Priorities for the early years

[Sir_Lancelot]

I have a question for you skilled players. How do you play the early years? In detail, what are your priorities in games where you start with one single settler? How soon do you build a settler?

My current difficulty level is King. Assume that the starting location is a typical decent one.

This is how I play and it's probably room for improvement. I don't have a fixed list of priorities, and my priorities can vary some. But it can look like this:

1. Build a unit.
2. Use the first unit to explore the nearby terrain, but keep it close to the city.
3. Build a second unit. One of the units will from now be fortified in the capital, the other will explore further.
4. Build a Settler, make it build roads and irrigation around the capital.
5. Consider a city improvement? Granary perhaps?
6. When 2 tiles are irrigated with roads, send the Settler off to found a city. If the terrain is grassland, plains or other types of easy terrain, I will perhaps build some road towards the new city before I found the city. I will not build the road first it if it's forest, hills or other types of "heavy" terrain.


I'm very unsure if I should try to build that second Settler earlier, and if I should use it to found the second city before I have improved any terrain.

 

[nerdfighter13]

I play on Prince, but normally my first build is a defender, than a settler for another city. I almost always build the road to the new city with the settler, unless I have an extra one from a hut.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I play on Prince, but normally my first build is a defender, than a settler for another city. I almost always build the road to the new city with the settler, unless I have an extra one from a hut.

Do you use the Settler to irrigate the terrain around the capital before you build the second city?

 

[nerdfighter13]

Only if I have mostly hills, swamps, forests, or mountains. If it is mostly grassland or plains, I'll build a city and improve it later.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I now remember that you can't get 3 food from grassland under Despotism.

I would love to have more input from other players too. Maybe there are already topics on early tactics, but I didn't manage to find any.

 

[mackerel]

In general, it's better to have more cities sooner.

For the early game, I tend to focus on expansion, building a settler first and no more than one troop per city after. The settler builds at most one road on the way to creating my second city. When those cities reach size 2, they each produce another settler, and repeat until happiness is an issue or I run out of land. Each city "needs" one food/trade square and two shield squares. When it's size 1, focus on growth (food special or road/river grass). At size 2, focus on shields (city center + 2 forest = 5 shields per turn at size 2 = 8 turn settler). Since the cities can only work one improved square at this time, making more roads or irrigation is not helpful. Later on, when the heart of the empire is settled so densely that moving settlers from the capital to the outskirts takes more time than producing another settler, that's when the earthworks begin.

A few defensive troops are helpful, especially around the edges of the empire. I don't put more than one troop in a city until a later growth phase, if ever. If I can achieve Republic before that's necessary, that's what I do.

Meanwhile, we have science to do. The two earliest goals are Monarchy and Trade. Monarchy un-cripples special tiles and makes irrigation have some benefit. Trade lets us produce caravans, for gold and science and speeding up wonder construction. Each city sends at least one caravan, overseas to a demanding foreign city if possible, resulting in both an instant science boost and a recurring trade route, which makes sustaining happiness in larger cities possible using luxuries rather than expensive city improvements. I avoid building anything with upkeep until much later.

Hut hunting is not a high priority, though I've been known to indulge if an early hut gives me a two-move unit.

Pyramids cost as much as 4 granaries and affect all your cities. Other wonders have similar cost-benefit ratios.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

Good post mackarel! I'm better already.

In general, it's better to have more cities sooner.

For the early game, I tend to focus on expansion, building a settler first and no more than one troop per city after. The settler builds at most one road on the way to creating my second city. When those cities reach size 2, they each produce another settler, and repeat until happiness is an issue or I run out of land.

So you wait that long with letting your cities grow past size 2 or 3. Is this also for medium levels where you get some content citizens? I always try to get my cities up to size 5 or so, even if it means I have to build a Temple. The reason is that small cities are unproductive, but I guess your way is better.

Each city "needs" one food/trade square and two shield squares. When it's size 1, focus on growth (food special or road/river grass). At size 2, focus on shields (city center + 2 forest = 5 shields per turn at size 2 = 8 turn settler). Since the cities can only work one improved square at this time, making more roads or irrigation is not helpful. Later on, when the heart of the empire is settled so densely that moving settlers from the capital to the outskirts takes more time than producing another settler, that's when the earthworks begin.

A few defensive troops are helpful, especially around the edges of the empire. I don't put more than one troop in a city until a later growth phase, if ever. If I can achieve Republic before that's necessary, that's what I do.

