Rapid Early expansion (REX) - An Essay

[Jon Shafer]

One thing I'm really not fond of is building Settlers in cities at size 3... you completely destroy any productive capability in a city with it only being able to work 1 tile. I'm a fan of huge cities, and usually try to keep my capital size 4-5 early in the game from the beginning onwards (with the help of a Granary). You simply gain so much with bigger cities that getting to one site a few turns earlier is hardly worth it.

[Arrian]

OK, I saw Thriller's approach and AFAIK Arrian has never been a REXer...so I have another question about the "state of the art." Is it wise to sneak an early worker in there (i.e. warrior-worker-warrior-settler) to get the road net growing to expedite the settlers and the rushers or defenders? In the unusual case of AU501 I went started with a worker (worker-warrior-warrior-settler) as many did to pop that hut with the culture boundary while I had no warriors in play.

Oh, I wouldn't say I'm not a REXer. I most certainly am. The only question nowadays for me is *how many*early granaries to build.

Sneaking in an early 2nd worker is a good idea if you have a very high-food capital, particularly if the site is food rich & shield poor to begin with. Wheat on floodplains, for example. When a city starts off at +4 or +5fpt right from turn one, it's a good idea to build an early 2nd worker (in fact, it might be the first build, more on that later). A single non-industrious worker has no hope of keeping up with the growth of a city with that type of food surplus. Growth is good, so long as new citizens are allocating to developed tiles!.

I have sometimes built a 2nd worker right off the bat, so to speak. I did it in AU501, as did many others, because there was a goodie hut next to the capital's cultural borders. If you have no military units, you cannot get angry barbs from a hut. So by building the worker, I maximized my chances of getting somethign juicy. I didn't get a settler like many others, unfortunately.

Like Trip, I like fairly big cities. Settlers at size3 is a no-no in my book, except for very specific cirumstances (OMG! The AI has a settler team moving towards those luxuries I must have! Quick, punch out a settler! Screw the barracks! Settler now!). Even if I'm not running a true settler pump (let's say a city with only a +2fpt surplus - a high shield/low food city), I will wait for the city to get up in pop a bit before building a settler. I will then mix in other things to get the pop back up before building another settler. Having core cities constantly at low population is bad for the empire: those cities have relatively low corruption, so they should be producing your shields and commerce. The outliers can be set to build 10-turn workers for a while (until the worker horde works its way out there and the city has a hope of building a courthouse in less than 80 turns).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

My second thought is simple: "What if the AI beats me to the fertile ground?" In that case having a bunch of small REXed cities might produce enough units to TAKE that city. Am I on the right track?

Yeah, archer rush.

-Arrian

[Mad Bomber]

A two page essay on REX and not a whisper on scoouting?considering scouting is a key to having a great REX, I consider this a serious omission.

[Arrian]

Heh, just link Aeson's scout thread.

Conquests changes things because of curraghs and the new contact rules, of course. Big changes, those.

Personally, my capital will normally put out 3-4 warriors before starting on a granary. 2-3 of those 3-4 will spend the next several thousand years scouting. One will do a shorter scouting run and come back home to garrison. The luxury slider is my friend.

My first coastal city (assuming it's not the capital) will probably build a curragh straight away.

If the capital is coastal, it might do 2 warriors, 1 curragh, granary.

If expansionist, I will probably build 2 scouts first, then a warrior, then granary.

-Arrian

[Hermann the Lombard]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, I wouldn't say I'm not a REXer. I most certainly am. The only question nowadays for me is *how many*early granaries to build.

Sorry to tar you with the wrong brush!

I have sometimes built a 2nd worker right off the bat, so to speak. I did it in AU501, as did many others, because there was a goodie hut next to the capital's cultural borders. . .I didn't get a settler like many others, unfortunately.

I did the same, including not getting a settler.

Conquests changes things because of curraghs and the new contact rules, of course. Big changes, those.

Personally, my capital will normally put out 3-4 warriors before starting on a granary. 2-3 of those 3-4 will spend the next several thousand years scouting. One will do a shorter scouting run and come back home to garrison. The luxury slider is my friend.

