Worker first or grow first?

I remember a similar game... except on Marathon and with my favorite russian gal on a great plains map.

I got the mountain start with gold and silver aplenty but not more than one or two food. So I pitched worker first, hammered out a gold mine while pumping out some defense (raging barbs on). Then I kept pushing. That means I had 5 cities before Classical, all pop 1-3. Research with gold was of course great, and if I hadn't turned raging barbs on, I probably would have kept playing. As it was, I had to micro every single one of my fogbusting friends and it was getting late... I didn't pay attention to a barb near my city alert... and I decided to stop playing.
 
But you probably won't get pottery fast enough to do that. In fact, all three of his "worker first" scenarios show the capital working unimproved tiles at the end. And really, working a farmed grassland doesn't do much- it only adds 1 food. If you get a settler out faster it lets your second city start working resources like corn or bronze, and helps you beat the AI to the best city locations. Alternatively, getting a second worker faster would let you chop faster. On normal speed, a worker can chop down a forest in 4 turns (counting the turn it takes to move there), which provides 20 hammers, so 5 hammers/turn. That's like working a copper mine!

Like I said, if you can work 5 good tiles then you should grow to the happy cap. If you are not able to work primary tiles then there is no need. Take this capital for example, I have in my current emp game. It has grassland hill pigs, corn, stone, copper, and gold. These are 5 tiles that are worth working. So in this game I grew to the happy cap. In a different game, the one right before this one my capital had 2 furs, corn, marble, and 1 floodplain. I farmed the floodplain and worked all 5 of these tiles.

I didn't look very closely at this example spots to see if growing to the cap is optimal. But I would say usually a capital location has 5 nice tiles worth working. Also a little rush to pottery is common for me since I am financial usually and a river cottage makes 3 gold right away.
 
I didn't look very closely at this example spots to see if growing to the cap is optimal. But I would say usually a capital location has 5 nice tiles worth working. Also a little rush to pottery is common for me since I am financial usually and a river cottage makes 3 gold right away.

True, usually it is situational.

The OP's 1st testing with Frederick is a worker 1st no brainer. Don't know the numbers exactly, but coming out with a worker on turn 32+ with all those nice improvable resources and starting techs just seems wrong. :smug: I was even thinking worker 1st, mining the pigs hill, and teching bronze-working straight away and chopping might be best.

I'm interested if anyone can come up with any concrete formulas that are best with the different situations. I guess this is what this thread is about. I've had plenty of starts with say, yes i know, Spain (2nd test) inland with 1 plains cow and wine, probably bronze/horses/iron, but only to be discovered later. In this situation it might make sense to grow to the happy cap, and pump out a settler before a worker. There are probably others.
 
Worker 1st will win in 99% of starts. If you aren't doing a spreadsheet or careful analysis, open with a worker. Working improved tiles earlier comes out stupidly far ahead.

Also, high yield tiles (5+) are way better than getting to chopping sooner. Working a pig for example is more important than chopping. Don't make the rookie mistake of thinking chopping > improved specials.
 
Pig mined hill is a 2 food 3 hammer tile.

I wouldn't say 99%, maybe with lot of leaders yes, but go back to my Spain (Fishing/Mysticism) example last post.

I can think of many situations where worker 1st is not ideal. Do these situations make up 1% of the leader + capital's random map generation?

Okay, maybe you weren't acually saying 1% per say. And not to be picky, I agree with you. Most of the time worker 1st in order to work the special tiles right away is best for sure. If you start with the right techs.
 
Worker 1st will win in 99% of starts. If you aren't doing a spreadsheet or careful analysis, open with a worker. Working improved tiles earlier comes out stupidly far ahead.

Also, high yield tiles (5+) are way better than getting to chopping sooner. Working a pig for example is more important than chopping. Don't make the rookie mistake of thinking chopping > improved specials.

You know I feel bad right now... I've argued so much in this thread that worker first is always better than warrior. But looking at the first situation, I think that warrior first is actually better. You start right next to Saladin, so war with him is almost inevitable, and you can steal a worker from him faster than building one yourself. Of course there's no way of knowing that in advance, so playing it through the first time you'd still want to start with a worker.
 
In all of my games, I've found that worker first -> improve/work special tiles while building a few warriors -> worker/settler is the most efficient in about 95% of cases. Of course if there are a lot of specials but the land is crowded I may well spit a settler out earlier as overall game situation must trump mathematical efficiency at times. I would usually consider pottery too far away to be thinking about working cottages before the first settler. Maybe some of you guys play on less crowded maps than me.
 
True, usually it is situational.

I'm interested if anyone can come up with any concrete formulas that are best with the different situations. I guess this is what this thread is about. I've had plenty of starts with say, yes i know, Spain (2nd test) inland with 1 plains cow and wine, probably bronze/horses/iron, but only to be discovered later. In this situation it might make sense to grow to the happy cap, and pump out a settler before a worker. There are probably others.
Eeew that'd be a terrible start. You'd definitely want worker first in that situation, though. If those are your only resources, then having extra population will hardly do anything, just get 1 hammer from working a forest. Spain is expansive, so their workers are cheaper. I'd tech agriculture then animal husbandry, farm the wine then pasture the cows, grow to size 2 and then build a settler.
 