If you build that much cities, I guess you can leave many cities in the core undefended. Unless you need martial law.
I usually have the maximum amount of barbarians, but I have never had barbs or other unfriendly units near my cities in the first 15-20 turns or so. So I'm thinking I can take my chances and leaving the capital undefended until I get a second city.

Meanwhile, we have science to do. The two earliest goals are Monarchy and Trade. Monarchy un-cripples special tiles and makes irrigation have some benefit. Trade lets us produce caravans, for gold and science and speeding up wonder construction. Each city sends at least one caravan, overseas to a demanding foreign city if possible, resulting in both an instant science boost and a recurring trade route, which makes sustaining happiness in larger cities possible using luxuries rather than expensive city improvements. I avoid building anything with upkeep until much later.

I always beeline to Monarchy, but I often have to research tech I don't need in order to reach my goal. Trade is also high on my list.
TRADE:
I do see which cities demands what, but I try to trade with as few foreign cities as possible. Because I try to help myself without helping the AI. I try to find foreign cities far away that produce much trade, and I send my caravans to these cities. If they don't demand my goods I send them there anyway. If the only cities that demands my goods are small, I don't send it there. Because those routes are not worth a lot in the long run, they only give that delivery bonus. Maybe I also do this wrong?

LUXURY:
When do you set your luxury rate above 0%? This is an area I know I do bad, because I don't give the people ANY luxuries until my Monarchy is well established with many trade routes. In my last game I simply forgot about luxuries and didn't make use of it before the Industrial age... I had Temple + Colosseum in all cities, even some with Cathedral as well. And I stayed in Monarchy until my space ship had landed. Oops. But it works well enough when my cities are celebrating.

What are is benefit from WLTKD in Republic and Fundamentalism? I know what it does for Monarchy and Demo.

Hut hunting is not a high priority, though I've been known to indulge if an early hut gives me a two-move unit.

But hut hunting is a common strategy isn't it? I love free stuff and I try to get as many as I can on my continent. I rather spend some turns getting a free unit (NON if I'm lucky) than spending those turns building it. I can even get tech from it or a free city.

Pyramids cost as much as 4 granaries and affect all your cities. Other wonders have similar cost-benefit ratios.

I like the Pyramids but I can almost never build them - or any other ancient wonder - before the AI. Maybe I have better chances if I have a dozen cities that builds a Caravan rather than building the wonder in one of my few big cities.

 

[mackerel]

I do wait a long time before letting my cities grow. A few cities, usually near the core and usually containing wonders, get as large as size 5 before the first major growth phase happens. Small cities are not as unproductive as you might think, because the city center gets an overwhelming benefit - free work, free irrigation, and free roads. At size 1, your city works 2 squares. Size 2, 3 squares. At size 9, it's only working 10 squares. You can see how the benefit is skewed toward small cities, particularly at a time when the labor of building roads and irrigation is comparatively expensive. In short, more cities, more free work.

Martial law is a good reason to have a few warriors around. With cities separated by one or two roaded tiles, it's possible to move them around to cover unrest before it happens, while you deal with the cause of unrest in other ways. It's not wise to support many troops, though. They take at least 10 shields to produce (better spent toward settlers and caravans when possible) and, if a city supports more units than its population (in despotism and monarchy) each additional unit drains one shield per turn. In addition, pottery and 4 caravans combine to form the Hanging Gardens, which makes one citizen per city happy (expires at Railroad), eliminating the need for martial law for size 1-2 cities entirely.

Barbarians happen along coastlines and in unsettled areas. They can't spawn, even from huts, within a certain range of a city. The settling plan I outlined (called ICS or Infinite City Spam) doesn't leave room for them. I believe they only spawn after 16 turns, and at regular intervals afterward.

On the higher difficulty levels, Civ2 hides certain bits of the tech tree depending on the number of scientific advances you have. That's what makes a beeline to Monarchy impossible most of the time. You'll have to take at least one off-path tech, and that should be one of the Trade prerequisites.

Trade deserves a discussion of its own, and indeed there are several detailed posts around these forums on the subject. Briefly though, I'll note that a caravan gives the same amount of science as it earns in gold. The payout is based on distance between source and destination cities, doubled for offshore deliveries, and doubled again for foreign destinations. That means cargo you could deliver to one of your own cities for 50 could be worth 200, which is enough for a complete scientific advance and the instant purchase of a ship, a settler, or another caravan. A trireme can get your caravans to the destination three times as fast as walking. Civ2's particularly cheesy concept of "ship chaining" can get them from source to destination in one turn.

