Vel's Strategy Thread

[Jcg316]

To get 75 you need industirious and a wonder resource. Towards stonehenge, pyramids (for example) :

30 + 30 for stone + 15 for industrious.

edit: Probably has bonuses towards whatever your trait allows. Organized might let you build distant cities that produce quick courthouses. Able to build granaries, temples, or whatever your traits allow, quicker.

[LDiCesare]

I don't know much yet about the game, but I think expanding gives several big benefits: Resources, space for (later) expansion, and blocking hte opponent.
My first game I went south to found a city near marble and planned to grow a big capital with big culture. This let the ai expand to my north very near. I eventually got one of their cities back by flipping it, but had I spammed 2 cities to the north, I'd have prevented the ai from getting there in the first place. I might not have built as many wonders or gotten to Music first to have 2 great artists up there, but I'd have had better placed cities... This is on a small map, where you don't have much room. It looks like the map size would be an important factor to consider in the strategy, and I didn't see it discussed. On a small map, building a settler faster may mean one more city and preventing the ai from building in a good place, forcing him to cram his cities. Waiting for the 3rd or 4th city can get you blocked somewhere.
Opinions about the influence of the map size on the startign strategy?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Alexfrog
I was getting 75 production per chop with these.

Originally posted by Jcg316
To get 75 you need industirious and a wonder resource. Towards stonehenge, pyramids (for example) :

30 + 30 for stone + 15 for industrious.

Ah... so, Alexfrog , meant "75h per turn, inclusive of a chop"?

[Jcg316]

Yeah 18.75 hammer yield per turn I think.

[Velociryx]

Dangit! Didnt' see Krill's post about MP until just now....sorry guy!

Did a LOT of playtesting last night, and determined that chop isn't all that it's cracked up to be, at least not when used "Locust-Style".

Situationally, it's awesome, but of course, you're at the mercy of

a) terrain
b) where you start on the tech tree

If you don't start with mining and you DO start with some other settler abilities (farming, roads, camp), then you're better off running with your native strengths, at least in the short run.

Likewise, you just plain might not have anything much to chop, in which case, it's a good idea to MAYBE keep in mind for when you found your second city, but before that...*shrug* Don't matta.

So on Monarch and higher, I'm back to preferring a settler first approach in SP, and here's why:

Settler 1st on an average start = 25 turns.

Worker then settler, IF I beeline for bronze = 25 turns.

I get tech flexibility and can found my religions and give my early workers LOTS of other stuff to do, and THEN, a bit later, when I'm starting to work on wonders and such, if I want a chop or two to help those along, it's great, and everything is in place.

Getting that second city out quickly on Monarch and higher makes all the difference in the world, btw, because the basic city mechanic hasn't changed between versions.

My two size one cities are still working 4 tiles, and still costing me no maintenance....that's more production, more growth, and more research than a single "build up and wait" city, no matter HOW good an opening start you have, and it creates turn advantage.

Again, Monarch and above, that 3rd city starts dinging you for (hurtful!) maintenance, so unless there's just a gods-awfully tempting spot, I'm now in the habit of limiting myself to two cities and pause to build, because I don't want move off of 100% research until I have to.

Further, in one of my tests where I clearcut everything, I was absolutely marginalized by the late part of the early game.

I ran roughshod over everybody on the continent with me tho, so that's a strong point, but the other two guys on yonder continent were WORLDS ahead of me by the time the dust settled.

Not cool.

AND my production was weak.

Locust is great for tiny pangea maps (in fact, I'd imagine it to be about the only game in town), but who the hell plays those with regularity?

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Verrucosus
In his opening post Vel has stated that the most important objective in 4000 BC is to get a second city. That is what the discussion has focused on. It seems that usually building a worker first and choprushing the settler is the fastest way to do it. You can compromise speed for health (no chopping) or safety (escorts first), but those are relatively minor points.

Is there someone who would argue that getting the second city is only a secondary objective and that stuff like research and religion could be important enough to justify delaying this first step of expansion?

It's situational. What are your assets, liabilities, and goals? As those things change, so to should your strategy. The only "always" is it depends.

