When to move the initial settler?

Mopheo

Warlord
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
116
What would you need to move your first settler?
If your capitol is infertile, ie. jungle/desert/mountain how infertile would it have to be to move the settler?
How far is it worth moving for a river? A wheat? A floodplain? A cattle, A bonus grassland? 2 bonus grassland? A hill? A luxury? Horses? Coast?
How would this change for OCC or 5CC?
What about Always War?
Or a 2CC simultaneous cultural victory?
Or if you want conquest/domination victory?

When you answer these question please include difficulty level and map size (if applicable).

Ok, that’s a lot of questions, but it should give some food for thought. Maybe an experienced player will even be inspired by this to write a thorough strategy article about moving your first settler.

I generally am willing to move very far (4+ spaces) to get money producing luxuries, freshwater, and coast, for a OCC or 2CC. I will even move into heavy jungle to accomplish this (my first OCC I moved my settler 4 or 5 times to get 4 gems, freshwater, and coast, with only 4 non jungle tiles and a nonindustrious civ). This location allowed me to do almost entirely self research on a Monarch OCC, especially after I got Newton’s and Copernicus with the Colossus (map was small archipelago). However, in a normal game, the only really important thing is a productive, fertile city with a river. You can pick up luxuries and resources later. It is also very important to start ASAP to get a head start on expansion.
 
I'll move the settler 1 tile, but ONLY if I see a better location (to get on a river, onto a coast, or get a bonus resource). I may move 2 tiles to get a bonus resource, but I don't think I really have ever been in that situation (where my worker saw a resource that far away).

If you don't know where bonus resources are, then you are best off just founding your city and then send your next cities to these bonus resources. Exceptions, of course is an all-jungle, tundra, desert start or plains with no fresh water in sight, or an OCC, 2CC, etc. You don't want to waste a bunch of turns exploring and end up finding nothing, so if the start has a few good tiles to use, then just found there. You can abandon your capital later, if it is a real bad spot.
 
I will never move at all. I just restart! :) I know this is kind of cheap, but it's more efficient in the long run.
 
The test I use is "When will the city grow to size 2?"

For example, suppose you start surrounded by plains and grassland, and when you move the worker you find a grassland wheat just outside the 9-tile radius.

Without moving the settler, you have +2 food/turn for growth in 10 turns at 3500BC.

If you move towards the wheat, you have +3 food/turn for growth in 7 turns, plus 1 turn for moving, at 3600BC.
It's even better if you can irrigate the wheat immediately, which gives +4 food/turn for the last 2 turns and growth at 3650BC.
 
Originally posted by Bamspeedy
I'll move the settler 1 tile, but ONLY if I see a better location (to get on a river, onto a coast, or get a bonus resource).
I have always had double feelings about coastal capitals. My instinct is to move away from it so the city radius will not have any coast tiles. It takes a long time before it will have a harbour, not to mention an offshore platform, so those watertiles are not going to help either growth or production for a while. It is of course imporant to have a portcity fairly early to build galleys, but that does not need to be the capital. The capital should have maximum growth and production tiles from the start. A Colossus without corruption would be nice, but such details don't really influence the decision.

Anyway, a question: does the AI ever move its first settler or do they found in 4000BC no matter what?
 
I almost always found my capital at the starting spot. Since I don't do nCCs, I figure I'll have other cities claiming those wines or whatever. I might move one tile if the starting position is one tile away from the sea, since that gives you pretty much the same disadvantages of a coastal capital with no of the advantages.

Map size and difficulty level doesn't really figure, IMHO. Were I to play an nCC, I'd probably be willing to move a few tiles to secure a luxury or similar.
 
I move my settler one or two tiles if there's a better starting location (wheat, cattle, luxuries, etc.). Also, if the capital would include some sea tiles but not be on the coast, I move away from the coast (for the reasons Ivory gives) so as to have no sea tiles in my capital's city radius.
 
to answer Ivory's question: the AI never moves its original settler...even on deity, they will use one of their settlers to found where they start, and move the other settler
 
DaveMcW's tip is perfectly right. Just decide about your first city on what you currently see (and what your worker/scout may explore), not on what you hope to find in the fog.
In 99% of my games, it was an easy decision between 'just found' and 'move 'one tile'.
I never played games with a restricted number of cities. For AW, it is even more important to expand quickly and not to waste turns finding the 'ideal place'.
 
