The Alphabet Trick

[peppe1]

EDIT 2: 3 cities is kind of low. You're going to have trouble breaking out because your productive capacity isn't high. If you're planning to war, the only redeeming quality is the forests around your capital. Settling on that Incan city of Tiwanku spot is critical on this map.

If i play out the save I have on that I think the capital + the other two contributing a little will be ok to war with. I didn't expect to get hemmed in so quickly since i don't play immortal normally. If i had expected war this early I would not be researching priesthood -> literature. Probably would have gone down horseback riding and construction. Anyway epic speed is too much for me, so I'll probably won't pursue it.

I am keeping up in tech on immortal due to the monster capital. Yes it starts out food poor, but its got 4 flood plains, a gold, and decent production once you get worker turns into it. I probably should have chopped out more settlers + workers then I would have a couple more good whip cities and could roll someone over.

I think you are right that if you can get a settler out quickly to block Tiwanku which almost always seems to be in this spot:

Spoiler :

My question to you is how you did this? I have restarted and run the game a few times to see what happens and they settle the city on turn 29-30. How did you build and get a settler to the site before the AI, which starts with a worker and two corn tiles?

Original save attached:

 

[Dhoomstriker]

EDIT: How exactly do you play Gandhi and NOT go worker-first?

Stealing a Worker from another Civ will turn that Worker into a Fast Worker for Gandhi. So, I would think that your alternative approach of going Worker-stealing would be a reasonable answer, here.

 

[Bucephalus]

Stealing a Worker from another Civ will turn that Worker into a Fast Worker for Gandhi. So, I would think that your alternative approach of going Worker-stealing would be a reasonable answer, here.

Is this true? When I stole a fast worker from Ghandi, it remained a fast worker; logically, I would expect a 'normal' worker to remain one if stolen by Ghandi.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Stealing a Worker from another Civ will turn that Worker into a Fast Worker for Gandhi. So, I would think that your alternative approach of going Worker-stealing would be a reasonable answer, here.

There's an opportunity cost to everything I choose to do in the game, which I'm very well aware of. If I'm going Literature first, I probably won't be warring anytime soon. If I go Construction first, then I probably won't get the Great Library. Etc..

With Gandhi, the opportunity cost might just be too high. Even if you do steal a worker, it DOES take a long time to get that initial worker stolen and returned home. During all that time, your tiles aren't being worked. Which a Gandhi worker is especially good at. See? Not working tiles is, you know, kind of painful. But if the sacrifice is worth it....

However, with the Incans, that's a different matter altogether. Their workers are not any better than anyone else's, but their warriors are especially fine. Other good warrior-early civs are aggressive civs, because their warriors are much less likely to die against wild animals and what-not.

Charismatic also works, because these warriors can get to woodsman very fast. But that's a crap-shoot (can the warrior survive the first battles?)

I'm not arguing that warrior-first is BETTER ALL THE TIME. What I'm trying to say is that this is an alternative strategy that works well on lower difficulties, and works reasonably well on Immortal and Diety difficulties with the right civs and under the right conditions. In the Hannibal save, warrior first IS better. But as others have pointed out, this sort of start happens once every three or four starts. But then again, many people like to cherry-pick their starting locations, so warrior-first becomes even more viable for them.

If I wanted to win on Emperor, I'd probably go worker-first. I agree. It's solid and definitely safe. But if I wanted to SMASH Emperor, I'd go warrior first. Like what I did in the Emperor Series: Hannibal game.

 

[MarigoldRan]

If i play out the save I have on that I think the capital + the other two contributing a little will be ok to war with. I didn't expect to get hemmed in so quickly since i don't play immortal normally. If i had expected war this early I would not be researching priesthood -> literature. Probably would have gone down horseback riding and construction. Anyway epic speed is too much for me, so I'll probably won't pursue it.

I am keeping up in tech on immortal due to the monster capital. Yes it starts out food poor, but its got 4 flood plains, a gold, and decent production once you get worker turns into it. I probably should have chopped out more settlers + workers then I would have a couple more good whip cities and could roll someone over.

I think you are right that if you can get a settler out quickly to block Tiwanku which almost always seems to be in this spot:

Spoiler :

My question to you is how you did this? I have restarted and run the game a few times to see what happens and they settle the city on turn 29-30. How did you build and get a settler to the site before the AI, which starts with a worker and two corn tiles?

