When to go for the first settler?

[The Almighty dF]

Actually the AI's much better than warlords.
They're smarter now, it's made the game a -lot- harder.

 

[vicawoo]

First off, back to the original poster. The best answer can be found here:




On to Vicawoo.......seemingly a thorn in my side.



Some random thoughts.

I do not own BTS due to the fact many players said the AI was much slower then Warlords and that basically player vs the AI was much easier at emperor and above.

The game settings are on Monarch which IMO is much much easier than emp/immortal. The AI's are much slower. The maintenance cost to REX are MUCH cheaper.

You have 3 mined Gold hills thus greatly adding to the affordability of an eary REX. On immortal, when I REX to 3+ early cities my research will be at 0-10% with no help from Gold/Gems.

My point?

The basis for my arguement was for emp/immortal games with the underlying belief that their would be no more than the initial gems in the capital to aid an early REX. Additionally, in the game that I played their happened to only be 2 accessable resources combined within my 4 newly found cities.......the rest would require border pops.

My suggestion would be to create a game with a tougher level and with "realistic" starting conditions............ones that dont include 3 gold hills and with every new city having access to either a mined hill + copper or rice + cows. In my Emp game only 2 resources fell within the BFC of my new cities and even then I still had 4 more population and only 1 less improvement thnt you did in your scenario. Sure you have some settlers almost done but I would as well with an overpowered start and surroundings like in the game you have shown.

To end, your example in my eyes is unrealistic and therefore the results are as well.

Edit:

If I seem rude......... In my previous post I went through some effort and really emphasized the point that I was talking about emp/imm. You then give your example with # of cities, pop, etc with what? With a MONARCH game which is significantly easier and to add fuel to the fire the surrounding lands and potential new cities sights are overpowered in my eyes.


I'm the kind of player that will typically regenerate any start which overpowers me. That means any time I see gems, gold, or 2 very good food sources like irrigated Corn and Pigs I will regenerate due to the start being TOO good.

Ok, again the primary reason for this post was to refute the idea that a low growth strategy ends up slower by some time (in this case 1160 BC).
I commented in the posts that

1) I would have preferred to grow more so I could run some cottages and
2) I would prefer to grow more while building more units (which would help against barbarians).

Moreover, there's a decent chance that Joao will declare on me and kill me.

IF YOU SKIM THE REST OF THIS POST, READ THIS (content in parentheses excluded)
The statement that growing your capital first will overtake expanding earlier (since the capital can produces settlers really fast and new cities produce them really slow, which is actually a claim about smaller discrete mathematical steps performing significantly better in an exponential growth process) in terms of empire-wide production and worked improved tiles, that is what I sought to disprove.

Concerning this, any arguments about maintenance (and therefore difficulty), commerce sources, and so on are tangential to the argument.

And some side notes:
I did not pick the map. I had no knowledge about anything other than the start, and I picked it because it was heavily forested. This is perfectly viable for any forested start. Concerning any advantages, it is a random size 1 sample of generated maps.
BTS vs warlords: In Warlords the AI expands a lot faster, which is allegedly why a lot of people switched to a slower 2nd city build as opposed to a faster, but chopping fueled worker worker-settler build. In warlords, the AI is slower but less likely to attack you, so I would argue low growth builds are actually superior in warlords.
I play small maps, and in warlords, on immortal small maps no matter how fast I expanded, I would get about 3-4 cities peacefully. Axe rushes were more advantageous.

 

[30+]

Actually the AI's much better than warlords.
They're smarter now, it's made the game a -lot- harder.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=275002&highlight=warlords

On Emp/Immort+ where I play virtually every person believes the AI is much easier to play against. I get the same low down from my out of state buddies as well.

@ Vicawoo,

The main reason I brought up my initial post was because the way in which Alex phrased his initial comment, like, Wooah, most of you guys are slow. IMO, Unless your expansive and have a lot of forest in your capital and surrounding land a lower population city will not be as fast (when the goal is a massive REX with no wonders, simply expo expo expo)) when compared to a city who took 10-13 more turns to grow but spits out settlers 5-7 turns quicker and workers 1-3 turns quicker.

I prefer small maps as well. 8+ hour games suck. I too normally get many cities peacefully. Usually 5 by 900 BC, then 7-8 by force by 1AD(CS), and 9-12 by force by 1000AD(LIB).

 

[The Almighty dF]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=275002&highlight=warlords

On Emp/Immort+ where I play virtually every person believes the AI is much easier to play against. I get the same low down from my out of state buddies as well.

