Announcement

**Rufus T. Firefly** · February 13, 2001, 06:37

If you're playing perfectionist, builing Wonders may be another thing that affects your decision. Especially at Diety, I want the Gardens, and I always want the Colossus for an SSC. I find I have to build them at the same time, in my first two cities, since the AI makes the Gardens a high priority and the Colossus a medium one (and the Colossus is also the "consolation prize" it often goes for when it misses the more-desired Gardens and Pyramids). If I keep my second NON working, I find it nearly impossible to get both wonders (though, of course, this could also be because I'm not very good. ). So the sooner I get two cities down, the sooner I can kick out four more settlers, found four more cities, and then get started on two wonders while continuing to expand.

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder
[This message has been edited by Rufus T. Firefly (edited February 13, 2001).]

**Ribannah** · February 13, 2001, 06:38

Guys, all of you are still overlooking the fact that keeping the second NONE Settlers doesn't mean you lose fast expansion. All you lose is a few turns - temporarily and compensated.

On several occasions I've played the same map with both approaches and more often than not the outcome was in favour of keeping the NONE Settlers.

SlowThinker, long ago I did built granaries all the time, but I've given that up because it simply doesn't
pay. If I play Monarchy, and can't get the Pyramids, I built a granary in just a couple of cities that have the right terrain mix to produce settlers after settlers. In Republic, Love days do most of the growing.

War4Ever, if you produce Settlers at size 1 AFTER your second NONE Settlers founded, your capital WILL be disbanded.

Ming, in MP it sure is a little different - though still only if contact is to be expected early on. But the thread is about SP.

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

**Ribannah** · February 13, 2001, 06:54

quote:

<font size=1>Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-12-2001 08:28 PM</font>
BTW, Did anybody try to disband the second settler in deity immediately?

Arrrrghhh!!
In OCC games the question of JOINING immediately (or after the city hits size 2) can come up, but so far it has never been efficient.

quote:

It is sure the exponent of such function varies depending on the time. I am not sure if it decreases or increases.

The expansion is not exponential at all. If only your outer cities produce settlers for new villages, it's quadratic (well, slightly above in the beginning) - until you hit the shoreline, that is, and not counting unhappiness marks, corruption, waste, terrain and meeting other tribes.

If your inner cities keep producing settlers for new foundings as well it's better than quadratic, but still not exponential, because those settlers will have to travel ever longer to reach their destination.

Whether an earlier contact with other tribes is beneficial or not depends on the situation. It can just as well be your downfall

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

[This message has been edited by Ribannah (edited February 13, 2001).]

**Martin Schmidt** · February 13, 2001, 11:39

quote :
'Guys, all of you are still overlooking the fact that keeping the second NONE Settlers doesn't mean you lose fast expansion.
All you lose is a few turns - temporarily and compensated.'

And that turns are so important , if you are some turns (i think that will be at least thirteen) behind ,well then the important wonders are build by your enemies first and all you have to compensate is a Settler, not very much .
In fact i think the additional Settler compensates almost nothing.I try to use special fields (wals prefered) and forest at the beginning anyway to get a maximum shield production so terraforming is not necessary anyway so early in most games, this depends on the landscape a bit though.

**Ribannah** · February 13, 2001, 12:11

My NONE Settlers can at least prepare a road to the spot for my next city, if they have nothing better to do (like irrigating the wheat or mining the wine). This alone already reduces your lead from 13 to 10 turns. Meanwhile, my capital has some food accumulated and I will have researched Alphabet and possibly Code of Laws. And my NONE Settlers are still there, paving the road to the next city tile, or maybe tipping huts (seems neither of us made Warriors first ). My fourth city will come only 7 turns after your fourth, and I will have a new government at that time as well, which you didn't have when you started your fourth city. My cities are connected by roads, hence also have more trade, my capital is slightly larger, and I STILL HAVE my NONE Settlers.
I will typically catch up with you around the time city 10 is founded. I will have just as many cities, lots of roads, more techs, and I will still have my NONE Settlers

So the only question is, are you significantly safer than me during the finite era that your Empire is larger. Again remember that I have roads ....

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

**East Street Trader** · February 13, 2001, 12:40

I think (for the perfectionist) the answer goes something like this.

If you can maintain a situation in the opening phase where you always have a settler in production ready to keep the expansion going, then you can afford to keep the none settler carrying out improvements.

But if, by reason of terrain or local events, you have to divert your efforts to producing units or infrastructure and the rate of expansion is threatened, then the "none" settler must found.

Another small point in this debate concerns nomads. If the result of the first couple of huts gets your exploring off to a good start and if you think that you are probably on a decent sized landmass then that should encourage you to found the second city. Before visiting Apolyton I always kept the "none" settler improving and I never got a nomads outcome when tipping a hut on my home continent. Since exposure to the received wisdom here I have often tried using the second settler to found and on those occasions I sometimes do subsequently get a nomads outcome. (I conclude that the one "none" settler per landmass hypothesis is sound".) This may sometimes tip the scales in favour of founding a second city.

edit: Just noticed SG2 had already made the nomads point earlier in the thread (must sort out those new glasses - I'll make an appointment straight after I pick up the hearing aid and the Viagra prescription).
[This message has been edited by East Street Trader (edited February 14, 2001).]

**Ribannah** · February 13, 2001, 15:05

quote:

Originally posted by Edward on 02-13-2001 12:52 PM
I've been known to accidentally found a city with him when I try the keep him around for unsupported infrastructure duties.

Yes, we have to stay alert at all times

The best terrain to find a new NONE Settlers unit is forest. So if you see huts in forests all around you, go ahead and found that second city. If the huts are on grassland or plains, you may even want to let them stand until they are within city limits.

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

**rah** · February 13, 2001, 15:25

In SP, probably doesn't matter, because nothing does.

