I don't like worker first since I like my city to grow before getting it. I can build a worker faster when the city is at size four then at size 1. Also, I like scouting in the early game. Thus, my openings tend to be warrior-warrior-warrior (aggressive civs ftw!). In some situations, this works spectacularly well. In other situations, it doesn't work as well. I'm curious as to whether anyone has done a cost-benefit analysis of worker first compared to worker later. The advantage of worker first is that you can get lots of tiles worked, early-on, but it feels very meh compared to the warrior openings (which are much more exciting- but are they better?). P.S. I'm probably an immortal-level player with the right civs (like Ragnar, Alexander, or Caesar). In that, I can beat immortal, but it'll be stressful. I find emperor to be pretty easy.