Vel's Strategy Thread

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Settler first allows you to play to your game, without worrying about whether the worker will be occupied, cos he'll be delayed long enough that you'll have worker-relevant techs when they come to completion (and ultimately, it swaps the flexibility....you lose flexibility on the ground, but gain the freedom to pursue whatever tech you want to on the opener, even if you have no starting worker-friendly techs)

I dunno. Sure, not building a Worker gives you freedom to research whatever tech you want, but all those techs that enable tile improvements (especially the resources ones!) are so good that I want a bunch of Workers right away.

I see Workers as the grease for the wheel that is your strategy. In other words, to me a strategy without Workers is less efficient than one that includes/prioritizes them (while, above, I've enumarted numerous strategies that did not involve early Settlers). Prove me wrong!

[DrSpike]

Hmm, interesting thread. Just to muddy the waters further (or to stir them ) from my tests I think if any generalities can be drawn they are:

1) Settler first is bad unless you have crappy land. :stir:

With no specials it's fine, with 1 it's on shaky ground, and with 2 or more generally bad.

2) Worker first then chopped settler is very powerful unless you have a very pressing reason to save the trees. The shields are a much bigger investment early days........time will tell but unless you have your greedy eyes on a wonder you might otherwise lose I don't think saving them for this is worthwhile, generally speaking. I tend to chop unless there is a good reason not to. However, it definitely works less well for some Civs, so........

3) Worker first then warriors then kick settlers (up to 4 for standard settings, with maybe a worker mixed in) when you reach a size dictated by your specials and terrain (anything that can produce 4 food/shields combined, like a hill acts like a special) seems to me the balanced approach. This usually leaves your cap sitting at 3 kicking out stuff at high efficiency.

4) Building up the cap more isn't worth it, generally speaking, until you have 4 cities.

Counterexamples of course abound (as indeed they should), and it's best just to play 10 starts or so the first 3 ways to really get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of the various strats.

Doc

[Velociryx]

Can't prove you wrong, Dominae, cos I agree with ya!

Every early game strategy out there has to, at some point, rely on workers as the fuel to fire early growth. I view Cities as being the engines themselves, and the workers, fuel that provides a high-octane kick.

As I see it, there have been three basic approaches laid out to get you through the early game, and all three approaches are perfectly valid, each having their own strengths.

The three basic approaches are:

* Hold at a single city and develop it properly before expanding.

* Workers first, specifically produced to speed the production of a rapidly produced second settler.

* Settler first to speed the foundation of a second city, and then catch up on infrastructure.

All three can work, and all three can win games. What it really comes down to is a matter of style, preference, and each player's individually crafted aims and goals, because at the end of the day, we're essentially splitting hairs over....meh...maybe 10-15 net total resources in difference?

In my head, I see it broken out thusly:

* Slow, steady development - Ideal for the safety minded player, or for the player who values the ability to rip through the first few techs (ie - floodplains, cottages, etc).

* Worker first, built in order to speed the creation of a second Settler - Middle of the road. Odds are that your starting warrior is still out exploring, so you're risking your worker out there in the wilds, every bit as much as you would risk an early out the gate settler....difference is, he only costs 60, rather than 100. Moderate risk then, with some productive tile gains, at the expense of having your research path dictated to you in the first umpteen turns of the game as you play to the land, and not to your own desires.

* Settler first, then develop - extreme risk, but carries the advantage of locking down more tiles (and more resources) under your borders, more quickly than the rest, and provides all the benefits and bonuses rightly ascribed to cities. Riskier than the other three because until you get both cities and their corresponding workers out, you're pretty defenseless (longer window of time to BE defenseless), but with the advantage of faster total growth/tiles worked.

So...I would say it depends on how much risk you can stomach, and what your aims are.

-=Vel=-

[Dactyl]

A couple of comments. First, you are not necessarily risking your worker if you build it first, at least not in SP. The lions and other beasts will not enter your borders, so the only worry you have is if you exit your borders, which I don't think you would do much at that early stage.

