Starting your City on Turn 2 - Ever Worth It?

[thelibra]

Howdy all,

Just curious what your thoughts were on this.

Say you start off in a pretty good spot, but thanks to a conveniently placed hill and your first warrior move, you see there's a GREAT spot 2-3 spaces away. You could benefit enormously from the additional resources/tilestuffs, but you won't be able to found your city until turn 2.

Is it ever worth it, and if so, does the difficulty level matter?

The reason I ask is that I started with the new Persian Leader (Darius) and my game placed me 3-spaces away from a spot where I'd have coastal access, fresh water, a 3f/3g oasis tile surrounded by 2f plains, 4 mountains, a stone tile, and a gold mountain, plus silk and a couple of other luxury resources just outside of the fat cross (so they'll be mine by the time I can actually use them). And I think there were some fish and crabs, but I don't remember since it was yesterday before I had to stop playing. I saved the game, just in case. It's a dream-spot.

But it starts me off a turn late, which seems to be a huge disadvantage in the harder difficulties. So what are your thoughts?

 

[LlamaCat]

yes this is definitely worth it to do in many starts and you can overcome the delay even at higher difficulty levels. I'm not sure if the highest difficulty settings would be a problem or not as I don't play them but up to Monarch at least I would not hesitate. but it does have to be a pretty compelling reason like in your case.

 

[AfterShafter]

If your fundamentals are good, one or two turns isn't going to kill you unless you're playing on a tiny sized map with the intent of having rushing I do it all the time on Emperor and I do pretty well.

 

[KMadCandy]

definitely worth it in some cases. and controversial enough to inspire nearly 6 pages of debate sometimes

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Course it is worth it if that other spot will produce a significantly better capital. The capital is where for much of the game the most science and gold will be produced, it really helps if it is the best.

 

[Kadasbrass]

No different then a turn of Anarchy.

 

[Silence101]

One thing to keep in mind is that you won't be able to see all the resources... you could move your settler out of range of horses or iron or copper, or, you could inadvertantly settle on top of a strat resource. If your starting location seems a little desolate, there's probably some resources present that you can't see yet.

On that note, I'll be the first to admit that I still do move my settler before settling a fair amount of the time. So I'm not arguing that you shouldn't do it... just saying that you'll probably want to take a good look at the terrain to see where potential resources probably are located and factor that into your decision.

 

[AlessioCerci]

Its fine to do it only if u are certain that the capital will be better than if u hadnt moved it. If u cant see ~4 squares and they turn out to be desert uve just wasted time. Ofcourse u can never know bout horses, copper, iron etc but even if they arent in the BFC they will most likely be in the city's culture radius soon.

 

[xanadux]

Here is something to consider:

If you are building worker first, which more often than not is correct, starting on a plains hill will get that worker out 5 turns earlier on epic speed. So if a plains hill is the best spot, a turn or 2 to get there actually benefits you.

Moving is often good. I'll waste a turn or 2 for a clearly superior capital every day of the week.

 

[thelibra]

My normal strategy has been to create a settler first, as one of the articles around here stated you get the highest yield that way every time except in the rarest of circumstances. And I always try to shoot for Buddhism, as it gives the most bang for buck. By missing that first turn though, I sign away my chance at founding Buddism, though I might be able to score Hinduism still, or at least Judaism, but Judaism puts me so dang late in development it's almost not worth it.

With stone nearby though, might just work out to my advantage. Hmmm...

Well, good to know then that the new starting position is worth it. I'll see if I can get a screen cap once the area is revealed, so you can see what tempted me to sacrifice turn 1. It's a really beautiful spot.

 

[GrandWazoo]

One turn maybe, if it's really worth it but I never spend two turns for that. I'll rush a settler if there is a nearby position that is that much worth it. And you can always switch your capital later in the game if you want it.

 

[Dennis_Moore]

No, since the game always chooses perfect starting locations for you.

....seriously, of course it can be worth it.

 

[CTH]

I love the advanced start option, where you can choose to set your capitol in a area. I just give me enough starting points to build a city and a scout/warrior. something like 150 points.
Is it cheating? Not more than regenerate map in my eyes. And I have regenerate the map more than once

 

[bonafide11]

I very rarely move my settler from the starting location because I find that if another tile appears to be a better starting location, I can't actually see its entire surroundings and once I get there I discover the original city location would have been better.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Here is something to consider:

If you are building worker first, which more often than not is correct, starting on a plains hill will get that worker out 5 turns earlier on epic speed. So if a plains hill is the best spot, a turn or 2 to get there actually benefits you.

Moving is often good. I'll waste a turn or 2 for a clearly superior capital every day of the week.

I wouldn't say that building a worker first is "correct". I'd much rather have my population grow and build a unit to defend my capital. Once my population is about 3-4, i'll start building workers / other settlers. You're probably taking a lot more turns to build up population and even to build that worker since you only have one population working the land. This is why it takes 20 turns to build a settler with a population 1 and maybe 12 turns with pop 3-4

 

[bonafide11]

I think building a work first is usually the best strategy because who cares if your city reaches a size 3 before it builds a worker if you don't have any improved tiles anyway? Think about it, without improved tiles your city is going to take longer to grow and longer to produce anything, so you want those tiles improved as soon as possible. Your city won't produce the worker much faster if its working three unimproved tiles compared to only one unimproved tile. However, if you build a worker, improve a tile, and build a warrior or archer, it'll finish production much faster than if you're working unimproved tiles. The only thing I'll build first other than a worker is a work boat if I start with fishing and have a sea resource in my fat cross.

 

[Wodan]

Your city won't produce the worker much faster if its working three unimproved tiles compared to only one unimproved tile.

What's evidence for this theory? I don't buy it.

However, if you build a worker, improve a tile, and build a warrior or archer, it'll finish production much faster than if you're working unimproved tiles.

No it won't, because you're working fewer tiles.

The only thing I'll build first other than a worker is a work boat if I start with fishing and have a sea resource in my fat cross.

I agree that work boat first is a no-brainer, if you start with fishing and have a sea resource there.

Wodan

 

[gettingfat]

To the original topic, Yes, starting on turn 2 if it makes the capital better is definitely worth it. A good capital means so much, especially considering how one great capital running under bureacratic civic and provide. In BtS I also find the settler usually stands between an inland lake and the start of a river in the beginning, which means you won't be able to build levee if you settle there. And at higher level moving the settler from the coast to inland also help block the AIs to leave you more backyard room for later development. I even settled on turn 4 or 5 once in a while.

But there are two cases this may backfire. One is if you really really want to win the Buddhism/Hinduism race. One turn means a lot. Another is sometimes it's better to split the resources between the capital and the 2nd city. This is especially true if you have a lot of food resources, which you won't be able to use even half of them for three thousand years. However, sometimes you only know this if you move your settler around before settling.

 

[Blaarg]

When I started this game my settler appeared one spot to the NE of where I founded Amsterdam. Not even on Fresh water.

 

[ezwip]

It is definitely worth it on marathon which i play the most often. If I see stone or marble I'll track over and plop right down on top of it no matter how far it is. Often those aren't in sight so I'll look for food. The way I see it on marathon at least is that if I build right where I am the settler will likely take 75 turns. If I plop down on top of something it will be between 50-60. So that one, two, or even three turns I might sacrafice walking over there is quickly made up for. I don't feel like I'm losing anything by doing this.