Original save attached:

The Incans start with a worker. They don't keep it. This slowed the Incans down, to allow me to get a settler there in time.

My question is: what's the point of having a fast research rate and keeping up with the comp on tech if you can't use it? I mean, you can use it to get Wonders, to keep you at pace with the ever-expanding comp, but so what? You can't war on them because they're bigger than you and going for a Space Race victory is too far away (and you might not get it either, given the difficulty settings and run-away-comps).

This is why I think getting more cities is better. Because they allow you to use the techs that you have (especially the military ones). Techs are tools. Not the end goal in itself.

 

[MarigoldRan]

@MarigoldRan

I believe you play the way you feel confortable playing. So it doesn't really matter if it is a good or a bad strategy, if it allow you to manage to win on the level you play I think it is ok if you do so. I guess everybody is allowed to make his own decisions in its game, and play the way the game is fun for him/her.

For example, I never have in my games more that 6-8 cities because if I had to manage an empire of dozens of cities a Civ IV game would be more like a full time job than something fun to do for me. So either I settle less (in my peaceful games), or I raze more (in my aggressive games). Still, I would never claim my "limit your cities" as a "strategy" and that it is "better" to people that just showed me demolishing the AI with zillions of cities in their Immortal games.

Differently, I was so confident in the fact that to:
(a) have a good early output toward Writing-Alphabet;
(b) be in time to build The Pyramids to run Representation;
(c) have few (3-4) cities early enough to have some land without irritating AIs;
the best possible choice would be start with a Settler.

I played this strategy for years, and I tried to prove it to other players in a logic way: I proposed an Empirical test (where I putted my strategy in the WORST possible condition) to prove my point.

I was eventually proved wrong.


To prove a strategy is efficient. I would never claim a strategy is good, just because once, when the Moon was in Conjugation with Mars, it was June and it was Snowing, I had the Feeling that it was Working out well.
IMO, differently from choosing a personal style, claiming something as an efficient strategy that has specific advantages requires solid demonstrations!

That say, IMO you are correct when you underline the fact that you specified "up to Emperor Level": I mean, as well I could say that also if "Worker first with India" was proven better, "Settler first with India" works up to Emperor Level" and prove it with the games I won, so I'm not saying an absurdity after all. But I cannot say "it is a better strategy" anymore.

yatta.

The two Hannibal games are good examples. The first is posted in the Emperor series: Hannibal. The second is posted here. The Victoria game is another decent example.

The difference though between our arguments is that I never claimed that warrior-first is better... under all conditions. During the course of the debate, I've been trying to figure out WHEN it's better, and I think I know the answer:

In rich and crowded spaces, warrior first is better.

In poor and more isolated areas, worker first is better.

Warrior-first works better on slower speeds. Epic for me is kind of fast, though I'm getting used to it.

Agg, Cha, Imp civs, and the Incans do better with warrior first and early-settler compared to other civs. However, if the map is sparse, it might be better to go worker-first. India should almost always go worker-first.

Obviously, if you can go workboat-first, or start on an Archipelago map, it renders the whole discussion moot.

The point though is that: worker-first is not nearly as good as many think it is. It's the safest, but on many maps, it's not the best.

 

[vranasm]

@Marigold

one thing that skews your results is the epic speed. For example in this Hannibal game. If you settle 1E as i did your 1st worker comes T24 and even then the start basically sucks (that's another reason why the worker is not that strong, since you don't have good resources as you should have due to start normalization).

You could bring home the stolen worker from Inca around T15 +- so you have around 9 turn advantage over worker 1st. If it would be on normal the worker would be built on T15 on itself.

edit:
btw you still didn't post any "normal" game... only sea food starts (which we all generally agree on WB first as superior option) or plains cow glitch starts.
As you should know more standard games have some 5F food tile after improvement and generally you should get at least 2 food resources due to start normalization.

 

[peppe1]

The difference though between our arguments is that I never claimed that warrior-first is better... under all conditions. During the course of the debate, I've been trying to figure out WHEN it's better, and I think I know the answer:

In rich and crowded spaces, warrior first is better.

