Vel's Strategy Thread

[Proteus_MST]

I also wait until size 2 or 3 until I start producint my first settler.
Meanwhile I produce a second scout and maybe a warrior till this time.
So, at the time my first settler is ready, I know more about my surroundings and perhaps have better places where I can place my second city (than if I had after producing my first settler from the beginning on).

[gentle]

Originally posted by stormwriter
I haven't tried a first-turn Settler build either, but i will try it tonight.

There might be other factors, that when combined, might make a first-turn Settler less desirable:

- You'll get behind on scouting. Sometimes goody huts give you enough cash to keep research at 100% up for a LONG time.

- You won't find "chokepoints" as quickly, cause you won't have good scouts/warriors.

- I sometimes place my second city based on the position of a special resource i've uncovered from scouting.

- I get anul about where to place cities, cause it comes back to haunt you if you don't place them well to begin with.

I'm definitely going to try the FTSB (First-Turn Settler Build) first thing when i get home tonight, though!

You still have your initial warrior for scouting or if you start with the hunting tech even a scout.
You only need to find 1 good city location as "hut hunting" isnt as important anymore.After that your initial warrior/scout is free to either explore further or to do whatever he likes ^^
I have played several games on noble (and some futile ones on deity) to 1AD comparing them afterwards. (sidenote: I play Catherine...just love creative+financial cottages ^^)
Based on this experience I consider one scout to be enough to explore the map (catherine starts with one). I would have no use for an additional warrior in the early turns (first 10-15 or so).

[Alexfrog]

Hi Vel, thanks for your insights. I rememeber reading your Civ3 articles and they were excellent.


Regarding the 'turn 1 settler or wait longer' discussion.

I am interested to know how many of the naysayers who say it is bad have actually TESTED it and compared the resulting positions they get later on.

I'd summarize the discussion so far as:

Vel: "I have tested both settler on turn 1 and wait longer strategies, and find that the settler beginning is faster and is still safe"

Others: "Settler on turn 1 is bad. It must be bad, because your city doesnt grow, and its clearly faster to build a settler in a bigger city. I know this without ever testing!"


In my initial games, I have found myself thinking 'well, I obviously cant start with a settler! My city wont grow yet!' I never even considered the turn 1 settler as a valid option, I just rejected it without thought. thats bad. We should test the idea and see if it works. I will do this.


Another thing; In civ 3, if you started building settler at the start, it would finish before your city hit 3 pop. So thats why we built warriors first...we really couldnt build a settler first. But if we could have, would we? Probably.

Look at it now: A settler doesnt decrease city size when built! Its quite possible that its easier to build an initial settler now than it was in civ 3! And the gain could be huge from starting this on turn 1.

Lets compare these:


Option A:

Grow city to size 3. (X turns) Build settler (Y turns). Found city. You have a size 3 and a size 1. You also have a couple warriors.

Option B:

Build settler (Z turns). Found city. Grow BOTH cities to size 3 (X turns). While EACH builds a couple warriors. Or whatever.

Sure, It will take a BIT longer to build the settler in a size 1 city than a size 3, but is it REALLY that much? I doubt it when you dont have improved land for those extra workers to use! And you dont get many commerce points from the extra worked tiles either, and given that your palace gives 8, getting 1 or 2 more isnt that huge.

[Quillan]

I'm really iffy on building that settler from turn 1. While I can see it's absolutely vital to get a second city out there asap, that seems a bit deceiving. In Civ 3, if you started your settler on turn one, your production would be really low. It would improve as you reached size 2, and you'd finish the settler the turn you reached size 3. While it would be faster in total turns of production to wait until you reached size three before building it, you'd get it sooner by starting earlier. In this game, your size 1 city remains size 1 (with the attendant low production) for the ENTIRE time of building the settler. So you might well come out faster waiting until you've reached size 2 or 3 before starting, and be able to crank out a warrior/scout or two in the meantime depending on your terrain setup.

