What if I start with a worker?

[Carl v.]

I conducted a little experiment to see what happens when you start the game with building a worker. On the forums, many have complained about lack of resources. Those gamers should pay attention to the results. They show how important it is to improve the tiles as early as possible.

In a hotseat-test, I let Aztecs and Chinese build and expand. ASAP I wanted to build a new city, and needed a worrier and a settler in each civilisation.

In Teoch..Thoehct… Aztec Capital, I started to build a worker, in Beijing a warrior. Both cities had a tile of flood plain, hills, woods, pigs (Az) and corn (Chi).

The Chi warrior was finished first, and I started to build a settler.

Some turns later, the Az finished the first worker, who started to irrigate the flood plain-tile. The following building-queue was warrior and then settler.

After the settler was finished in Beijing, I started to build a worker. Together with a warrior, the settler sets out to settle somewhere else, and leaves this experiment.

A few turns later, the brand new Az settler and a warrior do the same thing, and the good people of the Aztec Capital start with the barracks.

In Beijing the masses of the Chinese people began building barracks after finishing the worker, who immediately started to irrigate flood plains.

I shut down the experiment when the Aztecs had finished their barracks. The results were interesting:

Beijing still had to wait eight turns for the barracks. The town produced five hammers and 11-6 foods on improved tiles; one mine, irrigated flood plain and corn. (All tiles with roads.)

The Aztec Capital produced 12 hammers and 11-6 food by the time its barracks was finished. But in this city the worker had finished one flood plain, pigs and TWO mines. Besides; the Aztec population would soon increase, which was not the case in Beijing.

Other experiences?

 

[Softnum]

Worker first is a somewhat common strategy. Basically, if you have anything useful for your worker to do (Farm the corn, etc.) and can gain the benefit from it, this is a useful strategy.

 

[gdgrimm]

I'll usually do either worker->warrior->settler or warrior->worker->settler.

There's one thing I think you missed in your analysis......

...
After the settler was finished in Beijing, I started to build a worker. Together with a warrior, the settler sets out to settle somewhere else, and leaves this experiment.

A few turns later, the brand new Az settler and a warrior do the same thing, and the good people of the Aztec Capital start with the barracks.
...
analysis of only the two capitals

Why did you not include analysis of the 2nd cities as well? Since China got the settler out first, his 2nd city would be more developed, correct? And the goal of the game isn't to maximize one city, but rather an empire.

Also, you don't try to take into account the benefit of extra scouting from an early warrior build. It's difficult to analyze that benefit (since you can't count it like you can food/hammers/commerce), but having more knowledge of the surroundings can lead to better city placement whose benefits may exceed getting a little more food quicker.

 

[manu-fan]

I think you need to include the warrior-worker-settler test with the worker chopping for the settler.

That alows the city to grow while producing the warrior, get the worker quicker and get the settler quicker due to chopping.

That's what I normally do, anyway.

Cheers.

 

[Minmaster]

these days, i usually opt to go after a neighbor's worker if i start with a warrior (instead of scout) and if another civ is relatively close. it works really well with incans because archers cant counterattack my incan UU.

 

[Shillen]

I almost always go worker first unless there are sea resources or no resources that I can improve in my fat cross.

 

[svv]

Going with the warrior first doesn't seem to work for me. Assuming I started with a warrior available, I usually go for two workers, then a settler. The workers can chop for the other worker, chop for the settler, and then make improvements for when my population does start growning.

The jump I get on this seems a lot more valueable then just the production I get out of two citizens instead of one working the land.

 

[Steve2000]

Going with the warrior first doesn't seem to work for me. Assuming I started with a warrior available, I usually go for two workers, then a settler. The workers can chop for the other worker, chop for the settler, and then make improvements for when my population does start growning.

The jump I get on this seems a lot more valueable then just the production I get out of two citizens instead of one working the land.

What do you do with your warrior - defend your city right? If so how do you explore the map? If not, how do you defend your workers and settler from barbs?

 

[svv]

I'll send the original warrior out with the settler (and workers before that, if I'm building a road). After the settler's built I'll do the warrior for the capital. I've not had a problem in those few turns - though of course this probably wouldn't work if you were playing raging barbs.

 

[Minmaster]

i make warrior first and have it setup so that i grow to size 2 when i finish my warrior. the original warrior was sent out to explore and pop goodie huts (im addicted to free money and techs), and the warrior produced will explore close to the capitol in the direction the first warrior didnt go to and pop some more goodies. then i'll have it find a good spot for a second city, fortify him on some forest/jungle hill around there until my first settler is produced and reaches destination. i may leave that warrior as the 2nd city garrison or send him back to capitol and have 2nd city produce its own garrison.

 

[Carl v.]

Thanks for interesting views and new approaches.

I should have been more precise in my initial post. The aim of the experiment was to see what it meant to production to build a worker as the first unit, compared to earliest possible expansion (e.g. building of warrior/settler and then worker).

I used two cities with almost identical natural resources, and let the workers do the same tasks in the same order. In this way, it was possible to compare production in a certain time frame.

If I had chopped for a quick settler, the parameters would have changed and a direct production comparison would not have been possible. But; if I had chopped, the benefits of an early worker would have been emphasized and the Aztecs had got their Second City first.

But as it was, China settled its Second City first, and it could work one unimproved tile for some time before the Aztec no. 2 city was a fact. I am sorry I did not record how many turns, but the difference was not significant.

