1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

When to build settlers

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by nimling, Jan 10, 2014.

  1. adwcta

    adwcta King

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    889
    Location:
    New York City, USA
    Well, he was giving advice for 300-turn games, and set that bar at 100 turns then no new cities... so that's the part of his opinion I was disagreeing with.

    You can always expand into people who won't hate you... or you know, have some diplomacy. More than that, if you're preparing to expand wide and peacefully, you can use your earlier cities to wall off areas for future expansion. Expanding has never gotten me into a war when I didn't want it (although, it is a good way to get into a war you do want also). It's not random. It's never "expand and you'll have x% chance to start a war!", if you know the AI interplay, and have your diplomacy down, you'll know exactly where you can expand into without triggering war, where you can expand to and then have to do certain secondary actions to prevent war, and where you absolutely cannot expand into without triggering war. If you don't want war, don't do the last one, but take the first two types of opportunities.
     
  2. Memoryjar

    Memoryjar Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,244
    Location:
    Lille, France
    To be sure, 2 to 3 tall cities, opera house + Ermitage, and after 1 or 2 cities settled. But when ? Around T150 to 210 ? In Immortal ?
     
  3. budweiser

    budweiser King of the Beers

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hidden Underground Volcano Lair
    On immortal, I try to shoot for 180 to 200. I'm not too fanatic about the timing as there is always something going on that you have to get done. Its around 1400 on normal, plenty of time to expand after that.
     
  4. Memoryjar

    Memoryjar Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,244
    Location:
    Lille, France
    Sure, I'm like you for timing. It's a landmark for my tech and build line.
    Thx.
     
  5. Justice1337

    Justice1337 Sofa King

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    365
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Everyone can win under 200 turns. Read a guide, reroll until you get there. This is a single player turn-based strategy game, not Starcraft. No one is physically or mentally unable to put up top times in this game.

    So if the question is how to get the fastest time possible, it's likely that there's only one way to play. Likely only one victory condition as well. But the OP's playing on Emperor and asking when to expand. If every answer is "roll Deity and follow my guide" then people aren't listening.

    I mean, the answer of "whenever you want, you're playing Emperor" probably isn't satisfying either. But it's probably worth mentioning how far behind less-optimal routes are, so people can get what they want out of the game.

    Fortunately in BNW, openings other than Tradition -> Philo -> NC have closed the gap quite a bit. The difference between expanding late rather than early has also narrowed considerably. The reason for both is Trade Routes.

    Especially on higher diffs, external Trade Routes are worth a lot of beakers. Animal Husbandry is the low hanging fruit for Beakers, provided you have a trade partner that can be reached without going through barbarians. Sailing is an option before Philo as well because of the route. Whether it's "correct" or not, it's not enormously far behind the way it was in Vanilla and G&K.

    Also with internal trade routes, these really provide a big pick up for cities that are settled late. So if you've got a choice between buying or rushing out a Settler on an earlier turn versus waiting until a turn that you can produce a Granary and a Caravan, the difference between the two isn't enormous. Low-population cities grow extremely quickly, so both ways to settle often have you running into your happiness cap before your food cap.

    My point is that you can play a lot of different ways. When you prioritize growth and science in the early game, like you should be, there are a lot of different things you can do. Sometimes the map dictates (which people don't find out if they're constantly rerolling to get T200 win times), and sometimes it's personal preference. But understanding the goals of growth and beakers leads you to doing things that are all more or less correct. Then the game has a way of rounding things out, at least in a normal game, so that you can get to the kind of middle and end game that BNW was designed for on roughly equal ground.
     
  6. adwcta

    adwcta King

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    889
    Location:
    New York City, USA
  7. Carazycool

    Carazycool Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Messages:
    248
    Location:
    MA
    I've never been of the mindset that winning as quickly as possible is the end-all be-all of playing civ. If I see a good city spot that becomes available later in the game, I enjoy settling in that spot, even if it does end up delaying my victory by 10 turns or so. I enjoy building up a powerful empire more than I do winning ASAP.
     
  8. pezit

    pezit Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    33
    I like turning off all the win conditions but domination and then I don't even go to war much. I usually just quit when I get tired of that game.

    One thing I always do though is turn off science and diplo, I mean science is always good, leading is science helps you in every win condition so it really doesn't need the "boost" of being able to win on its own. And diplo is just ridiculously easy versus AI.
     
  9. nimling

    nimling Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    351
    Last game I played; I wound up OCCing to NC, got that established around turn 60.

    I did a silly thing and went Tradition/Honor/Liberty, and by time I got my free settler, Persia expanded into the site I wanted to settle. I was Zulu, and managed to swarm and raze pasargadae to make space for my (much better) city site.

    I wound up only having 3 cities, and eventually puppeted the remainder of Persia (having made peace deals for them to build up cities). The 4th city didn't come online until the Industrial Era :eek:. Fortunately, by that time I was rolling in a substantial tech lead; Ulundi never got particularly big, wound up around size 25, but the second city wound up reaching size 40. Almost makes me wish it were viable to build NC there instead.

