Early game build order

[Akbarthegreat]

Playing on emperor. I usually start with a shrine, then monument and then worker. Exceptions include:

1. If I have a good amount of mining/trapping resource, I go worker first while researching the appropriate tech.
2. Guaranteed faith (India/Ethiopia/Spain)
3. Good early unique like Aztec jaguars

I go shrine first because I'm paranoid about losing a good pantheon (and hence a religion, with all the benefits it provides). But I recently read in a couple of fairly old threads that shrine first is suboptimal. Is this true? Are there advantages to going monument first?

 

[Seiryuuuu]

If I'm going tradition, I build monument first, then shrine on the capital. The +3 faith from the right part of tradition is really helpful for getting a pantheon. Usually, I'll got 4 pop before adopting tradition, that is 6 pop, then 2-3 settlers. Then workers, warriors, archers or a wonder.

 

[crdvis16]

Playing on emperor. I usually start with a shrine, then monument and then worker. Exceptions include:

1. If I have a good amount of mining/trapping resource, I go worker first while researching the appropriate tech.
2. Guaranteed faith (India/Ethiopia/Spain)
3. Good early unique like Aztec jaguars

I go shrine first because I'm paranoid about losing a good pantheon (and hence a religion, with all the benefits it provides). But I recently read in a couple of fairly old threads that shrine first is suboptimal. Is this true? Are there advantages to going monument first?

I play immortal/deity. If I'm trying to found a religion I will almost always go shrine first in my capital and monument will almost always be 2nd. I'll typically go shrine first in my first couple satellite cities as well. If I'm not trying to found then my order is almost always monument/shrine (shrine 2nd is still good because pantheons like God of all Creation still give tons of yields).

How fast I get a worker is more dependent on nearby resources. If I'm in a jungle or plantation start and I don't have the techs to improve tiles yet then I don't rush a worker. If I have mining, trapping, pasture, or strong farm resources then an early worker is much more important.

As you've pointed out, certain civs warp your early game build order. Very early UBs (Ethiopia, Mongolia, etc) or very early UU (Aztec, Celts, etc) can definitely change things.

 

[crdvis16]

Also, regarding monument first- I think it depends on your opening policy tree.

If I'm going progress then I see no reason to go monument first. You get your burst of culture/science from the opener regardless.

For tradition it depends on how much food I have in my start. Ideally you try to hit at least 4 pop before opening tradition to maximize the effect of the free 2 pop so sometimes shrine first means you get your pantheon earlier and end up with higher pop in your capital.

For authority I'm often not trying to found in which case it's monument first most of the time. There's also nothing in authority that offsets delaying culture slightly- you really need authority's opener ASAP so that you start getting culture from barbarians and get to your free settler as fast as you can.

 

[CrazyG]

I go monument first when playing without ruins, but shrine first, monument second when playing with ruins.

Worker first is generally not good IMO. There are a few exceptions (like India) but overall it's bad.

Same with warrior or pathfinder, in VP you should start with a building.

 

[Stalker0]

On Emperor I go monument then shrine in most cases. Even with progress I can generally found comfortably (I will however go shrine first in my satelite cities unless I have a very strong founded pantheon).

The other thing I consider is whether I am doing a "wonder rush" (aka pyramid or stonehenge). I generally will go monument + that wonder under the following conditions:

1) The tech aligns well with my starting terrain (aka mining if there are good mining resources around, wheel for calendar or construction type resources).
2) I can hit 3 population by the time I finish my first tech...usually means at least 1 3 food tile.
3) There are 3 1f2p tiles in my area that are accessible (this is key to ensure I have enough production to work the wonders).

In that circumstance, I can get Stonehenge or pyramids on Turn 26 (maybe a little sooner with ruins or very favorable terrain). On Emperor this is a very safe start...the only time I have every lost the wonder is some crazy America wonder shenanigans, and even then its very rare. I will then immediately get my shrine right after. And yes, even with all that I normally can still found, I just have to be exceptionally diligent with my religion.

