Vel's Strategy Thread

[]LoL[Harm]

"EDIT: the barbs are probably the biggest difference."

Unit and City upkeep, happiness and health are all impacted by going up a level. On Monarch you don't get the bonuses you do at Prince.

My 2nd city had no impact on upkeep, my 3rd immediately hit me with -1 (taking me off 100% research) and shortly after it grew a little hit me with another -1 for distance. With 4 cities, all over size 6 I had a total of 6gp/turn for distance and 7gp/turn for upkeep...not counting unit upkeep (I was gaining 2gp/turn at 90% sci). Assuming twice the cities would equal twice the upkeep, that would 12gp/turn in distance and 14gp/turn in upkeep. The distance issue would probably be greater since the more cities you have the further from the capital they are. 26gp a turn and not counting unit costs (I had roughly 35-45 units, can't recall upkeep on them), would just be immensely hard to cope with. I know I've REX'd an empire to death once already.

I still think a good test of a worker/improvement rush at the beginning will help offset this.

I know I could skimp on more of the units to cut costs but without them the AI attacks come more quickly. Maybe I'll try skimping on the military early on as well and just stick with 3 units per city instead of my usual 6 or so.

[Cort Haus]

Dom, do you mean en route?

Great post, btw.

[Dominae]

Cort Haus: ha ha, yes, of course. Seems my second language is getting in the way of my mother tongue!

[Arrian]

35-45 units with 5 cities... ok, that's a bigger military (by a LOT) proportional to empire size than I've been running. I grant you that you're up a level and thus need more protection, though.

Hrm. Maybe as difficulty increases it becomes all the more important to turn one of your early cities into a commerce monster (either via cottages or via lighthouse/harbor and working lots of coastal tiles... Lighthouse...). That, or perhaps playing a financial civ...

-Arrian

[Jcg316]

Forest health bonus, lumbermills, etc have been talked about in other threads as well. This one certainly isn't the entirety of what we're drawing from.

It certainly depends on what your initial techs are. If you go Worker-first and Meditation-first, unless you start with Agriculture or Mining your Worker will likely be standing around uselessly for a few turns (or building Roads, meh). Sometimes if you really want that early Religion it makes sense therefore to build a Warrior first in your capital, and let it grow to size 2.

One aspect of the early Religion (and the immediate focus on the religious branch) is the pacification of potentially aggressive neighbors. All it takes is an Open Borders and one Missionary to get the another civ to adopt your Religion (assuming it failed to found one itself), which translates into a heavy boost to relations, depending on the leader.

IF you start with mysticism your worker will not be idle for long enough for that to be significantly detrimental against its bonuses. Roads can help you spread religion to your second city through a trade route quicker but certainly aren't great. Growing is not particularly beneficial as one extra total yield is minor against the turns you have to wait. You will also have to chose between that warrior and very slow growth or growth and no warrior.

1. Worker, Worker, chop Forests for Granary, grow to maximal size while building Warriors, Settlers

Maximum size is very minor because of the soft caps. A general expansionist method using it at maximum size firing off five six settlers could work though. The granary is weak early as the growth benefit is minor and will just hit that soft cap. That forest could pay for two instant warriors instead, for example.

2. Worker, Pottery, Cottages on Flood Plains, Writing, Library, Settlers.

You might find that the library is not a significant boon that early compared to a short time later. Until the cottages have grown a ways it is only a small beaker boost. Less than getting a settler to build up a second city along with the workers heading that way. Not that a library isn't good or viable but the second city might be the one being dropped in flood plains as they aren't something you can count on, though you do start with fresh water on most maps.


Quechua are phenomenal to choke, good at taking early cities as well, but if you can keep them from getting Copper/Iron they can't touch the little Quechuas ravaging the countryside without sacrificing tons of production with throwing archers at them. If they got copper/iron on a hill they would have to make serious sacrifices to dislodge one fortified quechua.

[Velociryx]

Excellent post!

With regards to that early second city...quite right that the city tile is relatively less important in civ iv, however, the fact that you have a second production and growth center relatively earlier than anyone around you is nothing to sneeze at, either, *especially* given the aforementioned generosity of the baseline tiles.

In the games I've played thus far on higher difficulty levels, I generally shoot for two quick cities, and then pause before attempting to expand further have fallen into the pattern of two basic approaches:

Settler First - for civs who have Mysticism, and I'm gunning for a very early religion. Second city is generally founded on turn 23-28 (depending on whether on not the first city if sounded on a plains/hill), and then both build workers (same flexibility, just slightly later, in exchange for more resources within my immediate cultural border, and in the case of spiritual civs, significant borders, at that).

