When to build a Settler

[Gooblah]

I've recently seen a rise in the number of times advice has been given to let a city grow a little (to 4/5 pop) before building a Settler.

IMO, this is pretty bad advice. Lemme lay out my case:
1) Capitals are granted 1-2 food resources and usually a lot of forests in BTS.
2) By grabbing the techs necessary to utilize the food resource and hitting Bronze Working (key techs anyways), you can quickly push out a Settler or two before 4 pop.
3) By REXing and churning out a Settler or Worker once every two builds or so, you can easily grow the capital while building cities.

This strategy works fine for me. It can occasionally result in overexpansion, but the top players know when to stop, and the normal player can usually pull out of an economic recession by teching Alphabet, Aesthetics, Currency, and/or Code of laws.

To me, waiting till the city is 4/5 pop doesn't really change much, since odds are you'll be working unimproved tiles, and the time it would take to build a Settler AND reach 4 pop would be longer than building one as soon as the food is hooked up and good tiles are improved.

 

[Iranon]

Somewhat oversimplifying: If I can grow into good tiles first, I will. Mines are good enough, forests aren't unless I'm in the position to make effective use of the whip. For the purpose of building settlers, vanilla farms are forests (or worse if IMP).

 

[JammerUno]

I think the advice grow your city to 4-5 is based on the resources available. There's usually more than 2 good yield tiles in your capitals' BFC, and surely more than 3 tiles with 4 yield. Stopping at size 2 when you're not working your resources doesn't seem to be the most efficient, since they tend to be 5 yield tiles, which will increase settler production significantly. The fast early growth rates you get from high food tiles compounds that further. It might only take 10 turns to grow from size 2 to size 4. There's no harm in building 2 warriors while doing so, and then start building settlers.

 

[Calouste]

I've recently seen a rise in the number of times advice has been given to let a city grow a little (to 4/5 pop) before building a Settler.

IMO, this is pretty bad advice. Lemme lay out my case:
1) Capitals are granted 1-2 food resources and usually a lot of forests in BTS.
2) By grabbing the techs necessary to utilize the food resource and hitting Bronze Working (key techs anyways), you can quickly push out a Settler or two before 4 pop.
3) By REXing and churning out a Settler or Worker once every two builds or so, you can easily grow the capital while building cities.

This strategy works fine for me. It can occasionally result in overexpansion, but the top players know when to stop, and the normal player can usually pull out of an economic recession by teching Alphabet, Aesthetics, Currency, and/or Code of laws.

To me, waiting till the city is 4/5 pop doesn't really change much, since odds are you'll be working unimproved tiles, and the time it would take to build a Settler AND reach 4 pop would be longer than building one as soon as the food is hooked up and good tiles are improved.

If your capital is size 4-5 and you are working unimproved tiles you should either build a worker earlier or you have a really crappy site. Typically I let my capital grow until it works all excellent tiles (resources, floodplains and river side hills) and often there are more of those than the happy cap.

 

[Crusher1]

What level do you play - On Deity barbs enter your borders no later than 2500 BC by which time if you dont have archers very soon or horse/metal game over. Definitely grow to happy cap.

Additionally about level - working more tiles at higher levels is very important for commerce in order to reach economy techs like pottery or writing.

Are AI's close - you might want a quick city out.

Are you creative - becomes a factor because border pops come much faster with no need to whip or chop a monument then wait for a pop - very important if you need a resource vs barbs if you havent gone archery which indicates the need for a smaller 2-4 city settler build.

If your ultimate goal is to settle as many cities as possible growing to your happy cap will accomplish it faster.

A previous post of mine about a REX (Immortal) - I grew my city to the happy cap first, but, I built a 2nd worker at size 3 so all tiles where improved when my 1st settler began.

Spoiler :

 

[madscientist]

I play at amrathon and find 35-40 turns to put out a settler insanely inefficient. In that time I can pump out scouts/warriors/workboat and improve tiles arround the capital.