I don't get why you're growing the capital up to the happy cap in all cases. It's hardly ever worth doing that before building the first settler. Usually you just want to work all the good resources, and then start on the setter. Doing that will really enhance the value of worker first. For example, on the third start I'd probably only want to work the farmed corn, and build worker-worker-chop settler.

It's not always worth it to grow the capital to the happy cap before building a settler, just most of the time. The thing is I had to find a common ground for all the scenarios and that's the best I could do right after waking up.

OTOH, I think that most of the time it's better to grow the city beyond 2 pop before building the settler. That map with Fred is probably a good example where that might be a good idea, but the other two are clearly cases where doing so is not the best move.

I think we should extend this test. I'll only have time to do that on Saturday, but we should pick two of the maps and see how how early we can settle a certain number of cities peacefully. I can do the worker first, grow to happy cap and you do the way you're doing. We avoid a lot of overlap so that we don't distort the test and see which is more effective. (I could do it all by myself, but, as I said in the OP, I'm really lazy).

On a side note, IMO it's really impossible to settle a second city before Saladin settles Damascus (that's the Arabian 2nd city, right?). The rush is a good idea.
 
Eeew that'd be a terrible start. You'd definitely want worker first in that situation, though. If those are your only resources, then having extra population will hardly do anything, just get 1 hammer from working a forest. Spain is expansive, so their workers are cheaper. I'd tech agriculture then animal husbandry, farm the wine then pasture the cows, grow to size 2 and then build a settler.

Expansive workers are 25% cheaper - I've found this really counts with the early chopping of forests and mines.

So the tech path would be Agr->AH->Mining->BW. IIRC around 20-22 turns to pasture the cows. The worker will be farming regular tiles (the wines) making them equivalent to a regular forest tile with 2 commerce (nothing to snuff about). But the real use for worker is pasturing the cows. The 6 yield tiles are really what counts when pumping out the 1st settler.

But we have one AH resource at the capital said in the example. We're building a very expensive unit with no growth really just to improve one resource.

I went through a few games going through this situation. I found that growing the capital to 4 pop. with at least two 3-food tiles to grow is enough to build a settler in under the time to compete with the worker-first opening. No wasted time on 15 turns building a worker that will only improve 1 pasture and spend turns farming non-resource tiles.

The tech path didn't really matter at first, but I found out that Mining>BW was crucial. Chopping and an early slavery @ pop.4 is a incredible boost. Losing the stagnation of population because of worker-1st meant early growth which equaled hammers in slavery later. Whipping the settler and then the 1st worker worked out. At times I even felt like whipping was a little unbalanced at such an early stage growing the capital from the start.

I know it's a rare occourence, but I feel comfortable growing to the happy cap and building a settler, mainly because I know what I'm doing and the AI doesn't. In MP not so much.

But I think the real reason for worker-1st in SP is so the 1st settler gets out in time to compete with the AI's possible early expansion. Especially if you're near the Portugese or what's the name of the leader that's IMP/CRE? Or even better, worker 1st placemark>AH>mining>BW with Egypt or the Persians.
 
I like the test and I must say that several times wanted to do it myself. this is applicable only in the case if other players are AI. If the other players are human players the first three units will be warriors and scouts.
 
What about a test where you do the worker when you grow to population 2?

I am doing a worker first in my games now, because all the good players here say so. but each time my instincts tell me that it would be better to produce a warrior or start with a building, depending on starting techs, and then when you grow to pop 2, do the worker faster.
 
The thing with worker first is that it gives you an improved empire earlier which is the big difference maker. Sure it takes a few more turns to produce it at size 1 than at size 2, but you'll get your first settler out faster (and on higher levels, getting good land early is difficult, the AI gobbles it out fast) and also your second worker etc.
You can get away with it on lower levels, but it'll cripple you on harder difficulties.
 
Expansive workers are 25% cheaper - I've found this really counts with the early chopping of forests and mines.
Wrong. What happens is that you have a 25% boost to the hammers you put on the worker. Even if you are getting a worker on purely hammer basis ( like a plains hill forest , that gives exactly 4 hammers or via chopping ), this means that you get 1 hammer free for ever 4 invested. That in my books is 20% faster , not 25% :p And obviously , if you start putting food in the middle things get increasingly less shiny
 
But we have one AH resource at the capital said in the example. We're building a very expensive unit with no growth really just to improve one resource.

I went through a few games going through this situation. I found that growing the capital to 4 pop. with at least two 3-food tiles to grow is enough to build a settler in under the time to compete with the worker-first opening. No wasted time on 15 turns building a worker that will only improve 1 pasture and spend turns farming non-resource tiles.

