What do you build first

[rixxe]

I usually build a settler, then a phalanx (archer), then a settler...hotseat partners tell me it's too risky...

Wondering how specialists are doing ....
[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited February 02, 2001).]

[Carolus Rex]

I'm not a specialist, but I do (almost) like you do. Defensive unit (warrior!), settler, settler...

A horse early on somewhere in between for exploring too (not in every city, though).

Carolus

[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited February 02, 2001).]

[Chris 62]

It depends on the difficulty level I'm playing at. At the lower ones I build a defense unit then two settlers, the first of which founds a city and the second improves terrain around my capitol. I keep repeating this process untill either I come up against an AI civ or run out of space(If on an island). At higher levels at least Two defensive units are needed first, and writing becomes critical so that I have a diplomat for bribing barbarians. Also, the capitol will build a defensive unit for the second city before it is founded, so it will never be unguarded.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Bereta_Eder]

(emperor - normal or large map)

Warior, warior, settler

found 2nd city and one of the two (the best placed) gets 3 units, temple and starts on Colossus as soon as tech is available.

The other warior, settler and horseman if available.

Then it's open game but most of the time I do whatever is possible untill I have aprox. 12 cities. Then it's full stop republic - democracy and heavy building.

[Theben]

Usually a warrior, warrior (or chariot/horseman), then settler, settler. I also explore a bit before founding my city, hoping to tip some huts to get "non" units (fleet-footed preferably), secure in the knowledge that no barbs will appear until I found my 1st city. Special squares also help regain lost construction/research time if enough are around my early cities. However,

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 02-02-2001 12:48 PM ...if I can build on a grassland/plains square and work a special (say spice) (again, ideally in a river location), I will build a settler first and take advantage of the "sole capital doesn't lose food from the foodbox (or disband)" feature.

I've never heard of this before. Are you saying that if all you have is your capital and you build with a size 1 city it won't be lost? Does it still require full support? Ever have any problems with disbanding due to insuffient shields? Unlike you, I try to get my second settler down ASAP. I may have to rethink my starting strategy.

[geofelt]

At deity, I explore a bit with both settlers. I found the palace city in the most promising spot and the second city nearby immediately. In each city, I build a warrior, then a settler. I try to get the settler out just after the city goes to size two. In the palace city, I build a second defender if I did not get one from early huts, and then start on an early wonder. If I can build hanging gardens, I can defer a temple for a long time. I may send another unit from another city to keep martial law if necessary while the wonder is being built. I now keep any horses/chariots in the cities for barb defense, and send out warriors to explore. I just leave nearby huts to be opened later when I build a city. The cecond and later cities churn out settlers as soon as they can get tosize two.

[East Street Trader]

I usually delay founding until I have explored a bit with my initial settlers. With luck I find one or two huts and the hut outcomes plus the terrain revealed by the exploration influence initial building.

Ideally I find two huts and get two four footed units. They now explore outwards while one of the settlers founds. Clearing away the fog of war a bit has then provided some security as far as land based barbs go so, if I can build on a grassland/plains square and work a special (say spice) (again, ideally in a river location), I will build a settler first and take advantage of the "sole capital doesn't lose food from the foodbox (or disband)" feature.

The none settler builds a road to where the settler built in the capital is going to found my second city.

Should seabourn barbs turn up I may be able to get the none settler into my sole city capital and he is then guaranteed to fend of the barbs (the "any defender in a sole city capital is invulnerable to barbs" feature).

If things go really well and my explorers have got me some gold from a hut, through tribute or through capturing a barb chief then I can get a second settler out of the capital before it goes to size two and before I found the second city.

Next I build a warrior for martial law in the capital and then I go for a temple so that when, immediately afterwards the capital starts building my early wonder of choice the capital can grow while accumulating the needful shields.

