When to go for the first settler?

[oyzar]

Every pop costs X food. On normal speed it is 20+2*pop. Every settler cost(usually) 100 hammers, with large food surplus it is often better to grow onto improved tiles(mines) compared to building the settler asap. That is of course if you are not fighting for city spots(if you are it is a tradeoff obviously). Growing to size 4 costs 26 food. That is almost 1/4th of the settler. Growing one pop gives +2 if you work an improved mine while getting out a new city gives +4(though obviously it could also have resources). Even with something like a pig or corn that is only +7 which is about the same growing onto a mine in terms of benefit/cost. Obviously the commerce also plays somewhat of a role(either in cost from maintenance or gain from traderoutes or gain from working tiles), though that is minor in the early game most of the time. Hence you probably want to grow to at least size 4 and most likely size 5 due to the way improvements work(harder to grow later when you want to be working more mines that you then have hooked up), even with very strong city sites.

 

[BaronVonCP]

Sure, there are always many different paths you can take. However, in any situation, one set of actions is always more optimal than the rest.
I'm not good enough to always know the answer (that's why i'm still on emporer), but i try my best to use the information I have to figure out the best course of action.

 

[Skallagrimson]

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.

I agree. At least "1" food tile needs worked before I'm going to throw that food into a settler. Whether I have to get there from a workboat (seafood) or a worker or 2 (improve the food tile an maybe SOME chop). Also if I start with a scout I have been known to build a scouting warrior just because the animals tend to eat a scout well before enough land has been scouted out.

 

[UWHabs]

I agree. At least "1" food tile needs worked before I'm going to throw that food into a settler. Whether I have to get there from a workboat (seafood) or a worker or 2 (improve the food tile an maybe SOME chop). Also if I start with a scout I have been known to build a scouting warrior just because the animals tend to eat a scout well before enough land has been scouted out.

The Imperialist settler off the bad is probably the only exception to the rule, since if you're imperialist, you get more from hammers than from food. If you go settler first working a forest plains hill (3 hammers), then you're putting the equivalent of 6 hammers into your settler, for pretty good early production.

But in general, building a settler with unimproved tiles is a big waste of time.

 

[Alexfrog]

Wow, most of you are waiting a long time.

I tend to build my first two settlers at size 1, maybe 2. (Or one at size 1, grow to 2, build another).

Generally Worker, Worker, Settler is best, but sometimes Worker, Settler. (The other option is starting with Fishing and doing a Work Boat first).


I build the settler as soon as all my special resource tiles in the City radius, that I have the worker techs for, are being worked.

For example, if there was a wheat and a gems in the city radius (this is a strong start), then I would do:
Worker,
build a farm on the Wheat.
Worker,
grow to 2, build a mine on the gems,
Settler with Workers chopping forests to speed it up.

I'd expand to 4 cities.


If I have just the wheat, I'd do:
Worker,
build a farm on the Wheat.
Worker, (other worker chops to help out),
Settlers (until 4 cities).


The capital doesnt have to produce the 2nd and 3rd settlers, sometimes it will grow while the new city builds the settlers (with the help of the worker(s) improving its special tile(s) and then chopping.

 

[UWHabs]

Depending on the levels, by the time you go worker, worker, settler, you need to start having defenses, at least to accompany the settler. I wouldn't think I'd be able to get that second settler out (ie. worker, worker, settler, settler) without having at least a warrior accompany them out to where I'm building my cities.

 

[Skallagrimson]

And at the higher levels, the copper is job 1. Even if you aren't axe-rushing, you'll need axemen to swat away the barb archers and a short time later, axemen and swordsmen. Defend in woods vs. the axemen, attack the swords. Very shortly after city 2 you need to start escorting with axemen.

 

[Alexfrog]

Escorting:

Initial warrior can do a scouting loop around your capital and return at about the time the settler is completing (or, it goes to the point your first settler is headed to, to ensure there are no barbs in that area). Getting the warrior there abit ahead of time, fortified on a defensive terrain, is an effective escort, since it will fogbust (barbs wont spawn near it), and it will kill any barbs that come into that area (they will sacrifice themselves on it).

Then that same warrior can escort the next settler as well while city#2 builds a warrior as it grows to size 2.

The faster you get the settlers built the less effort you need to put into escorting them. You can definitely get 4 cities accomplished fast with just warrior escorts, as long as use use whipping + chopping to accomplish it.

 

[30+]

Wow, most of you are waiting a long time.

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.

 

[vicawoo]

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.

(For some reason this took a long time for me to read)

It sounds like the difference isn't in the size 4 capital, it is that the other 3 cities didn't grow sooner. If city 2 grows to 2 (it does have a food resource, right?), then settler, then you're better off.
Also it sounds like in the first example, you prioritized chopping over the first improvement of city 2, which is a mistake.

 

[vicawoo]

Every pop costs X food. On normal speed it is 20+2*pop. Every settler cost(usually) 100 hammers, with large food surplus it is often better to grow onto improved tiles(mines) compared to building the settler asap. That is of course if you are not fighting for city spots(if you are it is a tradeoff obviously). Growing to size 4 costs 26 food. That is almost 1/4th of the settler. Growing one pop gives +2 if you work an improved mine while getting out a new city gives +4(though obviously it could also have resources). Even with something like a pig or corn that is only +7 which is about the same growing onto a mine in terms of benefit/cost. Obviously the commerce also plays somewhat of a role(either in cost from maintenance or gain from traderoutes or gain from working tiles), though that is minor in the early game most of the time. Hence you probably want to grow to at least size 4 and most likely size 5 due to the way improvements work(harder to grow later when you want to be working more mines that you then have hooked up), even with very strong city sites.

