Settler First Build

[Wodan]

Wodan, you know better than to say it is free. Nothing in Civ 4 is free.

Ok, I misspoke.

You get the point, however. More cities earlier means more cities to whip or otherwise produce Axes or Chariots or whatever.

I'm interested in getting my half-dozen axmen or chariots produced in the fewest number of turns possible.

See above.

Having to build 2 settlers prior to connecting the resource will set this back considerably as compared to only 1.

On the other hand, you now have 3 cities to build your units instead of only 2.

The desired result is having X units produced and ready to fight, not simply hooking up the resource.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Yeah, I can see this being a problem with this strategy. If it turned out that I had horses in that one grasslands tile that is diagonal two from both cities or something....

Personally I would rather overlap cities than leave holes in almost all cases. But that's just me.

Anyway, if you know you're doing this, you're aware of the possibility, and therefore can avoid it totally or minimize the chance it'll be an issue.

Wodan

 

[podraza]

Wodan,

Do you know if what you are saying is actually true? That the ultimate goal of getting out an army in the fewest turns is acheived in comparable (or better) fashion with 3 cities as compared to 2? As you apparantly did not notice, I edited my last comment to anticipate yours and said pretty much the exact same thing. But I have not run any tests. Have you?

 

[Wodan]

Wodan,

Do you know if what you are saying is actually true? That the ultimate goal of getting out an army in the fewest turns is acheived in comparable (or better) fashion with 3 cities as compared to 2? As you apparantly did not notice, I edited my last comment to anticipate yours and said pretty much the exact same thing. But I have not run any tests. Have you?

We cross-posted, sorry about that.

The answer to your question I think is hugely dependent upon terrain and choice of leader.

Wodan

 

[podraza]

We cross-posted, sorry about that.

The answer to your question I think is hugely dependent upon terrain and choice of leader.

Wodan

I assume by leader you're talking about imperialist with its bonus to building settlers?

How about terrain? What sort of terrain invites building 3 cities, as opposed to 2? High food = 3 cities?

 

[Wodan]

It shouldn't be that hard to compute, however. Settler costs 100. Imperialistic gets +50% on hammers.

I just ran a test on Victoria, worked plains hill forest (3H) to build settler first.
Went straight for BW from the gate and got it in 3340BC. Which, by the way, is a negative of this strategy. You lose out on early commerce because you're working a dang hill.

No copper nearby so I have to choose IW or AH. Going for IW because I intend an early war and iron will give me better city assault units than horses.

Got the Settler in 3250BC. Building a warrior in London and working floodplain now. York builds warrior too.

2620BC York builds warrior and starts on Barracks. London soon after builds warrior and starts on settler. Interesting... the city governor apparently doesn't know how to compute the 50% bonus from Imperialistic. It wants to work a 3/0 pigs instead of a 1/2 forest.

2470BC got IW. No iron anywhere. Is this where I'm supposed to wish I was Aztec and had Jags??? This test map sucks.

At this point I go for Agriculture, then AH. I dither over halting the settler to get a worker but let it continue.

No horses anywhere either!?!

Nuts.

After exhaustive analysis and calculation, I conclude you should run your own test.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

I assume by leader you're talking about imperialist with its bonus to building settlers?

How about terrain? What sort of terrain invites building 3 cities, as opposed to 2? High food = 3 cities?

Imperialistic = you want at least one high hammer tile (better would be 2).

Any other leader I suppose I would suggest worker first, because you're going to suck wind without being able to farm a wheat or something.

Wodan

 

[grizzlie]

I have used settler first followed by warrior in the new city, worker in the old city, settler in the new city. At that point the games usually take on their own identities.

With this plan you have a chance to have two cities with one dedicated to war and the other to knowledge. You are also able to bring the two together in short time. One warriors then sits in the city more likely to be attacked and the other starts to search.

Often the scouting warrior will find more units. Bring those back to the general area of your land and use them accordingly.

I have used this same scenario on hundreds of games before iv and have used them to success each and every time other than when I make a dumb mistake like forgetting to build a defense or when I have chosen a land between Germany and Russia (but I'm sure you are out of luck in that scenario no matter what).

I'll confess that I have not had the chance to try it on iv yet, but that will be the way I will be going to once more.

 

[Thomas G.]

Deleted due to own stupidity

 

[Fetch]

Can we see some 60-turn games posted? Normal time, ancient start, continents. Doing this on warlords and vanilla should be interesting too... Oh, what difficulty? Monarch?

 

[godotnut]

The typical city gives 2 2. A worker can give you that much by improving resources almost as fast as a settler, plus the worker keeps on building more improvements faster than a city can grow.

Settler first is a valid gambit if you know land will run out fast, i.e. deity level or against a human choke-rusher.

Or on a crowded map.

 

[Rashkaar]

This would be a very interesting test, 60 and 100 turns.

Getting to a point where the first 100 turns can be optimized to work on a majority of starts (obviously not all due to the complexity of the game) would be very beneficial, especially for players of lower skill levels.

I have seen this being done for other, similar, games, and they have really boosted the average level of play substantially.

 

[uberfish]

Worker first is still usually the default opening from a raw productivity point of view, but here are some reasons you might consider building a settler before worker:

- As above posters stated, when grabbing territory is simply a higher priority (high difficulty level, crowded map, sealable peninsula, aggression restricted variant) Getting a better second city site that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise immediately trumps any benefit going worker first would have had.

- Only one immediately visible improvable resource at capital (it's likely you have metals or horses there, and the worker has relatively little to do)

- You're rushing for religion before worker techs. Again the early worker won't have much to do. One of my favourite unconventional openings is founding Judaism in city #2 for the fastest border expansion possible.

- You have natural commerce producing tiles to work (oasis, silk forest, floodplains) reducing the impact of having unimproved terrain

It's often advisable to build a warrior before the settler to bust fog and cover the settling though.