Tweet
Devil's Advocate
Hmmm,
The majority of discussion seems valid but also seems to be based on one or two assumptions: Single Player Mode and/or Playing against the AI. If those assumptions are correct, then the stream of yuppie yesses above makes sense. Now as devil's advocate, let me propose a scenario/argument or two where this makes a bigger difference: Multi-Player and/or small maps.
Resources are key to winning the game, and arguably the most important resources are the strategic resources, followed by luxury, since they are so hard to replicate and so rare.
In rebuttal to the argument about securing resources early on, I have a point to make. Since no civ starts with iron, and only one starts with the wheel, it may take a while to know if you have the strategic resources you need in that capital city. Roads will help you get resources, but the fact of the matter is the best way to get a resource is to claim it FIRST and one of the best ways to claim it and defend it is to get a city to it and build right on top of it before anyone else can.....this favors pumping out the settler sooner and claiming as much land as possible as quick as possible before anyone else can.....cities 2 turns earlier will help with this. And the smaller the map, the more difference claiming those cities will be. Since the first cities may be the only ones you get before discovering your border with a neighbor. Once you get past small map size though, the roads will kick in, but before then roads take quite a while to build the settlers are going to come before you can have enough roads to matter (especially if you are not industrious) Build more workers you say? Well, you sacrifice more settlers and thus cities I say.
Another point.....the AI seems to pillage mainly when it helps in a war to cut off a supply line. In MP, especially if you are facing the Zulus, Aztecs, Greeks, or Carthagians, you are going to deal with players who will constantly and unrelentlessly pillage just to paralyze your production, movement, and progress in general and without even attempting to conquer your city. Workers out building roads are easy prey to become Aztec/Zulu slaves. And the precious road network you build early on will be easy to pillage since you probaly don't have enough armies yet to defendevery sqaure of it. Now on the flipside if you are building settlers and defenders and doing it sooner than everyone else you will get your first 5-7 cities much faster (especially if building a ring around your capital), and that can help you make a perimeter sooner to seal off some of your lands. Those lands that are sealed off can then make roads and improvements without fear, because the frontal cities will give them enough warning to respond to pillagers. Additionally the pillagers will have to pass through a lot of your empire to get to them, and you will have more chances to take pot shots at them before they pillage. In fact, if they notice there is nothing to pillage, they may turn their attention to a more vulnerable player who has something to pillage. Anyone who has faced Aztec/Zulu pillaging swarms in MP can attest to the frustrations I have pointed out.
Score is another consideration. Try adding that first worker to your capital in MP and notice the slight score difference. Notice the difference grow when you build your second city 2-5 turns before your enemies. In short games with a time limit and powergraph decision, score matters and this strategy will help.
Also please remember that the context of my arguments increases for civs that are not industrious since the opportunity cost of building roads/improvements is much greater since it takes so much longer.
So in light of Multiplayer ( the game is called Play the World ), small maps, and score....let's see if that makes a difference to you.
Hmmm,
The majority of discussion seems valid but also seems to be based on one or two assumptions: Single Player Mode and/or Playing against the AI. If those assumptions are correct, then the stream of yuppie yesses above makes sense. Now as devil's advocate, let me propose a scenario/argument or two where this makes a bigger difference: Multi-Player and/or small maps.
Resources are key to winning the game, and arguably the most important resources are the strategic resources, followed by luxury, since they are so hard to replicate and so rare.
In rebuttal to the argument about securing resources early on, I have a point to make. Since no civ starts with iron, and only one starts with the wheel, it may take a while to know if you have the strategic resources you need in that capital city. Roads will help you get resources, but the fact of the matter is the best way to get a resource is to claim it FIRST and one of the best ways to claim it and defend it is to get a city to it and build right on top of it before anyone else can.....this favors pumping out the settler sooner and claiming as much land as possible as quick as possible before anyone else can.....cities 2 turns earlier will help with this. And the smaller the map, the more difference claiming those cities will be. Since the first cities may be the only ones you get before discovering your border with a neighbor. Once you get past small map size though, the roads will kick in, but before then roads take quite a while to build the settlers are going to come before you can have enough roads to matter (especially if you are not industrious) Build more workers you say? Well, you sacrifice more settlers and thus cities I say.
Another point.....the AI seems to pillage mainly when it helps in a war to cut off a supply line. In MP, especially if you are facing the Zulus, Aztecs, Greeks, or Carthagians, you are going to deal with players who will constantly and unrelentlessly pillage just to paralyze your production, movement, and progress in general and without even attempting to conquer your city. Workers out building roads are easy prey to become Aztec/Zulu slaves. And the precious road network you build early on will be easy to pillage since you probaly don't have enough armies yet to defendevery sqaure of it. Now on the flipside if you are building settlers and defenders and doing it sooner than everyone else you will get your first 5-7 cities much faster (especially if building a ring around your capital), and that can help you make a perimeter sooner to seal off some of your lands. Those lands that are sealed off can then make roads and improvements without fear, because the frontal cities will give them enough warning to respond to pillagers. Additionally the pillagers will have to pass through a lot of your empire to get to them, and you will have more chances to take pot shots at them before they pillage. In fact, if they notice there is nothing to pillage, they may turn their attention to a more vulnerable player who has something to pillage. Anyone who has faced Aztec/Zulu pillaging swarms in MP can attest to the frustrations I have pointed out.
Score is another consideration. Try adding that first worker to your capital in MP and notice the slight score difference. Notice the difference grow when you build your second city 2-5 turns before your enemies. In short games with a time limit and powergraph decision, score matters and this strategy will help.
Also please remember that the context of my arguments increases for civs that are not industrious since the opportunity cost of building roads/improvements is much greater since it takes so much longer.
So in light of Multiplayer ( the game is called Play the World ), small maps, and score....let's see if that makes a difference to you.
, okay , that has to be tried out 
Comment