In the beginning: How many settlers?

[ramses II.]

In the beginning, during the pre-monarchy and monarchy phase, I have at least one settler per city for roadbuilding and irrigation and mining purposes.
Some German players say that's a waste - but my experiences are very good with this.
The high food cities (2x irrigated wheat or more) are my settler breeding farms are good for expansion, the high production cities are good for building caravans and sometimes a diplo (for barb bribing) or a trireme.
Normally I manage to build some ancient wonders as HG, MP, GB (won't let it to the AI, I don't put the focus on it), Colossus (no problem if a neighbour civ gets it
Then Mike's, Bach's, Leonardo's, Adam Smith's, Magellan's - (for I need not a great army, I let the AI build STWA, and the Eiffel Tower, too - but the rest of the wonders is mine!)
Having 20 or more cities, I keep up to three of my core cities building wonders.
So back to the thread. Let's speak about the first 3 milleniums.
One settler per city (sometimes 2) - how many do you use?
I always try to make my strats better.
I must say that most of my games end in an eternal war with all the other civs (except, maybe 1 or 2 allies) and that I always go to AC - with a population between 400 and 800 million people (when I decide the spy war and power democracy way).

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Before Monarchy, why irrigate? Better to build another city, or a road for the trade and defense utility. Your cities can't be growing THAT fast to need irrigation. Besides, before Monarchy, supporting more than 1 settler from a city will probably create a food or support deficit.

I try to keep a number of settlers around, but there's no hard and fast rule. If I have a big map and get HG early, I crank out settlers nonstop to stake out territory, and then crank out more settlers to fill in the infrastructure.

I've had games where I had 40 cities and 40 settlers/engineers, and others where I had 40 cities and 10 engineers.

Also, don't keep your core cities building wonders... have them build caravans. IMO.

[ramses II.]

In another thread I started where I explained the benefits of irrigating buffaloes (and one of the SG's of irrigating plains and wheat and oasis and so on). But the first years I build roads and mine and grab for hidden specials.
If you build caravans in all your cities, you waste a certain amount of shields - and normally I'm short of gold in the beginning - no money for incremental buying.

[War4ever]

i get my first five cities down ASAP.....unless bad huts delay the innevitable approach to monarchy, i just pump out more sets which will road for future caravans, road specials, and/or do a mine or two if necessary. i like to have them positioned for immediate building once i am in a monarchy.

If monarchy is going to take awhile to get to b/c of bad hut luck, then i may build more than one warrior per city and i will build more than five cities so long as i have a defender when i plop them down to quell the martial law problems which spring up in despotism.

of course once you get over 708 ciites one warrior isnt' enough, and two are needed in most ciites. an units which aren't four legged will come back to the empires current out fringes to prevent barbs from raping me.

if i should find tribes/nomads i will send any new troops from huts to those cities for protection from the ai and of course barbs.

terrain dictates alot and so do the huts, but for the most part i can generally have five cities and 2-3 sets out by the time i scoop up monarchy (2450-2850).

IMO, its key to plop down as many cities in the heart of your empire to take advantage of as many science beakers as possible while a despot

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by ramses II.
Some German players say that's a waste - but my experiences are very good with this.

I agree with them. Build roads only.

(For next purposes I will define 1resource=1food(F)=1shield(S)=2trade(T).)

Compare 2 possibilities:
Possibility 1: Build a settler and found a new city:
input: 40 S (settler), 20 F (so that the former city is not disbanded), 10-20 S (units - defense,martial law). Total input: 80 resources.
output: Usually the neat (you spend 2 food per turn) output from a 1-sized city is about 4-5 resources per turn.
So you invest 80 resources and you produce 4 resources per turn: in 20 turns you will have a new settler, then you will need say 4 turns to reach the square for the new city: you invested 1$ and after 22 (=20+4/2 - your first city produces new things these 4 turns) turns it was doubled into 2$.

