When to go for the first settler?

[slobberinbear]

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.

All true; I wasn't clear. I was just trying to make it clear that if you have a lot of good tiles to work in your capital, you can delay expansion if you work all of those tiles before building your settler. I'm not saying that's the wrong decision -- I'm just saying it can slow you down, and my example could have been better.

For instance, occasionally you can end up with 5-7 resource tiles in the BFC. This typically happens with seafood but occasionally with other stuff too. Workboats are great but they are a hammer sink early in the game, whether you chop, whip, or just make 'em the old fashioned way. It just ends up taking time to develop all of that.

Of course, you end up with a city that's working 5-7 wonderful tiles early in the game, which is reward in itself.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Personally, I wait until I reach a population of 4 to make my first settler. I wouldn't recommend taking my advice, though. I'm slow at empire building.

 

[BaronVonCP]

/rant

If you are playing every opening the same way, you aren't playing optimally.

Obviously, the starting BFC has a lot to do with it. Also the location of strategic resources and the distance/tendencies of nearby leaders.

Some starts call for getting the first 1-3 settlers out ASAP. Sometimes you know you will need just one next to the nearby copper and then its time to whip/chop an axe army to take out the Hindu founder who happens to be nextdoor.

My last game had one of the most insane starts for an industrious leader with stone and gold in the BFC (low food though). was on a very small archipelago. Ended up going worker-> warrior -> *wonder* -> settler -> wonder -> wonder -> wonder -> wonder -> Emporer Victory.......... talk about fun


Anyways, always have a plan and a solid reason/objective for it. Don't get caught in that 'always worker-> worker -> settler' or 'always grow to size X'


/end rant

 

[ppciv4]

it depends.

 

[Abegweit]

All true; I wasn't clear. I was just trying to make it clear that if you have a lot of good tiles to work in your capital, you can delay expansion if you work all of those tiles before building your settler. I'm not saying that's the wrong decision -- I'm just saying it can slow you down, and my example could have been better.

For instance, occasionally you can end up with 5-7 resource tiles in the BFC. This typically happens with seafood but occasionally with other stuff too. Workboats are great but they are a hammer sink early in the game, whether you chop, whip, or just make 'em the old fashioned way. It just ends up taking time to develop all of that.

Of course, you end up with a city that's working 5-7 wonderful tiles early in the game, which is reward in itself.

Indeed. And you can pump out 5-7 (or more) new cities real quick. Food is a wonderful thing.

 

[Wlauzon]

For me map size and number of rivals is the biggest factor.

I usually play on huge maps with only 2-3 rivals, so I usually wait until I get the great wall (I play with raging barbs), 2-4 workers, lots of food, and then churn out settlers until research starts getting too low.

 

[Skallagrimson]

"IF" is the middle word of "RIFLE".

Another enigmatic way of saying "it depends".

 

[BakingTheArt]

I usually go Warrior Worker Warrior/Barracks Worker Settler, but it depends on the situation. I try to wait for BW before founding the city, even if the settler is done.

 

[Cashew]

In a multiplayer game your first settler would best be built at size 2 or sometimes 1. Waiting longer means all the land around you is going to get taken. If by turn 23 on quick you don't have the settler and two workers out you're too slow.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Good point. MP humans will REX (even) more than the AIs, which means every turn is golden. Even then though I think it's a good investment over the course of the REX phase to get a worker out to improve a food tile at least, so settlers in general will produce faster. By then you're usually at size 3 or 4 depending on how long it took to build the escort warrior.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

For me map size and number of rivals is the biggest factor.

I usually play on huge maps with only 2-3 rivals, so I usually wait until I get the great wall (I play with raging barbs), 2-4 workers, lots of food, and then churn out settlers until research starts getting too low.

Whoa! You must really have lots and lots of land to settle before you even gotta think about war! On the other hand, the barbs might just be your biggest enemy in a game like this. No wonder you get the wall.

 

[fugazi]

I build a worker only when I can have him improve food tiles. If not, I delay it by growing to size 2 first while building warriors and use them to scout my surroundings, pinpoint good city spots and fortify them in forests or on hills closeby said spots. I only build a settler once my city can run all the food resources, and build another worker once I can chop forests.

The game radically changes when I play imperialistic leaders though then it's settle on a hill and settler first!

 

[ew0054]

Here's what I do:

1. Build two warriors in Capital.

2. Build Settler. Start work on second warrior.

3. Bring Settler and one warrior to city site.

4. Continue alternating between Warrior/Settler to found four cities or so. Early on (before 3000 B.C.), I don't see much need for the worker except maybe to connect cities with roads, being the cities aren't that large anyway.

5. When I build a worker, I max food production (preferrably farmed flood plains) for my Settler city (usually the Capital because of already high production).

 

[slobberinbear]

Here's what I do:

1. Build two warriors in Capital.

2. Build Settler. Start work on second warrior.

3. Bring Settler and one warrior to city site.

4. Continue alternating between Warrior/Settler to found four cities or so. Early on (before 3000 B.C.), I don't see much need for the worker except maybe to connect cities with roads, being the cities aren't that large anyway.

