When to go for the first settler?

[OzymandiasII]

After settling the first city, is there a best time to start building the settler? Does expansive change the calculus? Thanks.

OzyII

 

[UWHabs]

Without seeing the starting spot, too many options.

Usually worker first. If coastal, fishing boat first isn't bad if you have fishing.

If you're imperialistic, especially if you can get 4 hammers off the bat, I've heard of people go settler first.

 

[comatosedragon]

I have always been found of worker, worker, settler, but it all depends on the starting position. It's also quite risky sometimes, and probably not viable on levels above noble. Expansive would make me build a settler before the city grows to size two, almost certainly.

 

[DMOC]

After settling the first city, is there a best time to start building the settler? Does expansive change the calculus? Thanks.

OzyII

First, look at the map before deciding.

I don't see why Expansive would change anything.

 

[Abegweit]

I have always been found of worker, worker, settler, but it all depends on the starting position. It's also quite risky sometimes, and probably not viable on levels above noble. Expansive would make me build a settler before the city grows to size two, almost certainly.

Worker-worker-settler is fine. The only question is what else you build as well. In the last Immortal Cookbook, I built two wonders before finally getting around to the settler.

 

[6K Man]

When you have found a good second city site (i.e. scouted, researched BW and found Copper)
When you have built at least 1 worker
When your first city is working 2 high production/food tiles

Those are some of the rules of thumb I go by.

 

[slobberinbear]

It's hard to set a general rule, other than this: whenever you build a worker or settler, you want to do it (a) when you are at the happy cap already or (b) as quick as possible so that you can get back to growing the city.

Sometimes, you are better off just exploring more and improving your capital. If you have a lot of great tiles and can get them all improved, you are better off growing your city to the happiness cap so that you can work all of the tiles, and THEN build the settler. This also gives you some time to build some explorer and escort units, and possibly a building or two.

Other times, there is a sweet location that needs to get settled ASAP, either for you or to deny it to the AI. In that instance, an early settler makes a lot of sense.

I never send out a settler unescorted through the fog of war. Never ever. So I usually end up building a warrior or archer to go with the settler.

Unless I am building a lot of wonders early, I like to get my second city settled before 2000 B.C., and have at least six cities by 1 A.D., either through settlement or conquest.

 

[lilnev]

Rule of thumb, build the settler once you're working all of your improved resource tiles. If you've got a really high food surplus, it may be worth growing onto a mined hill or two. It's generally not worth growing onto basic forests, cottages, or unimproved tiles. This often means a sequence like worker-warrior-warrior-warrior-settler at size 3 or 4. If you're worried about being beaten to a choice spot, obviously, build the settler sooner. And if you have a ton of forests and BW, consider a second worker before the settler (chopped).

The basic reasoning behind this rule of thumb: Pool food and hammers as "production". So a size one city working a basic grassland forest contributes a net of 4 production to your empire (2 food towards growth plus 2 hammers). It took an investment of 100 production to generate the settler to found that city, so your return on investment is 4/100, per turn. Now suppose you had let your capital grow a size, taking 26 food, and the tile it grew onto was a basic forest. That forest only increases your net production by one per turn, so the return on investment is 1/26, per turn. If you're growing onto a mined hill, that increases your production by a net of 2, so in theory that's better than investing in a settler. But chances are the second city will also have some tiles better than basic forests to work, too. (Plus hammers can't always be spent as usefully as food at this stage of the game.)

 

[GeorgeF]

As De Gaulle, I seem to almost always get irrigated corn in BFC. I almost always go Worker-Settler-Stonehenge. Tech Mining->BW->Myst->Masonry. Worker farms the corn, and then chops out the settler. Settler finishes at same time as Myst. Second city builds the second worker. Great Wall is next build. No need for escorts!

 

[vicawoo]

Aside from having to rush to block off/grab some land before a nearby AI:

Compare the next best tile you can work with the best tile you can work if you expand. If you can work an equal or better tile by growing, then you should probably grow. If you can work a vastly better tile by expanding (say working a forest vs a pig), then expand. If it's in between, then do complicated math formulas or just guess.