The poll seems to agree, BtS is harder. Only a tiny % voted otherwise.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Here we go, I used the monarch degaulle save, so if you're playing that game, don't look.

1160 BC.

Ok, capital size 3, second city is size 3, 3rd city is size 3, a size 2, and 2 newly founded cities, one working a gold mine. Total 6 cities, 13 population, 2 more settlers coming soon and 2 workers. Had a lot of trouble with barbs and of course my economy is tanking, I would have preferred to grow a few cottages in the capital.

Capital goes worker warrior grow to 2 switch to settler, improves corn, makes mine, chops twice
2nd city (founded 2680) grows on warrior then settler at 2, capital builds a worker then finishes warrior, worker there improves bronze then cow.
capital goes on to settler. settler for 3rd and 4th city out a little after 2000 bc
3rd city founded 2000, 4th 1880.
5th 1360, 6th 1160. So early build is producing quite a bit, although my economy is tanking and barbs are a big problem.

Pretty sure this game is emperor. Also, , I got declared on in it, limiting me to 6 cities @ 1 AD thanks to that. I completely walled Joao off with those 6 at least, but it was annoying.

 

[Alexfrog]

Earlier isn't better in most cases. I tried using your method when I had Corn and Gems on a hill. My build was

Worker-farmed corn
Worker-who was finished with 1 chop
Warrior-to grow city to size 2. While city grew I made 2 more improvements.
Settler-2 Chops (1ea worker), settler had 1-2 turns to finish and the 2 workers followed the newly made Warrior to the next city site and began pre chop of forest for what would be a Settler set to build first.

Capital began 2nd Settler
City 2 started-3rd Settler-4 total chops
City 2 then went Worker,warrior,barracks
Capital-Settler finished and began growing and building normal things like barracks/troops

3rd and 4th Settlers finished almost at the same time at which point I split up the workers who went to a new city and chopped out a worker first, then each new cities New worker started improvements while the original 2 workers connected roads/resources.

So by 1160 BC I had 4 total cities that consisted of a Capital at 4 Pop with 6 turns to reach size 5 while each new city were virtually identical at size 2 with 1-3 turns of growth accumulated in them. The Capital had 5 improvements while the other cities combined had 3.

I then reloaded and tried my particular method which involves someting like this:

Worker-improve corn
Warrior-size 2
Settler-worker finishes the mine and chops 2X to finish Settler
Worker-1 Chop then follows new Settler
New worker at Capital improves 2 more tiles then begins roads
2nd City begins Settler which is chopped 3x then builds worker-warrior,barracks
Capital is now at 4 Pop and begins Settler,Worker,Worker
3rd and 4th Cities go Warrior,Barracks

By 1160 BC my Captial was size 4 Pop with 2 turns needed to reach size 5 and two of the cities had 2 pop with 1-3 turns of growth on them while 1 city had reached size 3 with 5 turns of growth. My capital had 5 improvements while the other cities had a total of 5 improvements.

I kept trying different variations of the worker,worker, settler that utilized an overall lower population to produce settlers and workers. Both startegies call for chopping which is limited in the Capital to 3 chops with both strategies.......something I arrived at due to the level I currently play(emperor), the average number of forest, and the minimum Health I want remaining after chopping (5).

What it always boiled down was the Capital at size 4 was able to make up the difference in total turns because it only needed 8 turns to make the last settler and 5-6 turns (depending on your micro) for the last 2 workers.

Earlier isn't always better.

This is great analysis. I have also been finding that growing to size 2 via a food resource before making more worker/settlers is strong. (Both for the capitol, and then for additional cities as well, provided that you have 2 good tiles for the city to use. (Good being something worth more than a total of 3). As long as the growth is fast (a 3+ food tile), then its generally good.

The value or growing first depends on the value of the tile that population will be working. If the growth would get us ahead of our ability to work strong tiles due to lack of worker turns or techs, then its time to build workers/settlers. Growth periods also provide warriors, which are important for barb defense.


Regarding maintenance, generally the first city is about neutral in costs, given that it generates 1 commerce + probably 1 commerce in its first couple population, as well as enabling a trade route for 1 commerce per city.
The next couple cities eat up a significant chunk of your science output, so some growth should occur first in order to counteract this. But this is balanced by the need for speed in acquiring land, so that you actually end up getting the land at all.

So a good method will often be:

1) Worker
2) Grow to 2/Warrior - Worker creates farm on food resource, then goes to improve another space for the second population to work.
3) Worker (Your worker can chop 1 forest to speed this
4) Settler (Both workers chop once).
5) Grow to 3+ (One worker follows settler to improve new city. One worker builds more improvements in capitol, plus roads for trade route and then resource connection. Your capitol produces units or begins a wonder.

Your second city begins the process at step 3. Choice of when to build the next two settlers (which could be build in any combination from the two cities)


How much population your capitol gets to before making a settler for your 3rd city should depend on how many strong tiles you are capable of working (based on terrain and worker techs available), and your economic situation. Going beyond 4 cities shouldnt be done until economy is stronger and those cities are more developed.

Your cities now enter a process of growing and having population whipped away every 10 turns for improvements/units.

 

[vicawoo]

Oh I guess it was emperor. I noticed I wasn't getting any barbarian bonuses. Anyway, you can vastly out-expand and out-tech emperor level computers in BTS.

when compared to a city who took 10-13 more turns to grow but spits out settlers 5-7 turns quicker and workers 1-3 turns quicker.

This is an empirical statement. Let me pose a question, is it better to build settlers twice as fast in one city or at half speed in two cities? It's actually about the same.
(You can argue that that settler that pops out twice as fast can further multiply your production in that time, but if you do an exponential summation, it turns out that the simple exponential growth term dominates the discrete variation. Translation, it's about the same)
Is it better to produce 25% more hammers in the city or outside of the city? It's about the same.
So the most important value in a REX is your empire-wide yield.
Growing costs 2*(10+n) food and technically your hammers are "wasted", though you might need them for fogbusting/escorts.

If you have a grassland cow and 4 hills and no 3 food sources, you are giving up
2*12/4*9=54 food/hammers growing from size 2 to size 3. (24 to grow, 4 food per turn, a potential 9 yield per turn for worker/settler production).
and
2*13/4*11=71.5 food/hammer growing from size 3 to size 4.

So invest 54 food/hammers to increase your yield by 2, invest 71.5 food/hammers to increase your yield by another 2,
Or invest 100 food/hammers to increase your yield by 4 (new city working a forest), 5 (new city working a hill or other 4 yield tile), 6 (new city working say a horse or irrigated rice/sheep/unirrigated wheat/unirrigated corn), 7 (new city working pig, copper, irrigated corn/irrigated wheat). And considering that new city can grow, that can potentially become an 11 yield size 2 city (2 6 yield sources).

So is it really better/faster to invest 71.5 hammers growing a cow/mine city from size 3 to size 4 to add 2 to your yield than it is to invest 100 hammers to found a new city that outputs 7 yield?

(Heavily forested cities tend to lack food sources. Growing is a much better deal when you have high food/low hammer tiles. And yes, sometimes you need those side hammers)

 

[30+]

@ Almighty

The poll seems to agree, BtS is harder. Only a tiny % voted otherwise.

Too bad your poll doesnt fit into my scenario. If you have been reading my post I have been discussing nothing but emp/immort and seeing how the vast majority of players play Monarch and below it isn't surprising they voted that way. However, when you look at everyone who plays emp/immort + virtually every single one of them says the AI is easier.

Im guessing you didnt look at the post so I'll be glad to help you out to avoid you future confusion and misunderstanding.

Unconquered sun says:

BtS deity is easier. The AIs research slower, build less units, need more time to upgrade units. They do get cultural victories now though.

sylvan says:

I would say emperor is the point where the two are the same. Anything lower and BTS will be tougher, while immortal and deity are made easier. Although you'll still notice that large gap between immortal and deity, and I still need to get quite lucky to win a deity.

TheMeInTeam says:

They give the AI less bonuses in BTS on Emperor-Deity. While the AI plays slightly better, it can't make up for the greatly reduced handicap. Also, in BTS deity the happy cap is higher for the human player at the high levels.

Basically, BTS made the lower difficulties harder and the higher ones easier...I guess normalizing them somewhat.

Iranon says:

I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment that the higher levels have become easier. Prince seems comparable, I can't say anything about the lower levels since I never played those competitively.

MrCynical says:

At the higher difficulty levels I'd definitely say BtS is somewhat easier. The AI doesn't use corporations or espionage very well, giving the human player an edge there, and the AI isn't so much "better" as "different" in other aspects relative to older versions.

rRolo1 says:

IMHO monarch to immortal BtS is easier than Vanilla/Warlords...

