Vel's Strategy Thread

[Alexfrog]

Worker chopping is amazing, but you need a level 2 tech for it.

If your plan is to go worker first, chop to help build a settler (and thus end up with an extra worker and down a couple forests), this will probably only work if you start with mining AND dont go for an early religion.

But is very strong.


Also, If your city is on a plains hill, it will give 2 food/2 hammer/1 trade instead of 2/1/1. This extra hammer is a big deal. I believe that all else equal, it is worth spending an extra game turn to get your initial settler onto a hill. (Other factors in the position could make it not worth it however).

With 2/2/1 from your city instead of 2/1/1, and working a tile that gives 2/1 or 1/2, You have 5 production a turn towards a settler instead of 4. That speeds settler 1 up to 20 turns. However, if you do the grow to size 3 plan, all you get from the bonus is an extra warrior/scout or so during this time.


Now, I think growing first would be good in circumstances where the area around your city is high in food, low in production. Like flood plains.

If your city is 2/1/1 and you work a flood plains for 3/0/1, you have 3 excess food to grow in 8 turns, or you have a 25 turn settler. If you have another flood plains square, then at size 2 thats a 20 turn settler.

So you can go: grow to size 2 and make a 20 turn settler, taking 28 turns and giving you an extra city size (and thus a faster 2nd settler!!).

So if you are in a heavy food/low production spot (pretty much, flood plains, to make this fast enough), I would grow a bit. Otherwise I think i would make a settler first.

Also, I would spend 1 game turn to position my capitol on a PLAINS hill (defense bonus too!), to get 2/2 instead of 2/1 out of the square! That spends 1 turn but speeds up the first settler by 5 turns.

[EscapedGoat]

I think you guys are placing too much emphasis on conserving forests. They are just +1 hammer, actually on hills you are best of removing them because you can add a mine(+2 hammers). On flatlands you can add a farm(+1 food) or cottage(+1 gold) to have no net loss in resources.

Here is my best strategy so far. Assumes no special squares, but you need 4 forests inside your capitals expanded borders.(this is 100% guaranteed) It is a deforestation strategy and requires a civ that starts with mining.

Research the bronze working tech.

Build worker.

Turn:

15: worker done, enters forest
16
17
18: Chop done.
19: move to new forest
20
21
22: 2nd chop done.
23: worker 2 is finished. Workers 1 and 2 move to separate forests, start Settler 1.
24: Start 2 chops.
25
26: 2 chops done.
27: First settler is done.

2 workers and 1 settler are out at turn 27. Clearly the superior result so far.

I have NEVER seen a start with less than 4 forests, so this is a reliable strategy. Where do you go from here? well, no reason for stoppin the choppin if you ask me. If you play that German guy with creative trait and starts with mining, your borders will expand the second time as your settler is done, and you can settle that guy and gain yet more territory and woods for chopping. Chopping trees inside your borders is best, it gives +30 instead of +25. Actually, this is more based on distance, but generally if it is inside your borders you get +30.

Why Chopping is powerfull:

A worker costs 60 res. A continual chop will net you 30/4=7.5 res a turn. This is simply the best early game investment you can make I think.

A settler costs 100 res, and gives you a surpluss of 1 hammer, 1 gold for the city square and under normal conditions +3 assorted resources from the worked square. The result is aprox. +5 res for a 100 res investment. Bad investment compared to a worker chopping trees!

I think Chopping might be a bit imbalanced. You can add workers and settlers really fast by chopping all you forests and get a massive headstart with this strategy over the AI civs. Losing forests is not a big deal as long as you have a few hills.

*EDIT:

I have also noticed you get 2/2/1 for a city founded on plains/hills (but only on plains/hills!) I think this is a bug, since you get 2/1/1 on all other squares.

[Verrucosus]

Clearing forests to speed up the first settler is probably a good idea. However, you'd need "Bronze Working" as soon as the worker is finished. Civilizations starting with mining have a major advantage here.

I'm not usually a risk-seeker, but on my second game last weekend, I started with a settler and sent him out unprotected to see him killed by lions. From what I've read here, that is a rare occurence, but when it happens, having your first 100 hammers end up in a lion's stomach is a serious setback.

By the way, I am very pleased that Vel has thrown himself into the new game. I missed the discussions about Civ3, but I remember lurking around during the SMAC days. (Have you tried the Civ4 map of Planet yet?)

[gentle]

Alexfrog wrote:
So you can go: grow to size 2 and make a 20 turn settler, taking 28 turns and giving you an extra city size (and thus a faster 2nd settler!!).
---
True that for non-mining starters it is quite a bit challenging to "chop the settler" (just love that expression ^^) and for the "all religion founders" (which at least qualifies in style though i still doubt its effectiveness even in late game) it is an "impossible" start and they need to look for another solid but slower start.
As I do not want to build a 2nd settler in my starting city this strategy is inferior at least for my playing style, but could be a solid basis for those who cannot afford the "settler chopping"


@verrucosus:
hit the load game button" *fg*

@escaped goat:
forest are +x health..thats their dedication, though getting 2 workers out seems quite seductive^^
(*sigh* greenpeace will hate us ^^)
Anyway, I stick to the 1 worker version to conserve some forests for health or better use later.2 workers also seem to be too much, they will be unemployed a few turns later as the cities growth rate slows down, imho.

