Build city or build roads?

[MyOlde]

Perhaps this is one of those "6 of one, half dozen of the other" choices:

I tend to get my settlers out laying down the cities and THEN coming up with more settlers to make the road connections. Does anyone lay down the roads as you move your settlers out and, if so, what are the advantages? Is it not better to get those cities down and growing/producing?

[Andromeda]

I believe in rapid expansion in the early game, and production of many cities. So there are two production streams ; Settlers to build cities, and Phalanxes to garrison them.

But I often make the Settlers build their own road en route to the pre-determined city site. Then, just when they get there, the Phalanx is zipping up the road behind them.

And, not far behind the Phalanx, is the Settler for the next city !

[My Wife Hates CIV]

This is a good question. This is also why rivers are so important early on. In fact, if your lucky and find a good size river system early, you've basicly won over everyone who does not have a river system. By river system I mean a river that can handle say 6 - 10 cities. Instand roads, trade and defense. With colossos and republic, others dont stand a chance. But, this is LUCK. dont let anyone tell you how *great* of a player they are.

Roads. I now build roads before expanding. Why? Because I still get the snot beat out of me if I expand. I've had better luck building roads between 3 to 4 cities before I expand further. You get trade (which is everything), plus increased movement to move defense units between cities (you dont need many to cover this many cities). IMHO 4 cities with good roads is better than 8 cities with no roads.
[This message has been edited by My Wife Hates CIV (edited January 31, 2000).]

[War4ever]

MWHC.... only if the 4 cities have trade specials .... but the importance of roads cannot be understated..... a rule of thumb i picked up here at apolyton in a thread i once lurked in many months ago before i registered..... build settler... he builds one road to the new city and then builds a new city two tiles away... or something like that.... the idea was one road per settler as you expand.... well it works but i suggest using this strat after the first four cities are down..... got to get those cities down

------------------
I am a civ addict. ARE U 2??????


icq 30200920

[Traianvs]

i usually build city, settler, with that settler u build another city etc...i use the wandering nomads-settlers and the second settler u start with to build roads...but this strategy never works because my cities go into unrest even before the settler is built, and i can't lower my tax and science rates, so this is why i'm pretty much ****ed up in normal games(in deity éh)...so this is why i always play scenarios! hehe..

------------------
ThermiteB(that's me!) RLZ like HELL!!!!!!!!!!

[VetLegion]

One of the great questions
I still wonder about it.

Here is what I do:
I never make a point of building a road prior to every city. If I need Monarchy, I will put a worker on ocean, and four turns you can loose roadbuilding is too much for me.

Since there is a limited number of cities you can build AND control, I build cities until I hit a limit of 6 and 12 cities early in the game. Roads come after 6, when I build some garrisons, and after 12, when I go for HG.

Basicly I build roads when new cities mean disorder.

However, huts sometimes spoil my plans

[Aurelius]

Does anyone else starting with two none settlers build one city keeping the other settler as a land improver? I like the keep one none settler strategy. But I wouldn't swear on it!

AU

[War4ever]

Aurelius thats a great strategy especially if you find nomads or and advanced tribe..... saves wasting the none settler... actually i guess a tribe is better in the beginning.....

[Carolus Rex]

I found cities with the early settlers. Laying down roads first has two major benefits, increased trade and easier defense.

But the increased trade from roaded grassland or plains is almost always less than the trade generated from a second city (two new squares being worked). And that early neither barbs nor humans are a serious threat, so rapid movement between your cities is less important IMHO.

My headache is when to stop founding cities and start connecting them. With lots of rivers around I wait longer to road.

Ideas?

Carolus

[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited January 31, 2000).]

[tobyr]

In the ToT fantasy game, I believe it is even more important to found cities quickly rather than building roads and making early city improvements. The reasons are:
- Most of the tribes have no trouble building cities close together on adjacent maps, so some ciites are quite close (for purposes of defense, settler management and trade) without benefit of roads.
- There are more units that move multiple squares early in the game, and they do not need roads so much.
- A few of those all important sorcerors (which do not need roads and can be built early in the game) can cover, defend and patrol a large network of cities six squares apart.
- toby


------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[Ming]

As much as I would like to keep the second non settler you get for improvements, I never do that in MP. Against just the AI, no problem. But in MP, you can't afford not to expand as quick as possible

[arii]

I like to build roads early, but only in the direction I plan to expand and on plains. This allows me to increas the flow of settlers in that direction. Building roads on forest, hill,... is just not worth it early in the game.

[Campo]

quote: Originally posted by Aurelius on 01-31-2000 10:53 PM Does anyone else starting with two none settlers build one city keeping the other settler as a land improver? I like the keep one none settler strategy. AU

This appeals to me too, and I used to do it, but I think it's not optimal. When I first started reading this forum there was a long thread about this issue. Someone -- I think it was Adam Smith but am not sure -- did a detailed analysis showing that it's more efficient to use the second settler to found a city. Even though you're giving up a NONE settler, it's worth it because you get so much extra benefit from the early second city. The proof was pretty compelling, so that's what I do now.

If I find a NONE settler in a hut after I have several cities established, then I use that one for general improvements. (And I absolutely HATE it when an AI civ kills my NONE settler.)

[Aurelius]

Hey Campo,

The times I use the second none settler for a second city is when I find a river system to connect the first two cities or when there is plenty of food. But as War4ever mentioned, sometimes it helps to wander for huts and eliminate darkspace and make first contact.

I also tend to form my first city very early...I'm wondering about this strategy given my recent stint with OCC.

But I still like the road before city idea and an irrigated Buffalo. Which reminds me, aren't you NEasterners doin' a lot of angels in the snow this year--especially in the vicinity off that lake.

And Ming,

I seem to remember a thread that talked about optimal distances to form a new city from an existing city in multiplayer during early expansion. In SP, I usually don't like to intersect city resource tiles but a collection of supercities may not be wise in mp given the dishonorable nature of human AI's ....

AU

[Steve Clark]

Another great question. For me, using settlers to build roads in the early game just takes way too much time. Only when I get NONE settlers do I build roads. Also, since I like to build cities along rivers, building roads do not provide that much a benefit because a settler can't build roads on river squares. My early game strategy has always been to 1) get to Monarchy, 2) build the defenses, and 3) get to 11-12 cities. That usually ensures a good lead into the mid-game.