Settler first opening

[Duckweed]

@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.

I hope to see your another modern war demonstration.

 

[Dirk1302]

Well need to survive the early game first. This sort of games is not the most relaxing to play. If you go unscathed until bribing time all is well. If one civ attacks you probably all is still well but it's hard to defend against multiple attacks.

 

[CHEESE!]

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

Why would wet corn help? Expansive only helps Worker .

 

[oyzar]

Why would double settler first be any good, the question is if settler then worker can be better than worker then grow then settler...

 

[Dirk1302]

^To steal the best sites, not bothering about defense.

 

[pi-r8]

Seems like this would only be useful if you're on a very crowded map with AIs that aren't too warlike.

 

[Dirk1302]

With no defense i meant settling before barbs enter borders. You can do it on a crowded map with aggressive ais too but you need to settle the cities on hills in that case or they'll be too vulnerable.

 

[DMOC]

Seems like this would only be useful if you're on a very crowded map with AIs that aren't too warlike.

I settled my capital on turn 1 in the deity warmonger challenge and proceeded to create 2 quick settlers and nothing else. I just used the 3 scouts I popped from huts as fogbusting (and, of course, using the help of the AI archers ). I'm sure that if I didn't do this I would have lost at least one of my two city sites.

 

[Fluxx]

Why would wet corn help? Expansive only helps Worker .

Last time I checked wet corn has the highest food output to start with. The question was if settler first always gives a faster settler then worker first..

 

[pi-r8]

I settled my capital on turn 1 in the deity warmonger challenge and proceeded to create 2 quick settlers and nothing else. I just used the 3 scouts I popped from huts as fogbusting (and, of course, using the help of the AI archers ). I'm sure that if I didn't do this I would have lost at least one of my two city sites.

Do you think you were better off doing that rather than building a worker first?

 

[Zeiter]

I once was playing Genghis Khan, and I didn't have anyand I saw an opportunity to settle my capital on a 3-hammer plains stone tile. I also had a forested plains hill to work right off the bat. 6 hammers * 50% = 9 hammers. 12 turns for a settler, which I settled behind my capital at a nice site on this peninsula, so it was protected from barbs and AI and needed no garrison for a while. 2 turns transit = increased production after 14 turns.

After that, I proceeded play "normally," cranking out *2* workers, building some scouts, etc. That game was phenomenal.

Compare that to worker-first. 6 hammers. 10 turns until worker is finished. Then it's going to take 4-5 turns to build any useful improvement, at least. So that's 14-15 turns for increased production. A little longer than the settler-first. Plus, it's bound to be less of an increased production than settler-first. Even irrigated corn only increased your production by 3 (production defined as food + hammers). If it's non-irrigated corn, or irrigated rice, or god-forbid, non-irrigated rice, then it's much worse. Whereas settling a new city will get you +4 production and +1 commerce (hammer and commerce from base tile, + some forest tile). Plus you get to fogbust with territory.

In extremely special cases like this, I would say settler-first is "the superior." But in general, without the bonuses specific to building settlers, and without the insane # of starting hammers, worker-first is better.

 

[Dirk1302]

@pi-r8, i also played Duckweed's game, both scenarios. 2 settlers first ensures too critical sites on that map. I tried worker->settler->settler too. This gave me a better position around 2400 bc but i almost lost a site, one turn later and it would have been gone. So the arguments sofar in this thread settler first if you want to grab a critical site otherwise start with a worker hold up very well.

@Zeiter, stone tile + forested plainhill gives an enormous boost to settler production. I would have placed the second city towards the other ais however, time enough to get an archer in before barbs enter borders. A city with an irrigated corn produces more than 2 cities working unimproved tiles btw. It grows much faster after which worker/settler production in this city alone is also faster than worker production in 2 unimproved cities. And you still need to begin with a worker in both your cities, in the worker first scenario you already have one by that time. The difference is significant as i learned from Duckweed's game. Then again your example is more extreme, you're effectively working a 7 H output tile while building a settler in this case from scratch.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^pi-r8, i also played Duckweed's game, both scenarios. 2 settlers first ensures too critical sites on that map. I tried worker->settler->settler too. This gave me a better position around 2400 bc but i almost lost a site, one turn later and it would have been gone. So the arguments sofar in this thread settler first if you want to grab a critical site otherwise start with a worker hold up very well.

What about situations where you either have

a) heavy forest tiles and only one food resource with weak starting techs or

b) you have one of those seafood-heavy starts w/o fishing and limited if any good land food

and are imperialistic?

Also, how could one tell that they need a good site some distance away before building the settler first?

I've considered settler first in the past but have rarely had much success with its advantage via anything but a lucky guess...but it seems that worker first is playing the favorable odds.

 

[mike p]

I've used Settler first with Justinian up to Immortal level. I wouldn't do it all the time, but if you have rivers and can get at least 4 hammers to start, you can have your two cities finish their workers while you get worker techs done.

A river is nice so that you can found both cities along it for the extra two commerce from trade routes without having to build roads, since you won't have workers yet, even if it means overlapping the fat cross some.

 

[Dirk1302]

What about situations where you either have

a) heavy forest tiles and only one food resource with weak starting techs or

b) you have one of those seafood-heavy starts w/o fishing and limited if any good land food

and are imperialistic?

Also, how could one tell that they need a good site some distance away before building the settler first?

I've considered settler first in the past but have rarely had much success with its advantage via anything but a lucky guess...but it seems that worker first is playing the favorable odds.

I have had B) without very impressive land resources. Settler first researching fishing switch wb with fishing in switch back when wb finished at size 2 works very well. You now have one tile improved near capital and your first settler ~ 3000 bc. With fishing it's probably better to start the wb.

You can't tell but you can sometimes guess from the mapscript that you may have to hurry your settler. The opening of the game is often a bit of a gamble anyway, more so when imperialistic. I don't think i would consider a settler first start if not imperialistic or without >=4H to work from start for the 50% bonus.

 

[Nurgle84]

I use settler first often as Charlemagne is my favorite. I like to grab land fast or box in an ai at the very start. But I never tried settler>settler. Seems to slow for me.

 

[budweiser]

If you are IMP, you can go settler first if you have the hammers. You can make a warrior or a scout while both cities grow to size 2 at which point you can whip your first workers. I think slavery plays a part in this deal.

If you reseach AH or BW, you can use settler 1 to secure that resource very early, possibly negating the need for archery.

 

[DMOC]

Also, you can use the settler first opening to your advantage on GEM as Julius Caesar. Just settle 1 north, and work the highest hammer tile with your other citizen. You have 7 for the base total, + 3 for imperialistic. 10 total, and that's not including the city center's free food.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

What is this GEM you are talking about?

 

[Insanity_X]

Giant Earth Map. It's a mod that makes a map that's huger than a huge map. Presumably, like the earth map included on regular CIV, the start locations are fixed (though that's a guess based on DMOC saying anybody using the GEM would always start in the same place with Julius Ceaser)

Although it doesn't make a map quite as large as the frankly insane map that DMOC posted in the 'largest map size anyone's ever WON on' thread.