In poor and more isolated areas, worker first is better.

How do you know your continent is crowded or isolated on turn 1 to make the choice between warrior vs worker?

You have to assume you are isolated until you discover another civ. At least on the map scripts I play there is always the chance of isolation or semi isolation. If you discover another civ you can go down the more aggressive paths as needed, but if you don't discover another civ and you commit to an aggressive opening you are in a bad position.

The advantage to worker first is it doesn't matter what is around you ... the worker will pay back its cost. So, based on the information you have on turn 1 it is a safe play to go worker first. Occasionally work boat first pops up as an option.

On the Hannibal game in this thread the warrior starts to the NE of the capital, so I scouted north, saw tundra + my capital borders expanded and I saw coast west, so I headed east. Found a goody hut... with 2 barb warriors in it. Initial warrior dead. This is why most forum games have events and huts off as they can skew a game quickly. Not to mention the chance of a barbarian uprising event

The only incoming scouts came from the south, so my second warrior went south. I only discovered the Incas when they settled their second city in range of my capital on turn 30. That probably should of told me to drop everything and do a 2 city chariot rush.

Replaying it and sending a warrior straight to the Inca I saw plenty of chances to grab the worker, but if you don't scout that direction and declare on them there is no stopping their second city coming in your direction. Feels like more luck involved in this strategy vs worker first where you stay flexible. Worker stealing and choking are a risky gambit. If they don't pay off you are again in a bad spot.

 

[MarigoldRan]

@Marigold

one thing that skews your results is the epic speed. For example in this Hannibal game. If you settle 1E as i did your 1st worker comes T24 and even then the start basically sucks (that's another reason why the worker is not that strong, since you don't have good resources as you should have due to start normalization).

You could bring home the stolen worker from Inca around T15 +- so you have around 9 turn advantage over worker 1st. If it would be on normal the worker would be built on T15 on itself.

edit:
btw you still didn't post any "normal" game... only sea food starts (which we all generally agree on WB first as superior option) or plains cow glitch starts.
As you should know more standard games have some 5F food tile after improvement and generally you should get at least 2 food resources due to start normalization.

But I love glitched cows-plains starts. I don't understand why people complain about it. They're wonderful! I thought the Hannibal start in the game posted was beautiful. I was afraid people would complain because it was so totally awesome (free gold? I've got mining? Wow. Extra food without having to work for it? Wow). Are you sure we play the same game?

For a more "standard" start, with corn tiles, check out the recent Emperor Series: Hannibal. My game is posted there. However, it was on epic, which is the speed I'm used to playing. Normal goes a little too fast for me. I can't post it here, because it's there and I can't send the same attachment to two different places.

Another example is Emperor: Queen Victoria. I posted a save in the last thread: "worker or warrior first?" However, on that map it was obviously workboat-first. But the question is: afterwards, should you get a worker?

In the recent Washington game (I played at Emperor), I went worker-first. The corn tiles looked too juicy to pass up.

EDIT; Link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=420134&page=2

Otherwise, it's on pg. 2

 

[yatta77]

@MarigoldRan

The difference though between our arguments is that I never claimed that warrior-first is better... under all conditions.

False. Neither I did. I said it was better to achieve a specific goal*.
*(I repeat it to boredom in any of my last posts above, you can check).
But then I had to prove that to achieve this goal my plan was better in a random circumstance.
So to prove my point I had to put myself in the worst possible circumstance, not in an exceptional favorable one. This IMO is a decent way to prove something empirically. Period.

The point though is that: worker-first is not nearly as good as many think it is. It's the safest, but on many maps, it's not the best.

Safest = good strategy to teach IMO.

Then, if you want to say that "Worker first = better" is not true on every single map, I believe nobody (open-minded enough) will blame you for that. But this is quite different from you original theory (where it was like better in like 50% of the cases). And, by the way, it sounds more rational to me.
And, by the way again, remember that I was the only one here claiming that what you were saying was not completely illogical to me, so I believe I have an "open-minded enough" card on this issue.

For example next time I will want to play a mounted unit early rush I will go Settler first anyways, so as soon as Horse will be revealed I'll have a Settler to hook the resource, no matter where the closest is, also if close to someone else border. I give up on what is proven best in most cases for what it is for me handy in that specific game. After all, it's my game! If someone else doesn't like it, it's not my problem.

Or I might even play Settler first because, also if proved worst, I have a good timing at it while I don't have a good timing building a Settler after a Worker (I mean: Worker => grow => suspend building => Settler; When? Which turn? which city size? which output production?) so playing Worker first I could end up having a worst result, as my last Immortal game proves.

The difference it is that now I know it is not because mine (Settler first) is a better idea, but it is just because I'm not experienced enough with the other (Worker first), generally more correct, idea. And, by the way, having time enough to spend on a video game, I'm aware that the wisest thing to do would probably be to train in Worker first openings anyways.

yatta.

 

[MarigoldRan]

@MarigoldRan


False. Neither I did. I said it was better to achieve a specific goal*.
*(I repeat it to boredom in any of my last posts above, you can check).
But then I had to prove that to achieve this goal my plan was better in a random circumstance.
So to prove my point I had to put myself in the worst possible circumstance, not in an exceptional favorable one. This IMO is a decent way to prove something empirically. Period.



Safest = good strategy to teach IMO.

Then, if you want to say that "Worker first = better" is not true on every single map, I believe nobody (open-minded enough) will blame you for that. But this is quite different from you original theory (where it was like better in like 50% of the cases). And, by the way, it sounds more rational to me.
And, by the way again, remember that I was the only one here claiming that what you were saying was not completely illogical to me, so I believe I have an "open-minded enough" card on this issue.

For example next time I will want to play a mounted unit early rush I will go Settler first anyways, so as soon as Horse will be revealed I'll have a Settler to hook the resource, no matter where the closest is, also if close to someone else border. I give up on what is proven best in most cases for what it is for me handy in that specific game. After all, it's my game! If someone else doesn't like it, it's not my problem.

Or I might even play Settler first because, also if proved worst, I have a good timing at it while I don't have a good timing building a Settler after a Worker (I mean: Worker => grow => suspend building => Settler; When? Which turn? which city size? which output production?) so playing Worker first I could end up having a worst result, as my last Immortal game proves.

The difference it is that now I know it is not because mine (Settler first) is a better idea, but it is just because I'm not experienced enough with the other (Worker first), generally more correct, idea. And, by the way, having time enough to spend on a video game, I'm aware that the wisest thing to do would probably be to train in Worker first openings anyways.

yatta.

Never said it was better in 50% of the games or more. Nope. Not me. Absolutely not.

Well, the best way to prove something empirically is to play the same, reasonable map twice (you'll have to spoil the map to yourself beforehand, so it's the same in both cases) but in two different ways. By reasonable I mean a map where both strategies can be used reasonably well.

Giving yourself super-sub-optimal conditions seems kind of harsh. I mean, the goal is to prove your theory, not to disprove it. Right?

 

[Kaosprophet]

But I love glitched cows-plains starts. I don't understand why people complain about it. They're wonderful! I thought the Hannibal start in the game posted was beautiful. I was afraid people would complain because it was so totally awesome (free gold? I've got mining? Wow. Extra food without having to work for it? Wow). Are you sure we play the same game?

I'm beginning to wonder. In fact...

However, it was on epic, which is the speed I'm used to playing.

...I think perhaps we're not.

Not that there's anything wrong with playing at Epic - though some argue that it is equivelant to playing a difficulty or two levels lower than stated. But it does skew the relative values of different approaches to the game compared to standard speed.

 

[yatta77]

Never said it was better in 50% of the games or more. Nope. Not me. Absolutely not.

The large number of warriors earlier is a by-product of the broader strategy. I mean, if I'm bee-lining Alphabet, I don't have anything better to do: hence warriors and settlers.

about 50% come from: when bee-lining Alphabet.
other about 50%: not bee-lining Alphabet.

You said so. As I said so about Settler first.

And by the way, you said you bee-line Alphabet in the majority of your games, so it should likely be even more than 50%.

But I really don't care after all. I'm glad I've learned something I would never guess, so this discussion was useful for me. If you will ever empirically or mathematically prove your points on some kind of comparable stats, I'll be interested in your results.

Until then, I'm happy enough with what I got from this discussion.

Sincerly, Greetings,
yatta.