Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Victoria, May 8, 2018.
I made the same mistake, but in a less frequented topic, so no one noticed
Code. They obviously coded all wonders as solid obstacles, without consideration of the "real" geometry of the thing, so in game engine just reads "wonder == LOS-blocking obstacle" and applies the rule. Which is understandable, imagine if they would have to account for specific geometries of objects to consider LOS...
I can usually still get the Early Empire inspiration by prioritizing a settler soon after the monument (depending on military situation). The inspiration for Craftsmanship is worth 16 culture, or 8 turns of a monument. So spending approximately 8 turns on a builder to get the inspiration instead of on the monument is a wash. The question is, after that time, would you rather have three improvements finished or a monument already finished? I suspect this depends on terrain. There are starts with very powerful early improvements and starts where you can hardly build any. It also interacts with your intended tech tree path.
IKR, was hoping for a more interesting answer.
Something like, “if you took out the small stone on the right with an arrow it would look like....”
It’s not that simple.
Build a builder and then the monument and everything else is cheaper...and growth can be faster.
Build a monument and then still have to build the builder without improved land.
It’s an interesting point as 2 culture is arguably worth 3 production and a builder gets you 3 production.
I did not mention that the main aim is to go builder settler if possible... that early settler is what it’s all about.
The funny thing is you can actually screw up by building too many monuments early, because then you'll miss the inspirations.
I usually have my 2nd city make a monument if things look calm. I almost never build it in my capital; it's usually one of the last things.
I might go monument first if it's like a crappy rainforest start and you can't improve anything anyways. But in those cases, I think a scout would be better.
Well, usually if one settles a new city, chances are pretty good one has a bigger/more productive city than the city one just settled. So one may rather get started on non-unit production asap, to increase the city's value asap. One can build units in the more developed city.
Not forgetting one may be gaining unit discounts in ones capital for Envoys.
Well, you could be getting envoy production for either units or buildings or both. I think I agree that if an early builder will in fact yield 3 production it is a good first build. However, there are a few situational things to consider: (1) You are only getting three production once you have three citizens working improvements. (2) In some cases, your citizens should not work mines immediately, either because there are better tiles or because you don't have the mining tech. (3) Barbarians can pillage improvements but if they take your monument you've got bigger problems. I think if pasture or mining resources are available a builder first is probably superior, but for starts with forrested hills and/or farm/plantation type resources monument first is a possibility.
@Melchizedek its the agoge inspiration as well, not building units until you get it.
It’s a combination thing.
Play the same game with different openings ... this is what many players have done. GOTM is a good place to go for people playing the same game for comparison. It’s pretty much agreed that monument is a slower start, however monument in other cities is a first.... as I said it’s really all about that settler, getting more cities faster is really what this game is all about.
A couple times I've switched to an early monument if I get lucky enough to pop a builder in the first couple turns from a hut and I was going builder-first as my strategy. But overall, I'd agree that you don't want to delay that first builder/settler too long since you really need them against the higher level AI.
A builder is a bit more flexible also... I’ve chopped in a warrior with a worker in times of desperation.
... an elephant's trunk?
Never did as a first build, it's something I've considered when playing with barbarians off, but scout still seems better. Now for my Rome game who starts off with the monument, I can say it is quite useful. Though as the 2nd quote says, sometimes you can easily out tech (our out civic as the case may be) your ability to get inspirations. Still, I'd rather be ahead of the curve than behind. You will get 1st tier government in about 2/3 the normal time (I'm estimating here) with Rome.
Well the real life delicate arch is on a hill, and not very easy to shoot through. And then there's the issue of shooting arrows hundreds of miles... The real life one you wouldn't be able to see what's on the other side very easily unless you hike up to the arch and look through.
Well I guess thats interesting
Most times I go Scout, builder, slinger, warrior, settler, slinger, but will change as things dictate. If I happen upon a weak close neighbor...
They tend to disappear rather soon. After the warrior is were I do the most changing. I have gone multiple warriors/slingers (or archers if possible). If I do stick with original, then I try Holy Site or Campus, then hopefully have Magnus, and spit out Archer/Settler combos to settle the area for awhile.
Civ arrows are special. They outrange machine guns by a factor of 2:1.
Interestingly, they also outrange the earlier Slingers by a range of 2:1, although historically slingers had a longer accuracy range than bowmen. The problem with slingers is it takes a lot of training to use a sling efficiently. Bows are much more point and shoot. Also, slingers can only really skirmish because of the amount of space each slinger requires to use his weapon. Bowmen can maintain a denser formation. What bowmen can't do is attack slingers without being subject to counter attack. Except in civ.
I'm off topic. Sorry.
Since this thread is derailed from the beginning I would allow myself to ask @Victoria how exactly did you calculate the value to compare this things?
Monument? Monumental mistake?
I see what you did there
I try to get monuments in my second and third cities, but it depends on other sources of culture (eg city state, luxe) and production (I might do without monuments if my new cities lack production so I can concentrate on other stuff).
I prefer scout openings - more fun - but builder is a much stronger start. I often start builder, settler, settler, then military and maybe buy a second builder. But I often need to sneak in a warrior or other military if I have close aggressive neighbours and can’t reliably placate them with lux trades or barbs get out of control. Two builders are handy because I can get three improvements and still be able to chop (to get settlers out or clear jungle), repair (if barbs attack) and improve iron if that turns up.
You can often explore a little with a builder which slightly offsets not having a scout. I do think a starting scout is much more fun, especially if you then get a second scout from a goody hut. But I’ve been playing Immortal more, and I feel like it’s safer having a builder at that level.
Separate names with a comma.