At the time the Aztecs had built their barracks, I ended the experiment. But if we want to analyze the future production of the two nations, we will have to face the following facts:
1: The Aztec capital would have grown in a few turns, and could utilize the second mine immediately. At this time, the production difference between the two cities would be more than the measured 12-5.
2: The Aztec worker was free to go to the second city for tile improvement.
3: If we follow the framework of rules of the initial experiment (production comparision), the Chinese worker would have to build a mine with road before going to Second City to improve tiles there.

My conclusion is that if we consider the Second Cities and its future production, the benefits of an early worker would be even bigger.

Both nations had a warrior at the start. The second started to explore the surroundings. Due to faster production of settler, the Aztec warrior had less time to reconnaissance as his Chinese counterpart. Still he was able to map some of the land, and enough to find a good location for Second City.

I believe this experiment shows that there is no reason to wait until a city reaches two or more population to build a worker. If you are equipped with a scout, it is natural to build a warrior first. In such cases, I start with barracks and switch to worker just after population growth.

 

[Wlauzon]

Too much depends on how you play to really have any general rules.

For example, I often play 5 huge continents, no barbs.

In that scenario, I don't need any military for a long time, except maybe a few to keep the riots down.

So I go Stonehenge (I put my initial warrior in the city, no exploring) > Scout > Settler > (both) workers x 2, for a total of 4. After that it varies a lot depending on map, resources, etc, but usually I spam settlers and workers until my research drops to about 50%. The exception usually is the capital city, where I build temples or whatever else looks good (since it is usually a size 6 or 7+ city by then).

The reason I never explore with the warrior is that the scout has a much better chance of getting better goodies, like tech.

This obviously won't work if you have barbs and/or close neighbors.

 

[Baru]

I'll almost always go with two explorers (warrior or scout) first then, hopefully by that time your cap has hit the two mark. The you should be able to furnish yourself with a worker more quickly. Given it will come later than starting out with one but if you start one at the outset it can improve, but you won't have the citizens to work.

 

[Quagga]

I agree that worker first is a good approach. Almost always. However, if you start with Fishing and there's a nice sea resource next to your capital, a work boat seems a better choice. Great food and commerce value, but even better, it won't be pillaged by that axe your city-bound archer dare not take on.

I've been trying to master Emperor/Marathon. I find that building a warrior in the first three builds is not useful. Barbs don't enter your cultural borders until 2400 BC or a bit later, so little need for warrior before then. Escorting your first settler with a warrior may not work when many of the Barbs are archers. If I'm lucky, my initial scout or warrior has survived to the point where I can use it as spotter for my settler. Otherwise, I might gamble (admittedly followed by Exit to Main Menu if I die) or do a bit of queue juggling to get a warrior (or maybe archer) out just one turn before the settler.

My internal argument is usually whether I build worker-worker-settler or worker-settler. It depends on how many forests are available and whether mining is one of my starting techs.

 

[automator]

I think my adherance to letting the city grow before I build a worker is hurting my game. I tend to:

warrior/scout->warrior/scout->worker->warrior->warrior->settler

In this way I always end up with my city at size 2 before building a worker, my worker always has something to do (I will have researched farming and animal husbandry, and be almost done with BW), and then I've got a 3/4 city before the settler.

But it's slowing me down. The one time I did a worker from the start, it was great. But I had a cow, corn, horse, iron and hills all in my fat X (didn't know about horse and iron, of course at the start), so I couldn't refuse a worker beginning.

 

[budweiser]

I'm playing on monarch standard normal speed. I almost always do worker first and then research agriculture so he can make farms. The first unit scouts all around my city in a big circle so I can see where the next 2 or three cites should go. Then he heads off to uncover the map or die. Then research AH, mining, or BW and get pottery soon after. I build a warrior after the first worker and then start something else while my city grows to 3-4, then I do my first settler. The second city comes up around 2400BC. I usually keep one worker for 2 cities because while the capitol is maiking settlers it is stuck at size 4 and doenst need any more improvements. Then its alternate between military, and a few more settlers. I usually stop at 4 to 5 until I can get my economy going. I try to hold off on too many buildings until I can get a religion, focussing on just making troops to protect my lands.

 

[Wlauzon]

Except for my initial build (the capital) I always start one of two ways until late in the game - if on a coast then Lighthouse > worker. Otherwise > worker.

Later in the game I might do a granary or forge first, but that is not until I reach the point of having a large herd of (flock?) of workers.

 

[GeneralGab]

On Noble and Prince, my build was Worker->Worker->Warrior->Settler.
On Monarch, I go Worker->Warrior->Worker/Warrior depending on how close civs are, and if there are barbs around, etc.

 

[Xerol]

Even better with the work boat: The city still grows while building it. That's the main reason I'll choose to build a Warrior first on inland starts too, if the worker wouldn't have anything else to do (example: starting inland on spain, first research is usually a religion, the worker wouldn't have anything to do _anyway_).

 

[drkodos]

(Single Player Only) I am still an advocate of the Worker/Worker/Settler build order in most situations, but lately have been experimenting on Settler first with some interesting results. Taking the same game start, playing it out with one build order, then going back in and re-trying it with Settler first build.

Found first city on plains hill, 2+ high food yield tiles in founding cross for rapid growth after Settler build and a river connection to the 2nd site make it a powerful start, fraught with risk and peril, but loaded with payoff. Starting traits of civ choice are best with an Organized or Finacial in the mix.