The tech path didn't really matter at first, but I found out that Mining>BW was crucial. Chopping and an early slavery @ pop.4 is a incredible boost. Losing the stagnation of population because of worker-1st meant early growth which equaled hammers in slavery later. Whipping the settler and then the 1st worker worked out. At times I even felt like whipping was a little unbalanced at such an early stage growing the capital from the start.

That "one AH resource" is worth the same amount as 3 unimproved tiles, maybe a little more since food is worth more than hammers early.

Your analysis of getting the settler a bit earlier is flawed. Even if you got that settler earlier, you STILL don't have a worker and now you need to improve tiles in TWO cities. You can whip a worker then, but not only will that drop you by 2 pop, but you'll still have to actually improve the tiles. In both cities.

Worker 1st: 2 cities (2nd slightly later), improved tiles in both ASAP, higher pop in capitol (or no worker or improved tiles), more total yield and the advantage will only grow from here.

Grow 1st: 2 cities, 0 improved tiles.

On top of all of that, simply working the improved cow competes with being at pop 3 working forests or whatever outright.

Edit: In multiplayer, especially with settings that will favor close spawns and on speeds < quick, warrior first might be superior merely because it can keep you alive. I still go worker first in most game spy games however.
 
Wrong. What happens is that you have a 25% boost to the hammers you put on the worker. Even if you are getting a worker on purely hammer basis ( like a plains hill forest , that gives exactly 4 hammers or via chopping ), this means that you get 1 hammer free for ever 4 invested. That in my books is 20% faster , not 25% :p And obviously , if you start putting food in the middle things get increasingly less shiny

I didn't really follow the math, here.

25% :hammers: boost means +1 :hammers: per 4 :hammers: earned, that's correct.

You equate this to a 20% speed increase, but that doesn't make sense.

4 * 1.2 = 4.8
4 * 1.25 = 5

Seems like it's a 25% bonus, as stated. That being said, your point regarding the value of :food: vs :hammers: is valid, in that you need to optimize your production to get at least the base 4 :hammers: required for the bonus to take effect, which means either an ordinary 1 :hammers: capital with the initial citizen working a forested-plains-hill, or a plains-hill 2 :hammers: capital working any 2 :hammers: tile. I play on Marathon, and an expansive leader can cut the initial worker production from 30 to 24 turns by managing production as stated. You can get as low as 20 turns if you have a plains-hill capital and a forested-plains-hill to work, which exponentially boosts the rate of improvement by bringing the second worker out earlier, and getting the first settler chopped much earlier.

I play a co-op game with a partner, mostly, and our starting builds are typically Worker-Worker-Settler. In the above optimal case I can have my settler started so early that the limiting factor for finishing production becomes the tech-rate to Bronze Working, but even then my settler is finished ahead of schedule.

For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume reasonable starts with irrigated corn for both players. Lacking a +6 :food: site in one or both cities further increases the value of the expansive build.

Maths:

Global Techs - Mining (15) -> Bronze Working (28)

Expansive Case:
20 turns for first worker, begin building a farm (16).
Farm up on turn 36, (second worker is 80/100).
Second worker out on turn 39 (only one turn is saved by switching to the farm), begin settler.
Two workers sit tight for four turns, although you could build a road or start another improvement project.
Bronze Working finished on turn 43, workers chop first forest on turn 49, settler is 114/300.
Workers chop second forest on turn 54, settler is now 210/300.
Workers chop third forest on turn 60, settler is out at 306/300 with 6 overflow.

Non-Expansive Case:
30 turns for first worker, begin building farm (16).
Farm up on turn 46 (second worker is 48/100), worker begins chopping (Bronze Working finished three turns ago).
Second worker out on turn 52 with 44 overflow (8 turns are saved by improving the farm and chopping), begin settler.
Two workers chop second forest on turn 58, settler is now 140/300.
Two workers chop third forest on turn 64, settler is now 236/300.

At this point there are two choices. The settler has 11 turns left, so you could chop it again to get it five turns early, or let it finish.

Option A:
Two workers chop fourth forest on turn 70, settler is out at 332/300 with 32 overflow.

Option B:
Two workers begin alternate project on turn 59.
Settler is out on turn 75.
 
There are two exceptions to when I do worker first.

1. I start with fishing and have coastal sea resources - then I'll build a workboat first

2. I won't have anything for my worker to do when he's popped, in which case I'll spend a few turns building something else, and then either change to the worker when I know he'll have something to do, or if I'm close to growing in size or completing my non-worker build, I may go a turn or two past that.
 
I didn't really follow the math, here.
The math isn't the problem, it's the English. English is absolutely terrible at conveying percentages well. I'm pretty sure you're both right:

# of hammers with expansive = 125% of usual
Time to make worker with expansive = 80% of usual
 
The math isn't the problem, it's the English. English is absolutely terrible at conveying percentages well. I'm pretty sure you're both right:

# of hammers with expansive = 125% of usual
Time to make worker with expansive = 80% of usual

Ah, nice. I can dig that.
 
Back
Top Bottom