Hope that helps you understand where I am coming from

@ Meintheteam, It was a MONARCH game: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=260991&highlight=monarch+degaulle

@ Alex concerning:

1) Worker
2) Grow to 2/Warrior - Worker creates farm on food resource, then goes to improve another space for the second population to work.
3) Worker (Your worker can chop 1 forest to speed this
4) Settler (Both workers chop once).
5) Grow to 3+ (One worker follows settler to improve new city. One worker builds more improvements in capitol, plus roads for trade route and then resource connection. Your capitol produces units or begins a wonder.

Your second city begins the process at step 3. Choice of when to build the next two settlers (which could be build in any combination from the two cities)

I still think a lot of it is level dependent. On emperor/immortal if I don't start my settler by 2880BC and give it a chop to boot I will not beat the AI's 2nd settler to my prefered location which can be devestating seeing how they already took good land with their 1st settler. I always want to ensure I get my horse/copper city then take it from there.

@ Vicawoo.......your post appeared before mine:

I would definitely argue that the exponential growth coming from the worker/worker/settler lower pop capital would be inferior to the saved turns + exponential growth coming from the higher pop capital. But, if you want to really test it out then make a Warlords game on emp/immort with out an expansive civilization (seeing how most leaders aren't exp) with a starting position that has an average amount of trees (6-7). Then let whomever wants to join in take it for a test run and see who can get 5-6 cities? the fastest? by a certain time? with the most amount of improved tiles? with all cities connected by roads, not just trade? etc etc.

 

[Shadowkx]

@ 30+ it looks like the Help Monkeyfinger shake off his rust. (Emperor, DeGaulle). I do not see a save in the link you posted.
as too BTS being easier i wonder how many of them play with the BTS Better AI mod? i guess it comes down to if you want to play against and AI that preforms bad with less bonuses or an AI that preforms really bad and has more bonuses. Personally the I would rather have the better AI with less bonuses. Also you can mod the AI to have more or less bonuses if you find you still need a challenge past bts better AI deity. Overall i highly recommend BTS

@ all :
I use to grow to happy cap before spamming settlers but waiting on that last population point tends to take way too long so i started limiting growth to size 4, but this may still require working non-resource tiles usually a mine. I am not sure if the mine is worth it. It certainly helps with building the fogbusters/escorts but sometimes they are not as needed.

perhaps a save would be useful in this discussion as an illustration .

 

[Alexfrog]

Yes, this is why I used my initial plan of Worker, improves 1 tile, chops worker, both chop settler. In order to beat AIs to city spots.

But it is true that IF you get the desired city spots a bit later, that Worker, grow to 2, worker, settler provides a somewhat better posiiton.

 

[30+]

@ shadow:

I personally always start my 1st settler at either size 2 or 3 depending on the improvements I have around me and to ensure I beat the AI's 2nd settler out the gate. I personally never do a true REX at any time so the literal impact of these discussions would do nothing for me or nothing against me lol. I do however still think a Mass Rex would best be accomplished with a method that shaves off the most amount of turns (including potential exponential possibilities within all methods being discussed)

I find that with a massive Rex your research will be dead for a long time which leads back to the ole horizontal vs vertical discussion. I would much rather have 5 cities by 900BC emper/imm with SH,OR,MC,MON that can grow vertically very fast than have 7 or 8 low pop cities with stagnating research.

I say go for the huge research and production boost which in turn fuels my empire to easily take over 1-3 more cities while also grabbing the GL early and then finishing CS by or shortly after 1AD with the help of my 1st GP. Add into the mix more cities being conquered as you head over towards Liberalism which has been sped up by Bulbing CS and then depending on when your 1st GS comes, either Philosophy or part of EDUC. Normally works out to 9-12 cities by 1000 AD with Liberalism from 700-1000 AD. Game is already done at this point.

So then, When IS the best time to pump out that first settler, lol?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@ Meintheteam, It was a MONARCH game: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=260991&highlight=monarch+degaulle

That's definitely a different game from the one he played. He played the opening of monkeyfinger's game on this forum. I know this because I shadowed it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I think BtS emperor is alot easier than warlords emperor.

(a) AI doesn't REX and box you in like in warlords
(b) They are slow to liberalism

 

[Shadowkx]

@ shadow:

I personally always start my 1st settler at either size 2 or 3 depending on the improvements I have around me and to ensure I beat the AI's 2nd settler out the gate. I personally never do a true REX at any time so the literal impact of these discussions would do nothing for me or nothing against me lol. I do however still think a Mass Rex would best be accomplished with a method that shaves off the most amount of turns (including potential exponential possibilities within all methods being discussed)

I find that with a massive Rex your research will be dead for a long time which leads back to the ole horizontal vs vertical discussion. I would much rather have 5 cities by 900BC emper/imm with SH,OR,MC,MON that can grow vertically very fast than have 7 or 8 low pop cities with stagnating research.

