I think it is not.
So the answer appears to be "yes."
I never thought of aqueducts as a late build, but that's a function of my skill level. Now I understand why you wouldn't want to move to get on a river. What makes agri different in that analysis, though? They get cheaper aqueducts (though I presume upkeep stays the same), so it would seem to make even less sense for them to move to be on the river than it would for a non-agri. An agri civilization would be passing up an "empire turn" (turn 1) in exchange for avoiding a later expenditure of some number of shields even less than 100. (Pardon, I don't know how much an agri civ spends on an aque yet). My thinking would be that the less the aque costs, the less sense it makes to move to get on the river. Your reasoning inverts that. What am I missing here?
I never thought of aqueducts as a late build, but that's a function of my skill level. Now I understand why you wouldn't want to move to get on a river. What makes agri different in that analysis, though? They get cheaper aqueducts (though I presume upkeep stays the same), so it would seem to make even less sense for them to move to be on the river than it would for a non-agri. An agri civilization would be passing up an "empire turn" (turn 1) in exchange for avoiding a later expenditure of some number of shields even less than 100. (Pardon, I don't know how much an agri civ spends on an aque yet). My thinking would be that the less the aque costs, the less sense it makes to move to get on the river. Your reasoning inverts that. What am I missing here?
WackenOpenAir
Deity
Aabraxan said:
An Aggri civ gets +1 food on a river in depotism.
One day I let my settler move 1 square to reach vines, a cow, horses, a river and the coast with a whale, but when I founded the city, the game collapsed and I didn't saved the game.
Remember: always save the game.
Remember: always save the game.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,763
Cuatemoc said:
Look in your autosave-folder. Doesn't work if you've started another game though.
Jazzmail
King
Nearly always 0 moves. I only move the settler when I can see, using the worker(or scout), that settling 1 move away is significantly better. That's pretty rare.
The palace makes your borders around the city soon increase to radius 2, so the only better food tiles in the immediate vicinity can make the difference.
Coasts matter only when you're stuck in tundra, desert, jungle or some other poor location, because then you'll need the +2 food bonus you can only get with a harbor.
Non-food bonus resources will eventually fall into your hands anyway, but may be just enough to sway me in favor of a location with slightly better food prospects.
Rivers are a minor consideration, because settler factories are towns, and when the settler phase is over you can build aquaducts.
Wouldn't build wonders in the capital either, so it just doesn't need to grow to a city in the ancient age.
The palace makes your borders around the city soon increase to radius 2, so the only better food tiles in the immediate vicinity can make the difference.
Coasts matter only when you're stuck in tundra, desert, jungle or some other poor location, because then you'll need the +2 food bonus you can only get with a harbor.
Non-food bonus resources will eventually fall into your hands anyway, but may be just enough to sway me in favor of a location with slightly better food prospects.
Rivers are a minor consideration, because settler factories are towns, and when the settler phase is over you can build aquaducts.
Wouldn't build wonders in the capital either, so it just doesn't need to grow to a city in the ancient age.
Sashie VII
Balance of Power
Only one move. That is, if I do move my settler.
Usually for reasons stated by AutomatedTeller..and plus sometimes if the site is good enough, I'd move one tile to the coast so that my capital can make ships (but then I've never had the chance to do this on Emp).
Occassionally I'd wander for quite a few turns on Regent, before settling down in a nice spot.
Usually for reasons stated by AutomatedTeller..and plus sometimes if the site is good enough, I'd move one tile to the coast so that my capital can make ships (but then I've never had the chance to do this on Emp).
Occassionally I'd wander for quite a few turns on Regent, before settling down in a nice spot.
timerover51
Deity
I prefer playing expansionist civilizations like the Americans in order to have a scout to check out the surrounding area fast. I will move one square to get to a better positon, for the reasons already discussed. If the setup is really bad, like a desert area with no immediately visible resources or an island with essentially no area to expand, I simply quit the game and dump it. I have no desire to pound my head against a wall. Most of my games are on played on maps that I have set up, and are more for trying out various combat modifications and tactics.