Luxury goes above 0% on the same turn as the switch to Republic or Democracy. Some people use luxuries to run Celebrating Monarchy, which gives the same trade bonus as normal Republic but allows military operations and preserves cheap settler upkeep. Luxuries have the unique advantage of scaling with your population; temples and colosseums make a certain number of citizens happy, whereas a brand new baby citizen working a trade-producing tile makes itself happy. To maintain happiness, set lux just high enough to avoid riots. You don't need to avoid all unhappiness, just have more happy than angry. For growth phases, set it high enough to make most of your cities celebrate. When the growth spurt is done a few turns later, turn the luxuries back down. Republic works the same as Democracy; if you have food surplus, have half or more of your citizens happy, and none unhappy, you gain one population next turn. I believe celebration in Fundy works the same as Monarchy. Personally I never use that form of government. War in Democracy is much more interesting.

Hut hunting is a common strategy. It's just not a strong point in my games. I'll let somebody else detail that phase and we'll both learn something.

Even at Deity, if you build many cities and get Trade quickly, you can get most of the wonders before the AI. Since the early wonders only cost 4-6 caravans and you'll have 20+ cities in no time, they'll hardly slow you down. Let's look at the cost and benefits of a few wonders:
Hanging Gardens - 4 vans - one happy citizen in each city (100 size 2 cities, no riots, no martial law)
Marco Polo - 4 vans - free embassy with every civ (maps, tech trade, gifts and tribute)
Pyramids - 4 vans - free granary in every city forever (growth to size 3 almost twice as fast)
Lighthouse - 4 vans - Triremes don't sink (shorter ship routes for early trade)
Michelangelo - 6 vans - free cathedral everywhere (3 content citizens, no upkeep, easier celebrations)

Most of these become even more appealing when you have 100 cities.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

City placement is another important decision to make very early. ICS means the next city is just 3 tiles away? Maybe I should try this some time, but I have never, not even once, placed cities so close. I try to let each city work at least 15-16 tiles, ideally all 21.

Is ICS a key to do well, or is it just a matter of preference?

In Civ3 there is a way to reduce corruption, you can build your cities in circles around the capital. For example, if the 6 cities closest to the capital have the exact same distance to the capital, they all have the same low corruption as the nearest city would have.
Is this an issue in Civ2? I have only seen people discuss this strategy in the Civ3 forum.



In Monarchy, I can research a little bit faster if my cities are celebrating, but only a little bit (my last game). Monarchy and WLTKD is a strategy I've had since I played Civ1 in the early '90s. It may not be the best government in the modern era, but I love how little food engineers eats in Monarchy, it matters a lot because I try to have 2-3 engineers per city. (I terraform a lot.)

 

[mackerel]

My cities tend to be separated by one or two tiles. In the early or early-mid game they become connected by roads, such that a warrior can move from one city to the other in one turn. It is useful to have a few cities work all their squares, but the vast majority can grow to a respectable size easily enough once you have refrigeration and engineers. It's not as constricted as it sounds. The point is, build cities and don't waste early time on improvements you won't use for 2000 years. Spend your resources making resources that make more resources. Invest in the future!

You can do well without ICS. You can do better with. Try it a few times and see the difference.

Corruption is not an issue in higher forms of government. Republic and Monarchy suffer little corruption when cities are near the capital and connected by roads. Building cities closer together makes both of those conditions easier to achieve.

 

[nerdfighter13]

But with democracy there is no corruption at all.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

My cities tend to be separated by one or two tiles. In the early or early-mid game they become connected by roads, such that a warrior can move from one city to the other in one turn. It is useful to have a few cities work all their squares, but the vast majority can grow to a respectable size easily enough once you have refrigeration and engineers. It's not as constricted as it sounds. The point is, build cities and don't waste early time on improvements you won't use for 2000 years. Spend your resources making resources that make more resources. Invest in the future!

You can do well without ICS. You can do better with. Try it a few times and see the difference.

Corruption is not an issue in higher forms of government. Republic and Monarchy suffer little corruption when cities are near the capital and connected by roads. Building cities closer together makes both of those conditions easier to achieve.

One or two tiles between cities? You don't need Sewer System before refrigeration, maybe not even Aqueducts...

I can have maybe 5-6 cities around A.D. 1000, I will build more cities earlier next time but I don't know if I'll do ICS. It must be a nightmare to micromanage 100 cities. And all those small towns, they can't have many improvements. A city improvement, be it a marketplace, barracks or an airport, is much more cost efficient in a big city.