The benefit of waiting to build a settler is

1) the city cannot grow while you building it. Waiting until Pop 4-5 allows more efficient use of early hammers.

2) Your treasury lasts longer to finish the worker techs and 1 or 2 early economy techs before you drop below 100% science.

3) I find I need those warriors/archers at emperor sooner than later. Essentially I can betetr defend myself.

Now, the down side

1) You can miss out on very good sites to AIs.

2) You have less commerce to work because there is no trade routes.

3) Longer time to access resource military (chariots/axes/spears).

It is definitely map dependant, but if I can exploit resources to the max I do it. Poor food capitals I definitely will build settlers earlier.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can't speak for deity, but on anything else I find the city tends to out-grow the rate at which the first worker can improve tiles anyway. In that case, I put the settler in queue (no BW yet) and get it out sooner while starting to improve the lower-yield tiles. The city can grow after that, onto the improvements, while the worker gets a start on the new city.

I've had trouble matching that speed with any other opening other than marathon resource in BFC mass rushes. No reason to grow into unimproved tiles IMO...they barely speed up that settler and new cities working power tiles will be had sooner if you put the settler earlier in the build.

 

[Bleys]

If your capital is size 4-5 and you are working unimproved tiles you should either build a worker earlier or you have a really crappy site.

Or you didnt tech anything for the worker to do, its very important to get tiles improved ASAP.

I dont mind building my first settler while using a couple unimproved tiles though, like the grass forest I am chopping into it anyway. I will be whipping it to finish after the chop, and by then, I may be able to improve another tile and let the Cap grow another notch before I whip. If I have a huge-food city though, I push whipping to the limit, often growing to 6 (1 unhappy) and whipping for 3. A few 5-6F tiles is a lot of hammers.

 

[BurN]

Let's see ... you need food techs, anti-barb techs, prod techs and commerce/science techs. It's highly likely your capital is 4-5 by then.

(unless you popped a good amount of gold or have commerce resources nearby, you can settle earlier in that case)

 

[djvandrake]

I know it's map dependent, but what timeframe are we generally looking at? I've paid a lot of attention to the year in which I'm putting down my second city compared to the AI, and feel like if I'm not settled by 2700 BC then there's something wrong. Is there a specific date benchmark that people will set? (I play on Monarch, usually Epic, sometimes Marathon)

I've tried several approachs; building a worker first, having that worker chop out the second worker (assuming I start with mining and reseach BW first) and then have both of those workers chop out the settler. Quickest way to get out the settler in general but you send it out unescorted and sacrifice 2-4 forests for it. It's almost a draw to grow the city first by building Warrior=>Worker (improve tile as mine or farm)=>warrior=>settler. The date is a little later but you have a size 2 or 3 capital as opposed to two cities at size 1.

 

[Earthling]

I almost invariably go worker>1-2warriors>settler. Settler has to come out around turn 50 (epic speed = 33 normal speed). A settler every 25 turns after is what I aim for - 4 cities by turn 100. Without this you lose a ton of land to AI (Imm/Deity + Huge).

Exceptions to getting a settler this fast are the rare start where a wonder is important. For me this is almost always only low levels or non single player though - I almost never see stone/marble in my cap on larger maps, and even then I usually don't play wonder-oriented civs so much anyway. Having seafood resources may also alter things too because a workboat first can be better, changing up settler timing a little. Lastly, once you hit about city 3 if there are more appealing options than settlers (barb cities or an AI target for military) that's an ok switch too.

My experience is that barbs are not that bad at all, or at least it's almost never worth going archery - warriors manage for quite a long time with proper fogbusting. If you're going to get hit with a mass barb archer rush anyway the game might as well be lost so in general it's not worth the delay to get archery unless it's a game I can't risk at all(multiplayer, GOTM, etc...)

