BC 3700 - 2950 (Worker, Build and Tile-Working Orders)

[BigFurryMonster]

Trip asked me:

Does the building of the settler and our food build match up perfectly?

I ran some calculations to check whether that is the case.

To give you the answer straight away: yes - we can have a settler ready in 2950 BC.

This is the worker, tile and build plan. Note that no granaries are built yet, so we can discuss that subject for a little while longer.

3750
We start building our second Warrior.

3700
Road is finished. Worker moves to the river grassland tile N of Invictus.

3650
Start building road.

3600
Road finished.

3550
Move Worker to bonus grassland tile.
Warrior finished. Start building Spearman.

3500
Start building a mine.

3450
City grows to size 2. Culture expands. We'll work the river-bordered grassland tile, which yields 2 commerce due to the road and the river, until our second mine is finished.

3400
Mine finished. City works (mined) bonus grassland tile.

3350
Worker continues to build a road in the same tile.

3250
Spearman ready. Start building Settler. The city now looks like this:
Invictus (6)
Settler (6)

2950
City grows to size 3, but in the same turn builds a Settler and drops back to size 1 again.

Then it's either building more units or a granary*. I'll leave this open for now!

* barracks and switch later if we do not have pottery yet.

[ixnay]

Nice work. I would probably get bored and wander off to do other things if I tried to plan out something like this.

[Zero]

now next topic is where to settle this bad boy, but lets not get too far ahead of ourselves.

[punkbass2000]

It suddenly occurred to me that we must remember not to build a settler until the turn it completes, in order to increase chances of spawning a settler from a hut. This is a general comment, not specific to this post .

[BigFurryMonster]

True - we must have as few active and in-build-queue settlers as we can. In order to achieve this, we could build barracks and then switch to settler at the right moment (i.e. 3000 BC). The Settler will then be active for a few turns (until it founds a city), in which we should not open any goody hut doors...

[Zero]

well, it could still be a tech if random seed is not on..

[Jon Shafer]

We shouldn't waste any turns by building barracks with surplus shields that we could be using for something else. Of course, this is just the whinings of the slave-driver on top.

[BigFurryMonster]

No need to waste any shields. Just switch to barracks and switch back to settler after entering the hut. As this can be done in the same turn, we won't waste anything.
The 50% production loss was in Civ2, remember?


edit: we'll start with building a settler, of course.

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, all I'm saying is that I don't want any shield wastage (i.e. switching from barracks too late and losing shields, etc.).

[Zero]

Will building order be affected in anyway due to ther current NDE event?

[BigFurryMonster]

I don't think it will affect Worker Morale :-)

[BigFurryMonster]

Just want to point out that the above plan is still valid, even with the ND situation. I think our spearman will be completed 1 turn earlier than planned, but we'll make up for that by working the roaded square (+2 commerce) for one turn during the next few turns somewhere.

We'll need to decide on the city location, to see where we must build a road to with the worker.

[Jon Shafer]

We should settle 'our' spot as agreed to with our 'treaty'.

We must secure that area as early as we can.

[BigFurryMonster]

OK - but should we focus on building a road to that location, or should we keep the worker close to Invictus, where it will be safer and can start to prepare the city spot for the 3rd city?

[punkbass2000]

I say start up a road. If they're able to invade soon enough to make where that worker is in the next couple turns matter, then we're f*cked anyway.