Vel's Strategy Thread

[Velociryx]

*nods* Yep....I agree. The worker/chop idea IS the fastest way to get the job done, provided the following conditions are met:

1) You have the forests nearby to support it

2) You don't mind delaying *other* aspects of the tech tree to gain early bronzeworking (and that means giving other rivals the chance to get ahead of you in other ways)

For pure speed, if the following two conditions are true, it's spot on.

Settler first assumes an average start and has no tech preconditions, making it applicable 100% of the time, with the advantage that you aren't forced to head to BronzeWorking first.

Right now, BronzeWorking looks like the early T-Rex of techs....but as we continue to experiment, there may be others. If so, Settler first will instantly become more attractive, I think.

Either way tho...that's exactly what this thread is all about!

-=Vel=-

[Thrak]

Other things to consider:

India - this race is built for the worker rush. You start with mysticism and mining, AND your workers are faster.

Workers offsetting research loss - if you go worker rush and your city has gold or gems, your research goes boom as your worker can hit it that much earlier with a mine. So thats another thing to bear in mind.

You can also micro the one square your cities use for research, as the majority of your production is coming from chop anyways.

Relgion - versus the ai, they tend to hit either polytheism or buddhism first, then there is a short gap (at least on Noble) before the other is done. The whole mining -> brone working tree puts you ahead for masonry, and then straight to judaism/org rel if you miss out on those two. You actually have quite a large window to get judaism in my experience.
To sum up, worker rush puts you in a good position to nab Judaism after bronze working, if you're not picky about the other two religions.

[Velociryx]

Excellent points!

Here's what I'm seeing, after thinking more about it on the way to work:

* What the worker/chop strategy really *does* is "dilutes" your starting city's production pool. By that, I mean the following: Let us say that, on average, you'll find yourself with six forest tiles to play with. Those starting forest tiles are essentially non-replaceable (they can grow back, given time, but since you can't control the growth rate, you can't rely on it happening). If you clear-cut, you DO wind up with an early production windfall, to be used to found additional cities quickly, and gain multiple centers of production, and I think we all agree, that's an important advantage, HOWEVER....I contend that there's a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done, because there may be strategic gains to be had by intentionally choosing NOT to chop, so as to save that production for something that the founding city itself wants/needs (say, building an early game wonder in the city, using chops to speed you on your way). Essentially, when you chop, and you use the chops to build workers and settlers, than you're making the tradeoff, gaining "mobile" production (workers/settlers), in preference for "at home" production (chopping slightly later to speed build a wonder there).

* Using the above-mentioned six forest tiles as a guideline, you can easily chop all six, get 3-4 cities founded with lightning speed, and be off and running. Now...a bit later in the game, when it comes time to start building wonders, your starting city is out of the running, at least where speed-building wonders using chop is concerned. True, if your new cities are founded in forested regions, you can simply turn your attention to those locations, chop, and still gain the production advantages, but consider: By intentionally NOT chopping to the fullest extent you're allowed to, you could potentially build two wonders simultaneously (one in each of your two founding cities, using chop to speed them BOTH, while your third city does other stuff for the empire (say, barracks + troops to fend off the barbs, or do some more exploring).

My prediction is that a beeline to bronzeworking + rampant settler production will be the hallmarks of what passes for the ICS-Style strategy in Civ IV, and it is quite strong, but as with most things, I think moderation would make it stronger still.

In my head, I'm calling the rampant clear-cut idea "The Locust Strategy" (cos you descend upon the virgin forests like locusts), and it is very strong indeed.

Now that we know its strengths, and have seen them illustrated so clearly, I believe we'd be well served by looking at ways of improving it further. Perhaps we will discover that raw speed to gain more production centers isn't *always* worth all that chopping, and that it can be put to better strategic use.

If so, then it's another nod in Civ IV's favor.

If not....if raw speed is truly the best use in all cases, then this aspect of the game has been rendered entirely linear.

We shall see...

Other forest ideas:

* Forest Maintenance - long term, if you preserve a patch of forest (a largish patch), and don't develop the tiles surrounding it (to allow it room to expand), can you wind up with relatively more chops, than taking them all in one bite? Do larger expanses of forests have a higher growth chance than smaller? An important question.

* What about escorting workers into enemy territory and chopping their forests? Can it be done? (I've not tried yet). If so, what city gets the production?

* If you build a farm before you get bronzeworking, and you build the farm on a forest tile, the forest goes away. Do you get production? (haven't tried this either....if so, it's an exploit).