The hence size 5 is a sleight of hand conclusion since it costs more and you need the not free warrior.

If the second city had a corn/pig, then you could grow to size 2 for a +8 with forest, +9 with mine, up to +11 with a special resource.

I don't see why growing to size 5 is harder later.

 

[comatosedragon]

Expansive would make me build a settler before the city grows to size two, almost certainly.

I don't see why Expansive would change anything.

I meant Imperialistic, sorry. Sometimes I may even push my luck with an Imperialistic leader, and build settler first.

 

[30+]

It sounds like the difference isn't in the size 4 capital, it is that the other 3 cities didn't grow sooner. If city 2 grows to 2 (it does have a food resource, right?), then settler, then you're better off.

There was about a 1.7 pop advantage + 2 improvement tiles > than the guy I was posting about. So the difference is the Capital, other cities growth, + the amount of improved tiles.

My quote:

I kept trying different variations of the worker,worker, settler that utilized an overall lower population to produce settlers and workers.

Nothing I tried ever gave the persons in question particular Build order any advantage at any time.

Also, I had to enter the World Builder about 6 to 7 times due to Barbs owning me up(with both scenarios). So not only was this particular build order slower in every way its not viable with Barbs.

 

[vicawoo]

You should definitely have more than 4 cities at 1160 BC. Send the start.

 

[30+]

You should definitely have more than 4 cities at 1160 BC. Send the start.

Some random links to random succession games.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168762&page=3 - 3 cities by 1100 BC
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207309&page=4 - 3 cities by 700 BC
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=202226 - 3 cities by 950 BC
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205997&page=2 - 4 cities at 800 BC

The list goes on and on virtually forever from limitless other succession games which can be found abundantly on this site. I find it amusing that you think you should DEFINITELY have more than 4 cities on Emperor/Immortal by 1160 BC.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=306021&page=3 - previously post made by myself in a thread originated by you showing: I personally play nothing but emperor/immortal. Just trying to avoid any question as far as the levels and situations I am talking about. Obviously at signficantly easier levels from settler-Prince you can have much greater success with any method.

As far as sending the start, I did not save it, but you are more than welcome to create your own game and use Alex's method compared to your own. Typically I play as the Incans and do not need to worry about early Barbs but in my test games I used Korea.

It's very easy to play as Julius Caesar, Cathy, Cyrus, or Victoria and pump out 5 additional cities giving you a grand total of 6 before 1160 BC but then again, on Emperor, and especially Immortal you would already be at Zero research after your 4th new city not to mention you would be slaughtered by Barbs.

 

[vicawoo]

I'm not saying you're a bad player or that growing early is an awful strategy (in fact I would probably grow to 4), and I would be expanding a lot later if I chopped had to chop a monument for city 2, didn't have a forest start, and that if I got 4 cities without growing above size 2 in most of my cities would hurt your economy a lot, etc.

But (I believe) your example of city growth falling behind a growth strategy is not valid for tactical differences that are not necessary to the overall idea of low growth expansion. I thought that if I had the save, I could change those tactical differences and come out more evenly to a growth based strategy.

 

[30+]

I'm not saying you're a bad player

And I didn't take it that way. I was trying to demonstrate that when your goal is to shoot for an early game REX it's most often not going to be accomplished in the fastest manner possible if you begin that process too early.

City Size:
2- typically produce settlers in 13 turns; takes the city 6 turns to grow to size 3
3- typically produce settlers in 10 turns; also takes 6 turns to grow to size 4
4- typically produce settlers in 8 turns

I'm stopping at size 4 because emp/immort happy cap is 4. So now the question becomes, What is my early game goal and what is the best way to accomplish it?

If I had planned to make fewer cities I would create them earlier but If I was going to REX with 4-5 more cities it would make much more sense to grow my city before mass production. Besides, if you werent creative a lot of your cities wouldn't even be able to access their food/luxury resource until the borders were popped which would make the grow your city further than size 2 REX much more attractive (more than it already is in my eyes).

 

[vicawoo]

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.

 

[Solo4114]

First, my approach usually depends on beelining Bronze Working. Then, depending on my starting location, I usually do worker-->worker-->warriorscout-->settler or worker-->worker-->settler-->warrior/scout.

Early on, if I have a food resource in my capital's BFC, I'll farm that and then chop out my 2nd worker and then chop out a settler while the first worker is building roads to the new location. I've usually scouted this out ahead of time.

A lot of this depends on the starting location, though, and the ability to chop out those early food-consuming units. Every time you're building one of those, you AREN'T growing the city. Early on, I've learned that "People are our greatest resource." If you have enough food tiles in your capital, you can whip stuff out more economically than if you chop it out, and you help keep your empire's costs low and happiness high.

But, that said, there are (for me at least) no absolute hard-and-fast rules.

 

[30+]

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

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.

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

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

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.