I don't want to ruin the fun by posting specifics, but there are several general approaches to the game that can all do well when focused on, or in combination with each other. Don't get hung up on a specific playstyle as the end-all-be-all.

Military (conquest), military (harrassment), expansion, growth, religion, diplomacy, building (Wonders), building (improvements), producing Great Persons. Each of those has various subsets that can be focused on too. In general they all have "less valuable, but earlier" vs "more valuable, but later" choices that can be made, and rather extreme variation in specifics too. (ie. which units, which wonders, which great persons, which civics... ect.)

[Velociryx]

I think that specifically:

a) You start with mining
b) You have no particular interest in snagging an early religion
c) There are an abundant supply of trees in the neighborhood

Those conditions are ideal for worker first, early chops to get ahead, and the farther you drift away from that ideal situation, the less imposing a beeline for Bronze becomes.

Oh....and if you want to see the debilitating effects unhealthiness can have on a city, then I beg you to do the following:

a) Start civ
b) Select the earth map from the custom game menu
c) Choose Egypt
d) When the game comes up, move your settler one tile south and found city (either due south or SE, whichever puts you one tile back from the river)
e) examine and cringe

-=Vel=-

[Jcg316]

Worker, Settler without chops is as fast as Settler, Worker without chops (the turns and benefits of each are listed in the first couple pages) plus already you have improvements and are still capable of varying from out of worker/settler to something else. Frankly there are very few situations where settler first is better, mainly if you have no starting tech for any of your starting resources and still want an early religion. Settler/Worker has the benefit, and only benefit, of starting a second city 8 turns sooner. You will, however, be able to upgrade the capitol as quick the other way.

If you want that advantage, ie choosing the location for the city you will have grow quicker its good, but otherwise a worker first is slightly faster in the total turn advantage you will have and allows you to just build a worker at which point you have the capable variance to use any strategy you wish to use based on what you've seen of the map, close locations to other civs and things like that. That ability to avoid commiting to a strategy while being a shade faster makes use of a settler first entirely about the advantage of choosing the location for the city you could have grow larger. If you didn't have to commit to it before scouting the map it would be better but you do have to make that commitment. It can't play to the strengths of the map and to your starting techs nearly as well.

With a starting resource matching a starting tech you can build that resource and be approximately at the turn you could have got mining/bronze working. Starting with two resources that match starting tech/s will make that even easier. If both resources are under one tech and you have mysticism as well that is a great start for religions.

Often if you don't have a tech matching a resource it will be beacuse you have mining instead of something else in which case you can chop, if you want to. It is possible that it is either certain or high probability that you start with such a resource. All depends if the game maps around your start location and may factor in such things or if it picks a decent location after building the map that tends to have fresh water very, very often, if you don't start coastal, and past that for it having some resource.

Starting with fishing and adding work boats to the mix makes it a whole 'nother situation as well. Coastal cities as a whole are more or less in that situation depending on how many ocean tiles they have.

There is a nearly clearcutting or still just using some of the forests strategy for choking an opponent with a few warriors as best you can and then sending in Aztec Jaguars who do not need iron that is mined with a road. That is far quicker than anyone can get anything like that and quick warriors could destroy, even at risk of the units, their mined metal if they even have any. That would be a huge military advantage. They can build them quickly at a point that you should be able to get a second city if someone is close to you on a land connected map with the AI and have a good shot against another player. If you fail though you'd be in a lot of trouble but not as much as you could be if you had to build those out over many, many more turns.

[Velociryx]

Yes...for your founding city, that's correct. The turns are identical, but your analysis does not take into consideration that the newly founded city will itself begin a worker upon founding, and in fact, by doing worker/settler (no chop, no beeline for bronze), I'll have TWO workers (one at each city) in the same timeframe.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

If you want that advantage, ie choosing the location for the city you will have grow quicker its good, but otherwise a worker first is slightly faster in the total turn advantage you will have and allows you to just build a worker at which point you have the capable variance to use any strategy you wish to use based on what you've seen of the map, close locations to other civs and things like that. That ability to avoid commiting to a strategy while being a shade faster makes use of a settler first entirely about the advantage of choosing the location for the city you could have grow larger. If you didn't have to commit to it before scouting the map it would be better but you do have to make that commitment. It can't play to the strengths of the map and to your starting techs nearly as well.