5. When I build a worker, I max food production (preferrably farmed flood plains) for my Settler city (usually the Capital because of already high production).

I don't know what difficulty you play at, but give that a try at Emperor and see how long before the barbarians eat your warriors for lunch and kill your cities.

I tried your method as Greece. I built warrior-warrior-settler-warrior-settler. Each time I escorted the settler with two warriors then sent the extra one home to Athens. My settlers took over 20 turns each on Epic speed.

I didn't get my second city down until 2400 BC. My third city wouldn't have been much quicker (Athens was only size 4, still working unimproved tiles), except I didn't live long enough to find out -- my two warriors + settler were eaten by two barb archers around 1600 BC.

Your strategy is a ticket to disaster at mid- to upper levels. In 99% of my games I build a worker / workboat before a settler, and the time it takes to build them is repaid a hundredfold. Consider that a unimproved clam tile is worth 2 and 2 . Improved, it is worth 4 . In a small city, that is a giant increase. With two clams worked, you are making 4 more total than before, which is essentially doubling your growth rate and construction rate for workers and settlers.

And don't get me started on the value of a worker who can pasture or farm tiles for +2-3 yield. That is gigantic. Simply put, I can get a second city founded faster by building workers/workboats before settlers, and have a bigger and better capital. The third and fourth cities will be settled MUCH faster from working improved tiles. Oh, and I'll have better units than warriors guarding and escorting. And we haven't even discussed chopping and slaving.

Try improving your good tiles before settling, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Here's what I do:

1. Build two warriors in Capital.

2. Build Settler. Start work on second warrior.

3. Bring Settler and one warrior to city site.

4. Continue alternating between Warrior/Settler to found four cities or so. Early on (before 3000 B.C.), I don't see much need for the worker except maybe to connect cities with roads, being the cities aren't that large anyway.

5. When I build a worker, I max food production (preferrably farmed flood plains) for my Settler city (usually the Capital because of already high production).

If you're at a level where that works, just build all the wonders in your one city and culture out the continent, one barb city at a time. FTW.

 

[Abegweit]

@Skallagrimson

Yeah. That would work but you STILL need a worker first.

 

[feralminded]

Yeah this question is meaningless without specifying relative difficulty level and if its Marathon or not and even map size to an extent.

On emperor/immortal, on Non-Marathon:

#1. Worker -> work a food tile if at all possible.

(seafood scenario)
#2A. Boat (if seafood, chop it out, city grows halfway to 2 or 3 depending on how fast I get BW)
#3A. Warrior (Finish growing city to 2 or 3 pop)
#4A. Settler (settles a city at about 3000 BC)

(non seafood)
#2B. Warrior (let city grow to size 2, might mean you have to start on a barracks after warrior is done in low food)
#3B. Worker (chop it out, should have BW by now)
#4B. Settler (have both workers chop him out nearly instantly if you pre chop a bit or have carry over)

Thats about as far as I can say and even now I can think of a million caveats to that order because it really heavily depends on what my scout unit finds for city locations. If I see a good Rexx opportunity my starting city may not see 4 pop for a LONG time as I deforest and spam cities. That said generally I do try and let the starting city grow 1 pop between each settler but that largely depends on how much food is available and if I have to build workboats.

 

[ew0054]

@skillagrimson, slobberinbear:

I play at Noble and I am seeing the flaws in my strategy, especially when you consider the increase in gorwth potential from building a worker first.

Does the AI cheat at noble? 2400 B.C. is about right for founding my second and third cities. Should I try to get them settled earlier? Seems by then the AI already has four or five.

 

[Abegweit]

I play at Noble and I am seeing the flaws in my strategy, especially when you consider the increase in gorwth potential from building a worker first.

Does the AI cheat at noble? 2400 B.C. is about right for founding my second and third cities. Should I try to get them settled earlier? Seems by then the AI already has four or five.

Noble is the level at which the Human player and the AI are roughly equal. There are some differences but they don't relate to growth.

 

[slobberinbear]

@skillagrimson, slobberinbear:

I play at Noble and I am seeing the flaws in my strategy, especially when you consider the increase in gorwth potential from building a worker first.

Does the AI cheat at noble? 2400 B.C. is about right for founding my second and third cities. Should I try to get them settled earlier? Seems by then the AI already has four or five.

The worker doesn't have to be FIRST, it just should be before the settler. The problem with settlers isn't just their high cost -- it's the lost city growth while you are building them.

There are different schools of thought, as you can see. An efficient approach says work your bonus resource tiles, then build a settler. A conservative approach says grow to your happy cap, then build a settler. An aggressive approach says, chop out that settler ASAP.

There is no right or wrong answer between those choices; it's game- and player-dependent. However, I can say definitively that building a settler with all unimproved tiles is a bad choice. I am sure someone can concoct a scenario where it is a good choice, but for 99% of the time, it is a mistake.