Announcement

**Scouse Gits** · February 12, 2001, 14:15

Sorry don't play perfectionist - for what it's worth I have found both OCC and ICS give 'easy' wins at deity.
Keep taking the medicine - you will prosper!

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

**SlowThinker** · February 12, 2001, 16:17

quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark on 02-12-2001 12:43 PM
3. I need to figure out how to optimize use of that second settler, so i dont fall behind early.

What do you do with the second settler?

**SandMonkey** · February 12, 2001, 16:28

"What do you do with the second settler?"

Wasn't it decided that you should build a city right away? I thought there was a study done and it showed it was more beneficial throughout the game. Maybe build a road or two if desparately needed (i.e. no rivers or trade specials).

**Scouse Gits** · February 12, 2001, 17:10

OCC - Infrastructure
ICS - build city
SSC - (with high production special) hold off until city produces 'free' Settler at size 1 and then when the city reaches size 2 'b' a Settler back in to reach size 3 (and celebration) fastest.

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

**Ribannah** · February 12, 2001, 18:22

quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 02-12-2001 01:15 PM
Sorry don't play perfectionist - for what it's worth I have found both OCC and ICS give 'easy' wins at deity.
Keep taking the medicine - you will prosper!

As a perfectionist you can win just as easily - but you have to be consistent. Nothing wrong with early Republic either, you will just have to time the Love days right. And don't forget to build those trade routes

I generally keep my second NONE Settlers til the end of the game, unless I can build two non-overlapping cities on river squares.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

**geofelt** · February 12, 2001, 19:04

Some suggestions:
Use the second settler to found a city asap. Go for monarchy first. Make hanging gardens your first wonder and keep building small cities. On your first encounter with a civ, give them what they ask to get peace. Build up some gold and bribe cities if war is forced upon you.

**Chaos Warrior** · February 12, 2001, 19:07

after a few weeks (even only days) of playing on Deity, you'll find it's not too hard. but after playing it for years and then being challenged by EyesOfNight and forced to play on King, you'll notice how hard King actually is when you'reused to Deity!

**Ming** · February 12, 2001, 20:29

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-12-2001 05:22 PM
I generally keep my second NONE Settlers til the end of the game, unless I can build two non-overlapping cities on river squares.

You have to build that second city as soon as you can.
Growth of cities is exponential in nature. You are cutting your ability to grow by half at the wrong time of the game

**Ribannah** · February 12, 2001, 21:00

Ming, I have to disagree.

First of all, the number of turns you lose is already less than the number of turns to build that first supported Settlers (since you do a bit of growing, taxing and research while you're at it). Whether the growth path is exponential or not (it isn't, because distances increase) is irrelevant, unless you play on a tiny map and are fighting for room from the start.

But it will be less because of the following:

[1] At some point you will hit the (first, or maybe second in ICS) unhappiness mark and you'll have to consolidate a bit;
[2] So maybe you'll be a little behind at first, this gives you cheaper research and easier diplomatic relations. Chances are that you can simply trade for that one tech you still missed, or get it as a gift;
[3] Those NONE Settlers will keep building roads & stuff, they won't get tired even after 6000 years!

The above three factors also strengthen each other.
In the end you may even have won turns. Much depends on the terrain, luck from huts, the type of game you play
(ICS, Perfectionist, SSC and obviously OCC), if you start on aan island or a large continent, etc. If you can build those first supported Settlers at size 1, you almost have your NONE Settlers for free.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

**Ming** · February 12, 2001, 21:28

If you are playing against the AI, your comments make sense. I don't agree with them, but against the AI, fast expansion isn't really a must.

However, in MP, you will find your self at a distinct disadvantge that will be difficult to overcome... no matter what size world is being used

**SlowThinker** · February 12, 2001, 21:28

quote:

<font size=1>Originally posted by Ming on 02-12-2001 07:29 PM</font>
You are cutting your ability to grow by half at the wrong time of the game

BTW, Did anybody try to disband the second settler in deity immediately?

quote:

<font size=1>Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-12-2001 08:00 PM</font>
...the growth path is exponential or not (it isn't, because distances increase)...

It is sure the exponent of such function varies depending on the time. I am not sure if it decreases or increases.
Let's compare evolution of one-settler game and two-settlers game. The question is: How will develop the ratio (power of 1-settler civ)/(power of 2-settlers civ)?
We can imagine isolated developement of both halves of the civ:

Reasons that suit for the decrease of exponent are:
a) unchanged space (i.e. halved for each half of civ),
b) unhappines due to number of cities (if I have understood Ribannah well then it is an equivalent to her point [1] ), corruption, waste,pollution

Reasons that suit for the increase of exponent are:
c) war conditions (small loss may cause a big problem)
d) doubled research and the effect of WoWs (i. e. doubled for each half of civ)
e) a teamwork between both halves of civ
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 13, 2001).]

**War4ever** · February 13, 2001, 00:19

I will second ming here..... IN MP if you can pump out a settler from your cap before size two it is well worth it.... especially if you establish your second city with you other none settler just as you do this.... plopping down a third right away is like receiving a nomad from a hut or finding an advanced tribe...... all three of these factors will allow you to expand at a far greater rate.... the quicker your initial cities are down, the quicker you gain more ....

In an MP game last night.... i pumped out nine cities in record time...... no one came close to catching me..... it was a joke.... with a lead like that , the game was over....

production IMO can be far more beneficial than trade early on especially when establishing cities is a priority.

Trade always comes later in the game......first and foremost is getting those cities maxed out and then some.... besides , your should have each city using a settler for roads and improvements etc.....

Great MP ers never look a gift horse in the mouth, not the ones i play anyways.... If i wander too long, almost certainly i am in trouble..... people are that good at this game now that expoenential growth is a must as is an early govt change.....

The debate over monarchy and republic is long and tired..... both have benefits... and used right both are just as powerfull.....

give me an extra settler at the beginning (ie a third, or a tribe) and 9/10 times your finished unless you can match it somehow.... this is enhanced significantly on double production small worlds where citie sites are at a premium

**SlowThinker** · February 13, 2001, 02:22

Ribannah,
I will suggest another way of development for a comparison:

if I understand well you suppose first settler always builds immediately a city and then produces a settler.
Let the second settler build a granary first. Slow down a food production when the city reaches size 2 and accelerate a shield production so that granary is built simultaneously with a settler in the first city (in order to be able to compare).

Now we can compare (A: a non-settler game, B: a granary game):
A: you gain max. 1-2 food and 1 shield per day. If a settler has set his home city properly then you gain nothing. Moreover, one food is not a relevant, essential is the part of food storage the food represents: one food will represent a smaller part of the food storage in the future.
B: you gain 1, more like 2 food per turn immediately and much more in the future. One food will represent always a relatively big part of the food storage (you will produce settlers here and keep the size of this city low). You lose one gold per day.
I think this is much better for B.

A: you gain some revealed terrain and irrigated/mined/roaded squares (effectivity depends on type of city squares very much; I agree that possibility to "build two non-overlapping cities on river squares" decreases effectivity of irr./min./roads).
B: you gain practically two squares besides.
I think this may be better for A, but not so much.
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 13, 2001).]

**Scouse Gits** · February 13, 2001, 06:03

I would build another city quickly with Settler #2.
If you already have a NON on your starting continent you eliminate your chances of a nomad from a village.

-----------

SG(2)

Announcement

damn, deity is hard

damn, deity is hard

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment