Starting Build Order

[zhuren]

Hello Apolyton,
Being a Civ player from the early days, I was delighted to join my first multiplayer matches (for me personally, it had unfortunately taken four iterations to have this opportunity) just recently.
Comparing scores, I feel that my starting performance is not optimum. And while I did look for threads covering a starting build order, I felt that the ones I encountered were outdated (because of the chop nerf).

So my question to the strategists: How does an optimum buld order (in multiplayer) look like?
Mine is along the lines of warrior-warrior-settler (or similar). I think that, in general I emphasize settler too much and build my workers too late. But quick expansion is important or not? When do you build your first workers and how do they compete with settler production?

Also, on the tech side: Whats your first choices? I found that archery is quite important in 1on1s. Nevertheless, two axemen can be difficult to counter if there's no Iron/Bronze source nearby.

Thanks for sharing your insight
Zhuren

[MasterDave]

In multiplayer (and single player) I generally start out building warriors (or scouts if I start with hunting) until my city reaches size 3. Then I build a worker, then a settler, using the worker to either chop, or harvest a resource that speeds up the production of the settler. Once that settler is built, I will either try to get the Oracle or Stonehenge in my capital depending on a variety of conditions. My second city will build warriors to control barbarians until it reaches size 3, then I will build a worker and settler in that city.

This assumes that I am not getting harrassed by another player very early. If that happens, then I will forget the wonders and go more militaristic.

[Addled Platypus]

this is covered here

http://apolyton.net/forums//showthread.php?s=&threadid=151801

[AshenPlanet]

.

Based on your civ, it is most often best to build a fast worker or a settler first I think.

Unless on raging babas, you won't see clubmen attacking your capitol in the first several turns, and animals are not allowed within 2 squares of your culture borders.

Your city most likely will have 2f, 1h, 1c to start.
You will almost always have at least one resource, forest, or flood plain to begin.
In most cases, that means 2f, 1h or 1f, 2h, or 3f, 0h.
Every pop eats 2 f.
That gives you 4 (f or h) production towards building a worker or settler.
If you wait for pop 2 and you have a second special, forest or flood plain, then you have 5 (f or h) production for a worker/settler.
That's a long wait for a 20% difference in production - not worth it.
If you wait a really long time for pop3, then ..., well, that's just crazy talk.

If you start on plains/hill or have deer then numbers skew even further.
Plains/hill or deer gives you 5 prod and you go to 6 prod with pop 2 - 16% difference.
Plains/hill and deer it's 6 prod and 7 prod after pop 2 - 14% difference.
Plains/hill and 2 deer = 6 prod to 8 prod after pop 2 - 25% = maybe worth it to wait if you're lucky enough to start in this magic wonderland.

Whether to start with settler or worker depends on your civ and what resources you have.
If you have mining and hills, or agri and river/lake, or hunting and deer then worker first.
If you have hunting and elephant (which is a weak special) or no starting specials that can be worked with your starting techs, then settler first.
Of course, if you have fishing and fish/clam/crab, then always boat first.

There's no maintenance penalty for your second city, I think, so you want it asap.

.

[NFIH]

Originally posted by AshenPlanet

If you have hunting and elephant (which is a weak special) or no starting specials that can be worked with your starting techs, then settler first.

I play as Hatty (spi/creative) so I start with farm and wheel. So I should definitely build a worker first if there's a farm special around? It just seems a bit counterintuitive because with 1 pop it takes ages (I play epic) to build the first worker anyway.

Of course, if you have fishing and fish/clam/crab, then always boat first.

But if you have to research sailing so early, doesn't that pretty much take you out of any race for other early wonders like the parthenon, pyramids, etc., especially in a game with a lot of other civs? Is it really worth it?

There's no maintenance penalty for your second city, I think, so you want it asap..

Actually, I think there is a penalty for that second city if you place it far enough away from your capital. If it's close, then yes, no penalty for that second city.

[DirtyMartini]

I believe there is a maintainence (sp?) penalty for your second city on Monarch and above.

Dirty

[Mr Justice]

ashen,
your analysis does not convince me for one.
i accept in pure food/sheilds aspect you work the numbers well,
however assuming you only start with a warrior and a settler you either take a huge risk of exploring without leaving a warriior to gaurd the city, or you do no exploring till later.

heres where i see your analysis breaking down, more so depending on the world size/type and no of civs, by building warriors(or scouts) you get to scout more earlier, you spot choice city sites earlier and this may influence your horizontal growth. not to mention huts and the posibility of grabing a enemy civs worker.

to go the opposite route, which i have done b4 but i aint gunna analyse, is vertical growth. build capital city up to 6 or more b4 building settler. in which case it is possible to send a worker or two with the first settler, thus bringing second city much quicker into full production (of whatever food , sheilds ect). over a 50-100 turn time period i remain to be convinced that building worker or settler early is good.

as i said its dependant on so many factors as to esentially be a unique decision each time, im taking about world size, type, no of civs, playin style , starting civ, starting location and difficulty level.

[DirtyMartini]

I usually go worker first at epic, but it ends up being pretty dicey with the barbs most of the time. I tend to neglect archery in my research path

You don't need sailing for a fishing boat -- just fishing. So, if you start with fishing it makes sense to get those boats out ASAP -- your ciyt will grow while it produces somthing that will spur further growth once finished. I'm not completely sold on producing it first, however.

[DirtyMartini]

MrJustice,

You can usually explore and get your initial warrior back to your first city site to escort any settlers --

Barbs don't start popping until quite a few turns in -- like around 3000BC -- and AIs will not attack you that early either. I leave the cap undefended and take my first warrior out in a loop. I explore/pops huts, then have him back around the capital in time for an early settler if I go that route. You need to stick to the forests and forested hills and hope for no bears, but that's a reasonable risk most of the time. If I find a prime city site, I may fortify him there and keep a "lit path" for the settler (per Vel's explaination that's around here somewhere).

Dirty

[Mr Justice]

Quote by DirtyMartini You can usually explore and get your initial warrior back to your first city site to escort any settlers --

taking that its 30 turns to build an early settler, that leaves approx 20 turns to explore (at 1 square per turn for warrior, giving 10 turns to leave city and get back) your not going to explore to much of a large map in that case. true you could circle your city and reveal more of whats around your city but its still not going to reveal much. not in comparisson to two warriors sent forth to boldly go where no warrior has been before.

(which you can do quickly by sending ur first warrior straight out to explore and building next one (or a scout)and sending him out aswell. leaving the 3rd to gaurd capital)

the reality of the situation is that early settlers means you sacrifice something, i say its knowledge of sourrounding terrain (and whats in it). you cant have your pie and eat it, you start off building a settler and then you devote your one and only warrior to its survival (weather you fortify him somewhere, where he is UNMOVING, or you escort him from the capital).

ofc you can always leave the settler unescorted, which i have done, (not my first one tho ), trick is to only move em 1 square at a time , not their allowed 2, gives u a spare movement point to go back if u reveal a animal or barb (they all 1 move appart from panther).

[enderw]

I believe the object of the early game should be to work as many good squares as possible, and this should determine your starting build order. Generally you should take your first unit and try to explore nearby terrain, unless startng in an extremely cramped multiplayer game, or you have some other reason. (Eg as France on earth 18civs you can take your warrior and walk stright into Berlin becasue Germany starts with a scout and can't fight back. . oops!)

Worker first:
In favor

• Terrain you can work near your cap e.g. wheat/ag, deer/hunting, especially terrain that will add extra hammers or food)
• You started with the wheel, roads are always good

Reasons to delay a worker

• Terrain that is not immediately useful (silver, furs, ivory, marble)
• You won't have the tech to make the worker useful. . workers should never be idle in the early game, if they are you built too many too fast.
• Lots of barbs or a crowded multiplayer game. . empty cities are asking for trouble

Warrior first:
In favor

• There is a hill two diagonal squares away from your cap with no forest or jungle in between. You are really asking for trouble if people can see your empty cap without declaring war on you first. . even peaceful players will feel obligated to "take you out"
• Lots of barbs
• You started with a scout . . even a warrior wandering about is much more protection than a scout, if the decision is close and you started with a scout, lean towards a warrior

Against

• Arch or BW or AH are early in your research plan. . you may want to risk waiting to see if you can build a "real" unit.
• You are playing on an island map or in a team game with no enemies nearby.

Workboat first:
In favor

• Sea resources nearby
• Your city has reasable access to hammers (two forest squares or better)
• Your city will be at size 2 or 3 when you finish, so having a second square that can give hammers allows to finish in a reasonable amount of time

Against

• No good hammer squares. . build a worker and mines first.
• More lucrative land squares (several food bonuses a worker can hook up for example)

In general prefer a work boat to a worker, as your city grows as it builds the work boat.


Build a settler first only if your initial site is a bomb. In this case you should look for a good site to build a second city, even if you live your cap undefended. I mean really who wants to get into a long defensive battle over a crummy city site? Also you should be able to see a site that is good regardles of where horses or copper may pop up.

It is often beneficial to have bronze working and animal husbandry before placing the second city, as seeing copper and horses can help you place it correctly.

[rah]

I agree with most of the above.

For those that say waiting to size two to speed up the worker or settler build isn't worth it because it doesn't speed it up enough % wise....the lack of extra explorers means less huts, and the value of the goodies far outweigh possible negatives.

[AshenPlanet]

.

Your second city won't research as fast as your first - most of your early research comes from your palace and not the actual squares you're working.
It will, however, produce just as fast as your first.
With minimal penalties (bigger penalties kick in at 3-4 cities), founding the second city hundreds of years earlier gives you many more explorers, many more warriors, many more wonders, etc...
Building 2 scouts at a time gets you more huts popped than 1 at a time.

If you have farm special with agri, then it's so huge to go worker first, it'll make everything else fly.
Waiting till pop 2 to make a worker a little bit faster is far behind making at pop1 to make your warrior/scout a lot faster.
I think if you have agri and just river/lake with no food special it may be better to go settler first, since the worker only adds 1.
That's like the elephant camp where you only add 1 prod, it's maybe better to go settler first.
If you have farm special though, absolutely worker first is the way to go.
Wheat or corn adds 3 food when farmed.

In a multiplayer small map, delaying the worker/settler would be advised because this could be cutthroat depending on your luck.
In a large multiplayer map, or any size single player map, it's better to do worker or settler.

.

[rah]

Originally posted by AshenPlanet

Building 2 scouts at a time gets you more huts popped than 1 at a time.

In a multiplayer small map, delaying the worker/settler would be advised because this could be cutthroat depending on your luck.
In a large multiplayer map, or any size single player map, it's better to do worker or settler.

.

Scouts later may not help if the huts have already been opened. One extra hut that gives a tech will offset 5 turns of additional growth in the second city. The second city will plateau at some point.

Yes in MP, it's quite necessary to have a troop at home. Unless there a just a couple of civs on a larger map.