* What happens if you chop outside your cultural borders (also haven't tried this!...much to do!)

In any case, it appears that founding a city at the feet of a massive sprawl of forest is a fine thing indeed....

-=Vel=-

[Martinus]

Velo, let me answer some of your questions:

* What about escorting workers into enemy territory and chopping their forests? Can it be done? (I've not tried yet). If so, what city gets the production?

My guess is noone gets it, but didn't test it.

* If you build a farm before you get bronzeworking, and you build the farm on a forest tile, the forest goes away. Do you get production? (haven't tried this either....if so, it's an exploit).

It can't be done at all - when you have a technology to build farms, but not bronze working, you won't be able to create farms on forest tiles.

* What happens if you chop outside your cultural borders (also haven't tried this!...much to do!)

You don't get it, I believe.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Arrian
Exploration:

Is it me, or do CivIV's goodie huts kinda suck? I've gotten gold, maps (lots of these!), xp and a free scout... that's it. I don't recall ever getting a tech.
-Arrian

I've gotten a settler from one. Talk about a shot in the arm! ~3500BC I've got two cities and a Settler. I think THAT was the deciding factor in this match.

Tom P.

[nojnosredna]

I'd have to say that I disagree with the settler right off strategy as well. Personally, I think that a warriors until city size 2 at least and in my opinion 3 works best.

I have not tested this with different scenerios, but I would expect that since your settler is eating all of your excess food and you only have 2 tiles working at size 1 you may well be able to pump out your settler almost as fast by letting your city grow to size 2 (therefore gaining an extra workable tile) before pumping out a settler and having an additional warrior or 2 in the deal.

Just my $0.02

[Jcg316]

You can always chop outside your borders, the penalty is based on distance. You'll get 25 if you have to wander off a ways but most should be 30.

Waiting a turn to build takes 8 or 11 turns and yield one more net food/hammer. So you build 3 turns quicker after waiting 8/11.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by padillah


I've gotten a settler from one. Talk about a shot in the arm! ~3500BC I've got two cities and a Settler. I think THAT was the deciding factor in this match.

Tom P.

yeah, I don't think the huts in Civ 4 suck, but they are well balanced. In Civ 3 it was a no-brainer to build scouts and hunt for huts, since otherwise you would have been left very far behind - now, it is a decision whether you wish to build a scout and gamble in the hut business or rather to something else.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Velociryx
* What about escorting workers into enemy territory and chopping their forests? Can it be done? (I've not tried yet). If so, what city gets the production?

* What happens if you chop outside your cultural borders (also haven't tried this!...much to do!)

-=Vel=-

From what I've gathered if you chop outside of your borders, but not inside anyone elses, you get a few hammers (like has been said 20-25, not 30)

If you cut inside someone elses borders, if you have Open Borders with them, they get the hammers. I have no idea if this gets you a diplo boost or just a "thank you".

I have not tried this, but it's been reported more than once.

Tom P.

[padillah]

One thing I think that's good to note is the "ICS is dead" theory.

Technically the Settler First strat could be considered ICS and since it does indeed work then the declaration of demise is false.

But I prefer to look at it as "Everything else is on par with ICS". The fact that you can be argued to a standstill regarding ICS is a big step. In Civ3 there was no counter-argument. ICS was AMAZING. If you really wanted to win and not worry about it then that was the way to do it.

Now, it's there, but it's not nearly as certain. There are actual valid reasons to not try one strat over another now. To me that's "dead" as in "not the clearly dominant, no-reason-to-think-of-another strategy".

Very cool stuff.
Tom P.

[Jcg316]

Needs a 3 hammer tile for warriors or being built on a plains hill which will only add one turn. The plains hill will cut out a lot of turns, too.

Worker at 15 turns.
Worker 4 turns, forest 46/60
+4 turns, forest 92/60
Warrior 1 turn 36/15
Warrior 1 turn 25/15
Settler 4 turns, 2 forests (5 turns from last chop can get outside city raidus, finish the chop 1 turn before settler finishes) 101/100
(1)Worker 3 turns +forest 43/60
(2a)Warrior 3 turns +forest 43/15
(2b)Warrior 1 turn 32/15
(2c)Warrior 1 turn 21/15
34 turns.

You could work in archers at 25 cost or even Aztec Jaguars since they don't need Iron. Just have to get the required tech. The Jaguars might be insane if you can get enough of them, don't start with mining though with them. If you had horses and worked them in early it might work too.

One of the workers in the direction of the new city, new city founds 3 turns later gets a completed chop, 2 turns of instant warriors. 8 leftover hammers.

