How many workers should you have?

[The diplomat]

What is the consensus on the ideal worker/city ratio?
This would obviously differ between industrious and non-industrious civs. It would also depend on the pop growth of the particular city.

Also, is it better to build as many workers as possible so as to finish improving all your city tiles as quickly as possible then have the workers rejoin their cities when they are all done?

Or is it better to keep the smallest amount of workers such that they are improving tiles at about the same rate as the pop is growing?

The first strategy would guarantee that you completely improve the tiles in all your empire as quickly as possible. However, you would have so many workers that your cities would not have as high a pop as they could have until the workers rejoin them.

The second strategy seems to be more efficient, because it seeks to match the number of improved tiles to the pop size. Keeping the number of workers as small as possible allows your cities to have the highest pop possible while still improving tiles at a good rate.

I would suggest that the trick is to try to keep the number of improved tiles equal to your pop. If you have more improved tiles than pop then you have improved tiles that are not being used yet. You probably have too many workers and could have a couple rejoin the city so as to use those extra improved tiles.

On the other hand, if you have more pop than improved tiles, then you have pop n tiles that are not improved yet, thus you are not getting the max of ressources that you would be getting if the tiles were improved.

So it seems to me that the most efficient method is somewhere in between where you have approximately the same number of worked tiles as number of pop, and your workers improve tiles at about the rate of pop growth.

Am I right? Thoughts?

[Catt]

Re: How many workers should you have?

Originally posted by The diplomat
How many workers should you have?

17.




(Just kidding)

I would suggest that the trick is to try to keep the number of improved tiles equal to your pop. If you have more improved tiles than pop then you have improved tiles that are not being used yet. You probably have too many workers and could have a couple rejoin the city so as to use those extra improved tiles.

On the other hand, if you have more pop than improved tiles, then you have pop n tiles that are not improved yet, thus you are not getting the max of ressources that you would be getting if the tiles were improved.

So it seems to me that the most efficient method is somewhere in between where you have approximately the same number of worked tiles as number of pop, and your workers improve tiles at about the rate of pop growth.

Am I right? Thoughts?

I agree with this wholeheartedly. More workers than needed equals less population and more upkeep. Fewer workers than needed equals citizens working unimproved tiles.

But I also think that other tactical and strategic imperatives influence the worker army -- I may have a detail of workers building "strategic roads," i.e., roads on tiles that aren't being worked, but that will ferry offensive or defensive troops to key present or future battlegrounds. So I may have more workers than needed for pure tile upkeep, but not "too many" workers by my own estimate because the work they are doing is worth the pop loss and 1 gpt upkeep while they're at it.

I will also have a bunch of extra workers towards the end of the Middle Ages -- they loaf while they can, but upon discovery of Steam Power they will all be very busy laying rail lines until they have a chance to retire to a nice city (growing into a metropolis).

Catt

[The diplomat]

thanks for the reply. Like you said, with steam power, one needs to build lots of railroads. So it is probably good to keep a couple of workers per city handy so that as soon as you get steam power, they can immediately start working. That way you don't waste the turns building more workers before you can start building railroads.

Once pollution starts popping up, I also like to keep about 2-3 workers per city set on "automate clean pollution". That way, they wait and automatically head for a pollution square and clean it up. By then I usually have a strong network of railroads, so my workers will reach any tile in my empire in 1 turn. Pollution is cleaned up real fast!

[The diplomat]

As a rule of thumb though, I would probably estimate a worker per city ratio of 2-3 for industrious, and 3-4 for non-industrious.

[vmxa1]

I tend to get one for each city in the first 6 cities. After that as best I can without taking a hit until I can capture some. Once I get to the rzing part, I will pile them up. No real ROT.

[Theseus]

2-3 Workers per city for pollution control is too many. Don;t forget, with RR they are speedy little devils.

Workers are so cheap, I have started to disband and rebuild them with abandon.

[alva]

I try only to use captured workers and rejoin the rest, if I need more , I do as Theseus and rebuild some in a maxed out city .

But 3-4 per town is way to many IMO, don't forget, they cost upkeep to.

[The diplomat]

3-4 was way too much, you are all right. To test my theory, I started a game as my fav Egyptians. With the industrious ability, I was acually able to get by with 1-1.5 per city. So my 2-3 estimate was way off.

[Inverse Icarus]

i usually have 1 or 2 workers per each major city, and then theres the swarm of captured ones.

[jshelr]

I've tended to follow a strat outlined by Dr Fell awhile ago that uses a different rule for workers. You want enough workers to stay ahead of your expansion so that settlers and units are travelling on roads and not losing turns, arriving at sites that already have two tiles roaded, mined, or irrigated. In addition, quick connection of lux, iron, and horses, without slowing down city improvement, is a must. Successful improvement of the city sites speeds things up so much it is difficult to explain.

So, instead of how many workers do I need per city, I use a dynamic rule: are the workers going to get the job done fast enough to be "on time." Relative to that rule, workers are very high priority in the early game. I've found that warmongers can deliver a stack of vet units to the enemy civ most rapidly if workers have improved tiles and created a road network.

After the warmongering phase there are usually so many slaves around that "domestic" workers can be considered for promotion to town jobs.

[Zachriel]

Worker Boom

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm9/ad1260-SteamPower.htm

Every city was almost completely developed by the advent of Steam Power. The terrain was good (no jungle) and it only took about a dozen workers to improve twenty-one native cities. With Steam Power, the number of workers shot up to 60+. Once the rail system was complete, the majority were joined back into cities.

The "worker boom" should have started just a little bit sooner, but there were extenuating circumstances. For the curious, the entire game report is available here:

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm9/

[Catt]

Originally posted by jshelr
I've tended to follow a strat outlined by Dr Fell awhile ago that uses a different rule for workers. You want enough workers to stay ahead of your expansion . . . .

That's very well-said, and the concept that I was trying to get at -- I find it hard to come up with an "X workers per city" concept because circumstances vary so widely. Section 1 of the workforce ensures that no citizen laborer is working unimproved tiles. Section 2 of the workforce is building roads to future city sites, future battlegrounds, and future trading junctions. The size of each section depends upon the surrounding terrain -- i.e., Section 1 gets bigger if my cities have abundant food available; Section 2 gets bigger with lots of room to REX and or distant enemies that will need an early visit.

Catt

[bbaws]

Lots and lots. I never seem to get into problems with the upkeep, my wars tend to be as a direct result of what I think of as "worker pressure". If the workers are idle you don't have enough land. The more workers you have the more territory you can quickly improve, thus the quicker captured cities grow and the quicker the infrastructure is built.
For my style of play the ratio of workers to cities is not as significant as the ratio of workers to top grade offensive units. As the ages progress offensive units become more effective at seizing territory and so the ratio rises.
Early game I reckon I have much the same ratio as anyone, but for me one of the best things about Civ3 is not having to support pop units detached from cities with food. On the one hand workers cost gpt, on the other getting the pop out of stagnant cities gives you growing cities. I like growth and growth potential (the "worker pressure") enough to pay the gold.

[realpolitic]

I usually just get enough to get me through the first few wars. Then I capture enough. I return them to the cities near my Palace + FP when I get Sanitation (I'm in Republic its about my 5th or 6th Industrial tech) so I can build The Hoover Dam ASAP (If I have a lead I get Replaceable Parts.)
Next game with Science at 10%, early in the game, I'll buy foriegn workers early, joining them in cities if the work's done.

[JNL]

Another possible use of workers (preferably your own, to reduce risk of disorder and reduce maintainance costs) : to strenghten attacked cities so that they still get a defence bonus (size 7 or more).