Curraghs I know and like (though I'm quite good at drowning sailors), but I'm not aware of the new contact rules (or do you mean the very late availability of trading maps and contacts)?

So, you're saying that your first settler comes *after* 3 or 4 settlers and a granary? I admire your willingness to invest in the future like that. Would you do so at a high level on a small map? I would think you'd be left with few city sites of your own, and little need to produce settlers.

[Jon Shafer]

I play on Emperor and above along with a standard (or smaller) map for all my games, and very rarely will I not follow the aforementioned Warrior-Warrior-Warrior-Granary-Settler scheme.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, the building of Settlers is about more than being able to build new city sites. Keep in mind every time you build a Settler you reduce the productive capability of the city you build it in. A Granary assists in 'recharging' that city faster, and maintain a higher population. Yes, you're probably missing out on a site that you could get better, but you're in a much better position to suck up sites past that first one you lose because of all the things a Granary helps you do.

Plus, a lot of the time if you have no bonus food resources you want to have your capital up to size 5 before building your first Settler (because of production issues). Even if you do have a food resource, you can do Granary and then pound out a couple Settlers right after that, and get into a nice 4-6 turn Settler routine with your capital, using the cities you spit out so often as places to build units/wonders/improvements/etc.

The preparation of that first city is the most important part of a REX. Your capital is your base from which everything must spring. This is, of course, excluding odd situations where your capital is a wasteland and a nearby site is a productive Eden. But of course, we're always speaking in generalizations, so that doesn't really apply.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Hmm...I just started a game which I might post with DAR to explore this a bit. Babylon, Monarch, Pangea (I think), decent starting site, but 4 tiles away over a mountain range is a fine spot for a settler pump plus a worker pump. My inclination is to spit out the first settler almost ASAP to get the settler pump established over there. Would anyone be interested in seeing this or in commenting on my play?

[Tolwyn]

I would but i'm no expert....

[Jon Shafer]

Sure, let's see what you can come up with.

[Aeson]

You can do 'wonders' with a higher food start and a Worker first. Then build a second city ASAP in good production and start the Pyramids. Can work this on Demigod, but Emperor you have a sure thing. You won't get as many cities, but once the Pyramids hit (~1200BC-1000BC depending on how good the second city site is) you can easily make it back to where you were without the Pyramids population wise by the end of the BC's.

This bypasses the problems where an AI builds the Pyramids on another landmass you can't get to, and allows you to go full bore expansion with all your other cities.

As for Granaries, they aren't necessary in a lot of cases. It's fun to use them, but it can also be fun and just as effective or moreso to go with a Settler flood or Pyramid opening. In games where I've had 100+ cities, 100+ Chariots/Horsemen to be upgraded to Knights, and 5000+ gold by ~300BC I never built a Granary.

Granaries are nicely balanced, give good results in some cases, but in others can be a drawback. The only thing you should 'always' do, is always adapt to the situation.

[DrSpike]

It often seems to me like beginners don't appreciate the power of granaries. Then they learn and overcompensate as intermediate players. If you play out most of your starts then openings where you shouldn't build a granary first are more common that many players think. I believe that part of the granary bias comes from the selection effect of the starts chosen to play, and is not an inherent imbalance in the granary per se.

[Jon Shafer]

One thing a Granary helps you do with a high-food capital is allowing you to get 2-turn growth and share some of the other food tiles with nearby cities.

Say, you get 2 wheat near your capital, you start on a river and are AGR. With both wheat irrigated you can generate 7 food per turn, giving 3-turn growth normally. However, you can also build a Granary there and give away one of the wheats to other cities, getting 5 FPT and 2-turn growth. No, a Granary isn't necessary with a food situation like this, but it gives you more flexibility with regards to nearby cities. Of course, this only really applies if you're an extreme micro-manager.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Originally posted by Trip
Of course, this only really applies if you're an extreme micro-manager.

You mean, like everyone on the forum??

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard
You mean, like everyone on the forum??

Except Krill...