[Velociryx]

After that? Heck no! I go ahead and send my initial warrior on out! He goes exploring in a circular pattern, winding up near enough to be in the neighborhood again when the settler is ready (6-10 tiles is close enough).

-=Vel=-

[Alexfrog]

Also, regarding hut popping:

I've been playing on Monarch (first level where you get the health/happiness settings of the high levels), and I am not getting much good stuff. Just gold, maps, exp, or scouts. Gold is probably the best, it lets me run 100% science for a bit longer.


I dont like building new scouts. Starting ones are good, but thats it. Thats because after a couple thousand years, the animals disappear and the barbarians become archers. And they will kill your scouts almost every time. Even before, bears will screw you. And possibly lions.

Warriors hold up better. And they defend your cities better if you need that. A warrior defending a city has a good chance against an attacking barbarian archer.

[Celerity]

Huts-
I've received techs a couple times, seen a settler once in MP, but usually it's gold.

The experience bonus can actually be quite nice for a scout... get two upgrades and put them both to woods defense and voila - your scout now moves 2 tiles through trees and is much harder for bears to kill. (You could also do this for hills defense, which is nice for scouting with that great view.)

My opening strategy has been to get two scouts/warriors out gathering huts, then a worker, and lastly a single defender, before starting the settler. If you're lucky enough to get a tech or a settler out of the huts it's great, but it's not as effective as in Civ3. On a small MP map, getting the huts and depriving your opponent(s) can be a huge advantage though. It's also best to know the ideal place for that first settler to go *before* he sets out, and again on a small MP map you need to know where those limited strategic resources are located asap.

Tech-
I almost always rush to found Judaism, even without Mysticism, unless it's a small map and I know I'm in for a fight right away. On noble I'll end up founding both Hinduism and Judaism, which with Organized Religion ends up being a huge boon: +25% building rate and two sets of monasteries/temples! On a higher difficulty and without Mysticism this may not play out as well, but I'm not there yet.

[gentle]

Originally posted by Velociryx
After that? Heck no! I go ahead and send my initial warrior on out! He goes exploring in a circular pattern, winding up near enough to be in the neighborhood again when the settler is ready (6-10 tiles is close enough).

-=Vel=-

Thats the spirit ^^ I agree ^^

[gentle]

Originally posted by Quillan
I'm really iffy on building that settler from turn 1. While I can see it's absolutely vital to get a second city out there asap, that seems a bit deceiving. In Civ 3, if you started your settler on turn one, your production would be really low. It would improve as you reached size 2, and you'd finish the settler the turn you reached size 3. While it would be faster in total turns of production to wait until you reached size three before building it, you'd get it sooner by starting earlier. In this game, your size 1 city remains size 1 (with the attendant low production) for the ENTIRE time of building the settler. So you might well come out faster waiting until you've reached size 2 or 3 before starting, and be able to crank out a warrior/scout or two in the meantime depending on your terrain setup.

sure, you can use your city producing stuff while you wait to finally build a settler, though it isnt useful stuff imho.
i just dont need another warrior or other "useless" stuff, i only want a settler to get the game going on^^

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Alexfrog

I dont like building new scouts. Starting ones are good, but thats it. Thats because after a couple thousand years, the animals disappear and the barbarians become archers. And they will kill your scouts almost every time. Even before, bears will screw you. And possibly lions.

Yep, but their main advantage lies in their ability to get better things out of huts.

In my entire games I opened goodie huts twice with warriors (on noble level) and both times I got barbarians out of them.
I never ever got a bad result (i.e. barbarians) if I opened a goodie hut with a scout (and I´ve done so several dozen times)

[Arrian]

I am interested to know how many of the naysayers who say it is bad have actually TESTED it and compared the resulting positions they get later on.

I, for one, have done it once. I have not formally TESTED the results by loading the same game and doing it differently, but it FELT a little worse than waiting (which I've done in my other games - 4 of them).

I agree it's early to draw any conclusions. That's the point of the thread, though: we post our opinions/theories and then we work on 'em. That's how I remember this working in Vel's CivIII strat threads (there were 3 iterations, IIRC).