If you have a resource poor, almost all forest start, and there's good resources outside your city, do a worker worker settler improve 1 tile, chop the rest build.

Other things to consider: you need a warrior/archer escort. No sense finishing a settler before you have an escort in position.

 

[CivEikka]

Depends, if there are food resource (like cows/sheep/corn/rice/...) and you dont have the tech, then grow to size 2 before making the worker. I usually grow to size 2 before making workers.

 

[CivCorpse]

As a marathon player I usually don't have enough worker techs to build a worker first. I tend to go warrior->warrior->worker-Settler. The main problem being that marathon units costs are 2xnormal but tech cpsts are 3xnormal. Actually they are even greater than normal/standard size since I usually play huge maps as well. So if playing a civ that does not start with mining, it typically takes 80+ turns to get BW.

 

[vicawoo]

If there's no useful techs you can research before going worker first finishes, then warrior first is best. Hopefully you have a 3 food tile, though.

 

[MkLh]

AI's usually start their first settler in size 2, sometimes in size 1. Thus in any higher levels (Monarch+ or even Prince) the only way to beat AI in second city is to build settler very first, which is probably inefficient. Up to Emperor there's usually time to grow city to size 5 and even build a second worker before AI's get their third settlers out, so rushing settler for a good city spot is dubious tactics on Emp and below.

Worker->Worker->Settler may still be a efficient way because you get 2 cities up and running quickly. Hopefully civ starts with mining, so that worker & settler can be choprushed.

 

[Skallagrimson]

If I start with a warrior: warrior-worker-worker-settler.

If I start with a scout: warrior-worker-worker-warrior-settler.

1 warrior fortifies the cap (barb warriors will stream in soon enough!)

1 warrior escorts.

After the 2nd city is founded, things go wide open depending on the map and the AIs nearby, for strategy.

 

[djvandrake]

Lately I've been playing the civ's that have hunting as a starting tech, so I get the scout first and can research archery while building the first worker. I hate warriors, they're weak and just seem to be a waste of precious early production. But that's just me.

So, I usually go..

Worker
Archer
Archer
Settler
Worker

Then it's dependant on map conditions and nearby resources...

 

[DaveMcW]

Rule of thumb, build the settler once you're working all of your improved resource tiles.

This is the correct answer.

 

[slobberinbear]

This is the correct answer.

This can often result in not settling your second city until after 2000 B.C., by the way, especially if you have a great start and/or higher happy caps than normal.

Say that you're playing as Lincoln or Washington, who are Charismatic and start with Fishing. You could easily get a happy cap of 7 in the capital just by building a monument, and with a seafood start, put a lot of your hammers into workboats. You will have a powerful capital (working 3-4 seafood tiles, maybe a pasture/farm and some mines), but you then have to really focus on cranking out settlers to catch up with the AI. This can be problematic if your capital is not capable of generating a high volume of food and/or hammers when you decide to go into settler mode.

 

[Gumbolt]

Playing imperialist with a plains hill start I would build a settler first. First city by 3300bc or so is sweet. I then grow one city or build worker in both.

Non imperialist probably worker worker unless i have lots of 6 food resources.

 

[Abegweit]

This can often result in not settling your second city until after 2000 B.C., by the way, especially if you have a great start and/or higher happy caps than normal.

Say that you're playing as Lincoln or Washington, who are Charismatic and start with Fishing. You could easily get a happy cap of 7 in the capital just by building a monument, and with a seafood start, put a lot of your hammers into workboats. You will have a powerful capital (working 3-4 seafood tiles, maybe a pasture/farm and some mines), but you then have to really focus on cranking out settlers to catch up with the AI. This can be problematic if your capital is not capable of generating a high volume of food and/or hammers when you decide to go into settler mode.

The capital you describe will have lots of food when you go into settler mode. The problem capital is the hammer-rich one. Note that the rule doesn't talk about mines. It talks about resources.