Lastly, I know I find myself saying this a lot but TMIT makes a great point - with just your first worker you really can't improve everything. The worker is much better off straight chopping than trying to get an improvement for your 4th citizen for instance. I often don't even hit size five till after my first two cities.

14CC: bold, elegant, and great to pull off.

 

[Crusher1]

My experience is that barbs are not that bad at all

Lol, you and I are playing a different game . The last Deity game I played, US Giga and Pacal games, my Giglamesh game had 40 barbs attack me by 700ish BC with 2 archers inside my borders by 2500 BC and 4 total by 2300 BC. Matter of fact, I think Meinteam played those game too and had some barb issues as well. But then again losing 2 archers to 40 barbs aint so bad.

 

[pangu]

I think it is very map dependent.

I play normal speed on emperor level.

If I see 1 nice spot nearby (nice spot = spot with food and high commerce tile, i.e. gold, silver, gems OR spot with horse/bronze), I almost always go for worker-worker-settler-SH. If 2 nice spots nearby (close to enemy AI) AND lots of forest in capital, I go for worker-worker-settler-settler-GW just to grab the spots.

However, in a normal map, if I am not creative and there are not many forests around me, I may go for worker-SH-archer-archer-settler-worker. If creative, I may go for worker-GW-archer-settler-worker.

I think the only sound advice is not to have a pre-set build order for every game. Play the map.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Lol, you and I are playing a different game . The last Deity game I played, US Giga and Pacal games, my Giglamesh game had 40 barbs attack me by 700ish BC with 2 archers inside my borders by 2500 BC and 4 total by 2300 BC. Matter of fact, I think Meinteam played those game too and had some barb issues as well. But then again losing 2 archers to 40 barbs aint so bad.

That's why I qualified deity level. I have far less experience there than others, and it plays completely differently. Build 2 cities quickly and whoops...no research X_X. I could probably adjust by completely copying the deity games here, losing repeatedly until it sunk in what works when, and then struggle to win 1/4 of my games on deity AFTER that, but I'll pass for now. The micro needed is pretty intensive, and it's a fair bet to say that the ridiculous AI bonuses (in many cases a greater jump from imm---->deity than noble ----> immortal) afford a completely different game to all but the very best...and the very best actually micro.

 

[Crusher1]

Yep ^^. Lately I have been playing around with the FE A LOT because it seems to have the best success on Deity. Overall though, I still enjoy and play much better with cottages, and my favorite player is Liz. Having said that, I really hate Archers because that means I have hunting and cant spam cheap warriors for HR, but sometimes you just need Archers.

In fact, if I am playing a civilization starting with hunting I will almost always get them because if nothing else they allow me to settle cities in the order I want, not in the order of where the military resource is first.

But, all in all, play the silly map. I never use the same build order for settlers/workers. Too many variables always changing.

 

[BurN]

I almost invariably go worker>1-2warriors>settler. Settler has to come out around turn 50 (epic speed = 33 normal speed). A settler every 25 turns after is what I aim for - 4 cities by turn 100. Without this you lose a ton of land to AI (Imm/Deity + Huge).

Exceptions to getting a settler this fast are the rare start where a wonder is important. For me this is almost always only low levels or non single player though - I almost never see stone/marble in my cap on larger maps, and even then I usually don't play wonder-oriented civs so much anyway. Having seafood resources may also alter things too because a workboat first can be better, changing up settler timing a little. Lastly, once you hit about city 3 if there are more appealing options than settlers (barb cities or an AI target for military) that's an ok switch too.

My experience is that barbs are not that bad at all, or at least it's almost never worth going archery - warriors manage for quite a long time with proper fogbusting. If you're going to get hit with a mass barb archer rush anyway the game might as well be lost so in general it's not worth the delay to get archery unless it's a game I can't risk at all(multiplayer, GOTM, etc...)

Lastly, I know I find myself saying this a lot but TMIT makes a great point - with just your first worker you really can't improve everything. The worker is much better off straight chopping than trying to get an improvement for your 4th citizen for instance. I often don't even hit size five till after my first two cities.

14CC: bold, elegant, and great to pull off.

Question. Do you go for early pottery? If not how do you tech? Worker warrior settler sounds rather crazy to me on deity for your map settings. Please explain.

 

[Earthling]

BW>pottery almost every game. My LHC Peter followed this pattern roughly perfectly - not so many barbs due to being isolated but also I had to tech all on my own. I only get other techs when it's needed for some improvement right away (like a civ without ag which has resource in cap - then ag before BW). It's very easy to get 4-5 cities and still maintain tech, even without financial - or rather it doesn't matter if your tech is slower because you don't need much past writing/monarchy to maintain your empire, and then you make rapid gains. Trading monopoly techs/bulbing is how you keep up with the AI anyway. Your 2nd/3rd cities start pulling their weight really fast, and securing the land/production is vital on huge maps.

About barbs - sure, it's not that you won't have to kill a ton of barbs on deity but you shouldn't have to lose anything to them at all- if it's a situation where you get 4 archers at 3000 BC I'd just quit that game rather than tech archery and get further behind. Basically, you shouldn't need archers to kill barb archers. And it's really very rare in my experience not to get copper or horse, or have an AI nearby who fogbusts away all the barbs, when axes may be a concern - but then that's not really early archery. If the civ doesn't start with hunting I almost always avoid that for a while to keep warriors.

But I really do have to say that settler timing depends a ton on map/difficulty/other factors so it's hard to give good recommendations for everyone.

 

[JonathanStrange]

Wow it's always a shock to play another Civ version or another Civ mod and come and see maps like the one shown or to be advised to build settlers so soon. In Fall From Heaven 2, especially on the Deity level, there are so many raging barbarians pillaging improvement, a barbarian hero event that can knock a newly founded civ, aggressive AIs that can and do field 15-20 axemen stacks by turn 30 (I had that in my current game and that was just from one civ, the other two sent the same amount in warriors, all by turn 30), that the idea of not building warriors and plenty of 'em right off the bat is almost standard. I say almost because if one lucks out in terms of geography, one can relax slightly.


Just goes to show that general advice can be dramatically at odds with your current situation, just something to keep in mind. (BTW, the number of resources on the screenshot posted, maybe I should adjust my settings 'cause sometimes my entire nation doesn't have that much gold!)

 

[Artichoker]

Lately, I've been waiting until size 3 (but not 4-5 as suggested by the OP) to produce a Settler.

I've found that the average starting city has 2 or more food resources, and maybe 1 production resource. So growing to size 3 allows you to work all 3 of them at one time.

The key factor that lets you speed up Settler production is the timing of your 2nd Worker. Since Worker first is the norm, and both Workers and Settlers are similar in that they both limit growth, delaying the 2nd Worker can often go a long way toward accelerating the 1st Settler.

This method works when your 2nd city can borrow the 1st Worker to improve its tiles, and it's even stronger if the 2nd city can immediately work a tile that was originally worked by the 1st city.

 

[Jamuka]

Playing on immortal and emperor, i think its much more effective to create *at least* 1 settler before growing beyond size 2. When the first settler finishes, send your worker with the settler and start building a second worker in your capital. You never work unimproved squares.

Think about it like this, imagine your capital has a pig, a sheep, and some hills. Improved, those provide 6, 5, and 4 recources respectively.

Size 1: 7 surplus, settler takes 15 turns.
Size 2: 10 surplus, 10 turns
Size 3: 12 surplus, 9 turns
Size 4: 14 surplus, 8 turns
Size 5: 16 surplus, 7 turns

Keep in mind getting that settler out a few turns earier, means you get get your second city working a 5+ recource that much quicker, and you can build your second worker that much quicker.

I'm not saying you should never grow your capital, just that you have other cities which need to grow too, and you want that to begin as soon as possible.