We could test this via scenario. We set it up, and two (or more) people play it. One (group?) goes with conventional wisdom and waits before building a settler - until at least size 2 - and the other starts a settler right away. We check status at a certain point - how many cities, how much pop, tech level, culture, etc. Which approach worked best? Are there certain characteristics to the terrain on the map in question that seem to favor one approach over the other? And on and on, until we establish new conventional wisdom (or reinforce the old one). Then Vel or someone else can come up with another idea tha challenges said CW. Rinse, repeat.

edit: of course, this might make for an interesting twist to an AU (Apolyton University) course...

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Thanks everyone, for the warm welcome!

I'm glad the 1st Turn Settler idea is sparking some good discussion.

It is my hope that even the folks who disagree with it at a gut level will at least give it a go and draw their conclusions from that. It IS faster in my experience...I promise.

One thing I'm gonna try tonight is something I'll call "Settler Chaining," and it goes like this:

Starting settler builds city, and starts a settler.

When he's done, he builds some warriors and workers and stuff.

Settler 2 builds a city and starts work on a settler, then gets busy with other stuff.

Settler 3 founds city. CHECK MAINTENANCE to see if it's profitable.

If yes, he builds a settler.

Repeat until I reach the point where the newest city breaks even/costs -1gpt. Then stop. That's the threshold.



-=Vel=-

[Celerity]

Settler chaining - Yeah, I was planning on trying that tonight too.

[vmxa1]

I have not test the settler first tactic, but one consideration is wha techs do I start with. If it is something like Mystism and I can found a religion first, then a settler is a bad move.

If you can race to found a few religions, and are not going to be warring for some time, then those religions with be a big boost.

A second consideration, but maybe not as important, is getting a few of those techs that grant a special item. Be it a new tech or a GP, that is very strong as well.

Now all of this has to be laid upon the level and map settings. I mean you are not going to do much of those things at high levels, so the settler first is back on the table.

You also want to keep an eye on the growth rate, if you can pop some growth in a few turn, let that happen and then the settler.

[Aeson]

I told myself I wasn't going to get into much strategy discussion with CIV early on, but a Vel's strategy thread is too much to resist... Just one post maybe...

------------

I think 5 first build options have their place. (Workboats are available quite often too. Barracks can be built by anyone right off, but generally aren't going to be worth it. Quecha or Jaguar rushing can make good use of one though. Obelisks are available to build with some civs, but... not really worth building in the capitol IMO.)

Settler first (or rather, any Settler before the first Worker) is good in conjunction with grabbing Religions, as you won't have much to do with a Worker if you aren't researching the economic techs.

Worker first is good when going with economic or military techs and having good Food or Production (or Forest) resources to improve. Especially if you start with the tech(s) that will allow you to improve your resources, as you can still go with Religion early too then. You can often get out your first Settler or a Barracks faster with a Worker first, as well as more Warriors/Archers/Scouts. Either by chopping to catch up, or by improving tiles to have more Food and Production. (Worker, Worker is sometimes worth considering too.)

Scouts first are mostly map dependant. On large landmasses, it's often the right move if available.

Warriors first are less important for exploring, more important for choking neighbors.

Workboat first is a very good move if you have Fishing and water resources. Food and Commerce improvements while not limiting growth either.

--------------

Huts are are still pretty strong.

Cash allows you to expand faster, it can mean extra cities by the time you get to Currency.

Techs are techs.

Maps aren't that great in and of themselves, but can show the way to great things. Maps that show water can help you plan "culture crossings" that otherwise might not be apparent. Maps that show other Huts help you get them first too. Maps that show neighbors can really help out an early choke or rush.

Scouts/Warriors lead to more huts.

XP = Woodsman II Warrior, if you haven't had one yet, you haven't truely lived! City Raider II Warriors can have a chance at cheese rushing an opponent.

And remember, if you don't get the huts, your neighbors will. Basically doubles the value of what you are getting.