Settler first is 20-25 turns to build a settler. Now, I'll admit, warriors aren't exactly greased lightning while exploring (at least not without Woodsman II), but if you can't find a great city spot in that kinna timeframe then something is wrong! If that is the only weakness of settler first (well that, and the aforementioned risk), then I'll take it! Even on maps with wretched terrain, I can find a home for at least ONE more good city.

All depends if the game maps around your start location

We agree here completely....and you mentioned various starting techs, so we agree there too! The only thing we disagree on is you're forgetting the advantages to my second city founding several turns earlier. Even if you've improved your (one tile) of production, my two cities are gonna be outpacing you, since any improvement you make is going to give you a +1 bonus. That's not gonna make up for the fact that you're working a total of two tiles, and I'm working four....I've got faster growth (growth in two cities vs. just the one), more resources, more research (which is a thing that all the chopping in the world won't give you, in and of itself), and I'll soon have two workers to your one.

Not saying it's always superior, cos again, it depends on your aims and goals, but it can compare quite favorably.

[Jcg316]

A resource improved is worth at least two, three with animal husbandry for cows and horses. After 25 turns for a settler I'd have had 10 for worker improvement

The problem I have with it is the capability you have for changing the strategy is far worse and it has no advantages other than starting 8 turns early which I mentioned. The growth will be similar for either second city or first city.

At turn 28 you start producing from a second city for a worker in 15 turns and could produce in your capitol at 41. After 33 I could start producing for another worker in my first city and 36 for something in my second.

For 33 at 6ty I have a worker in ten turns at 43 you have one in 15 at 43.

You have basic production in your capitol I do in my second city and start producing four turns earlier there. Also I had a worker for 28 turns! Earlier using the four, five for first resource (additional don't help as pop can only work one tile) and 22-24 turns of extra worker use to your 3, from being out at 40. 19-21 turns of improvement difference, without mining and chops.

So at the end of 43 turns we have:
Settler first with,
Second city hasn't grown, stagnant units only.
First city has grown 3 turns 41-43. Has produced 3 turns.
Two workers and three turns of use. 41-43

Worker first with,
Second city has grown 8 turns 36-43, has produced 8 turns.
First city hasn't grown, stagnant units only.
Two workers and 20,21,22-43 or 22-24 turns of worker time depending on length of the first resource improvement and moving to it.
One resource improved, calculated out of worker time.

It is possible that one/either/both settlers would have to move a turn or two more but as it applies to both it is just counted as two turns for both representing what you "could" do. Also I could have waited on settler if my strategy would have had reason to change.

[Jcg316]

This is without plains hills and the 33 might be to finish the settler after starting with worker and 34 when it is out so the worker there might produce at 44. If you started with agriculture or hunting and got animal husbandry before the worker was done you could have got 6ty from a cow/horse as well, with worker first.

[Velociryx]

Actually, either of us could wait....you can shift gears and produce something else if your situation changes, then pick back up where you left off with regards to the settler/worker.

The civ I'm playing right now, for example, is Arabia. The Wheel + Mysticism.

I went settler first, because all my would-be worker could have done out the gate was build roads....not a tile improving (from a resource perspective, in any case) build.

Second city founded, two of the three early religions founded, which will bring me handsome sums of per turn gold as the game unfolds, and now....now that I'm ready, I'm building workers. It didn't make sense before, because I didn't research any techs for them to do anything with.

Oh...and I met the Spanish....declared war on them with my starting warrior (both cities empty). Stole one of her workers and brought it home...then made peace a few turns later...

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

A resource improved is worth at least two, three with animal husbandry for cows and horses. After 25 turns for a settler I'd have had 10 for worker improvement

Yep....a *special resource* is worth more, improved. That's true. If we assume an average start (as I have been, from first mention), you may or may not have one (but you could have access to one quicker if you hurry up and build that settler! ). If we're talking about general tile improvements (farms/mines on "generic" terrain), then my assessment is dead on. Farm = +1 Food, and you can't rely on having juicy specials laying at your feet....at least not to the extent of designing a strat around it (proviso: not without committing yourself to LOTS of reloads until you get a start that's "optimal").