With warriors you have 2 from the new city, 1 initial, and 5 from the capitol, 8 total, along with 2 workers and a second city at turn 34. With each city getting a chop 2 turns later. Or with another worker coming soon with 5 total warriors. Either way you are defended and can go cause some serious damage. The poor little AI who doesn't have this advantage would have a settler, worker and probably 2 warriors or 1 and a scout, by the time you're getting there.

Is another turn off if you don't have to move far to get to forests outside city tiles.

With moving to forests going one move over flat land and into the next forest you can preserve the nearby forests while you will still get 30 unless you're really, really far from your cities.

You could have two workers off in the wilderness with a warrior, each city defended and a scout (scouting warrior or scout unit). Then the extra one building at home to upgrade the cities, or the extra warriors first. Even could just build oneor two at the end and save the rest of the production towards a worker or settler.

You do have to go quite a ways for it to only get 25 from a forest too.

The warriors won't help the city grow, but should get the food about half the way.

[jkp1187]

Now we just need to test the settler first start vs. warrior-settler vs. warrior-warrior settler starts. Sounds like a MP game waiting to happen...

[Martinus]

Originally posted by padillah
One thing I think that's good to note is the "ICS is dead" theory.

Technically the Settler First strat could be considered ICS and since it does indeed work then the declaration of demise is false.

But I prefer to look at it as "Everything else is on par with ICS". The fact that you can be argued to a standstill regarding ICS is a big step. In Civ3 there was no counter-argument. ICS was AMAZING. If you really wanted to win and not worry about it then that was the way to do it.

Now, it's there, but it's not nearly as certain. There are actual valid reasons to not try one strat over another now. To me that's "dead" as in "not the clearly dominant, no-reason-to-think-of-another strategy".

Very cool stuff.
Tom P.

Actually I disagree that this is ICS - the settler first is REX (Rapid Early Expansion). It would be ICS if you could just go with this strategy ad infinitum, and this is not the case, since sooner or later (likely sooner) you will hit the hard ceiling of city maintenance costs, with each next city forcing you to take another 10% or 20% from science and put it into gold, just to meet up your expenses. Eventually you will end up much behind and an easy picking for your neighbours.

[Harovan]

I ran 2 tests from the same savegame. An average start, nothing special. 2 food resources in reach (wheat, sheep), some forest and mostly plains. I drew Japan as tribe (random) and did not care for religion.

I did not push it to the limit, but tried to play reasonnably. Here is the situation 2000 BC


Study 1: Settler first, then Worker

City 1: founded 4000 BC, size 2, 8 food, 4 hammers, 2 gold, no buildings, 1 farm, pasture 1 turn from completion, Barracks build at 75%.

City 2: founded 2920 BC, size 2, 6 food, 3 hammers, 1 gold, no buildings, no imrprovements, Worker build at 75%.

Cities are not connected. All near terrain explored.

Technology: 9, 2 of which are from huts

Further assets: 3 Warriors, 1 Worker

Scores: 209 Me, 159 Qin, 150 Hatshepsut


Study 2: Worker first, then Settler (rushed with 2 chops)

City 1: founded 4000 BC, size 3, 12 food, 4 hammers, 3 gold, Barracks, 1 farm, 1 pasture, 1 cottage, Archer just started.

City 2: founded 2960 BC, size 2, 6 food, 3 hammers, 1 gold, Barracks, no improvements, Worker build at 50%, worker builds cottage.

Cities are connected. All near terrain explored.

Technology: 10, 1 of which is from huts

Further assets: 3 Warriors, 1 Worker, 1 settler

Scores: 222 Gandhi, 222 Me, 166 Qin, 150 Hatshepsut


I know one sample is not enough to draw conclusions, but so far is looks, that the "Worker first" strategy is really vastly superior, provided you have the forest to chop.

[Thrak]

Not sure if I agree with what you've done there - tbh I think you'll see the much bigger difference after that cos the main advantage of the Locust strategy is the second and third settlers. Depending on your resources, time to first settler is pretty much identical with in both settler and worker first strategies.

If you stop producing settlers after one on the chop strategy, bit of a waste of forest imo.

What I'll be doing is this prolly.

Worker
Settler (2/3 chops)
Worker (1 chop/excess production)
Settler (2/3 chops) <-- 2nd city

And then it depends, either ANOTHER settler at the second city or use the third city for one. But after the second worker, I'm planning to switch the capital to garrison and *other* stuff.

Probably gonna stop at 4 and build up a little. 5 seems to take all my money...