Early game settler strategy

[walkern]

When you've only got one or two cities:

- Do you send a Settler out unprotected? I hate waiting to make a warrior for him then nullifying his fast movement by sticking the warrior to him.

- How far will you send your settler at the beginning of the game? Will you overextend to protect a resource, or build a stronger city so you can later culture flip/war whoever has the city on the resource?

Thanks in advance.

NW

[Quillan]

Well, that depends on what you mean by sending the settler out unprotected. I usually send him out without a warrior walking on top of him, yes. But, the warrior is already at the city site, fortified, and there will be other troops along the way if need be. That way the settler is moving only through already visible territory, and there will be no surprises.

As to resources, it depends on the resource. Copper/iron, stone or marble? Yes, I'll go a LONG way for those. I'll go a long ways for luxuries, too, as long as they aren't plantation luxuries (won't be able to use those for a while anyway, so there's plenty of time to acquire them by alternate means). But food resources aren't such a big deal to me.

[rjmatsleepers]

I'd rarely send a settler out with no protection, but as Quillan says, that doesn't mean having a warrior holding his hand. If I have time enough, I like to pre-build a road to the next city site to get the benefit of trade and resources as quickly as possible.

Sending a settler too far, even for a good resource like iron risks establishing a city that is difficult to defend (and therefore a great temptation to the AI). No matter how good those resources are you can only exploit them in the rest of your empire if you can connect the cities.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Quillan

As to resources, it depends on the resource. Copper/iron, stone or marble? Yes, I'll go a LONG way for those. I'll go a long ways for luxuries, too, as long as they aren't plantation luxuries (won't be able to use those for a while anyway, so there's plenty of time to acquire them by alternate means). But food resources aren't such a big deal to me.

Agree on everything execpt for the food part.
After all, happiness is a non-issue once you get Monarchy. It's only a problem very early in the game.
The health problem is a constant problem. It never goes away. In my current game I'm having a city losing 8 food/turn to unhealthiness.

Luckily it is possible to trade away the only source of a certain good. Thus I often find myself trading away my only source of Gold, Silver, Gems etc... in order to get some badly needed food-resources.
This is heavily related to game difficulty.
On emperor you only have 3 free health points/city.
This means that in order to have a healhy city at level 10, you will need 7 different food-resources.

A month ago I actually never thought the Expansive trait was worth a penny. Now it's one of my favorite traits - on Emperor it almost doubles your initial health.

[Blake]

I often bring back my intial scout (scout or warrior) to reveal the second city site. Sending out the settler into the fog is far too risky, there is no way to avoid him being eaten by a panther or wolf that was lurking in the fog (lions and bears can be avoided by moving only one tile at a time).

Actually escorting the settler isn't important - the important thing is creating a corridor of cleared fog in which a panther/wolf can't snipe the settler.

Sometimes it makes sense to settle very close to the capital - like moving outside the cultural borders then settling in the same turn. This is safe because it will drive out any animals, even if you settle right next to them. Don't try settling next to roaming barb warriors/archers (the non-attacking type) though, as they WILL attack if a city is built next to them.

[trev]

Expansive trait is a waste of time, healthiness can be achieved by good city placement, connecting multiple food resources, and granaries, aquaducts etc. Also of course trading for food resources, but never at the expense of sole gold etc, as I find i my game I reach health and happy thresholds usually about the same time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Saurus
This means that in order to have a healhy city at level 10, you will need 7 different food-resources.

Sure? For example, when you look at granary it says "+1 health for corn, rice, wheat."

This sounds to me that once you have a granary built in a city, each cereal type food source gives you +2 health. Grocer does the same thing for banana, wine, spices, and sugar. Harbour does it for clam, crab, and fish.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by trev
Expansive trait is a waste of time, healthiness can be achieved by good city placement, connecting multiple food resources, and granaries, aquaducts etc. Also of course trading for food resources, but never at the expense of sole gold etc, as I find i my game I reach health and happy thresholds usually about the same time.

You make it sound so easy.
What you do not take into account is that when playing emperor level on a pangea, you will have to settle down more or less anywehere in order to gain any land at all.
And on top of this you have to do so slowly witch means you will lose many good spots.
You need major luck to find many perfectly located cities

My typical pattern on a medium sized pangea is ending up having 6 cities in a realitevly squesed area.
Out of theese cities I will have 2 to 3 reasoanble well situated cities. (near freshwater with forest etc.)
The rest are put down anywhere they can do any good at all. I almost always end up having 3-5 different kind of food-resrouces on my own. Sometimes even less, only very rarely more than 6.

What you say about reaching health and happiness cap is true for the early part of the game.
The happiness problem however is temporary. Once you have Hereditary rule, you will not have happiness problems anymore - ever! (You learn the hard way to fortify your cities well when playing on a Pangea)
Health problem won't go away.