If I don't get units from the huts and/or don't get a slow capital growth site - say a grassland/plains site working a whale - then I build a warrior first for martial law, settler next, again followed by temple then wonder. In that case I will sometimes (and received wisdom says should always) use the none settler to found an extra city after it has done a minimum of initial improvement. With a fast start I find there is so much good work that the none settler can do that he is thereafter very likely to remain a workhorse throughout the game.

I have not fully got to the bottom of how the timing works with wheatsheaves in a new city and the building of units. If I build a warrior or, sometimes and more particularly, a phalanx it doesn't seem to work well to build a settler immediately afterwards - he gets completed at a time when a lot of wheatsheaves are lost as the city drops in size. I would be interested to hear if anyone has tackled this aspect and can specify how to manage the succession in cities other than the capital.

My attitude to building defensive units is influenced by what neighbours I have and where, what luck I have in penning them in and how quickly I reckon I'm going to have the comfort of a diplo with some cash in his pocket.

[Knigget]

quote: I have not fully got to the bottom of how the timing works with wheatsheaves in a new city and the building of units. If I build a warrior or, sometimes and more particularly, a phalanx it doesn't seem to work well to build a settler immediately afterwards - he gets completed at a time when a lot of wheatsheaves are lost as the city drops in size. I would be interested to hear if anyone has tackled this aspect and can specify how to manage the succession in cities other than the capital.

If you produce on grassland (with dots) and build a warrior first, then a settler you will have excactly 20 food in store when you finish the settler. The next turn the city will grow back to size two again.

If you`re going to produce a second settler after that it will take 14 turns with 3 shields/turn. While you have the settler you only have 1 food surplus, but when you build a second city with the settler you have 2 surplus again. So the max number of turns you can walk/work with the settler is 8. If you keep the settler longer than that you will stay some turns at size 1.

This is all under despotism and assumed that your city square produces 2 food and 1 shield.

More generally: Devide the number food you need (to get 20 in store) by your surplus and compare it to the number of turns it takes two produce the settler.

So if you`re going to produce a phalanx you can adjust the food/shield production by putting a worker on a forest part of the time.

Hope this helps

[cpp]

The "sole capital doesn't lose food from the foodbox (or disband)" that EST mentions, I think is this: Before you found your second city, your capitol can build settlers without disbanding the city. This means that a size one capital can build settlers without being disbanded. However the new settlers eat food, so it/they will be disbanded if your city is starving. By using money from huts, and a forest for production, you can even get more than one settlers before your 1st city reaches the size of two.

BTW What is the plural of settlers, as in the settlers unit?

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by cpp on 02-03-2001 09:32 PM BTW What is the plural of settlers, as in the settlers unit?

That would be settler units.


------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Carolus Rex]

The "settler from size 1 capitol"-trick can be very useful, especially if you have gold from a hut. If you get units instead of gold (from the huts) it may even be a good idea to disband them (archers, not two move units). Especially if they require support from the city, but maybe also if they are none units.

I used to think this was great at lower levels when you only get one settler. Not so sure now, though. There are other alternatives...

And how long should you hold off the second city at deity to be able to crank out the settler? Under certain conditions I think it is better to found the second city asap.

Carolus

[Chainsaw]

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 02-02-2001 12:48 PM Should seabourn barbs turn up I may be able to get the none settler into my sole city capital and he is then guaranteed to fend of the barbs (the "any defender in a sole city capital is invulnerable to barbs" feature).

Does this feature really work?? It would mean that in an OCC game one lousy warrior would guarantee that no barb ever gets your city? Or have I just taken your post wrong?

[Paul]

You got it right. In an OCC game even a diplomat or caravan can defend your city against barbs.

[geofelt]

I tried an experiment. After exploring a bit, I saved the situation, founded a city on buffalo, and churned out two settlers while the non-settler built roads. Non-disbandment of the only city really does work. By b1500 or so, I had four cities, connected by roads, and a start on hanging gardens. Monarchy was imminent.
I then used the save file to do the same by using my non-settler to found a second city asap. I think this gave better results. With cities in the same locations, I had more units, monarchy, and Hanging gardens half completed.
The second city doubles your science and production early which is a great boost. This was only one not-so rigorous test, but for now, I think using the second settler to found a second city right away is the best strategy. Has anybody done a more definitive study?

