Question About Build Order (Start of Game)

[Tasonne]

I've been playing this game for a long long time and I've always thought I knew exactly what to do at the start of the game. My perception has been that there is always a best decision and early on in the game, those decisions are very obvious. I'm going to say what I think and if there are any real pros out there I would really appreciate some critique.

First off, I always take someone who's industrious. It's the best trait, hands down and as far as I'm concerned no one can possibly argue with that. For the other trait, I usually, but not always, take scientific or militaristic. That second trait doesn't matter as much since it doesn't really have much effect on the first 25 turns of the game, which is why i'm here.

Situation: Let's assume I get a reasonably average start and get a bonus grassland or sugar (2food 1shield) beside my capital, with at least 2 others within my 2 square radius, this or something better is what usually happens

The game:
-science on 90% and research pottery
-having my worker make sure that every time my city grows one of those three squares, i'm assuming I have, are worked, so that I get at least 2 food and 2 shields on each square until my city reaches size three, goes without saying.
-now i'm not completely sure about the numbers but lets say i build 2 warriors then throw a temple on until I finish researching pottery so i can switch to a granary, then build a settler, then go warrior>settler>warrior>settler until further notice


-is this a half decent strategy?
-is it better to build my first settler before the granary since I will get that second city up faster? or is it better to get the second city up a little slower to get the third city faster? which i'm assuming will happen
-what do the pros do? what's the best thing you can do?

like I said, I always assumed there is always an obvious best decision. and that the first turn's decisions are the most obvious: science on 90, pottery, warrior, worker on the bonus grassland and mine, and mine all the bonus grasslands til about 4 before switching to the second city, always staying ahead of your cities

 

[vmxa]

I would say there is nearly always a best decison, but it varies with the start, traits, goals, map. I would not agree that I can expect to get a start like that, even frequently. That is more than a decent start, it at least above average.

If you are playing Vanilla or PTW, then Ind is a top trait. If you are playing C3C, I still like it a lot, but I would prefer Commerce to it and you can make a case that AG is better than Ind. Therefore I am very fond of France with Comm/Ind.

I am not real big on a granary right away and as I play a lot of AW I do not even build them for quite some time. I will leave it to others on when it is best to go settler before granary. You could look at some of the SG's that are on your level of play and see what they are saying.

 

[Tasonne]

I would say there is nearly always a best decison, but it varies with the start, traits, goals, map. I would not agree that I can expect to get a start like that, even frequently. That is more than a decent start, it at least above average.

If you are playing Vanilla or PTW, then Ind is a top trait. If you are playing C3C, I still like it a lot, but I would prefer Commerce to it and you can make a case that AG is better than Ind. Therefore I am very fond of France with Comm/Ind.

I am not real big on a granary right away and as I play a lot of AW I do not even build them for quite some time. I will leave it to others on when it is best to go settler before granary. You could look at some of the SG's that are on your level of play and see what they are saying.

Yeah I play C3C... Commercial isn't bad at all though I haven't messed around with agricultural too much yet.

I always assumed having a granary in your capital, or at least whatever city you're using to build settlers, was a given. Maybe this is a mistake?

And I've looked at strat guides and done searches but got lazy when I didn't find the answers I was looking for right away

Thanks though!

 

[Spoonwood]

In order to respond well, I would need more information about the game. What victory condition do you have in mind? Are barbarians around? What size of map is it? What type of landform is the map? How hot is the map? How old is the planet? Could we see one of your saves?

 

[vmxa]

Here is the another reason I like Comm, you start with Alphabet.

 

[Tasonne]

In order to respond well, I would need more information about the game. What victory condition do you have in mind? Are barbarians around? What size of map is it? What type of landform is the map? How hot is the map? How old is the planet? Could we see one of your saves?

I consider myself a typical civ player.

I very, very rarely play with barbarians. I think they're dumb and I can't stand them.

I always play conquest.

As for the map type and that. The build order I gave is the one I use almost always, regardless of the map type. Except under some circumstances where I feel I need an extra warrior or where I feel that it really is necessary to build the settler before the granary, which is not very often (mistake perhaps?). However, the granary is, virtually, always either the 4th or 5th thing i build (3w>g>s or 3w>s>g)

However, scratch the point about the start location. It doesn't really matter where you start, we all know what the important thing to do is. If you've got plains, irrigate them. If you've got forest, cut that down. There's always an answer and with an industrial civ whatever problem you might be faced with gets watered down and one can usually deal with it. Basically, no matter what that one worker can, most of the time, get your capital up and running.

How much does your build order change based on your start location? I'm talking the first 20 turns if that. What I'm saying is, mine, over the years, has been virtually the same regardless of my map type, is that bad? Or is it really not that big of a deal?

Here is the another reason I like Comm, you start with Alphabet.

Point made/10

I tried taking exp for pottery but found it wasn't worth the tradeoff (ceremonial burial or bronze working to start can also be worth the respective civ attribute imho)

If ever I take someone who isn't industrial it's greece, commercial/scientific is a pretty good combo

 

[vmxa]

Expansion is one of my least favorite traits, though it can be useful on low level huge maps. I almost never play the Greeks as I do not want a defensive UU that early, unless it is an AWDG.

Greeks are fine, if you can play peacefully till Gunpowder. That is not my type of game.

 

[Spoonwood]

Oftentimes if I have 5 fpt in Despotism, I'll forego training any warriors or workers and go straight for a granary. Sometimes I'll go worker-granary if say I can get a 4 turn warrior-settler combo factory up, or if I have a lower shield start. If I don't have a combo factory, once I've built the granary, the capital just produces settlers and workers until I have my core cities up. I think there's something to say for going 1. granary-settlers, 2. warrior-warrior-granary-settlers, 3. warrior-warrior-settler-granary-settler, 4. warrior-granary-settler. Even if one is "the best", I don't feel sure that it's quite so clear cut for most maps. I rarely build a temple in my capital in a military game. I usually go 100% science if I want to do research, and then maximum research while keeping my capital content and not going broke.

