Expansion Plan

[BigFurryMonster]

Ministry of the Interior: The Fastest Way to Expand

I did some research to determine when we should build warriors, when to build settlers, and when to build city improvements.

The Excel file showing this is on our server, in the 'analyses' folder. If you don't have Excel, you'll find some Excel screenshots, too.

Anyway, with "only" 2 bonus grasslands near our first city, we should not let our city grow beyond size 3 for too long - ideally, we'd like to build a settler the same turn the city grows to 3.

This is the plan:

Worker Actions
One worker can keep up for a while. It'll have to work on 2 or 3 tiles near every city:
first, build a mine, then give it a road. Also, road connections are needed to get settlers to city founding sites fast.

Tech
We'll need a Granary by Turn 30 (or so). This means we'll have to have Pottery by then. I think we can make it when we research Pottery after Iron Working, or when we trade for it, of course. The appearance of Iron on the map may help to determine city locations.

Turn 2 (BC 3950)
Found City One - start building Warrior One

Turn 6 (BC 3750)
City One builds Warrior One - start building Warrior Two

Turn 10 (BC 3550)
City One builds Warrior Two - start building Spearman

Turn 12 (BC 3450)
City One grows to size Two. Culture expands.

Turn 15 (BC 3300)
City One builds Spearman - start building Settler

Turn 22 (BC 2950)
City One builds Settler - start building Granary (or Barracks if not possible - then, switch later) (two turns of production will be "wasted" waiting for the city to grow; we could squeeze in another Warrior)

(settler walks one turn - if more are needed due to city site considerations, so be it)

Turn 23 (BC 2900)
Found City Two - start building Granary (or Barracks - see above)
(I assume that this city is 3 tiles away from our capital, so only the 5th shield gets corrupted)
(I also assume that this city also has 2 bonus grassland tiles - or better)

Turn 23 (BC 2900)
Found City Two - start building Granary (or Barracks - see above)
(this city should already have a mined tile nearby)

Turn 32 (BC 2510)
City One grows to size Two

Turn 33 (BC 2470)
City Two grows to size Two

Turn 38 (BC 2270)
City One builds Granary - start building Settler

Turn 41 (BC 2150)
City Two builds Granary - start building Settler

Turn 44 (BC 2030)
City One builds Settler - start building another Settler
(now it goes fast and the granaries start to pay off)

Turn 45 (BC 1990)
Found City Three - start building Granary

Turn 49 (BC 1830)
City Two builds Settler - start building another Settler

Turn 50 (BC 1790)
Found City Four - start building Spearman (or whatever)

- and so on.

Three Granaries will probably be enough on this map size. The first three cities will continue to serve as Settler factories.

[punkbass2000]

I really don't think we need to waste time building granaries. They're really not very useful.

[BigFurryMonster]

The building of granaries makes it possible to build settlers more quickly after turn 44. This will pay off, as shown in the above example: both city One and city Two build two settlers consecutively. Also, after that, growing from size One to size Three will only take 10 turns instead of 20 *.

The limiting factor in the beginning is not production, but food.



(Edited for correct number of turns)
(* Edited again: for growing from an empty food store at size 1 to size 3 (without granary) will take 20 turns; from a half-full food store at size 1 to size 3 (with a granary) will take 10 turns)

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
The building of granaries makes it possible to build settlers more quickly after turn 44. This will pay off, as shown in the above example: both city One and city Two build two settlers consecutively. Also, after that, growing from size One to size Three will only take 10 turns instead of 20.

The limiting factor in the beginning is not production, but food.

I recognize what granaries do, however, I find that it's typically much better to just build settlers straight. Granaries take time to build which could have been better spent on immediate settlers. Do not doubt the effect of doubling. Also, granaries cost money, and will be quite useless once the expansion phase is over. What are going to do, sell them off? Also, if we want to palace jump, then the building of the granary will have been even more of a waste of time.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
The building of granaries makes it possible to build settlers more quickly after turn 44. This will pay off, as shown in the above example: both city One and city Two build two settlers consecutively. Also, after that, growing from size One to size Three will only take 5 turns instead of 10.

The limiting factor in the beginning is not production, but food.



(Edited for correct number of turns)

And you think you can produce a settler every five turns?