I say go for the huge research and production boost which in turn fuels my empire to easily take over 1-3 more cities while also grabbing the GL early and then finishing CS by or shortly after 1AD with the help of my 1st GP. Add into the mix more cities being conquered as you head over towards Liberalism which has been sped up by Bulbing CS and then depending on when your 1st GS comes, either Philosophy or part of EDUC. Normally works out to 9-12 cities by 1000 AD with Liberalism from 700-1000 AD. Game is already done at this point.

So then, When IS the best time to pump out that first settler, lol?

I am not so interested in improving a REX as I am interested in optimizing the opening to a winnable position (or perhaps a better position then less optimal approaches). I did find that growing to size 5 (even with good food tiles) tends to lose city spots that are near an AI. Size 4 i get them sometimes and sometimes not. So i would say the best time to pump out the first settler is in time to get the desired city spots. I need to try at size 3 and see if that goes any better. I do not know about size 2. If i have 3 resources that i can improve in the capitol's bfc it seems such a waste not to be working all 3 of them.

I think BtS emperor is alot easier than warlords emperor.

(a) AI doesn't REX and box you in like in warlords
(b) They are slow to liberalism

try BTS Better AI... they focus more on expanding then the stock AI.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

try BTS Better AI... they focus more on expanding then the stock AI.

That's all fine and dandy...but mods slow the game down unless you have a good comp (and it's not like my computer is 5 years old or anything). Bug mod is really about all my comp can handle unless I only want to play small maps...which would kinda make better AI a wash since the AI sucks more on smaller maps anyhow.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I like worse AI

Emperor on warlord was really annoying it took me ages to win and even then I used Augustus. Sometimes I don't want to chop and whip settlers like crazy, or spam axes/praets until I have killed a couple of AI.

EDIT: At least they build a challenging amount of units in BtS though.

 

[30+]

I do not know about size 2.

At my current level, once again, the goal is to ensure a good city spot with my 1st settler. Even if you grow your city to size 3 before making your first settler your worker will be in the process of finishing your 3rd improvement while the settler is being built which normally gives you 4-5 turns of settler production with 2 improved tiles and 1 unimproved. I'll definitely start my 1st settler exactly at size 2 with cows and horses in my bfc because thats a 10 turn build.....something you normally don't achieve till 3 pop with 3 improved tiles.

@ paradigmshifter.......Yea, I got a bunch of college buddies out of state who swear up and down that BTS blows so hard and when I read all the other post about people saying it's easier there is absolutely no reason why I should invest the time, energy, or cash for it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Oh, BtS is far better than warlords though...

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

At my current level, once again, the goal is to ensure a good city spot with my 1st settler. Even if you grow your city to size 3 before making your first settler your worker will be in the process of finishing your 3rd improvement while the settler is being built which normally gives you 4-5 turns of settler production with 2 improved tiles and 1 unimproved. I'll definitely start my 1st settler exactly at size 2 with cows and horses in my bfc because thats a 10 turn build.....something you normally don't achieve till 3 pop with 3 improved tiles.

@ paradigmshifter.......Yea, I got a bunch of college buddies out of state who swear up and down that BTS blows so hard and when I read all the other post about people saying it's easier there is absolutely no reason why I should invest the time, energy, or cash for it.

No offense, but your friends are morons. If it's easier, well, whatever, there are plenty of other ways to make the game harder besides difficulty level. Start with your palace in tundra if you want a good challenge...Other than that, BTS is superior in EVERY way. The only arguments against it are "I hate espionage" or something of that variant. But thats because they're "comfortable" playing the way they play (IE it's easier, much harder to actually learn something new...I still don't really understand corps that well, but that's what's great, I have something new to play with, in a game I've been playing off and on for 2 years...)

 

[30+]

No offense, but your friends are morons.

And no offense to you, but my friends opinion who have the game and have played it are far superior to some random and insignificant "other" personality. One of the big cons you see from a lot of people are in fact espionage and corporations........in the sense the the new AI does both very poorly, along with poor use of colonies as well.

I don't see the need to call anyone a "moron" because you disagree with their opinion in regards to a simple game. Perhaps a mirror is in order?