Worker first or grow first?

[Ignorant Teacher]

I decided to make a test on what is more efficient: grow first or build a worker first. It's not a scientific test by any means, I've just used a map (blame my laziness) and I did it right after I woke up.

I drew a random map with a random leader on Immortal. I got Frederick of Germany.

This is the start. I might extend this test later because this is not the most common start:

The idea was to grow till the happy cap then build a settler. There were three scenarios:

1-Build warriors until happy cap.
2-Build a warrior then a worker.
3-Worker first then warrior.

I kept the same research in all the cases. It was: Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Archery, The Wheel, Pottery.

The finish dates were different for each case as well as the quality of the capital and the safety of the settler. In one case, even the happy cap was different.

Scenario 1 (happy cap then settlers). Finish date - Turn 24 or 3040BC.

Spoiler :

In this case our Settler would be out on turn 37 with no escorts.

Scenario 2 (warrior then worker). Finish date - turn 38 or 2480BC.

Spoiler :

Here our Settler would be out on turn 46 with an Archer as an escort.

Scenario 3 (worker first). Finish date - turn 36 or 2560BC.

Spoiler :

Settler would be completed on turn 43 and would go out protected by two Archers (or an Archer and a Warrior).

It's not conclusive, but I would personally choose Scenario 3 most of the time because it would allow me to send my Settler in safety and, although the first settler would be out a little later, the rest of my settlers would be ready significantly sooner.

I'd like to hear what you think and, if anyone's willing to test the same thing on different maps, the results.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

A second map to the test. Same settings, different random leader.

This is the start:

Scenario 1 (warriors till happy cap):

Spoiler :

Scenario 2 (warrior then worker):

Spoiler :

Scenario3 (worker first):

Spoiler :

In this case, worker first is clearly superior.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Third test, same everything.

Leader:

Start:

Scenario 1 (warriors until happy cap):

Spoiler :

Scenario 2 (warrior then worker):

Spoiler :

Scenario 3 (worker first):

Spoiler :

Worker first seems to be the best option in most cases, although when the start is too good (1st test) or bad (3rd test), the differences are less material. In the first test, we'd be able to send our settler safely protected by archers. In the third test, we'd see very few barbarians because all those warriors would be spawnbusting (I hardly explored because I had to redo the scenario #3 - I popped copper in one of the hills, gotta remember doing these things with events off).

 

[yanner39]

Thanks for this. Look forward to the results. I myself, build a worker, always have. I use my worker to improve food tiles, build mines, roads and I chop alot. I actually chop more than whip.

I then only build warriors afterwards until the happycap. I learn the hard way to never neglect my military.

 

[pi-r8]

I don't think there's any question that worker first provides the fastest growth. The main problem is that each additional population eats two food, and most unimproved tiles only provide 3 resources total. If you're working an unimproved forest say, that's 2 food 1 hammer, but the only GAIN you get from the extra pop there is 1 hammer. Whereas, if you farm an irrigated corn, or build a pasteur on pigs, that gives you and extra THREE food. Then after the worker's done it keeps on adding more and more value, whereas the value of 1 population stays constant until you get a worker out. And of course, after you get bronze working you can use that worker to chop, which massively increases your production.

the value of worker first is even better if you start with mining, or if you're an expansive leader.

 

[Silu]

^ Agree. Always worker first, EXCEPT if he would end up idling for long because of mass forests / no wheel / generally crap starttech&startlocation combo (like Spain and a non-coastal start).

Real examples are always nice illustrations, though

 

[bestsss]

Marathon->warrior 1st, the fastest growth (if you steal a few workers w/)

 

[binhthuy71]

One exception might be where you are playing a Civ that starts with Fishing and you have a seafood resource available. Crab or Clam give you +2F, Fish +3F, for a Work Boat that costs half as many hammers as a Worker.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

I don't think there's any question that worker first provides the fastest growth.

Well, I ran these sample tests because I've been hearing a lot people saying they don't build workers first because they want to grow and I wanted to see which case lets you grab more land quicker, which IMO happens when you go worker first.

One exception might be where you are playing a Civ that starts with Fishing and you have a seafood resource available. Crab or Clam give you +2F, Fish +3F, for a Work Boat that costs half as many hammers as a Worker.

That's true. I do think that a worker is more interesting than a workboat as a first build if you have a really good starting resource like irrigated corn or grassland pig. Workboat comes second then.

^ Agree. Always worker first, EXCEPT if he would end up idling for long because of mass forests / no wheel / generally crap starttech&startlocation combo (like Spain and a non-coastal start).

I agree that forests can be a pain, but on Normal speed you finish the first worker tech before the worker's ready and the second a little after he finished his first job. Civs with The Wheel as a starting tech have a better situation in this case.

 

[Pluton]

One exception might be where you are playing a Civ that starts with Fishing and you have a seafood resource available. Crab or Clam give you +2F, Fish +3F, for a Work Boat that costs half as many hammers as a Worker.

..and the city still grows during building a workboat.
But a workboat can onl y be built with hammers, a worker can be built with hammers or food.

 

[Kid R]

I've been starting with 2 workers sometimes recently, or at least worker/warrior/worker. There always seems to be stuff for them to do - chop forests, road to the next city etc. City 2 seems to get up and running much quicker than if the settler goes and then works unimproved tiles for 20. Also I found I like having a variety of improved tiles in the capital to co-ordinate research and production better. Improved tiles rock!

I don't think the Isabella start was bad at all. A couple of workers could have that cottaged up and powering towards monarchy in no time.