Second, I just did my third test on Monarch level. The first two times, the barbarians were really outrageous, and they hurt me. This time, even though I was on a continent alone I didn't have nearly as big of a problem with them because I interrupted development to build some military units. Could it be the case that the barbs know how strong your military is, and use that knowledge in deciding whether or not to attack?

[V3nom]

ok I've read this thread for a bit and decided its time to post. Before I try and give my own input let me first congratulate everyone on the well thought out discussions that is going on so far.

Currently I am playing Monarch level games like quite a few here seem to be; However the catch is that I play with raging barbarians, which means that by around turn 30-35 I start 1 archer or warrior entering my territory every 1 or 2 turns.

Playing with the settings mentioned above basically means that settler first is simply suicide and usually ends up with an archer taking my capital rather quickly, you simply dont have the time to go settler->archer before they get there and the archer has a rather large chance of destroying any warrior you build.

I have found this has left me with two options: worker first or to immediately begin pumping out military units. Out of these two options I have found that the worker first is far superior to its alternative.

Most people seem to believe that an early worker means a lumberjack strategy, however in these circumstances it is very situational. If I start in a heavily forested area then yes, two rushed archers and a rushed settler are potent start, but if for example I start near floodplains, to cut down tree's is madness because it means my capital will have a very hard time reaching normal size, a fact that is much more important than wether I can rush wonders later.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: Settler first may seem safe when you are around the middle difficulties, but as you advance up the scale it is more and more of a bad idea. The same can be said of multiplayer, do you really want the enemy warrior stumbling in your capital on turn 30 before you've managed to punch out a warrior of your own after your settler?

Settler first simply isnt a strategy you can use on higher difficulties from what I've seen. So I'd much rather develop strategies that can translate over, that way the decisions I have to make are more intuitive.

edit: Arrian, I believe you said before that Monarch is the first 'big step up' and I can say that from my experience it most definately is, that extra worker might not sound like much but it definately makes the AI much more solid.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Dactyl

Second, I just did my third test on Monarch level. The first two times, the barbarians were really outrageous, and they hurt me. This time, even though I was on a continent alone I didn't have nearly as big of a problem with them because I interrupted development to build some military units. Could it be the case that the barbs know how strong your military is, and use that knowledge in deciding whether or not to attack?

I am starting to think that may be the case. If I try to get by with few troops I start having my handful with barbs. It is not fun to have a warrior and an archer and see axemen and archers coming from several directions.

If I have axe/archer they seems to keep there distance. Not sure if this is just paranoid thinking or what.

[Jcg316]

You can always move your units to be in position to see the land which will keep abrbs from showing up there. Some situations will let you prevent them easier than fighting them.

[gentle]

hey ^^ here's that lonely looney deity player again, spamming =P

just updating progress as i hope someone reads that too^^
last post I was worried to get some wonders early on and I needed a way to improve research.
well, i found out that getting wonders early is not easy but manageable. getting stonehenge and oracle is no prob i would say , though i found out some flaws according to my approach (explanaition: i consider religious and non-religious playstyle as two absolutely different approaches to the game needing different strats. i am non-religious).
on the other hand i found a solution to my research problem, whcih was the following:
a) i was too slow overall
b) alphabet takes 20+ turns to research (too much ^^)
found the following solution:
key to that are libraries. not because they increase research by x% but because they allow scientist (2).
i always encounter a phase in play, where i have nothing useful to build, this is the time for scientists.
having set up scientist and libraries, research time for alphabet decreases to 7 turns ^^ thats nice. furthermore as i was quite unhappy due to several reasons with my stonehenge/oracle setup, i had another idea. twinking the scientist. how ? via pyramids and representation. comes quite handy, so i can concentrate on pyramids and dont have to take that useless religion picks. masonry gives them, which comes in quite handy again, because i need masonry for the other wonder i want to get : hanging gardens ( mathematics, but need aqueduct, which needs masonry to be build).

just wanted to give an update if someone else suffers on deity with me and has similar probs ^^

edit:
i am getting 1AD deity situations which would pass as "ok", i guess...not really en par with the comps but only few steps behind. in regards to culture ahead , area even, research about 2-3 techs behind. hope to be able to change that with my new aporach^^

edit2:
believe it or not.. i start considering not taking catherine as leader though it will take some effort i guess to persuade myself ^^ she so sexy

[V3nom]

I agree, I go for pyramids ASAP nearly every game, the ability to get +3research per specialist is HUGE imho, as is the ability to get +25% to unit production if you go to war.

People are saying how weak the pyramids are, I'd go so far as to say that they are by far the strongest ancient wonder.

I am coming to agree with you that religious and non-religious are two completely different strategies that cannot be mingled well, at least not early game. When the game first came out I loved religions but now playing my favored race, the chinese, I'm rapidly coming to find that I prefer the non-religous route.

[gentle]

hi v3nom ^^

yeah, chinese are interesting pick (guess you r talking about industrial/financial) but i am in deep love with the creative trait. found out that my manual states that louis xiv is organized/creative though in-game he is decribed as industrial/creative. if this is the case he will be my new guy otherwise i guess i stick to catherine.

quote:
People are saying how weak the pyramids are, I'd go so far as to say that they are by far the strongest ancient wonder.

yes, i agree with that 100% (ok, they are also the most expensive one *sigh* =P )

[V3nom]

true, they're expensive but they pay for themselves fairly quickly. Industrial helps by halving the cost and you can find stone in around 50% of games if you give it a high priority as far as city sites go.

Industrial/creative would indeed be a potent combination. creative meaning you dont have to worry about the oracle early on and makes sure all your citys will be able to work every part of the fat-cross very quickly even without a religion. I might even have to give him a go myself (just checked and my manual states Louis as Industrial/creative so you're probably good to go).

I'm thinking of trying to step up my difficulty levels a few notches over the coming days so hopefully I'll be able to compare some notes with you then.

[gentle]

gogogo^^


btw, friend of mine pointed out, that chopped hammers used to speed up wonders also receive bonus from industrial and resource bonus ?
will check that today, if yes: *cheer*

edit:
btw, just to be overprecise: industrial does not halve the cost but gives bonus to production, which would be the same if chopped hammers receive that bonus too.
otherwise industrial loses a bit of its charme^^

[V3nom]

chopping does indeed boost the hammers you get to produce a wonder when industrial. Having stone/marble (assuming the wonder uses them) also does.

[Jcg316]

A size 5 city SOONER, to me, is minor. An extra Size 5 city would be different.

I have no trouble getting a size 7 city without granaries and in a very similar time, and as a granary will be built later if needing the health bonus anyways the difference is only for a certain portion of the time. Any time spent with avoid growth on can make it nearly meaningless. If you like granaries that's fine but I have consistently seen my cities get too little benefit from their growth aspect to be worth going out of my way for them. Being able to temporarily starve cities is pliable to certain things, temporary hammers or GPP for example, but not a very meaningful use. With an early religion founded or gained from a nearby civ, meaning you can push both soft caps, it is another tangent although the tech costs of getting there early can be a considerable factor.

A library SOONER does not necessarily match what a second city on upgraded land SOONER can yield, though it could. Whether it beats 4-5 empty cities in that facet is a different beast entirely.

If you choose to grow the city first you can have, as I mentioned before, either acceptable growth or acceptable production. Just to get 1 additional total yield after the growth. If you think both the growth and production are effective then you may differ here.

In the beaker example you have a financial civ with a floodplain start, hardly a situation you shouldn't be able to leverage for great advantage over other civs however you do it. Even in that situation a second city working one improved floodplain would match the gain of the library, including the second cities initial coin. Hardly significantly better to get a library SOONER or a second city SOONER. On average terrain the first city does far less compared to a second city on chosen (good), improved terrain. One depends on good first city terrain, the other can allows a weaker first city compared to surrounding lands that could provide for a great second city which certainly makes it map dependant.

The map certainly is a giant factor and as I've stressed is what will determine the best strategy available to you, all victory conditions being equal. Doing so can make games much more varied but this, of course, depends on the player, a lot. Instead of going into the game thinking you'll do a then b then c you may find yourself doing something more unique to the map.

Multiplayer tends to be played on average difficulty and will take corresponding times for research, etc.

Emperor difficulty and above are all situations that are more or less the same if AI civs don't target you any more so than other AI civs. If they do you are at a scaled and very serious unit disadvantage but proper maintenance of your power rating in regards to nearby civs will limit that. If you are alone early you might wind up playing the entire game more or less the same as you would on monarch. Later starts can make the unit and settler discrepancy very little, as well, even on Deity. If I start a Deity game I know very early if I have a decent chance to win (certainly not high but a good enough chance) or if I'm probably going to be rolled over by some other civ. Different tech costs change certain aspects but it is never to the point it is overwhelming. It can be quite easy to miss out on an early religion if you go for it on high enough difficulties, but if you do so the different tech costs are certainly an issue that develops significantly.

In the end what you'd like to do beats what you can do, regardless. In Singleplayer I may not use chops, whenever, as they are boring to me and against the feel I like the games to have but if I ignore that facet completely in multiplayer I put myself at a disadvantage.

[Aeson]

There are indirect advantages of Granaries and Libraries that need to be taken into account. There is a lot of synergy between the two in fact.

A Granary helps you grow faster. It means you can get to your pop limit faster. (And if you have Grains, grow larger.) Being at "avoid growth" isn't a bad thing. It can be a very good thing if you're willing to play a more micro intensive playstyle with your Laborers and Specialists and/or swap high food tiles around between cities. Once you are to your pop limit, you can run Specialists and/or use more Cottages over Farms. (Or switch over to high production tiles to stall out growth... Other synergies exist.) If you have tons of Food (but not grains), you can skip the Granary without much loss. Though if you're EXP or chopping, it's usually worth building even then.

With Pottery come Cottages too, and are the main drive behind research (and a lot of the time military conquests) through most of the game on many maps. Granary means being able to work more Cottages earlier. Working the Cottages earlier means they become Towns earlier. The sooner they get there, the better your tech rate can be, and the more cities you can support.

A Library gives you the opportunity to run Scientist Specialists. One or two can really make a big difference in Research rates early on, plus will allow Great Scientists. A Great Scientist can build an Academy for +50% Research in a city.

The Capitol, with the Commerce from the Palace, generally having better terrain than average, and often using the most tiles for quite some time, is the main drive behind research early on. So having a Library and Academy in the Capitol (perhaps running Scientists) can give close to +75% research or more to an early economy, regardless of the number of cities. And it does it with no maintenance costs from the "multipliers" involved. Whereas "more cities" as the multipliers come with maintenance costs.

Then throw in the Oracle. Probably after the first Settler (or if you have a strategic resource, units to go conquer a city) to time things right, but not always. A big city is generally more likely to be able to build a given Wonder than a small city. This can matter, it doesn't always apply though. With the Library+Scientist(s) research, you can steam through Code of Laws pretty fast. Confucianism and Caste System is a nice pickup, but the real trophy is Civil Service for Bureaucracy by completing the Oracle. Since you have a great Capitol in the works, leverage it to getting a godly one ASAP. +125% Research, +50% Production, in the city that will be as big as it can be, working the most Commerce or Production possible... and you can get there pretty quick.

Emphasizing Granary (with Cottages) and Library (with Scientists) together can really turn out Beakers. You're working more Cottages, for longer, with the commerce output being given huge % increases. It's not out of the question to double or triple the tech rate you otherwise would have with no city improvements when focusing on expansion, for quite some time.

While more cities can catch up later by building infrastructure, there are a lot of "first come only served" things on the tech tree that won't be there later. Building up has to catch up with expansion by building more Settlers later, and there are times when the good city spots are claimed before that can work out too. Each has it's advantages and shortcomings and the whole spectrum imbetween the (viable) extremes is viable as well.