Settler first opening

[StuntedAzrael]

Does anyone starts their game with settler first build? If so why?

I heard that it's doable with imperialistic civs especially if capital is settled on plains hill but my rationale is better to have 1 city size 5 working resources by turn 40 (normal speed) than 3 cities size 1 still building their first worker.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My understanding is that it is somewhat justified by weak starting techs (have a hard time improving specials in the early turns) and enough hammers to get the bonus.

My problem with it is the maintenance hit on higher levels really slows down getting to certain techs...like pottery/writing.

 

[Kesshi]

StuntedAzrael,

I believe it was mathmatically proven that Worker first or Growing to size 2 can yield a faster Settler in most situations.

 

[DaveMcW]

a faster Settler

Settler first will always yield a faster settler.

But everything else will suffer.

 

[Fluxx]

Settler first will always yield a faster settler.

But everything else will suffer.

Expansionists with wet corn next to them come close, but I think it will cut close to 2-3 turns afaik.

 

[Yamps]

Sometimes it's used on Deity in packed environment to grab a spot that would be unavailable otherwise. Especially if a fast worker wouldn't have much to do because the needed techs take quite some time to discover:

Charly, HRE, is my favorit leader for playing on crowded maps (at least on pangea). His traits and starting techs allow some very funny and different strats, backed by a very powerfull UB.

1. You start with a scout, which is great for huts
2. You have a decent chance on a religion
3. Settle on a plains hill, work another 2 hammers tile, do a settler first start while teching on a reli. You will be surprised how incredible fast you will have your settler out (about 15 turns), Go warrior or archer then worker in in your second city, do another settler in cap immediately after the first one is done, same build in 3rd city then in second, warrior/archer in capital after settlers... ...you will have 3 cities BEFORE barbs enter your territory any you very likely will be even on deity among the fastest civs to have 3 cities (around turn 33)

Settle these cities aggessively towards the AI, pref. on hills and stuff some archers in, you should do fine, also power-wise. Use your advantage and try and keep the lead in expansion. Crawl somehow towards CoL with rathauses and you are fine

 

[Iranon]

For that reason, IMP is a great trait to offset weak starting techs/a weak starting location if you can scrape together 4 base hammers from the start. I have founded multiple cities before workers in extreme cases. For similar reasons, Charly and Justinian can shoot for an early religion without suffering much economically.

 

[Kesshi]

Settler first will always yield a faster settler.

But everything else will suffer.

It depends on the land, really. But looking at it in my head, I think I was wrong. I think for MOST cases a Settler first is faster, but for some cases Worker first or Grow to size 2 -> Settler may be viable.

 

[oyzar]

I could definatly see going settler first with justian on some maps... Especially if you have like pigs + cow + all forests and corn + gold nearby or something and you are able to work at least 4 hammers.

 

[StuntedAzrael]

For that reason, IMP is a great trait to offset weak starting techs/a weak starting location if you can scrape together 4 base hammers from the start. I have founded multiple cities before workers in extreme cases. For similar reasons, Charly and Justinian can shoot for an early religion without suffering much economically.

This is very interesting. Going for an early religion and compesating for lack of worker techs with an early settler.

 

[DMOC]

I personally have never done the settler-first strategy, since I always suck when playing as Imperalistic leaders, but I would definitely do it if it was deity pangea and I settled on a plains hill with a plains hill stone or marble (or vice versa, same thing really) for 5 hammers. Maybe even with 4 hammers.

 

[Dirk1302]

As Snaaty said, Being imperalistic with the right hammer configuration you can you can get 2 settlers out 2800 BC. That's early enough to get archers in before the barbs enter borders even on deity so this opening is very strong. I still wouldn't go for an early reli as you'll need archery and bw (for whipping workers at size 2). Once the first workers come out you'll probably need AH/AG as well so still much to research.

 

[Duckweed]

Only good if that gives you a critical site. Everything else sucks.

 

[DMOC]

I guess starting with a scout could prove useful or if you immediately settle the capital and see 2 gold resources just out of your reach, with a river + desert tile (floodplains!).

 

[Dirk1302]

@Duckweed, hard to say really, these 3 cities will indeed stay quite small and helpless for some time as they're working unimproved tiles. A more conventional worker first start gives you a good capital which pumps out settlers with ease. With such a capital it's not unusual to have 3 cities ~ 1800 BC anyway. But by that time the first improvements will be up near capital in the settler first empire too and the other cities will be a bit more advanced, should be possible to have whipped a worker in each by that time.

Blocking value is usually important so i think it'll be a good start most of the time. There are all sorts of variations on this theme btw, i remember a game where i was imp and started with seafood, started settler switched wb finished settler just before decay started worker. Settled the settler near gold ~ 3000 bc. Had a very good start this way.

 

[Duckweed]

^My new thread is a very good case to test the difference. Try Worker->Settler at pop2->Settler and calculate the gain, you'll see how ****** is the settler 1st opening.

 

[aapo]

It's easy to prove which one is better. First of all, both and get converted to for both settler and worker. Secondly the city works best yield square for that task. In best case scenario the second tile being worked is just as high-yield as the first one.

I'll use marathon speed game as an example here.

So here we go. Regardless of what the initial squares produce, settler will always take 300 - 120 = 180 more hammers to build. If Expansive or Imperialistic traits are present, only core get +50% bonus, so 2 2 production city will make (imperialistic) settlers at 5 speed and (expansive) workers at 4 speed. Question is therefore how long it will take for worker to get meaningful improvement build.

Case one: settler before worker.

Time taken is 300 / 2X (where 2X is production of two squares in the best case scenario above.)

Case two: worker, then settler.

Time taken is 120 / 2X + 300 - 2X * Y + [(300 - 2X * Y) / (X + Z)]

120 / 2X is time to produce one worker with starting squares
300 - 2X * Y is the time taken to produce settler with starting squares for period Y before improvement is build by worker.
[(300 - 2X * Y) / (X + Z)] is what is left of the settler production reduced by that starting square yield X and improved square yield Z.

We can then take away x from the equation by asking which Y and Z values produce settler in case 2 at same speed as case 1, thus

120 / 2X + 300 - 2X * Y + [(300 - 2X * Y) / (X + Z)] = 300 / 2X
or
60 / X + 300 - 2XY + [(300 - 2XY / (XZ)] = 150 / X


Complicated? Not at all, since Y and Z values are something everyone can read up on civilopedia!

 

[Dirk1302]

^My new thread is a very good case to test the difference. Try Worker->Settler at pop2->Settler and calculate the gain, you'll see how ****** is the settler 1st opening.

I may do that i haven't played it yet but read Snaaty's comments. Should be an interesting comparision. Worker first, settlers out at size 2 means ~ 20 turns delay for first settler, the first city can still be settled without escort (watch out for panters and wolves , you need to fogbust your destination) Second will need escort now since barbs will enter borders at that time.

Without trying this'll get you started sooner in an ideal world i think as the worker more or less doubles (or even triples) output of the tiles you work but now you may be too late to block off some critical site. But that was already mentioned as being the advantage of double settler first.

 

[Dirk1302]

@Duckweed, I tested both scenarios, worker first->grow 2->settler ->grow 3 (because of 3 resources) -> settler is indeed far superior to settler-> settler first. I had suspected it to be faster but not by this much. So if i continue your challenge it'll be with this save .

Spoiler until ~2400 bc about Duckweed's challenge

Spoiler :

But i almost lost the imo crucial rice/ivory/sugar site. 2 turns later and it would have been gone as Alex's settler was approaching. I had time enough to nick the horse site (on the hill). In the settler->settler first scenario i was only just in time to build archers.
So your observations were spot on. Good start actually as i got AH and archery from huts.

 

[DMOC]

^My new thread is a very good case to test the difference. Try Worker->Settler at pop2->Settler and calculate the gain, you'll see how ****** is the settler 1st opening.

Maybe I should have done this. I actually went settler-settler. Yes, 2 straight settlers at size 1 ... and yet the plan seems to be working?!? I was only playing to see how far behind this start would be. I'll post these results in your thread shortly.