 

[pi-r8]

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.

 

[Virtual Alex]

I would argue that it's worth doing that every time you have good tiles to work.

If you are financial, that I would always grow to the happy cap first in order to work 2 floodplain cottages, along with 2 mines and a farm/pasture. That way while building a settler you get to make a bunch of money too.

I have recently decided that rushing out a settler is totally overrated.

 

[Windsor]

Growing capital adds:

- Protection
- Exploring
- Fogbusting

Worker-worker-settler is risky at higher levels. Isabella is also expansive, giving a 25% boost when building workers, but only on hammers. When the capital have grown the following workers and settlers will also be done quicker. In the Isabella-game I would prioritize corn, ivory, farmed dye, the two riverside hills and then the last hill. That gives 12 (15 when building workers!), a small food surplus and 6 extra commerce! I would probably grab oracle in that game since Isabella already have mysticism and forest to chop.

 

[NihilZero]

Nice study, very informative.

I'd be interested to hear opinions regarding the virtues of the settler first approach. Is there ever a situation where you might do that, say with an imperialistic leader?

Times when you can't find anything for a worker to do: surrounded by forest, start without mining. It might take you about 20 turns to get to BW, so worker first will mean the guy is standing around idling for a few turns. The problem is compounded if you try to put off mining->BW to try fo an early religion, although does anybody do that above Prince?

Me, I almost always start with a worker, unless he is going to end up idle for a while. I often chop a second worker and then chop a settler, as there is nearly always a very juicy city location I have found by then that I know the AI will grab if I don't. After that I slow down a bit and start improving tiles, building warriors, etc. This strategy is not too high risk as the barbs usually haven't started appearing yet, and two early growing cities is better than one, generally speaking. You do have to watch out for bears, though. If your first warrior gets killed this doesn't really work as you need him to come back to the capital and escort the settler.

Of course, it all varies. Sometimes I do things completely differently. Generally I do like to make a worker first, though.

 

[civuminati]

I'd be interested to hear opinions regarding the virtues of the settler first approach. Is there ever a situation where you might do that, say with an imperialistic leader?

As a Monarch-Emperor player I find that I only try this if I'm imperialistic and a plains hill is at the capital, preferably the 1st ring.

And another point, because of the barbs (especially @ Emperor [for me]) sometimes the starting warrior/scout doesn't have time to both explore the land looking for a suitable spot to settle AND get back to fogbust the area so your imperialistic-settler doesn't become breakfast for a loin and her cubs. And what happens if the warrior/scout in eaten before the settler is finished?

I say it's a gamble, but one that can definitely pay off.

I don't think I've done it yet but maybe warrior (growing to 2 pop)->settler can work too.

@ the OP:

I agree the 1st tests are inferior. Yes, you do get the settler out faster, but at the big price of having the worker out late.

A single worker chopping the captial at around turn 25-30 or going to the 2nd city to hook up a special resource can be really nice.

I say about 80% of starts I go worker 1st.

 

[pi-r8]

I would argue that it's worth doing that every time you have good tiles to work.

If you are financial, that I would always grow to the happy cap first in order to work 2 floodplain cottages, along with 2 mines and a farm/pasture. That way while building a settler you get to make a bunch of money too.

I have recently decided that rushing out a settler is totally overrated.

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!

 

[pi-r8]

Growing capital adds:

- Protection
- Exploring
- Fogbusting

Worker-worker-settler is risky at higher levels. Isabella is also expansive, giving a 25% boost when building workers, but only on hammers. When the capital have grown the following workers and settlers will also be done quicker. In the Isabella-game I would prioritize corn, ivory, farmed dye, the two riverside hills and then the last hill. That gives 12 (15 when building workers!), a small food surplus and 6 extra commerce! I would probably grab oracle in that game since Isabella already have mysticism and forest to chop.

I don't see how growing the capital adds protection or exploration. I mean, do you really need 5 warriors at the beginning of the game? Maybe in a very crowded map, but not normally. The first settler will usually come out before barbarians, and you can use your starting unit to fogbust to keep away animals.

 

[Hsinchu]

Conditions where one might not get a worker first:

Goodie Hut Worker for free.

At least two floodplains tiles and stone is very nearby and mysticism is a free tech.

The first condition is obviously just exploiting one's advantage and if you have two workers that quick... you'll be pressed to find them things to do!

The second condition is my gamble to grab Stonehenge. The worker builds 25% faster (assuming not a plains hill start) with the extra food from the second fp, you get a jumpstart on techs/worker techs (albeit not much) and while you aren't squeezing out every turn of stone accelerated stonehenge, it's a commitment to a gameplan that usually calculates as worth it since you probably want to found two religions (with masonry/monotheism) without sacrificing your worker start. Do I ever wait to happy cap before building ANYTHING? Min/maxing might be VERY important at deity/immortal. Where I'm sitting, I'd rather play a little tighter with some room for error, particularly since I plan on diving deeper into the Inferno later and need to force myself to deal with stricter handicaps.

 

[pi-r8]

Here's my attempt at the first start. I built a worker, then let it grow to size 2, then built a settler, then another worker. I never researched archery either. It's turn 37, and I've already built a second city and have it working a pig pasteur. This city blocks off Saladin from further expansion.

Spoiler :

Unfortunately there's no way to snag that southern location before he does. I tried everything I could think of, but he always gets there first. So just for fun, I tried this...

Spoiler :

Again I went worker, grow to 2, settler, worker, but then I started building chariots.