On any difficulty and regardless of city placement (unless if built in the middle of a desert or tundra) ultimately you will still reach the healt cap, and at that point the +2/food/turn expansive brings you will provide the effect of larger cities. Or one free specialist in every city.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Sure? For example, when you look at granary it says "+1 health for corn, rice, wheat."

This sounds to me that once you have a granary built in a city, each cereal type food source gives you +2 health. Grocer does the same thing for banana, wine, spices, and sugar. Harbour does it for clam, crab, and fish.

A granary is good. It can give you up to +3. Bust the most of the time it gives me only +1.
Harbors are special buildings witch can only be built in coastal cities while groceries are extreamly expensive.

So theoreticly you can get alot and alot of health out of theese buildings. +10 health in total but even this is true only if you have a large empire so that you can secure a lot of resources. I mostly only have a small empire spawning over a limited land areal having no more than 6-7 cities.
A cottage-city inland unable to build the Harbor and due to low production is virtualy unable to build the grocer in a reasonable time will have to live with just the +1 or +2 the granary provides until late in the game.

[Fallenhero]

At higher levels granaries and aqueducts become much more important. Health isn't as critical as unhappiness, though. You can spare some food but you can't spare the citizens, especially if you want to have specialist to generate GP points. I can imagine that on a Pangea map health becomes even more of an issue.

I follow Vels pattern of early developement. First a worker, then 3x warriors, then a settler. The worker chops to rush the warriors/settler but may develop a food resource as well. My initial warrior, after a local circle, goes exploring seeking out AI's and huts. I use the others to lift the fog and hold my next city spot.

Of course, set up dictates slight variations but this is one way to get started and safely establish your 2nd city. There's nothing worse than having your settler end his move next to a barb or a bear!

[Jorun-kun]

The single most important ressource in the very early game imho is Bronze. It´s location usually dictates the placement site of my second city, and I will go almost any distance to get it. The only deterrent would be if it is within one space of the enemy´s ZOC and more than ten tiles away. I find that not having bronze either forces an unwelcome detour on my post-BW beeline to the alphabet (to animal husbandry, archery or iron working) or makes for some really tense turns defending with warriors while you wait for the tech-trading to begin. You are MUCH better off with it (not least because you then have the option of rushing with axemen).

I would also found at up to ten tiles away from my capitol if I stand a reasonable chance of locking my neighbours out of a significant chunk of land (creating a "backyard" through occupying chokepoints) or preventing being locked into a small peninsula. However, I will do so only if it takes no more than two cities to seal the border (zoc growth is a factor here) and if I have some forest in the new location, so I can chop out the next settler.

A little lower on my priority list but still worth settling up to six squares away from my capital are the early happiness ressources - mined gold/silver/gems not only allow you a higher happiness threshold at a time when no other means of attaining it is possible, they also boost your revenue and research at a time when you are most likely gunning for the alphabet, to get into the trading game as early as possible.

While I agree that health limits are a real, longterm problem perspectively on higher levels (I play on Emperor, occasionally Immortal), I would not found more than five squares away for them early on unless there is a forseeable near-term shortage of health.

[couerdelion]

My “normal” game will have me founding the second city 4-5 tiles from the first but, like everyone else, they walk by themselves. I do, however, remember one game in which the settler spent 6 turns moving to the second city site. But this one had an oasis, five floodplains and four gold resources. I did this first and foremost for the huge commerce that this city could produce. The second reason was to stop the AI getting that benefit.

On the subject of food resources, I have played a few games where I had no “grain” foods in the early game and my too main cities had to rely on forests to keep them healthy. I fought a war over RICE!!!! And this was the only “grain” resource on the island. Despite this, health was not a significant issue since you can always stop your city from growing.

That’s as bad as I’ve ever had health problems. I can safely say that unhappiness problems are lot more serious. If you are losing 8 food/turn from unhealthiness, wouldn’t it make more sense to work low food production tiles or appoint specialists who just eat. That way, you never grow to have a city size of 8 more than the health limit.

[uberfish]

No reason to have health resource shortages on pangaea. Go invade someone and take theirs, that's the whole point of pangaea :P

[smbakeresq]

Your initial map size is important also, as a larger size will give you more breathing room early before the resource fight begins. I generally dont walk settlers out alone after the first one, unless I am backfilling after initial land grab

[Hermann the Lombard]

Re: Early game settler strategy

Originally posted by walkern - Do you send a Settler out unprotected? I hate waiting to make a warrior for him then nullifying his fast movement by sticking the warrior to him.

There's a good example in Vel's "1a" Workshop where he protects his first Settler by overwatch rather than by slow escort.