Worker Worries

[BigDork]

Hi everybody...

I was looking for a little bit of strategy and help in my opening game. I was wondering what number of workers is a good number to build in the beginning? Do people just make due with a few and hope to get some from a war with a neighbor. Or do you set up a city that's specifically for workers? I personally think that I tend to build too few workers in the beginning. And as my empire expands I have many cites with undeveloped tiles and not enough workers to improve the tiles. This leads to cities that aren't producing as well as they should. C'mon guys, help me out.

BigD

[badams52]

Maybe it's just me, but as an industrial civ, I usually end up with about 1 non-slave worker per city, and as they are quick to build, I never make a worker farm. Just insert a worker between swordsmen, spearmen, temple-library, etc. If you're not industrial, more workers are necessary.

[nbarclay]

I try not to let the number of improved tiles for my laborers to work fall significantly behind the number of laborers I have. If that threatens to happen, I need more workers.

The problem with waiting for slaves is that you need improved tiles to work in order to both grow and produce at the same time, which in turn makes you much more effective at warfare. Further, unless you raze decent-sized cities, warfare tends not to yield much more than barely enough workers to improve the tiles in the newly conquered territory; there aren't enough left over to meet your original core's needs. Razing can yield more workers, but then you have to build settlers to replace the destroyed cities (not to mention what it does to other civs' view of you).

High-food cities with granaries are great for building both settlers and workers. Which of the two a given city is best at depends on the city's production capacity, with cities with a higher ratio of shields to food being better for settlers and those with a lower ratio for workers. Highly corrupt cities can also be good for producing their own workers before moving on to other things. (A city that only generates one shield per turn is always better for workers than for settlers.)

Nathan

[Kizami]

I typically play on regent and by the middle ages i have about 8 or 9 workers running around that i built myself. I will get a few workers through war but not more than 7 or 8 usually.

[BigDork]

Okay, here's an example. In AU206 I have 10 cities. I only have 2 Celtic workers and about 4-5 slaves. Ouch! Many of my cities are size 4-6 and are only working maybe 3 developed tiles if they are lucky. Obviously this isn't helping things in my game at all. Clearly I should have built more workers sooner. Especially since I'm a non-industrial civ. The whole reason for this thread is to get some help for myself and others who may face a similar problem in the beginning. Thanks to those of you who give us some insight.

BigD

[Harovan]

Depends on terrain. If it's mostly grassland or plains, one non-industrious native worker per city is usually fine, till your terrain is entirely improved. The workers then can be added to your cities. On heavy terrain (jungle, hills, mountains), you need 150%..200% of this number, if you are industious, you need about 60% compared to non-industrious (not 50%, as you'll lose worker efficiency due to rounding).

[pedrojedi]

Usually, for non-industrious civs, I build about 3 workers per city... and group them in clusters of 6. With Industrious civs, I usually build 2 per city, with clusters of 4. I always use at least double cluster size for taking down jungles or mining/roading mountains. These settings are for standard map games, as with bigger maps the number of workers per city may increase a bit.

I am suspicious to give such a advice since I like to work ALL the tiles of my cities, even if I can't use them all, which is, and I know it is, a good time wasted in improving useless tiles, while other cities are waiting for improvements themselves. Maybe sometime I'll give up these bad habbits.

[BigDork]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
I am suspicious to give such a advice since I like to work ALL the tiles of my cities, even if I can't use them all, which is, and I know it is, a good time wasted in improving useless tiles, while other cities are waiting for improvements themselves. Maybe sometime I'll give up these bad habbits.

Pedro...

This too is a bad habit of mine. But I've found in my last few games I'm starting to get away from it a little bit. But with this last game I think I've gotten away from it too much. I just need to find the balance.

BigD

[wilbill]

Originally posted by BigDork I just need to find the balance.

I scroll through my cities every few turns (especially early in the game). If I start seeing more than an occasional undeveloped square being worked, I build a worker or two. If I'm developing squares that won't be worked for a while, it's time to start clearing jungle or add a worker to a new city.

[nbarclay]

Adding workers to cities while you're still REXing is a bad idea. If nothing else, the workers can build roads toward and start working tiles around future city sites. And even after REXing is over, improving tiles you'll use only later doesn't hurt. Indeed, there are definite advantages to having every tile improved when you enter the industrial era because that way, other tile improvements aren't competing with railroads.

