The big question: Workers first, or not?

For your first city, what should you build first?

  • Worker

    Votes: 34 15.5%
  • Not a worker

    Votes: 60 27.4%
  • Depends, but usually workers

    Votes: 53 24.2%
  • Depends, but usually not a worker.

    Votes: 59 26.9%
  • Depends, and I have no preference.

    Votes: 13 5.9%

  • Total voters
    219

MSTK

Deity
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
2,154
Okay, I've been looking over the current compilations of strategy for this new game and something I've noticed is the inconsistancy of the community's opinion towards building workers first in their first city, or putting it off until their population grows more.

As most of you know, while building a worker, all of a city's growth is temporarily halted. This means that you loose a "head start" against all of your rivals. It would stunt your growth. The severety of this handicap depends on your terrain and conditions.
Plus, this means that you have the chance to build those important early-game units and improvements, such as scouts, warriors, and obelisks.
Workers being built right away will be built relatively slowly, because there is only one citizen to do the work.

However, before you get your first worker, your building and growth would be slowed down. Some say that it's easier to just go for the workers and improve things ASAP. Along with some other advantages, this may be the right way to go.
EDIT: Workers might also help you chop forests and get other units with a quick boost. So what would have taken you 15 turns to build a Warrior and then a Worker, could take you 10 or less turns to build a Worker and then chop a forest to get a Warrior.

What do you think? This decision is most likely vital to the early-game.
 
Since workers have little to build at first (even cottages, mines, and farms require special research to build), there is little reason to build workers off the bat from the standpoint of improvements.

However, there is a very strong case for building a worker first with a particular type of strategy in order to harvest forests and jump-start your civ, using the forest hammers to pump out military units, settlers, etc.

See this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137292
 
^ Agreed. Which is why it depends, if you have no forests in your area, or you happen to use a civ without starting with mining so you can tech to bronze working first, then you may need to build differently.

However, if you start with mining and have forest around your first city, pump the worker out and proceed to chopping, you'll be behind others at the most for 10 turns and ahead of most by 20-25 turns.
 
Unless you have

Agriculture---farms
or Hunting---camps
or Bronze---cut down forests AND the Wheel---roads

There's NO reason to build a worker before you grow to 2, or even 3...

Two pop > One pop ... there can be no discussion of that...
 
I play as Ghandi and I never build a worker or settler before population 3 or 2 warriors have popped out...
 
If the area around your first city is ideal then the strategy that WoundedKnight posted the link to is very viable to pump out a worker first. Starting with mining is key so you can research bronze working first and is done in time the first worker pops out. Then that worker immediately starts killing trees while you're building a settler in that same city to decrease the time it takes to pop that settler out. I don't mean to sound rude but three 1 pop cities > one 2 pop city.......
 
Yeah, I agree that Chop-Rushing a few settlers is the way to go, Yao777. But I GUARANTEE my city will grow to two while I make a 2nd warrior, and THEN I do the "worker-choprush-settler" thing....in the meantime, I usually get a religion, too... ;) Balance, Daniel-san

....so the question then becomes which is greater:

2 pop(almost 3 pop) + 1 pop
or 1 pop + 1 pop + 1 pop

? :D
 
Oh yeah? Well try this equation on then.

Which is greater:

2 pop(almost 3 pop) + 1 pop + 4 warriors (2 for each city, roughly 20 turns total)
or
1 pop(almost 2 pop) + 1 pop(halfway to 2 pop) + 1 pop

? lol

How much can we confuse each other with strange math?
 
:lol: :crazyeye:

I still like my scenario better :lol:


(But FOUR warriors? No, i'd have a barracks first ;) )
 
Well, I guess the lesson is "to each their own" hehe. That's what I love about civ, is so many different tactics work toward the same goal. None of that RTS stuff like "build this this this this and this in THIS order otherwise you'll be dead".
 
Yeah, I think they put the City Defense bonus on Warriors SPECIFICALLY to stop Zerging :)

And :beer: to each his own :)
 
I usually build a warrior, then a worker. So I chop tons of wood building at least two settlers. But when I've founded my second town I'm used to build warrior\scout first of all.
If I'm unlucky and my capital is in the middle of the desert... bad!
 
You guys forgot something very important here...

If you've got a strong resource nearby, and the tech to take the resource, build a worker.

If you haven't got the resource or haven't got the tech, build a warrior/scout.
No, I sort of said it... :D
Mujadaddy said:
Unless you have

Agriculture---farms
or Hunting---camps
or Bronze---cut down forests AND the Wheel---roads

There's NO reason to build a worker before you grow to 2, or even 3...

Two pop > One pop ... there can be no discussion of that...
:p :lol:
 
On noble, I thought worker first was a good idea. But on emperor and up, with raging barbs, I'm lucky to survive long enough to complete that worker. And if one does survive, the animals will enjoy a feast when the worker starts working.
 
And if one does survive, the animals will enjoy a feast when the worker starts working.

Animals don't enter your borders.

I'll build a worker first if my city has weak tiles to work until a worker improvement is made AND I can get the tech required for that improvement before I can finish the worker. Otherwise I'll let my city grow first.
 
Back
Top Bottom