First Settler on Monarch

[rah]

Especially since you want to cheat if you can.
I may do some turns towards a warrior than switch to a worker or whatever so If I see an approaching unit I can switch back to the warrior.

[Hauptman]

Also depends greatly on civ density. Ive had maps where there were zero civs to contend with over the land, in those cases faster city generation will only hamper you. If you find yourself alone (on an island, blocked by impassible mountains etc.) makes for the perfect civil service push and/or wonder whoring from a single city for a bit.

Also certain civs can change yer routine. Early rush UUs lend to not building any settlers.

[wertyu70]

Thank you all for your answers.
I made several "starting tests" with different approach (my standard approach aka Whip settler at size 4, settler as soon as possible, settler at size 5) and I didn't find many differences in the results.

So far I'm playing a game as Zara and I'm doing pretty well (I need to face Monty),
as soon as this game is over I'll go back to a William game where I was defeated
by Toku after I had a nice start (But I forget to build enough units...).

[Ming]

On a world where space is at a premium, I usually can't wait for my city to get to size 4 or 5 to start a settler. The chances are high that a close neighbor will try to pin me in or take the best city locations/strategic resources before I can.

As Hauptman suggests, on a world where you don't have to race to take territory, I've found myself waiting a little longer to kick out those settlers.

MP games are an entirely different story

[Blaupanzer]

MP games are an entirely different story

No doubt. How do you (or MP players in general if your strategies are secret) decide how many cities to build using settlers and how quickly to settle them on MP? Are the settlement issues (resources, civic traits, etc) the same as SP but just more muscular in terms of units? Or do the issues change? Do MP games use barbarians or turn them off? Do you use civs controlled by the AI only when a bit short on players? Do you always use a GAIA-style map? Does your group ever play "choose civs," or is it random for everyone everytime?

While effectivily all are permanently at war with all from the start, is that how you play? If so, the scout question is easy. If you work as allies occasionaly against others then not so much.

[Ming]

Our games are pretty standard. We play single land mass games (size depending on the number of players) and usually throw in at least a few AI's in case somebody gets knocked out early... they can pick up one of the AI's and still have some fun and not be done for the night. We usually play random civs, and don't select the always at war option. We also don't allow tech trading or vassels. Plus, we play with Barbs, events and villages to keep things a little more random.

You do have allies. However, past experiences usually dictate just how much you trust anybody

How people play in terms of cities varies. If you have a weak neighbor, or have a good early rush UU, or get a quick resource, you may limit the number of early cities and just rush units, then expand by conquest. Taking another Civ's capital is usually juicy, and better than most second city locations. Pluse it gives you more room to grow since there is one less civ on your border.

If I'm not in early rush mode, I like to get at least 4 or 5 cities as quickly as possible. (that 6th city and sometimes the 5th, can get terribly expensive) I want to create a good border, cover strategic resources, and create a specialist city or two... military, money, science, whatever.

Some people stick with slower growth, build a wonder or two, and then expand like crazy.

People are different, and each situation is different. Like always, play to the land, civ, and opponents.

[rah]

Cover resources, set a border. then build units, build more units, then repeat.
3 cities min, up to 5 or 6 early since they're expensive. Get you economy in order and find your weakest neighbor.

[Blaupanzer]

Do you keep the demographic screens and espionage in place? I suspect that would help you pick that weakest one.

[rah]

Yes. Some people really get into the esp aspect while others seem to totally ignore it.
Having a spy watching your opponents SOD is really big, yet some don't prioritize alpha.

But I'll admit sometimes weakest doesn't equate to juiciest. But those that concentrate on the early wonders are usually the top contenders.

[Ming]

Yeah, If I look at the top 5 city screen, and i see one of my neighbors has REALLY been wonder whoring, I don't care if he's the stronger one. He becomes a prime target. Nothing worse than destroying a civ, and not getting a single good city out of it.

[trev]

Yeah, If I look at the top 5 city screen, and i see one of my neighbors has REALLY been wonder whoring, I don't care if he's the stronger one. He becomes a prime target. Nothing worse than destroying a civ, and not getting a single good city out of it.

I wonder whore where I can, but rarely get crushed the way you say, nothing wrong with wonderwhoring if your army is up to scratch. I watch the demographic screen and graphs closely in mp, aiming to match the hammer production of the top civs in particular and also not let my neighbours get far ahead on power. If I can match hammer production or better I know I can win, in the long term that is what gives you the game, because it get you a big enough army while being able to pick and choose wonders and economic buildings for your civ. Gold I care far less about these days, that can be caught on on later, hammers and food less easy to catch up on, unless you can go a-conquering, hard to do without hammers.

[brandonjm8]

if you can get forge right away before everyone and especially with an industrial leader, you have a huge advantage right away, the question is: do you build an army and take the time to build it then advance while stiffiling(?) your science and economy or do you take that advantage to build infrustructure and become the science leader then wait for rilfleman/cavalry then build up and conquer? me personally, only if im near or have an aggressive AI next to me thats about to attack will i build up early on, with lower units you need more of them compared to moderner units which you wont need so much plus your economy with banks and such will have an easier time supporting your advancing army while maintaining a somewhat good science rate and the fact your leading in production, i'll wait for better units if possible.

[Ming]

I wonder whore where I can, but rarely get crushed the way you say, nothing wrong with wonderwhoring if your army is up to scratch.

True enough... In MP, past experience with players is always something to keep in mind. You aren't known for leaving your cities wide open as you wonder whore. Some other MP players, and the AI, usually don't keep such an even balance and are easy targets

[rah]

Yes, reputation is important in MP. If you're known to frequently early rush, your neighbors may overreact to discovering that you're close. It's always good to keep them guessing.

[Ming]

True enough... if I start next to "certain" MP players, I have a tendency to build more units than normal, preparing for the expected

On the other hand, because I do that, "certain" players look for easier targets...