When to build settlers?

[MrBiggBoy]

When should I build settlers at the start of game? I've beaten several Regent games and a ton of Chieftain, but since I had a busy week, I haven't been able to play, and subsequently lost my memory. At the beginning of game, how long do you wait to build your first settler?

 

[Mavfin]

Generally, I build my first settler as soon as my first city will grow big enough to produce one. If a warrior completes with 6 turns to go before the city hits size 3, and a settler takes 6 turns, then it's time to build one.

From what I've seen, the number one reason people lose games is failing to expand correctly out of the gate. If you don't expand enough, the AIs will grind you into their dust, as they will be bigger, and can just flat bury you in units/cities/tech, etc, especially on Monarch or higher, where they have advantages anyway. But, if you don't expand correctly, you can get beat on Warlord or Regent, too. Now, Chieftain, on the other hand, you have to really work at getting beat.

 

[chasbolt]

Mav has it right. When you can get the first couple out of the gate quickly. You can only mess up at the higher levels if you don't produce or produce too many settlers.

 

[WickedWombat]

Usually I start building settlers as soon as I have a defensive unit for my first city. You CONSTANTLY have to build settlers to survive. Period. I really believe that expansion is paramount to survival in the game, especially on higher difficulty levels. However, it is also important to be able to garrison these cities also.

Guns or butter, anyone? :soldier:

 

[Vinc]

Usually I was always building them as fast as possible.

But right now I have a game with the Egyptians, I always build a temple before a settler, then a granary or barracks, and an other settler.I t works great because I completely dominate everybody else on the culture, and I have a correct number of cities and I am the points leader.

 

[Zouave]

The AI's intensely annoying and unrealistic Settler Diarrhea Strategy for EVERY game (you can't toggle it off) requires you to build settler after setler and expand as much as possible, and then use warriors or scouts to block the borders from their equally irritating Wandering Workers.

This is why (in part) there is nothing to explore by the time you get to caravels. Remember how much fun it was to EXPLORE and settle new lands and islands in Civ 2? Forget that in Civ 3.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by Zouave
The AI's intensely annoying and unrealistic Settler Diarrhea Strategy for EVERY game (you can't toggle it off) requires you to build settler after setler and expand as much as possible, and then use warriors or scouts to block the borders from their equally irritating Wandering Workers.

This is why (in part) there is nothing to explore by the time you get to caravels. Remember how much fun it was to EXPLORE and settle new lands and islands in Civ 2? Forget that in Civ 3.

Well I don't know how you would really do anything different that wouldn't hobbile the AI vis a vis the human player. In my games I expand at essentially the same rate as the AI. The problem is that this is a game and not real life. Consequently we know that there is a need to expand and grab as much land for ourselves as possible. If we don't we won't have the city base to sustain a viable empire in the late game and we will control less luxeries and resources.

Maybe they need to develop a system that prevents/hobbles large empires early in the game. Maybe make some of corruption era/tech dependent. And possibly even add in a city and/or distance limit for different governments/eras/techs.

Or another idea would to make far flung cities have a chance to go "native," a chance that is reduced as you progress technologically and maybe totally negated under democracy and communisim. Actually I kind of like that idea. Where if you build cities too far away, they will tend to give you trouble. At one level producing rogue troops that your army would have to put down, and possibly even breaking away (becoming a barbarian town).

Adding something like the above to the game would always greatly increase the values of colonies. As it is, there is really no reason to build a colony instead of a city, and in many ways its better to plant that city. But if either you can't build a city out that far, or that city may spawn trouble and even flip on you, then a colony would be much better.