Unless roads are already in place, work gangs are inherently inefficient because each worker in the gang has to spend a movement point moving onto a tile in order to work it. If you have time, assigning a single worker to clear an entire jungle tile himself is the most efficient way to do the job. More generally, there tends to be a bit of a juggling act involved in balancing speed against efficiency. (And by the way, just in case anyone hasn't caught it, jungles are a lot more expensive to road than grasslands are, so building a road before clearing a jungle is a pretty inefficient way to do things too - although sometimes military needs trump efficiency.)

Nathan

[BigDork]

Nathan...

Thanks for that bit of advice about efficiency of a single worker vs. a work gang. But I find sometimes getting stuff done fast is more important. I guess it just depends on need in those situations. But do you really think it's better to clear a jungle before building a road? Wouldn't it better to build the road first to be getting the commerse from it?

BigD

[nbarclay]

For an industrious civ, roading a jungle takes five worker-turns. Roading the underlying grassland costs only two. So if you road first, for the whole rest of the game (or at least until you reach a lull where your workers have nothing useful to do), you'll be three worker-turns behind where you would have been if you cleared the jungle first. (Edit: The same basic principle applies for non-industrious civs, but the times involved are longer.)

Further, clearing jungle helps cities grow, which lets them work more tiles, which lets them produce more shields and commerce. Clear the jungle first and you're ahead in the city's growth curve all the way until it maxes out in size.

In contrast, the extra gold you get building a road first is only a very temporary advantage. You get however much extra gold is generated between the time the road is completed and the time it would have been completed if you cleared the jungle first, and that's it, period, end of story.

At the heart of this issue is the principle of focusing on investment. A few gold or shields for a few turns isn't that big a deal. Something that provides an advantage for dozens or even hundreds of turns is. So when in doubt, choose in favor of long-term, ongoing advantages over the short-term ones.

By the way, forests pose the same issue as jungles, only on a smaller scale. Chopping before roading saves a little time compared with roading and then chopping.

Nathan

[CerberusIV]

My typical strategy is to build a granary in my first or second city and concentrate that one on being a settler factory. My build queue for subsequent cities is temple, worker, barracks, spearman (to go with the one that accompanied the settler) then whatever other city improvements are needed. I rely on captured workers for conquered territory.

This gives me one native worker per city, whether industrious or not. I find that is enough for a non-industrious civ to more or less finish roads, mines and irrigation in all city tiles for my home grown cities before steam power allows me to rail everything.

Conquered territory using captured workers is a bit behind but I have usually improved all the workeable tiles by the time I am finishing Hoover.

With an industrious civ it is all a bit quicker and I tend to use the extra worker time available to switch tiles between irrigation for growth and mining for shields depending on a particular city's needs.

The big advantage I find with an industrious civ is that workers are not tied up for so long in clearing forest and jungle so it is possible to start on these sooner that with a non-industrious civ where your workers are still building roads to connect cities.

Basically I would not go with less than one worker for each of my own cities.

[vulture]

My approach to workers is similar to other peoples. I don't have any rules about x workers per city. Look at the tiles you are working. If you have cities working tiles that aren't fully developed, you need more workers. If you need to clear jungle you almost certainly need more workers. Good cities for worker building are highly corrupt ones that can build a worker in 10 turns, and grow in ten turns. They aren't going to contribute much else to your empire for a long time, so this is a way of getting useful work out of them early on. I find that it is very hard to have too many of the little guys running around - they only start running out of jobs around the middle industial era, when all forest and jungle has been developed, and all squares have railroads and mines or irrigation. Then they can become radar towers or clena up pollution. If by some miracle you do run out of stuff for workers to do earlier than that, then you could always build fortresses.

[BigDork]

Hi everybody...

Vulture brought up radar towers. That leads me to my next question. Outposts, airfields, and radar towers. Are they worth it? I know radar towers give a defesive bonus but I still don't use them most of the time. Should I be? And I find that borders move very quickly in modern wars. By the time I build an airfield and re-base my planes most of the enemy cities are already out of striking distance. When is a good time to use airfields? Thanks

BigD