So at the end of the day, you get your first worker on Turn 15, and he can improve one tile of production (assume an average start, +1F...or whatever you want). That winds up shaving five turns off of your settler (20 turns). Now...since your starting city is size one, and we're assuming no chop, your worker is not going to have a lot to do, but let's be generous and say you can make roads too (or you make it a priority to research the wheel). At least, with early worker, you'll be able to road-build out to the new city site and prep it for use when the settler arrives on turn 36.

Meanwhile, settler first approach builds the settler on Turn 25, he's in place on Turn 27, and producing a worker in 15 turns (as is the capitol).

By turn 42, I've got two workers out, ready to start improving the land, and my two cities, both size one, are a total of two resources per turn behind yours (since your workers have already improved the tiles), which is more than made up for by the fact that I've had my cities up and runninng longer, and have generated more than 2r per turn just from the second city's native square! You've got two cities, one worker, a road network between them, some improved tiles that your cities can't use yet.

If your cities grew when making settlers or workers, the worker first idea would win out every time (like building formers first in SMAC did), but that's not how it works with Civ IV, and those terrain improvements don't net you turn advantage unless you are USING them, which you aren't, cos your cities are only size 1.

Thus, it doesn't matter that I haven't had my workers out as long, cos my cities can only work one non-city tile anyway!

Long and short of it is that either way works, and works faster than sitting around waiting for your city to hit size three to grow.

That's what we were interested in knowing, and we've certainly demonstrated that.

The rest is semantics and personal preference I think.

If settler first works for you and the way you attack the tech tree/your civ of choice, then it's superior for you.

I hope, however, I've demonstrated situations (which mirror MY current playstyle), that bear out the validity of an alternate approach.

-=Vel=-

[Jcg316]

We can both vary, but the worker seems to benefit all non-expansionitst strategy as he can still improve them until the gears shift back to what you were doing. As they can benefit from a size 2 city with 2 resources quickly, while the slow able to only grow or produce at a time as 3 food and 2 food 1 hammer tiles don't help production significantly and 1 food 2 hammer tiles aren't going to grow fast at all, 22 turns I think. Some middle ground of switching would help but not much.

For any non-expansion method having a worker is more valuable as resources are more valuable compared to a second not terribly effective city.

If you want to use Saladin and go for an early religion you're going to play to that and not best use the land. If you just use Saladin and do what the land yields you'll be the best off. Since resource techs will complete in half the time it takes to build the worker that isn't really a problem. With an early religion at worst you could connect up a couple resources or the second city site and then build a resource, hardly a problem and in the long run having far more extra worker turns early is going to be far more advantageous.

However, it isn't even the case that Saladin is at all bad at improving the land. The fact is improving resources isn't that much better in that situation. Connecting the second city site, religion will spread there lightning fast. The borders there will expand and you are in position with techs finishing when or before the second city site is connected to be able to build up all the resources of both cities in all workable squares. The second cities borders should expand very quickly allowing that.

As worker first is more beneficial for a lot of other starts, military being the main thing you'd need to switch to, you are in that same position that you would be anyways and able to adapt 10 turns sooner without wasting settler production. At turn 22ish and 27ish and with another resource really quickly again or still fairly fast without it getting there about the same time as 35 and 37-39. A 4 city with resources certainly seems much better for most other non-expansionist strategies, in which you also had production up to that point than to 2 cities that had as much production with less resources from hammers and food.

Maybe adaption isn't the right word, you are on the exact same start as you would be and are basically choosing what to do by what it yields, you aren't having to actually change from something or finding yourself at all worse than you would be if you started that way. There is no loss to building military at turn 15 with a worker when you would of done the same thing anyways. You aren't actually shifting gears, basically you have twelve turns of scouting to do anything. If if worker first wasn't faster it would still let you have 15 turns of scouting and finding other civs to decide what to do. That scouting is important as well.