Worker First for most other starts, provided that I have, or will have starting techs that will give said worker something to do besides road-building, with the specific direction of my research being dictated by the terrain itself.

As I see it, in the extreme early game when you've got one city and one unit, worker first gives you flexibility "on the ground" but inflexibility with regard to immediate-term tech research (you play to the land, researching what the land dictates to you....no forest near, no bronzeworking, cows = husbandry, wheat = agriculture, etc).

Settler first allows you to play to your game, without worrying about whether the worker will be occupied, cos he'll be delayed long enough that you'll have worker-relevant techs when they come to completion (and ultimately, it swaps the flexibility....you lose flexibility on the ground, but gain the freedom to pursue whatever tech you want to on the opener, even if you have no starting worker-friendly techs)

As for the "grow the city first" starts....I can certainly see some advantage to them, but I'm not nearly as excited about them as the faster starts, cos let's face it, a new city CAN'T compete with the capitol wrt tech research...but the quicker you get it on it's feet, the quicker it can start to compete, and in the same vein, a size one capitol produces 8-10 coin per turn. A size 2 capitol does not produce double that amount, so if I can rush a second city out the gate, maybe found it next to a gold-intensive resource (dyes, gold, seafood)....

Or maybe I'm just a risk junkie...

-=Vel=-

[Krill]

Vel, you up for a game? About now, at all?

One of the advantages of building a scout or warrior first is that the extra production from being at size 2 usually makes a much larger difference than if you grew your capital to a larger size, and you can expand, find some nice land to settle in the future, pop huts for more free techs or gold...

[Velociryx]

Sadly, at work for several more hours....but sneaking a peek here whenever I get the chance!

-=Vel=-

[]LoL[Harm]

"Settler first allows you to play to your game, without worrying about whether the worker will be occupied"

This is the primary reason why I've adopted Settler First for my SP and a certain MP games. Though it is still primarily situational. I like directing my early techs towards what I want.

[Verrucosus]

Would a "grow city first start" be acceptable in terms of speed when you have a starting position where the city can grow faster than usual? Flood plains - not all that rare - allow a city to reach size 3 after just 15 turns. It then has a surplus of +6 food/hammers and is able to produce a settler within 17 more turns. That's "just" 7 turns slower than "settler first" with a generic +4 food/hammer surplus.

I have to admit though that I'm biased in favour of "grow city first" because it corresponds to the warrior option of the warrior/worker/settler choice presented in the first post and brings added security. I'm afraid I'm one of those squeamish guys Vel referred to (usually went with his "Security over Speed" expansion paradigm in SMAC).

[Velociryx]

You know...when I first read the question, I almost said "yes." But on reflection about it, I must say no. At least not for me.

In my mind, the A#1 overriding first goal I have is to get a second city up and running as quickly as possible, hopefully without ransacking my future in the process (ie - I don't like to chop, but will, if there are plenty of "extra" forests about).

On lower difficulty levels, I shoot for 4-6 cities quickly, founded in such fashion, but on the higher difficulty levels, maintenance costs begin at city #3, so I'm only interested in founding cities 1 & 2 in the extreme early game (ie - my extreme early game goal can be summed up thus: "Found as many cities as I can, as quickly as I can, without running afoul of maintenance costs that will eat into my research, which is pegged at 100%).

The benefits of founding two cities quickly, IMO, outweigh almost every other consideration. It's twice as flexible (can work on two different things at the same time). You're working twice the squares (size one city = 2 tiles of production...two size one cities = 4 tiles of production), and, assuming an average start, you grow twice as quickly.

When you found that initial city, you get a "pushback" of the FOW. That, plus one warrior move (or two scout moves), ending on a hilltop, can easily reveal a second good city site.

In fact, I find the advantages to a quick second city so compelling that I'll even forego settling on the first turn of the game, if there's a plains/hill nearby, just so I can settle there and reap the extra resource benefit (settler in 20, instead of 25).

Worker first, or letting the city grow first WILL result in a faster overall time to completion....with the tradeoff that you get a later start, and it won't get my city founded faster than turn 22-28 (the SOLE exception being a civ that starts with mining, races to bronze, with lots of extra forests in the vicinity).

In my mind, the greatest thing you can do to protect yourself in the extreme early game is get all your eggs out of the singular basket you start in....I'll risk almost everything for that, including the extreme early game security.

-=Vel=-

[QuestGAV]

Verr keep in mind that once you get that second city up you're working 4 tiles, the same as if you've got one city at size 4.

[Verrucosus]

It's not that I do not see the importance of spreading out early. I have followed the discussion and I would even agree that for a generic start (i.e. assuming no chopping or special resources), the case for "settler first" is better.