For my third thing, a lot of time its worker, on occasion I will do granary third...depends on pantheon and terrain. If the barbs are crazy (which can happen sometimes on isolated starts where no one is around but you to deal with them), I may get an archer 3rd.

 

[DeAnno]

Same with warrior or pathfinder, in VP you should start with a building.

I think Warrior first is good for Celts or Aztecs. For Celts I've been experimenting with Warrior/Mining open then upgrade one of my 2 warriors then tribute a CS to upgrade the other. In a way the Celts are even better with this than the Aztecs because their kills net more Faith and 2 Picts is usually better than 2 Jags.

 

[Stalker0]

I think Warrior first is good for Celts or Aztecs. For Celts I've been experimenting with Warrior/Mining open then upgrade one of my 2 warriors then tribute a CS to upgrade the other. In a way the Celts are even better with this than the Aztecs because their kills net more Faith and 2 Picts is usually better than 2 Jags.

Even with that I would still build a monument first. It will let you kick in your authority benefits much quicker.

 

[CrazyG]

I think Warrior first is good for Celts or Aztecs. For Celts I've been experimenting with Warrior/Mining open then upgrade one of my 2 warriors then tribute a CS to upgrade the other. In a way the Celts are even better with this than the Aztecs because their kills net more Faith and 2 Picts is usually better than 2 Jags.

I think you should still build a monument first to get authority (or whatever policy you want) faster.

 

[DeAnno]

I think you should still build a monument first to get authority (or whatever policy you want) faster.

Normally I would agree... but imagine a situation where you don't need the first tile expand immediately, and where you think you might get a settler settled before Pantheon unless you go double Pict first. Rhiannon with two cities and 0 improvements is +4c +6f per turn, it must be right to try to force that before you drop your second city. Even with one city, Rhiannon is +2c +3f, better than the monument. I guess you could hope you can get it early anyway with the earlier Authority combat bonus instead, but killing camps with just a single Pict and a Pathfinder can be tricky even with that bonus.

 

[kawyua]

I've played a decent amount of celts the previous patch and if there aren't that many barbarians nearby, only civs/citystates then I highly prefer going warrior first. probably moreso if ancient ruins are up. having few barbarians to farm for authority is a big deal, too. this warrior first is quite okay with progress though, its not really that bad to delay getting the opener a bit.
First, the timing on getting mining and getting a warrior out by that time means 2 upgrades into pictish by around t10 which is just the right timing to be able to travel to another civ and contest their settler. the route of going monument first means that I'll miss that timing most likely.
Second, the 2nd pictish is like an additive modifier to tribute strength going from like 25% tribute percent to like 75%ish in city states. at t11ish! the extra compensation from each city state makes up for a lot of the cost of going warrior first.
rhys made a good point, too.
I had a whole play through last patch with celts, but the recording went all laggy. anyways, for the map type i'm playing in, I know ahead of time i'll get few barbs, so I set up for a rush in military strength in order to contest 2 ai of their settlers. its not that exemplary because i got quite a few good ruins, but I'd say warrior first is legitimate for celts

 

[DeAnno]

Yeah, another thing I should've mentioned is that the tribute cycle is really brutal. You get mining, promote one Pict, tribute and immediately have a second Pict, and then the rest of your tributes on that cycle will be in the 75%-100% range usually if you get both in the distance radius.

Depending on timings this can also let you Invest the monument with enough CS around, in fact there is a good argument you should "cook" the monument by leaving it a turn before 50% and work on something else if you're going to be a turn or two slow with the tributing and there seem to be enough CS to get over the hump (this usually needs 3-4 total in Pict-tribute range, counting the one you used to get the second Pict.)

Doing the similar thing with Aztec tends to be not as good just because the pantheon you get won't give your culture a huge shot in the arm the way a Celtic one does, so you don't just earn back the lost culture from the delayed monument.

 

[stii]

I think you should still build a monument first to get authority (or whatever policy you want) faster.