But I can try 2-3 tiles between each city instead of four, it gives room for a lot more cities. I don't know if this has a name, maybe "ICS light".

Civ2 corruption in distant cities is high under Monarchy, but it's not a big problem. It's many years since I played Civ3 so I don't remember the details, - maybe the corruption was a lot higher in Civ3 and that was the reason for the circle city strategy.

Yes there's no corruption in democracy as nerdfighter13 said, but it's a government I have never used, I have tried republic a little. Units cause so much unhappiness. The only governments I have really used are monarchy and fundamentalism. No troublesome senate either.

 

[nerdfighter13]

There isn't a senate in communism either. But only 5-6 cities by 1000 A.D.? You definitely need more cities, the only exception being if you are on a tiny island with very limited room.

 

[stoferb]

My early game is 1. If there are huts nearby I pop them before I settle and it usually gives me a free units to scout with and a good location for my capital. You really don't loose anything to look around a few turns. 2. I build settlers right away and don't improve anything, they go and create new cities as soon as possible. Every city get's a single garrison and I connect my cities with roads. Irrigation usually isn't needed this early in the game. And I usually don't build any buildings before a city has atleast one foreign trade route. My first priorities are getting monarchy and trade.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

There isn't a senate in communism either. But only 5-6 cities by 1000 A.D.? You definitely need more cities, the only exception being if you are on a tiny island with very limited room.

I expanded unusually slow in my last game, maybe I usually have 5-6 cities some earlier than 1000 AD, but it's true that I always expand slowly. I have few and powerful cities. My real expansion starts some time in the A.Ds, maybe around 1000 AD. By the 1900s I might have 20 cities and I probably never get more than 30. But each city becomes a powerhouse.

My early game is 1. If there are huts nearby I pop them before I settle and it usually gives me a free units to scout with and a good location for my capital. You really don't loose anything to look around a few turns.

Interesting what you say about delaying your settlement for a few turns. Some people here have debated whether it was worth it to delay the settlement one single turn and move the settler to a more ideal tile. Some (many?) players argued that it was best to just plop down the first city at the spot because each turn was so valuable. (I don't remember if this debate was in the Civ2 or Civ3 forum.)

 

[Major Advantage]

Joining in the discussion about (early) cities: One aspect that hasn't really been mentioned so far is that each city can only work on s+1 (s=size) tiles to contribute to your civilization. So a size 3 city would work on 4 tiles, but if you have 3 size 1 cities instead, you would be working on 6 tiles! And if those 3 cities are working on settlers (to be completed right after reaching size 2) to found 3 more cities, you would be working 12 tiles. So it is highly efficient to build a lot of cities as early as possible. Don't care about city improvements, don't care about defense (if you lose a city to barbs, get a dip and bribe it back), focus on expanding and exploring.

It must be a nightmare to micromanage 100 cities.

Yes it is! It takes a lot of RL-time but that is the price for a highly efficient civilization.

 

[stoferb]

Interesting what you say about delaying your settlement for a few turns. Some people here have debated whether it was worth it to delay the settlement one single turn and move the settler to a more ideal tile. Some (many?) players argued that it was best to just plop down the first city at the spot because each turn was so valuable. (I don't remember if this debate was in the Civ2 or Civ3 forum.)

Well it is a gamble to pop huts before you settle, it often pays off but not always. A good unit free of mineral support is invaluable this early in the game, it saves you the time of producing a scout or defender yourself and one shield is quite alot when your cities produce only 2-4 shields. This unit will also probably make you find other civs faster and perhaps let you trade, blackmail or loot your way forward earlier. Some money is never wrong either, it can let you rushbuy one or more settlers and save you several turns of production and there's no risk to get barbs. But you might get techs that are outside your techpath, which slows down the path towards crucial techs like monarchy and trade. Then the trade-off isn't really worth the delay in settling.

 

[Millman]

Finding huts with horses, wandering bands, or advanced tribes on good squares. I'd avoid building on the coast unless you needed to.

To get a good game and/or high score you must expand or die. You must expand wisely, smart, clever and all that.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I'd avoid building on the coast unless you needed to.

??? Please explain.
I value coastal cities because they let me build ships and get in contact with other civs.

 

[nerdfighter13]

??? Please explain.
I value coastal cities because they let me build ships and get in contact with other civs.

They also allow you to destroy units on the coasts of continents.