[BigFurryMonster]

Sorry - I edited again:

I think the only limiting factor is Food: with granary: a size 1 city with half-full food store grows to size 3 in 10 turns; without granary, this takes 20 turns.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
Sorry - I edited again:

I think the only limiting factor is Food: with granary: a size 1 city with half-full food store grows to size 3 in 10 turns; without granary, this takes 20 turns.

What's wrong with 20 turns? Gives you time to build a nice spearman inbetween settlers. Expanding beyond our military does not seem to be a good idea to me.

[BigFurryMonster]

If we happen to have some space to expand into, better do it fast. You are correct in stating that we should watch out for poorly defended cities. I'm just determining the fastest way.

[Jon Shafer]

It really depends on the layout of the land. If we were in the middle of a jungle, granaries wouldn't help. However, we appear to have a lot of room to spread across, so getting across the grassland to all corners of our continent would benefit us a great amount.

After thinking about it, I think that building one granary will be the best policy. This will give us an edge in REX, while not consuming too many shields and commerce. Any more than 1 and granaries become a liability (unless you have the Pyramids).

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Trip
It really depends on the layout of the land. If we were in the middle of a jungle, granaries wouldn't help. However, we appear to have a lot of room to spread across, so getting across the grassland to all corners of our continent would benefit us a great amount.

After thinking about it, I think that building one granary will be the best policy. This will give us an edge in REX, while not consuming too many shields and commerce. Any more than 1 and granaries become a liability (unless you have the Pyramids).

I could agree to this argument (a single 'settler farm' might be ok), though I still insist it not be the capital, just in case.

[Jon Shafer]

We'll have to weigh the benefits between building one in our capital VS in our second city (where we build our next city will be very important). If it takes too much longer to build the granary in our 2nd city than it would in our 1st, then we lose the advantage of an early granary, and that concern of yours will hold true.

[BigFurryMonster]

Originally posted by Trip
It really depends on the layout of the land. If we were in the middle of a jungle, granaries wouldn't help. However, we appear to have a lot of room to spread across, so getting across the grassland to all corners of our continent would benefit us a great amount.

Yes - it all depends on the terrain. For this plan to work, cities One, Two and Three need at least 2 bonus grasslands (preferably 3, or a bonus resource). The next cities could be more production-orientated. Of course, if the Almighty Terrain Generator is not with us, we might have to think of a Plan B.

[CiverDan]

I dislike this plan because at the end of the sequence we have 4 cities, but only 2 warriors (presumably scouting) and one spear (fortified in the capital). This means we will have 3 undefended cities. If an opportunistic civ or barbs show up we would be in a lot of trouble. I am OK with the granary in the capital, it will allow faster growth of city, which is important for wonder building, and allows faster settler production for REX'ing. Putting the granary in the second city could create a military liabilty and will also contrain our scouting ability. I want more than 2 warriors scouting,

[Zero]

City that has granary CANT build wonders. They are settler farms. Wonders will cap the city's population in the middle of production, thus wasting surplus food.

We should alternate between units and settlers in granary cities. That way we can time the building of settlers better. Its usch as waste to have produced 100 shields and the city is reaching population of 5... Surely it will reach 6 before any wonder is built. If its unit, we can even switch to settler without wasting much shield if needed.

Also matter of building in 10 turns or 20 turn matters. Sooner you get cities popping, sooner they grow. Meaning sooner you have city with sizable population. Trust me it will add up.

[BigFurryMonster]

Originally posted by CiverDan
I dislike this plan because at the end of the sequence we have 4 cities, but only 2 warriors (presumably scouting) and one spear (fortified in the capital). This means we will have 3 undefended cities. If an opportunistic civ or barbs show up we would be in a lot of trouble.

When things get going, a city with a granary could output exactly 1 Warrior plus 1 Settler in 10 turns. True - they're only [edit] Warriors [/edit], but 10 turns is very fast. The plan above holds some risks, but if successful, could yield us a large advantage over the more conservative Civs.

I wonder if any human democratic team would opt to go to war that early. They'll probably need a 2/3 majority or something, which is something not easily achieved so early. Plus, they'd know to have made an enemy for the rest of the game.