Which is the better of these 4 options with your settler at the VERY start

[Terry Teo]

A) build IMMEDIATELY on the square you're on

B) move ONE square (two at a push) to more favourable land

C) Move 6 squares to an advanced tribe + keep NONE settlers working the land permanently

D) Move 6 squares to an advanced tribe + quickly found 2nd city

?

 

[tuga2112]

interesting though experiment.
my opinion/s as a non-expert player are

under the assumption you are willing to reload your game in order to be 100% sure you get a free city.

its unlikely you can beat the advantage of a second city in the 8-10th turn of the game. (unless original location is exceptionally good) the extra trade and production on the folowing 10 turns should compensate for the delay in the start giving an increase in pace for the rest of the game.
keeping a NONE settler is extremely powerfull, but given the reduced maintenance cost of the normal settler under a despotist regime, id say your better off getting a second city and later on bribe an AI settler

the downside i can see is.
can you survive the initial 25 turns of the game given the delay in start up provides such handicap ?

i may give option D a go this weekend, sounds like an interesting strategy to try

 

[sjongejonge]

D.
I usually reload 4000BC after I found a nice spot to settle down but I never tried D that I can remember (it has been a few years ).
Some tribes give you 2 settlers at the start frequently like I believe Babylonians so that would make 3 settlements from the start.
This topic gave me another idea; try to win emperor with 0% on science, large land mass and 7 tribes.

 

[tuga2112]

This topic gave me another idea; try to win emperor with 0% on science, large land mass and 7 tribes.

been done in the past. dont ask me for a link.
teoretically, if you get 2 setlers, you can get 2 cities in oposite directions given an extra 2-4 turns of moving around

but ive seen somwhere the logic to get the 2 setlers is based on your surroundings, meaning theres either more than 1 AI civ near where you start or your initial location is pretty bad or a bit of both, searching the posts should get you the details failry quickly.

 

[GoodAdvice]

I really think that more cities as fast
as possible are the best strategy.

 

[sjongejonge]

This topic gave me another idea; try to win emperor with 0% on science, large land mass and 7 tribes.

Easy. Also made number 1 in the hall of fame with that game. And I did option C. 2 Advanced tribes and 2 NONE starting settlers.

 

[Osvaldo Manso]

Interesting question... I don't cheat and this includes reload.
So, when I see a hut I have no way of knowing what it will come out of it.

If there was a way of knowing that entering a hut would give you a city (advanced tribe), obviously I would vote for options C or D.
Choosing between C and D depends on other factors: if you find another CIV very early (close to your starting point) I would advise you to immediately colonize the terrain (building a second city) or they will do it instead. The same if you find very good terrain areas (like Rivers with Hills or lot of special resources, like Coal, Oil and Gold). In these cases, I would choose D.
However, if nobody seems to be near you and the terrain doesn't look that good, then I would suggest keeping the "None" Settler unit as long as you can - build a second city using Settlers produced by the first and then use "None" Settler unit to link both cities by road and paving the way for third, fourth, and so on. [Option C]

However, since there is no way of knowing what the hut will give you, in my way of playing, I would have to opt between A and B.
In this situation, which happens almost every game, I definetely choose B.
Losing a couple of turns or even more in the beginning of the game is easily compensated by getting the most out of your city.

 

[Osvaldo Manso]

but ive seen somwhere the logic to get the 2 setlers is based on your surroundings, meaning theres either more than 1 AI civ near where you start or your initial location is pretty bad or a bit of both, searching the posts should get you the details failry quickly.

You are right. Providing an extra Settler is a way the game uses for compensating a bad starting location.
This is defined by the terrain type where you start and number of other civs on your land mass.
I remember that «Rome on 640k a Day» has a table on this subject, stating which terrains are good and which are bad for starting.
If I remember it right, you need a combination of both criterions, like starting in a desert and in a land mass with two other civs, to get an extra settler.

So, in conclusion, when you get an extra Settler you should expect to have company.

 

[The Phalanx]

B. I don't want to go 6 squares because the Romans found their cities where they start. I'd do it with the second or third militia I build.