I gave this a try on deity and it seemed like it worked pretty well. Bully CS was worth a reasonable amount and the faith generation from picts+pantheon was easily enough to get a religion, I founded on t75 which is in the safe range. Seems like you can can a religion most of the time. also beat up an Ai and took a city while doing this so the swarm of warriors I built had quite a bit of value. You could still go monument first, I don't think the 2nd warrior is needed super early but having authority earlier doesn't do that much either, you can wait a bit to start killing barbs.

 

[CrazyG]

Alright I can believe warrior before monument for specifically the Celts, especially if you do some worker stealing. It's quite a clever opening actually.

Depending on timings this can also let you Invest the monument with enough CS around, in fact there is a good argument you should "cook" the monument by leaving it a turn before 50% and work on something else if you're going to be a turn or two slow with the tributing and there seem to be enough CS to get over the hump (this usually needs 3-4 total in Pict-tribute range, counting the one you used to get the second Pict.)

This is a good point, I do "cook" buildings especially early monuments often. But in general (and for Aztec, they don't have good culture) monument first is a very safe play. Even as the celts you risk a lot, like starting very isolated or not meeting many CS to tribute.

 

[stii]

Is that how the buy function works in this mod? I assumed it just reduced them by half so taking it later was waste. Does it build next turn if you prebuild it to 505?

 

[CrazyG]

Is that how the buy function works in this mod? I assumed it just reduced them by half so taking it later was waste. Does it build next turn if you prebuild it to 505?

Production can overflow (up to a limit).

Like if a building costs 65 production, and you have 60 so far, but add 10 more, you get 5 production towards the next thing in that city. It works the same with investing, it just lowers the cost of the building. It is capped at the production cost of the thing you build though.

So if you have like 100 production this turn (maybe you chopped 4 forests at once or something) and you have a monument in the queue.
You finish the monument (65 hammers), and pass on 35.
If you invest the monument, you finish it (32 hammers), pass on 32 (not more because a monument only costs 32) and the remaining 34 would just get wasted.

Overflowing on purpose can be useful sometimes, like rushing a wonder or a settler out. It's also wise to avoid waste, it can happen sometimes on late game workers, but the most common reason is bonus yields.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Same with warrior or pathfinder, in VP you should start with a building.

Just popping in to say that I also respectfully disagree in the instance that you are playing The Shosone, where pathfinders pretty much trump everything in the very early game . I used to main Shoshone, and while there is a slight risk most of the time having a second recon unit right at the start was quite powerful.

 

[DeAnno]

I used to main Shoshone, and while there is a slight risk most of the time having a second recon unit right at the start was quite powerful.

What difficulty was this, and map size? On Deity often the enemy pathfinders are really obnoxious about stealing huts from me, I wish they wouldn't start with the double move promotions.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Worker first is generally not good IMO. There are a few exceptions (like India) but overall it's bad.

Same with warrior or pathfinder, in VP you should start with a building.

Why is it that worker first is bad? If you have, for example, a wheat and gems/salt/furs/ivory start, I found that the increase in yields you get early is pretty good. The additional gold you get means that you have enough buy an extra worker/warrior/council (whatever you need) once your monument and shrine are done.

 

[CrazyG]

Why is it that worker first is bad? If you have, for example, a wheat and gems/salt/furs/ivory start, I found that the increase in yields you get early is pretty good. The additional gold you get means that you have enough buy an extra worker/warrior/council (whatever you need) once your monument and shrine are done.

Generally I think early culture is better than early gold. In fact worker first works out best when it can improve a luxury that gives culture (like furs) and you can sell that luxury for gold to an AI.

I don't think its good just to improve a wheat, I would much rather get social policies earlier, or my pantheons earlier, compared to growing earlier. Same with building councils, I'll happily delay a council a few turns to get more early culture.

I would recommend starting a game, playing it with worker first till around turn 50. Then do the same start with monument first, and see which is in a better position. In particular compare how far your culture and science is.