I'm just not convinced that having the second city seven turns earlier is worth delaying the capital's growth in the flood plains scenario, because those seven turns must be balanced against the disadvantage of being stuck with a size-1-capital for much longer than that.

After I'm done with the settler in turn 32, I have a capital of size 3. Your settler is done in turn turn 25 (assuming no chopping or hills), but it will take you until turn 40 to get the capital to size 3. That's eight turns more in the capital that I can put to use.

Things get even better if we both follow the settler with a worker (not unlikely). Yours will be finished in turn 40, mine in turn 42. At that point I will have a size-3-capital to use freely, while your capital will be in the same position only after 15 turns of growth (turn 55). That's an advantage of 13 turns in the capital that I can set off against your 7-turn-advantage in city #2.

If I add the commerce produced in the two flood plains tiles worked in my capital 40 turns earlier (80 research points), I think the "grow city first" approach could be as efficient as the "settler first" strategy. In that case, the additional security by an early warrior would tip the scales for less risk-loving people like me.

Of course, all this applies only to the limited scenario of a flood plains start, so it's more an exception than a general alternative to the "settler first" approach.

[Verrucosus]

QuestGAV, I agree, but with my plan (no, I'm not Al Gore) the second city will be established just seven turns later. I realize that Vel's turn advantage in the second city will grow during the course of the game (it will grow earlier than mine, etc.), but so does my turn advantage in the capital.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Jcg316
Forest health bonus, lumbermills, etc have been talked about in other threads as well. This one certainly isn't the entirety of what we're drawing from.

I was responding to Vel's fear that Forest chops are the no-brainer strategy of the early-game, which I believe is unique to this thread. It's so hard to make sense of the Strat forum, especially when a lot of the discussion is located in just one thread (i.e. this one)!

IF you start with mysticism your worker will not be idle for long enough for that to be significantly detrimental against its bonuses. Roads can help you spread religion to your second city through a trade route quicker but certainly aren't great. Growing is not particularly beneficial as one extra total yield is minor against the turns you have to wait.

It's a question of timing. If you want the early Religion, Worker-first will sometimes leave you without anything for it to do. So why not grow in the meantime, stopping growth to build a Worker to match the turn your first "land improvement" tech is finished? If you try this, you will find that often letting the city grow to size 2 will actually get the Worker done sooner.

What difficulty level are you playing at? I believe techs are more expensive on Emperor and Immortal, so maybe this accounts for our differing opinions here (unless, of course, you're playing on the same levels!).

Maximum size is very minor because of the soft caps.

A size 5 city working 4+ raw output tiles is not very minor!

A general expansionist method using it at maximum size firing off five six settlers could work though.

Yes, it could.

The granary is weak early as the growth benefit is minor and will just hit that soft cap.

Just because there exist soft caps does not make faster growth a bad thing; it was a good thing in Civ3, where we had hard caps! I think you might be plesantly surprised at what a size single 7 city can accomplish while those REXers are scrambling to get 3-4 additional cities up, running, and productive.

That forest could pay for two instant warriors instead, for example.

I build a bare minimum of Warriors, as necessary for explorating and policing (and maybe defense). I consider faster growth via a Granary superior to two instant Warriors, barring external influences.

You might find that the library is not a significant boon that early compared to a short time later. Until the cottages have grown a ways it is only a small beaker boost.

Let's say I'm Financial and put two Cottages on Flood Plains. That's 6 additional Commerce right there (not to mention the fact that those two tiles are as productive for Workers/Settlers as Forest Grassland/Plains). Add the 8 from the capital and my Library is almost producing 4 Beakers per turn, for a total of 18-20 Beakers per turn.

Contrast this with rapidly expanding into 4-5 cities instead. They had better all be on Rivers and working Gold Mines or Cottages immediately to hope to match what my capital is doing by itself.

Given that you have to research a lot more techs yourself in CIV because the AI is more stingy when trading (in fact, flat out uncooperative), I think such a high research start is quite competitive.

Not that a library isn't good or viable but the second city might be the one being dropped in flood plains as they aren't something you can count on, though you do start with fresh water on most maps.

Quite right! More than ever in the Civ series, your starting location is critical in determining what you should do in the early-game. My examples have terrain requirements, sure, but that does not invalidate them as options.

Quechua are phenomenal to choke, good at taking early cities as well, but if you can keep them from getting Copper/Iron they can't touch the little Quechuas ravaging the countryside without sacrificing tons of production with throwing archers at them. If they got copper/iron on a hill they would have to make serious sacrifices to dislodge one fortified quechua.

CIV Quechua = Civ3 Jaguar Warrior (that's not strict equality, but you get my point!)