IN MP, build quickly. You can always find/bribe another none settler, and as noted earlier and proved to my satisfaction, you eliminate the chance of finding one if you don't settle. If I lose my second none settler in MP, I have problems keeping up.

All the reasons I've seen supporting build apply, and one additional one. Surprise attacks by barbs or other civs. One unlucky break and "so long" none settler.
So the arguement that over time, holds no water. Getting to Monarchy faster is the key. Once in monarchy you can spit out tons of settlers twice as fast. It's amazing how much that extra 1 or 2 arrows early (compounded over time) can speed up researching.

RAH
I love playing people that don't settle their second settler. Can you say Pigeon?

**SlowThinker** · February 13, 2001, 16:17

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 05:38 AM
>BTW, Did anybody try to disband the second settler in deity immediately?
Arrrrghhh!!
In OCC games the question of JOINING immediately (or after the city hits size 2) can come up, but so far it has never been efficient.

I meant really disband, I consider it as a kind of challenge.

**SlowThinker** · February 13, 2001, 16:18

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 05:38 AM
If I play Monarchy, and can't get the Pyramids, I built a granary in just a couple of cities that have the right terrain mix to produce settlers after settlers.

If you play SP and you will head to granary you have a good chance you will get it. But you shouldn't play on weakness of the "AI". Theoretically, you have a small chance you will get the pyramids and it is not obvious it pays to wait for a settlers-specialized city so long.

**SlowThinker** · February 13, 2001, 16:19

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 05:38 AM
Guys, all of you are still overlooking the fact that keeping the second NONE Settlers doesn't mean you lose fast expansion. All you lose is a few turns - temporarily and compensated.

There are two possible theoretic views: preserving second settler causes
1) loss of a specific number of turns
2) loss of a part (1/2) of civ

IMHO it is not true
"Whether the growth path is exponential or not is irrelevant".
It is very important if your loss of a specific number of turns means loss of 1/2 (or 1/100 or 99/100) of civ in the middle game.

quote:

The expansion is not exponential at all

Any function may be considered as exponential if the exponent depends on variable "x": I am always right

quote:

If only your outer cities produce settlers for new villages, it's quadratic

Theoretically yes, but you disregard too much: for example, inner cities don't stop to grow.

quote:

Whether an earlier contact with other tribes is beneficial or not depends on the situation. It can just as well be your downfall

What do you answer to?

**SlowThinker** · February 13, 2001, 16:20

quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly on 02-13-2001 05:37 AM
If you're playing perfectionist, builing Wonders may be another thing that affects your decision.

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Schmidt on 02-13-2001 10:39 AM
well then the important wonders are build by your enemies first and all you have to compensate is a Settler, not very much

Yes, another reason that suit for the increase of exponent: that post was edited now.

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 05:38 AM
not counting corruption, waste,

Yes, I forgot that reasons that suit for the decrease of exponent: I have edited my post again.

Ribannah,

quote:

those settlers will have to travel ever longer to reach their destination....until you hit the shoreline, ....

I think all your "pros" are included in a) and b).

But you ignore all "cons":
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

(BTW, I think we are theoretic too much. In fact, "preserved settler" civilization is not halved (due to improved squares): number of shields, trade and food surplus (more accurately:food surplus/size of food storage) is significant; number of city squares isn't)

**SlowThinker** · February 13, 2001, 16:22

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 05:38 AM
I will typically catch up with you around the time city 10 is founded. I will have just as many cities, lots of roads, more techs, and I will still have my NONE Settlers...

IMHO you overestimate pros based on getting a non-unit. When city 10 is founded, then your non-settler is a grain of sand on the Sahara. The majority of pros of your approach are stored in improving squares in the beginning of the game. I repeat:
effectivity of preserving the second settler depends on type of squares around city 1 and 2 very much; If you gain much from irrigation/mining then it is a good strategy.

quote:

This reduces your lead from 13 to 10 turns. ...My fourth city will come only 7 turns ...

It looks that you have counted it well. Suspiciously well . Didn't you forgot any refinement of "don't preserve second settler" strategy?

**SlowThinker** · February 13, 2001, 16:28

This debate goes pretty well, but we should post faster

**Ribannah** · February 13, 2001, 20:17

quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-13-2001 03:28 PM
This debate goes pretty well, but we should post faster

LOL - the boards were closed for "maintenance". But you're doing quite well on your own!

Maybe an example will illustrate my points more clearly. Here is a sample double-log, albeit a slow one (mediocre terrain), but it should be illuminating. I can continue the game further if you wish.

NONE-SETTLERS FOUND
-3950 001=55/109 (no specials, but connects 2 oceans)
-3750 002=54/102 (near pheasant)
**********
-3700 001=Warriors
-3550 Alphabet, 002=Warriors
-3400 001=2
-3200 002=2
-2950 001=Settlers
-2900 Code of Laws, 001=2
-2850 002=Settlers
-2700 003=60/104 (near fish)
-2650 004=48/104 (near fish)
***** gold=0, income=0, techs=2, science=4 *****

NONE-SETTLERS WORK
-3950 001=55/109
-3700 001=Warriors
-3400 Alphabet, 001=2
-2950 001=Settlers
-2900 001=2, 002=54/102
***** 17 turns behind *****
-2850 001=rush:4
-2750 Code of Laws
-2700 002=Warriors
-2600 002=rush:4
-2350 001=Settlers, 002=2
-2300 001=2
-2250 001=rush:4
-2150 Writing
-2100 002=Settlers, 003=60/104 (1 road built on the way), hut=Archers
-2050 004=48/104
***** gold=22, income=2, techs=3, science=6, 12 turns behind, all cities connected *****

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

Announcement

damn, deity is hard

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment