Just thought of a special strategy

[Nikomakkos]

I just thought of a beginning strategy I'd like to try. It's about founding a religion and getting a shrine early, and still not falling far behind in settling and production. I think this could work on Emperor.

It does depend on getting gold or gems at your starting location, so it's a bit lame. And it's preferable to start with a civ that either has Mysticism or Mining (or both).

So, here it goes:

1. Build a worker and research Mining (or Mysticism if you started with Mining).

2. Next research Bronze Working, and have your worker mine the gold/gems. Build another Worker.

3. When the mine is ready, have your city work the gold/gems tile. This will speed up the Bronze Working research.

4. Next it's Polytheism or Masonry (you're going for Judaism). Set your warrior/scout out to find copper, and chop down trees with your worker.

5. Now you have another worker. Build Stonehenge, and have the workers chop it up. Mind that you're still working the gold/gems and your city is not growing (unless maybe you built it on rice or something, which might be a good idea for this strategy).

Ideally you have some forest left to chop a settler when you've finished the Stonehenge. From this on out it's the usual deal.

I think this is a way in which I think you can be the first to Monotheism, get a shrine and not getting too far behind (because you're chopping trees). It does delay the second city a bit though, but it might be well worth it. Perhaps it'd be better, especially if you've already found copper, to chop a settler first and then build Stonehenge, as you might not be able to chop Stonehenge up completely. But that could result in missing out on Stonehenge, thus having to wait longer for the shrine.

What do you guys think?

[Colm]

If you start with building 2 workers, your city won't grow and then it will take ages to build stonehenge (even with the help of chopping worker). Most likely another civ will beat you to it.

[Julian Delphiki]

Sounds like a normal start for many games to me, except that there is no need for gold and not necessarily for second worker either.

[Blaupanzer]

If your start gives you gold or gems, prioritizing mining makes sense. After that work your way thru BW, AH, whichever tech matches your food special, on to writing then priesthood. Build Oracle and leap to CoL, thus getting a way to cut city costs and get a religion with a single free tech. Note: to do that leap, you need writing prior to Oracle finish. (I just screwed that up in my last game.) The later religion usually lets you choose whether to join a religious faction or start one dependent on neighbors.

The two worker strategy could well leave you with very little land left to occupy as your neighbors hem you in while you are not growing.

Chopping out Stonehenge is not necessary unless you have no other source for culture. Libraries and theatres plus temples for the chosen religion is more than enough culture for fighting without wasting any time on that Wonder that early. Just thinking out loud, if you will. I think the posed strategy is advocated by many of the Epic/Marathon players on this site.

[snoopy369]

You always need a second worker... Blau, you're mistaken to believe that a two worker strategy means slower growth. It means faster growth, as you get that second and third settler out MUCH faster.

That said, I wouldn't bother with Stonehenge unless you are IND or have stone; it's quaint but it's lost growth time. You can get the GP soon enough without it, plenty of GP points available if you want them.

[rah]

Yeah for me stonehege isn't a priority also.
..maybe if IND, (if I wait to hook up the stone, someone else has usually finished it already, and if I have stone, I'm looking for pyramids)
Or maybe if I have a monument UU, I'll consider it.

I used to be in the one worker camp but have been converted to the extra workers do not really slow down growth group.

[Blaupanzer]

Okay, always learning.

[rah]

Yeah in MP games, I'd always get off to a fast start but then the guys with the (the more workers the better) mentality would always catch up and pass me. I'm a convert having seen the results game after game.
And I believe the most common newb error is not enough workers. Obviously there is a limit to this, but you have to really work at it.

IN a sp game You'll see the ai drop a city and 15 workers show up and presto, there's a productive city in almost no time. While the AI has a lot of problems with other complex issues, it doesn't on this one.

[Blaupanzer]

I do note that on the turn I jump the AI in starting a war, I can always pick off three or more workers. Also, this never leaves the AI civ that short of workers. Will emphasize that more in my games.

[Nikomakkos]

I like the Stonehenge for convenience, especially if I found a religion. Because then the Great Prophet will arrive and I don't have to think about it. But I'm not sure how many trees you'd have to chop to get it. Like I said, maybe it'd be wiser to chop a settler first and then maybe chop the Stonehenge partly, stop working the gold and let the city grow and finish Stonehenge on its own. But you guys are right, Stonehenge is not necessary, just convenient.

Two workers is a must. When you have two of them chopping up the settler, your settler arrives about the same time he would have if you'd only built one worker. Anyway, the difference is very small. And now you can have one of your workers follow that settler and chop another worker and a monument in your new city right away, while the other improves your capital (or chops another settler if there are trees left). This results in a very fast growth of productivity.

[Theben]

Hmmm, I'm still in the 1 worker camp. Mebbe I'll try for 2 next time.

I also agree that stonehenge is fairly useless at higher levels, and not really worth going after. Unless your PHIL and have a strat based on Great Prophets, or have stone, it's not worth it.

As for staying with one city, . I build 2 settlers out of my capital and then it settles down to build Wonders almost exclusively (but then I play PHIL civs mostly). The 2nd city goes straight for GW and the 3rd churns out archers, workers, and settlers. Once the 2nd city is done with the GW (builds it or loses it) it starts building archers, workers, and settlers. Infrastructure is built as needed, as is military.

[Blaupanzer]

Three civs have some version of the monument as the national UB. For them, Stonehenge is a game-changing accomplishment. For the rest of us, we will sorely miss the stuff that did not get built so that Stonehenge could. If you play random civ for your own start, these distinguishements are pretty critical.

[rah]

or the characteristic that gives you +1 happy for monuments.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Three civs have some version of the monument as the national UB. For them, Stonehenge is a game-changing accomplishment.

Athough I like to play the Native Americans, I still usually skip Stonehenge. While it would be nice to have it for the GP points, I find that the Temple of Artemis is much better, if more expansive. The only cities that really need totem poles are my military cities, and cities under threat. I use dog soldiers to fend off barbarians, offensively and defensively, and research archery late. So the UB bonus doesn't really affect me until later.

[Blaupanzer]

You play the Native Americans and research archery late. What is the point of this? I would think that they and the Babylonians would be the two societies where archery would be practically an out-of-the-barrel tech. What is you see that I am apparently missing? Five extra experience points sounds self-revealing.