Originally posted by ivory

I have always had double feelings about coastal capitals. My instinct is to move away from it so the city radius will not have any coast tiles. It takes a long time before it will have a harbour, not to mention an offshore platform, so those watertiles are not going to help either growth or production for a while. It is of course imporant to have a portcity fairly early to build galleys, but that does not need to be the capital. The capital should have maximum growth and production tiles from the start. A Colossus without corruption would be nice, but such details don't really influence the decision.

Anyway, a question: does the AI ever move its first settler or do they found in 4000BC no matter what?

Well, sure, you don't want your capital on the coast if the surrounding terrain is mostly crap. But if you start 1 tile from the coast, you would have to send your settler 2+ tiles in the opposite direction to get far enough from the coast to allow a new city to claim that coastal area (without too much overlapping of cities). But then on some maps, by doing that, you just find yourself another coast.... And there is usually at least a few good tiles by the coast to allow you to have your settler factory for awhile. Colossus and Great Lighthouse can be great on some maps, and then some other wonders availiable later (even if you don't build these, at least you can use them as a pre-build for your other wonder you want more). And coastal tiles offers lots of commerce for later in the game.

Of course, finding a site for your capital with a river, bonus resources and great terrain is way better than a coast. But you don't want to be 1 tile off the coast, if you could move to the coast and still get river access and bonus resources.
 
I usually move (say 60%) one or two squares. It helps a lot if the capitle has extra food, production, or next to a river/inland water, preferably all 3.... I don't move for lux. EVER.

On the other hand - i don't like using flood-plains for my capitle... so sometimes I move away from them.

On the coast part of the discussion - I only move away from the coast (for only that reason) if I know exactly where the city using that coast is going to be, and i can see a good place for my capitle - which is to say rarely. (I did find a hut once on the first or second turn that gave me a map...)
 
Settlers


Something else I do, that I haven't seen posted.

Does any else do this? It's not 'exactly' cheating...

...I always save the 4000BC opening (with the small amount of area around your first settler unit, worker - and maybe scout depending what CIV you start with) and then go off and explore for half an hour. You then save the game again after most of your immedaite area has been revealed (I usually save it with 'map' in the file name as a reference). Then you can plan where to put your initial settler and subsequent settlers and start from the 4000BC save again. You can always refer back to 'map' save if need be.

Is this naughty? What do you reckon?
 
deadloss, do as you like :goodjob:, but if what you describe is not exactly cheating, then please tell what is?:confused:
 
It's not cheating, but I think that's worse then reloading, which, I confess, I'll do when my MA loses to a spearman. But hey, you can do what you want, but that's a little too much cheating for me.
 
I wouldn't have said it was 'cheating,' exactly.

As 'barren of ideas' posted, I always thought of it as 'early reconnaissance' or a 'look-see' to get an idea of whether it was worth playing the game that has been generated for me.

Why spend days and days (and weeks) of endless battling against AI CIVs when you've been given a bad start? Especially as the AI has its own version of a 'specially reccy.' You see, the AI always knows which is your weakest/least protected city to attack. It always knows where to send settlers even though you haven't traded maps with anyone, and have the WARWALL in place. It has numerous other advantages too.

I honestly thought of it as an early scouting mission just to see whether it was worth playing and whether the land suited building cities on but I have to bow down to the general consensus.

I'll stop doing it. It might make the game more interesting than it is.

I must admit I used to hate people using the 'settler cheat' and various others that plagued CIV I.
 
Hash One, I don't follow your logic. Sure it 's worth postponing the research by one turn if you see a spot where you can grow quicker so research will go faster too.

Deadloss, I 'm trying very hard to understand why you think that kind of reconaissance (I sense some irony in the barron's post) is not cheating. Like the other guy asked, then what is?
 
Top Bottom