Possibility 2: Delay a new city and Irrigate
Irrigating lasts 5 turns, but usually you need some time to get on the sqaure and from there, so say 6 turns.
input:
max. 1 S + 1 F (settler support) per turn, but sometimes settler has no shield support or food goes from a city that don't need food. So say 1 resource per turn. Also a settler transformed into a city would produce those 4-5 resources per turn.
So say input is 5.5 resources per turn, total input is 33 resources.
output:1 resource per turn.
So you invested 1$ and after 33 turns it was doubled into 2$.

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Before Monarchy, why irrigate?

I agree. In deity 1 shield (that is invested into founding of a new city)(or 2 gold used for a rushbuy) is much more effective than 1 food. I start to irrigate only for WLTxD needs under Republic.
But in chieftain it needn't be true. In other words the chieftain level is better than deity: it is better balanced .

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Also, don't keep your core cities building wonders... have them build caravans. IMO

Do you want to say it is better to build a wonder in one turn from caravans? I agree. No shield waste and opponents don't know your plans.

[Scouse Gits]

Ramses - its time for you to join one of our succession games!!!!

The SGs remarkably sober - well nearly

[SCG]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Ramses - its time for you to join one of our succession games!!!!

or at least read some of them, but you more easily see the effects of the strategy by doing. Our Nothin' Fancy Sxn Game (v 2.42 only) has gotten off to a slow start, but seems to be following an ICS strategy of many setters atm, so may be of interest. most of the rest of them seem to be in MGE format, and play with various handicaps to challenge people

[ramses II.]

@SG(?)

I read all the sxn game threads.
Will join one of them soon.

[DrSpike]

If you play SP you wont notice the difference between the various approaches, because there isn't a great deal in it. But there is something in it however, and in MP you see that. It is of critical importance not to stem your initial exapnsion for the sake of early (and costly in terms of turns) improvements. I'm with War.....5 cities, have a bunch more settlers, some improvements now, hello monarchy, and finally more cities.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I recall the thread about irrigating bison, and my objections to that approach

My point, IIRC, was based on the resource square usage theory. If you irrigate the bison, the city will grow faster - which you don't want in despotism, really. You want to max food at size 1, and max shields at size 2.

At size 2, you don't really WANT a food surplus, because if the city grows to size 3, you'll have unrest. Better to found another city with the settler, or build a road for your mobile defence (and the arrow, incidentally). IMO.

[ramses II.]

@styom
I want the city grow faster - more production, more trade, more science -> earlier monarchy.
And if there's a trade special (e.g. silk) I'll put the 2nd or 3rd citizen to work on it - delayed happiness problems.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

If you want more growth (production, trade, science) - all the more reason to found a city with the settler instead of irrigating. The new city will produce twice as much as an extra pop point on an existing city.

[rah]

Growth over irrigating early. Hands down. The only exception for me is when the turn my settler is built, the barbs show up in the area where I was going to send him. Since he may have to stand around for a few turns, I may road or irrigate while he waits.

RAH

[Bloody Monk]

RamsesII,

I think your ideas are fine, just not so perfected in terms of "time".

The key to refining one's game revolves around logistics and efficiency. Sequence is important.

Think of this example. Your army (real world) will be conducting operations in the mountains in deep winter. They will need white, winter-weight clothing--then. If you fill up the supply chain with these goods before they are needed it will mean something else will not get done--now.

Eventually, those tiles will need to be irragated; but, if you do it too soon, you give up things that are very important now. It's a concept best expressed in Economics as opportunity cost. For the extra food that you do not need now, you give up roads and new cities that are needed now.

For everything to click with highest efficiency, your logistics have to be in the proper sequence. On time, in time, at the right time.

Well, that's my view. But, if your way is enjoyable for you it will certainly 'work'. Have fun!!

Monk

[ramses II.]

Before I settle down, I build 1 or 2 roads, if there's no special like whale or pheasant. Is that delay ok?