    My finish time (Diplo victory) was around turn 420, which is weak by expert standards. At the same time, I dawdled around and waited until I had several Autocracy policies before storming through the horribly overmatched Assyria, and picked up Clausewitz's Legacy when going after Russia (only civ that was remotely close to me in tech). With all of the things I had by that point - Discipline, GG, captured Statue of Zeus, Heroic Epic, CL, 60 base XP, and some highly promoted and upgraded Impis with the brokengood Buffalo promotions, it turned into the very definition of cakewalk.

    In general, I tend to use trade routes to buff up new cities rather than grow the capital, since population growth in smaller cities is faster. I used trade routes to the capital in this game to get up to size 16ish, then used routes to buff up my third city and some cities captured from Persia.
     
  10. Denkt

    Denkt Left Forever

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,944
    Completly correct:)

    Civilization has never been about wining as fast as possible in my opinion and wining as fast as possible shows you what:confused:

    The win as fast as possible mentalaty can acctually destroy the game for alot of people:mad:

    Limiting youself to some kind of opening, each turn must be exactly caculated to make you win sligtly faster then Before, if you do any move wrong then the game is allready lost because its not anymore about just wining but wining as fast as nobody have ever won Before.

    The best way to win is not to win as fast as possible but to allways win whatever the conditions is.
     
  11. budweiser

    budweiser King of the Beers

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hidden Underground Volcano Lair
    Right on. Random map, random civ, always win. That's true skill.
     
  12. direblade99

    direblade99 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    Since we're all in consensus that skill is based around performance on random settings/maps, I guess we feel confident taking on tommynt under those conditions?
     
  13. grades

    grades Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    I'm the same way as well. I would say only 20% of games I play I leave all the victory conditions on, play immortal/deity, and go for the earliest win possible. The other 80% of games I usually just have some goal in mind that seems fun. These games I usually just play around with until I get bored, rather than actually finishing them.

    My most recent "fun" game: playing as the Zulu on a huge Pangaea map on marathon speed (spoilers: Zulu are waaaaay overpowered on Marathon).
     
  14. ekeithly

    ekeithly Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2014
    Messages:
    8
    That didn't exactly work that well for them in real life :)
     
  15. TheGrumpyBuddha

    TheGrumpyBuddha King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Messages:
    823
    Mine: Going for a CV win on Deity with Polynesia. General goal: get to 1000 Tourism without any conquering. BUILD HEADS HEADS HEADS!
     
  16. tommynt

    tommynt Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    The point is just that "just winning" or "just playing" makes the game totaly trivial - as the ai is so horrible (at winning) espacially on lower lvls - you/people just get bored and quit at some point.

    I do think its much more enjoyable to try win game "fast" as "just play" and quit when ai is too way behind to be a challenge.

    Ending games should be part of games - at least that should be some mentality.

    Another problem of playing without an "fast" end is that big empires really suck in civ5 and clicking end turn waiting for your tourism take over or your science to be done with a slim empire isnt too enjoyable either.
     
  17. kb27787

    kb27787 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,102
    Glad to see a fellow kindred spirit :goodjob:
    1000 is rather unreasonable though, barring an epic 5-salt 5-fish start with the right expansion locations :lol: I love those heads though... at the end of the game, even if I had to go for SV, it makes me feel like I'm playing Poland even though I'm not :lol: (just judging from the number of policies you were able to get with those)

    One of these days I'm going to post a deity challenge with Polynesia...
     
  18. Tarbo

    Tarbo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    OFF TOPIC: Rather than win the game in 5 secs. what a realy want is be able to play with any civ and achive any victory type regardles of the civ i'am plaing with...... FOR ME THATS THE REAL MASTER OF CIVILIZATION.......

    ON TOPIC: More than time i bealive that the real problem its opportunity...... in my opinion you should not waste time if you se a good spot for your 2ª city, unless you closest oponent its a lazy expancionist or you are isolated.....
     
  19. adcarrymaokai

    adcarrymaokai Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,587
    Unless you are Brazil. Last game with the I got over 1500k tourism during carnival around t320, which is when I won. It took long enough since I went for Radar the Internet just to see how much tourism per turn I could possibly get. The faster win would be to bee-line into the Internet and spam faith-bought GM's. :p
     
  20. grades

    grades Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    Not necessarily. Finishing a game in general is definitely a satisfying feeling, but it is the in-between where all of the fun happens.

    For Civ5 in particular, once you've really gotten the hang of achieving a certain victory at a good pace on higher difficulties your games can become just as routine and boring. For example, if you're going to go for a science win on immortal/deity you know starting off exactly what your tech path is going to be and you're going to play that game very similarly to every other SV immortal/deity game (albeit with some amount of randomness).

    That's not to say it's not fun sometimes, but if all Civ5 was to me was performing maximizing/minimizing the gameplay elements to win as fast as possible every time I would've stopped playing long ago when I began to consistently be able to win games on Immortal.

    Sometimes playing on games on prince/king/emperor and trying out wacky strategies is a whole lot of fun - especially when you're growing tired of the somewhat formulaic methods required to consistently win on immortal and deity.
     

Share This Page