[Theben]

I think that if I had some units to disband &/or some early cash from a hut I might try to get 1 or 2 out if it could be done in a few turns. Maybe even once in OCC. Otherwise I'll keep putting down the 2nd settler as quick as I can.

[East Street Trader]

La Fayette

I think I saw more stuff from John Barbarossa when I first started visiting Apolyton in the middle of last year than recently. In fact I can't readily remember seeing anything at all from him lately. But I do recall that his contributions were always well received and it was easy to see why.

I think the thread you quote represents current received wisdom. So get two cities down early in deity may well be good general advice.

I can add one additional benefit. If you reckon that your starting location is on a sizeable landmass and you are going to get a good share of the huts, by getting the second city down you preserve the chance of a wandering nomads outcome from a hut. If you retain a "none" settler that outcome simply won't occur with any hut you tip on your home continent. As those happy wanderers are my all time favourite outcome, that is a consideration with me.

Departing from mere generalisation, the site on which you would put a second city and proximity (known or guessed at) to an aggressive neighbour or a probable barb spawning point might influence matters.

If the second city will not, by reason of terrain features, produce many resources that may militate against being in a rush to found it. Again, the number of arrows you produce from your capital may be a consideration. I like to go for a settler or two from the capital when I can found on a river and work a trade special (or even a rivered trade special!). With those advantages my early reserch is humming even without the contribution of a second city. OK maybe a second city gets it humming even louder but I kinda think that the long term benefit of that "none" settler should count for something in the equation.

Even the received wisdom allows that some early work with that settler pays. A road in the square to be worked from the second city is a clear example, in my view a road on any special being worked from the first city is another.

More controversially I, not being a sleazer, would require cogent evidence that a little early irrigation is a losing option in cases where prompt arrival at Monarchy is assured (places note in milk bottle saying "no ICS response required to-day, thanks").

I reckon all this is amenable to testing. Might even contribute a little to the work on this issue. (Don't hold your breathe waiting for that though).

And some features, like where the two settlers end up after the initial exploration pre-founding the capital, seem to me less capable of working into a test.

[La Fayette]

rixxe
If you wish to know how specialists are doing, remember this: a few months ago John Barbarossa stated that he remained unbeaten in MP (IMO this means that he is a very strong player). He also stated that he used settler #2 as a NONE settler during the whole game.
Then someone told him to try and build a city ASAP with settler #2, and John came back a few days later and wrote: "OK. I have tested. I was wrong. Building city #2 ASAP is better".
I say:"Thank you John for the lesson. The specialist is the one who is able to listen to good advice".

(my advice would be: read "the 3 arrows strategy" (I have just given it a bump so that you find it easily), then play the way you like).



------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

EST
You give me 2 huge subjects to discuss on the same day. Thank you very much! I suppose you wouldn't do that if you thought I was talking nonsense all the time.
But I must be some kind of "slowthinker" (hello, dude!)
I'm not even able to answer one to day (I started though: look at "shields vs arrows").
To morrow is another day. I'll try hard.

[debeest]

It's generally held that in strategy games such as chess or go, the opening moves are the most important. I think that's equally true in Civ, and this discussion actually gets at the very fundamentals. So *bump*.

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by debeest on 02-13-2001 11:25 PM It's generally held that in strategy games such as chess or go, the opening moves are the most important.

Not quite. Making the "best" move is always important when the position is about balanced (not counting positions in which nothing can happen anymore). When you are already clearly winning (or losing!!) you can afford to make suboptimal moves, only not too many (or too "sub")



------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Roman]

I usually build a marketplace first, then library, etc. I do build quite a lot of settlers in between. Pyramids are always a priority, so I never build granaries.

I am not a very good player, though, so don't use my strategy if you want to be successful.