I'll argue the side that it is not a ridiculous philosophy with two points. The first is that in this specific position, it's not a minuscule gain by not claiming the copper, it's significantly larger. The effect of placing a settler for no food resource is one that I think we accept is bad, and the only way to make this work requires significant investment into two granaries, with specific timing to not break growth, compared to settling for another food resource. In effect, the copper location locks out a significant number of strategies, all of which could have good pay off. One example is that we are much less likely to get Oracle for Monarchy because of the delay by going to Pottery (I've never planned not to, but skipping Wheel and Pottery would probably have ensured Oracle without a large loss in growth). The other side of the cost/benefit analysis is that OH has to make an active move to build a stack of units to pose a real threat (archers can deal with chariots, AH is not a critical tech, and having to juggle around a single scouting unit is not a game losing problem in itself), and within the metagame of an FFA, OH ends up investing in units that give him no benefit whilst help third parties. OH knows this, and is a good enough player to not be opportunistic but measured. If he builds an axe, it's to deal with barb warriors. If he builds a spear it's to cover a front city placed towards us. If he builds a chariot it's to scout, and as he is already scouting us, he won't send that towards us immediately.
The second point is that worker first has always had an inherent risk when we've played games using the base ruleset, due to dying to the starting warrior. This has happened before (Mortius, PB2, not sure if others). Delaying copper is just another part of those same cost benefit analyses.
I can give two examples, one of delaying copper that I know were the right, and where rushing for it was wrong: PB5 where I settled it with the 8th or so city, using chariots and HA to manage along with a sentry net and PB27 where I rushed forwards for it against an unknown (sockpuppet or not) Egypt player (in PB27, this was compounded by settling my third city for no food, which at the time I thought was justifiable but in reality was wrong. FWIW, in that game I was keeping up with the leaders in growth until that city, and then I trailed forever in a rush to Astro all because of that delay).
---
I'll stress that in this position, I am not advocating that the copper tile is completely ignored, what I would consider is having it second ring with the slower hook up. And I am not even saying that that is a good idea.
The second point is that worker first has always had an inherent risk when we've played games using the base ruleset, due to dying to the starting warrior. This has happened before (Mortius, PB2, not sure if others). Delaying copper is just another part of those same cost benefit analyses.
I can give two examples, one of delaying copper that I know were the right, and where rushing for it was wrong: PB5 where I settled it with the 8th or so city, using chariots and HA to manage along with a sentry net and PB27 where I rushed forwards for it against an unknown (sockpuppet or not) Egypt player (in PB27, this was compounded by settling my third city for no food, which at the time I thought was justifiable but in reality was wrong. FWIW, in that game I was keeping up with the leaders in growth until that city, and then I trailed forever in a rush to Astro all because of that delay).
---
I'll stress that in this position, I am not advocating that the copper tile is completely ignored, what I would consider is having it second ring with the slower hook up. And I am not even saying that that is a good idea.