Help re: Cottages and workers

[BucksRock]

Just got the game a few days ago.

I'm a little confused as to what to make of cottages though. Can you slap these on squares that are within your culture borders but not being worked by cities? I've been trying to work on adding these in but my workers are already busy building roads/farms/etc.

And speaking of workers, what ratio of workers=cities seems to work best? I've been playing with 1 to 1 but my progress seems kinda slow, but cranking out more workers seemed to hinder my expansion a bit.

Any tips would be greatly appreciated

[Nugog]

Cottages need to be worked by the city to grow. As they grow they will provide income/commerce for you. But they must be worked to be effective.

Worker to city ratios are a bit harder, as difficulty and speed settings, and map size to a lesser degree, effect this. Having said all of that I usually would not have a worker/city ratio of more 2 workers per every 3 cities.

I'm sure one of our more learned 'poly residents will be able to give you all of the maintenance cost ratios and facts and figures - as I can't!

[johnmcd]

In the earlyl game I like at least one to one ratio, but as I found cities six and seven or whatever then I'll not bother with new workers for them as they will already be adequately covered.

If you're warring, you will always find you have plenty workers piling in from the conquerored.

[Palpster]

Originally posted by johnmcd

If you're warring, you will always find you have plenty workers piling in from the conquerored.

Hehe, I'm usually the one that loses his workers when war's being declared on me. Here I am, building happily and bothering no one and then I get attacked. Oh, how I hate Julius and Isabella

[Quillan]

Bucks, cottages are how you pay for your empire. NOTHING is more important in the long run than the amount of commerce you generate, and cottages are how you'll wind up generating most of it.

As stated, they have to be within the "fat cross" to be effective. More than that, they have to be worked to grow. Plant them next to rivers, on high food squares so the city will still grow. At each level of growth the cottage increases the amount of commerce generated.

And as to workers, I also want a bunch of workers in the early going. You need to build the improvements in order to succeed. Once those are built, though, you don't really need the workers. I tend to keep them around even after they are useless though.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Quillan
I tend to keep them around even after they are useless though.

They cost money to maintain... so I usually kill off my excess workers after most of the work is done.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ming


They cost money to maintain... so I usually kill off my excess workers after most of the work is done.

Always knew you were a murderer, Ming

I generally prioritize cottages over farms, though I'll build some of both. Cottages have much more upside...

[Ming]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Always knew you were a murderer, Ming

I treat excess workers and outdated worthless military units the same way I treat other civs... I wipe them out

[BucksRock]

Thanks for the advice everyone.

My latest game I expanded to seven cities by 1 AD and I was really feeling the economic pinch. All those farms don't seem to be so useful now

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Ming
They cost money to maintain... so I usually kill off my excess workers after most of the work is done.

Very interesting, but do you have evidence of this?
Several games ago I had a large worker surplus. I eliminated more than half a dozen of them and it affected finances not one twit.

EDIT: Just never mind. I repeated the experiment and it did indeed reduce unit costs. Now I know better than I "knew" before. Tested in a game with a large (170 unit) army.

[DrSpike]

It depends on how many units you can support. With a small army killing 6 workers can make no difference to costs.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DrSpike
It depends on how many units you can support. With a small army killing 6 workers can make no difference to costs.

Correct... I've seen situations where it didn't matter when I deleted them... However, usually, by the time I've run out of things for a worker to do, I have a very large army advancing across the globe, and it does make a big difference. Especially after you've captured tons of them from other civs

[Quillan]

I expect it depends on the map as well, but in my current game, even with 60+ workers I haven't run out of things for them to do. The ones on the original continent are just about done with the railroading now, but the ones on the other two land masses have a long ways to go still. I'll probably be shipping/airlifting a horde of workers to other lands soon to finish up faster.

[Ming]

It also depends on your style of play. I usually develop every square within my core empire. But once I start the world "blitz" about all I care about is keeping a road network in place. Most of the land I take is already developed, and if it has been trashed by another civ already, I really don't care if it gets developed again, because I'm in the latter part of the game, and it won't make much of a difference in the eventual outcome

[Solver]

Evil warmongers