[Jcg316]

Forests are important, if I chop them and don't have fresh water my city is heathy up to 2 pop without a resource. 3 pop can get me rolling well enough, and 4 would be great. Trying to match forest loss with resources may work but it still will stunt my growth.

Won't be for a long while for me but going up another difficutly would be brutal without forests. I don't want to be stuck having to use an expansive civ every time either.

They can be worth replacing later but the health is valuable early at least without a even marginal difficulty bonus.

With a lot of flood plains nearby they're absolutely vital to my cities early even with fresh water. Luckily water is always with the flood plains though.

[gentle]

Originally posted by Jcg316
They can be worth replacing later but the health is valuable early at least without a difficulty bonus.

Hmm, i am not sure about that. even deity gives +1 health bonus. i started some deity games to test the impact of "expansive" trait (+2 health) and it seemed useless to me. i consider it some sort of middle/late game gimmick going like this:
"HaHa! your cities only grow to size 12. Mine can go 14."*g*

*edit:
city size made up as i never had one larger than 9 =P
no idea how big cities can get, but i think expansive is not very powerful as i never had any health problems. when the game progresses and time goes by your health increases anyway due to food resources.

**edit2
sry for contradicting so rudely, you might be right.... i will go and re-check my health experience tomorrow with chopped down forests. Have to go to bed now *sigh*

[Jcg316]

Yeah I was thinking past the +1, that just matches your cities first pop though. Founding a new city off in the desert somewhere starting with disease would be brutal though.

With forges and the like I always get green smileys in large cities though. Some of the later supermarkets and the like help but there is a long stretch in between without to many +healths. Most always do plus happiness. End games with number 1 approval rate while my people are dying in the streets, life expectancy is always botrtom 3 civs.

[gentle]

edited my above post to more or less agree with you.
though i never accept a starting position without river so i get a health bonus there too (other reson is that i am financial and need the fresh water +1 bonus to get the additional financial+1 after having built a cottage)
2nd city should be more or less unimpressed by the forests that were mercilessly chopped down^^

edit:
trade routes share your health. so connect other cities to your infrastructure (keep in mind that rivers work as streets for that purpose)

edit2:
hmm cant say much about end games as i always stop 1AD. though this health trouble (if related to end game) does not really seem to be a concern if i chop down 2 forests in the first few turns which should be +1 health combined (+0,5 per forest i think but unsure) ^^

[Alexfrog]

I would try to found all my early cities on rivers. So the forest health doesnt really matter.

And besides, you need THREE forests for the first +1 health. And five for +2. Three forests is practically a free settler.

I deal with it by not letting my city grow past the level where I would get problems. Whats a good way to not grow. Um, BUILD A SETTLER

[Alexfrog]

You also tend to get a couple health bonuses early on from cows/pigs/sheep/etc etc. And youll get them on line earlier if due to forest chopping you get a couple extra workers.

[gentle]

@alexfrog
reminds me of SMAC:

"hmm, i get unrest trouble if my cities grow ? easy then, i just build lots of pods and dont let them grow. what do i do with the pods ? ICS ICS ICS *fg*"

[Verrucosus]

The health issue is new to all of us and there is a danger of underestimating its impact in the game. Having said that, I do not believe that the loss of two forests in the capital's radius will be so much of a problem in terms in terms of health that it could outweigh the turnadvantage gained. Taking Jcg316's calculations, we gain 15 turns of production in the capital and have established the second city 15 turns. In other words, the entire game is fifteen turns ahead. That's a huge advantage.

I'm still more concerned about the security issue (assuming that the option to reload is not a valid argument in this context). We should wait for some evidence from higher difficulty levels.

[gentle]

well, you still have your initial warrior/scout to escort your settler (if you rule out the load game option which i can accept to rule out in this context^^)

[Jcg316]

I've been managing my health poorly late in games and letting it eat up room for specialists. It seems fine but if I try expanding with a financial civ it can really stunt the turnover from coin drains to productive cities. Only if I don't really have the resources though. I'm only worried about it for the initial stretch and it is really minor after that, I just need to start paying attention to it a shade off of how I pay attention to unhappiness.

Knocking out forests next to my capital is worth it anyways in terms of defense. Having enemies hole up there is tough, worse if a hill is next to my city.

The extra worker probably may well make up for it on his own, however. 7,8 turns and a extra worker is beyond good.

[Thrak]

I always used 'chop' to get my empire going, but this suggestion really interested me (enough to register and post!).

Just spent an hour running a comparison, on a pretty objective playing field.

Played with Mailnese chap, Spi/Fin and starting with mining and the wheel (on Noble and Epic).

First I did Vel's Settler Rush.

Researched mystiscm and polyethism. Then I do believe I went for agriculture...

Anyway, 2480 BC My settler pops.

Next, Chop The Settler.

Researched mystiscm and polyethism, then straight for bronze working. While the city grows, I start on a barracks (I prefer to skip warriors and go straight to archers).

Anyway, 2480 BC comes and goes. At that precise time, Timbuktu is at 3 population and is 3 turns from popping a worker.

Worker pops same time as bronze working completes (not planned! honest). Move, chop, move, chop.

Settler finally pops at 1975 BC.

Summary:

1 city @ 3 population
1/2 completed barracks (47 hammers I think?)
1 worker
1 settler

Compare this to Vels at 1975 BC;

2 citys @ 1 population
13 and 10 turns production/growth each.

Its no contest to be quite honest. Sorry Vel, you got the chop!