Worker actions in the 1st 50 turns

[Seraiel]

AIs don't react to tje players research path, their choices are random based on their flavours. It's just that when AI doesn't find Writing in a hut, it researches almost all techs before going Alpha. Some even go Monarchy first.

 

[stevenburns]

AIs don't react to tje players research path, their choices are random based on their flavours. It's just that when AI doesn't find Writing in a hut, it researches almost all techs before going Alpha. Some even go Monarchy first.

It certainly feels that way sometimes, though I know how the basic AI decisions are made. Nevermind, I have seen AIs tech to Alpha around 1600 BC very often. HC, Pericles, Darius, Elizabeth, Justinian, Mansa regularly come up with early Alpha.
We have successfully derailed from the topic, btw.

 

[Seraiel]

I guess Hatty is very strong in this scenario due to starting techs and CRE.

Hatty is the #1 non-Incan leader, together with Ramesses and Darius imo. Hatty has the stronger UU, but Darius has the stronger economy. Ofc., Ramesses with being IND is also great, depends on the game who's really the best. Maybe one can also count Lizzy in this list. At least, she got the best economy of all, but her lack of a very strong early UU imo puts her clearly in the 2nd line. I may change that perception after the next Major Deity Gauntlet which starts today. The leader choice this time is random. WastinTime already that he will play Lizzy and go for a standard Chariot or Axe rush. I'm gonna play Darius, because I believe he'll get more cities early and being ORG in a Space Race on a large map where one sill maybe or even probably have 80-100 cities doesn't really appear bad to me, if compared with PHI. Ofc., PHI is still better, but with those setting, ORG is gonna be used very well also.

 

[stevenburns]

Hatty is the #1 non-Incan leader, together with Ramesses and Darius imo. Hatty has the stronger UU, but Darius has the stronger economy. Ofc., Ramesses with being IND is also great, depends on the game who's really the best. Maybe one can also count Lizzy in this list. At least, she got the best economy of all, but her lack of a very strong early UU imo puts her clearly in the 2nd line. I may change that perception after the next Major Deity Gauntlet which starts today. The leader choice this time is random. WastinTime already that he will play Lizzy and go for a standard Chariot or Axe rush. I'm gonna play Darius, because I believe he'll get more cities early and being ORG in a Space Race on a large map where one sill maybe or even probably have 80-100 cities doesn't really appear bad to me, if compared with PHI. Ofc., PHI is still better, but with those setting, ORG is gonna be used very well also.

I only play standard size maps. I don't have the patience to manage so many cities. Imagine the time I'd spend to think about worker turns. Though I probably shouldn't tell you about time.

I rate starting techs and traits higher than uniques. But I haven't managed to successfully war on Deity before catapults.

 

[Seraiel]

There was a time (about 2y ago) when I proclaimed that CIV is all about UUs, and that everything else is only from minor importance. This opinion of me doesn't have changed that much. Starting techs and traits I value a lot higher than then, because I've won with ever civ since then, but being able to rush with War Chariots or Immortals is imho still completely different from normal chariots. I have an 880 Dom standard normal, and a 1510 standard quick conquest win in the HoF, first with Hatty, 2nd with Darius. I doubt very much that I could ever have achieved something compareable without those 2 units. In the 880 domination game, I believe I rushed 3 or even 4 opponents with WCs, because they had no Ivory and WCs were just the best unit until Cuirrs. In the 2nd game, I conquered 2 opponents with Immortals, I still remember them as a lot weaker than WCs, but Darius traits are amazing for almost all games.

I wouldn't say anymore that CIV is all about UUs, but I'd still say “mostly“ . There are nice leaders, but even though being more experienced as I played the strong ones first, I never successfully rushed with anything earlier than HAs, and those already come at least 1000y later than Chariots, if not even 1500y. At that time, Darius or Egyptians can already have and produce more and cheaper units from 10+ cities.

 

[stevenburns]

There was a time (about 2y ago) when I proclaimed that CIV is all about UUs, and that everything else is only from minor importance. This opinion of me doesn't have changed that much. Starting techs and traits I value a lot higher than then, because I've won with ever civ since then, but being able to rush with War Chariots or Immortals is imho still completely different from normal chariots. I have an 880 Dom standard normal, and a 1510 standard quick conquest win in the HoF, first with Hatty, 2nd with Darius. I doubt very much that I could ever have achieved something compareable without those 2 units. In the 880 domination game, I believe I rushed 3 or even 4 opponents with WCs, because they had no Ivory and WCs were just the best unit until Cuirrs. In the 2nd game, I conquered 2 opponents with Immortals, I still remember them as a lot weaker than WCs, but Darius traits are amazing for almost all games.

I wouldn't say anymore that CIV is all about UUs, but I'd still say “mostly“ . There are nice leaders, but even though being more experienced as I played the strong ones first, I never successfully rushed with anything earlier than HAs, and those already come at least 1000y later than Chariots, if not even 1500y. At that time, Darius or Egyptians can already have and produce more and cheaper units from 10+ cities.

I didn't intend to contradict. Especially WCs are extremely powerful. Early rushes with UU chariots still depend on your target and its access to copper in my experience. I've seen Charlemagne defend the city to my border with 6-7 archers or the AIs that start with mining switch into slavery after 15 turns.
On Deity, I doubt a rush with regular chariots is viable under any circumstances.

If I pop horses I consider HAs. Even preferably to catapults because you can invest all your production into them and don't have to split up between catapults and whatever else.

To get back to the topic a little bit, the role of the worker changes drastically if one plans to rush. You can't rush with one worker and 3-4 cities.
In this case rushing to me means anything up to elepults.
Or do you feel different about catapults, i.e. do you still settle like 3 additional cities with only one worker even though you know you'll cata-something someone?

(Rushing for engineering I consider too siuational but it's a very powerful play.)

 

[Seraiel]

I didn't intend to contradict. Especially WCs are extremely powerful. Early rushes with UU chariots still depend on your target and its access to copper in my experience. I've seen Charlemagne defend the city to my border with 6-7 archers or the AIs that start with mining switch into slavery after 15 turns.
On Deity, I doubt a rush with regular chariots is viable under any circumstances.

If I pop horses I consider HAs. Even preferably to catapults because you can invest all your production into them and don't have to split up between catapults and whatever else.

To get back to the topic a little bit, the role of the worker changes drastically if one plans to rush. You can't rush with one worker and 3-4 cities.
In this case rushing to me means anything up to elepults.
Or do you feel different about catapults, i.e. do you still settle like 3 additional cities with only one worker even though you know you'll cata-something someone?

(Rushing for engineering I consider too siuational but it's a very powerful play.)

If I rush, I build or steal more Workers, like 2 or 3 for 3 cities. I still found those 2 additional cities before building the 2nd Worker though.