If it's a high-level game I don't always go with 100% science. I might try to trade for Pottery if I have opponens who don't have my starting techs, and I think I can trade for it. Or I'll research Pottery and only Pottery at 100% science. After that, I'll go with 10% science and research Alphabet/Writing first, and trade for any other techs I want. If playing as the Celts I might just research straight to iron working and forget all other techs entirely. If playing as the Iroquois I might trade techs until I get Horseback Riding and forget everything else entirely.

 

[Tasonne]

Expansion is one of my least favorite traits, though it can be useful on low level huge maps. I almost never play the Greeks as I do not want a defensive UU that early, unless it is an AWDG.

Greeks are fine, if you can play peacefully till Gunpowder. That is not my type of game.

Yeah, I can respect that. The thing I like about the hoplite is that once you've got them you're good for a while. Not only would you not upgrade spearmen to musketeers, you don't really upgrade pikemen to musketeers either since it's so expensive, unless you're rich which I never am. So as another civ, you build spearmen, upgrade or build pikemen, then build musketeers (or upgrade if you're rediculously rich). Whereas with Greece you can just build the hoplites, forget about pikemen, then build musketeers. It's probably just about the convenience (or laziness).

I don't "really" take them for the UU, I think com/sci is the real (great) advantage and hoplites are kind of a little bonus. And it's not that I play a defensive game just by taking them, I still do the usual archer/horsemen/swordsmen war . Perhaps this isn't a good tactic? Oh well, I'll learn..

Oftentimes if I have 5 fpt in Despotism, I'll forego training any warriors or workers and go straight for a granary. Sometimes I'll go worker-granary if say I can get a 4 turn warrior-settler combo factory up, or if I have a lower shield start. If I don't have a combo factory, once I've built the granary, the capital just produces settlers and workers until I have my core cities up. I think there's something to say for going 1. granary-settlers, 2. warrior-warrior-granary-settlers, 3. warrior-warrior-settler-granary-settler, 4. warrior-granary-settler. Even if one is "the best", I don't feel sure that it's quite so clear cut for most maps. I rarely build a temple in my capital in a military game. I usually go 100% science if I want to do research, and then maximum research while keeping my capital content and not going broke.

If it's a high-level game I don't always go with 100% science. I might try to trade for Pottery if I have opponens who don't have my starting techs, and I think I can trade for it. Or I'll research Pottery and only Pottery at 100% science. After that, I'll go with 10% science and research Alphabet/Writing first, and trade for any other techs I want. If playing as the Celts I might just research straight to iron working and forget all other techs entirely. If playing as the Iroquois I might trade techs until I get Horseback Riding and forget everything else entirely.

Alright, I'm not completely up to speed on the message board lingo so I don't fully understand your post, although your advice is greatly appreciated. "5 fpt in Despotism" ? Not totally sure what this means.

Anyhow,
-All of your build orders don't look to me like you have a warrior for exploring. Usually the first warrior i build explores but if you're going with 1. or 4., especially, you don't leave much room for an explorer. 2. and 3. are the closest things to my plan except you only build 2 warriors. Now, in emperor, your city needs 2 warriors at size 3 hence why I'm building 1 warrior for exploring, then 2 for defense, then granary, then settlers/or settler/granary/settlers...
-Thus I must assume that your suggestion is to forgo the explorer, get the two defenders up, then take my chances at city placement?

Thanks!

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

Doesn't look like you got your single best answer, I don't see there being one, if there were - sounds like a path towards apathy. Keep trying different ways, I doubt most will have any effect on the end-game. The only thing I would keep consistantly is the need for enough workers to keep my cities connected and my population working developed tiles.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

Your build strategy looks like one for rapid expansion. IMO agriculture and commercial would be the better traits, i.e. (faster population growth + more happiness).

I figure industrious is for building wonders. In your settings, my industrious build order (first 20 turns) would be warrior warrior settler warrior wonder. Make sure the settler goes to a river location so that it can build your future settler factory. Your capitol becomes your wonder/unit factory.

 

[ville-v]

I figure industrious is for building wonders. In your settings, my industrious build order (first 20 turns) would be warrior warrior settler warrior wonder. Make sure the settler goes to a river location so that it can build your future settler factory. Your capitol becomes your wonder/unit factory.

If you can build wonders in capital while expanding rapidly, your difficulty level is too low

 

[Divaythsarmour]

If you can build wonders in capital while expanding rapidly, your difficulty level is too low

Show me where my response suggests that "you can build wonders in capital while expanding rapidly.."

 

[ville-v]

Show me where my response suggests that "you can build wonders in capital while expanding rapidly.."

Right in the beginning and at the end.

Your build strategy looks like one for rapid expansion.

Your capitol becomes your wonder/unit factory.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

My point is that I wouldn't start pumping out settlers from the capitol in the first 20 turns with an industrious leader. I would only produce one.

What I like to do with an industrious leader is to get 4 or 5 really good strong cities going that can pump out a ton of units along with an occasional useful wonder. The strategy is to build a really strong core and overwhelm the lightly defended cities of the AI.

I play at monarch level. I find it to be extremely challenging at this level. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that someone else is playing at too low of a level, unless they said that it was too easy and boring.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

Right in the beginning and at the end.

If you look more closely, you'll see that those are two seperate paragraphs. The first paragraph is my assessment that the thread author describes a build start that resembles REXing in the first 20 turns with an industrious leader. Maybe I'm wrong, but still it's my assessment.

The second paragraph, describes what I would typically do with an industrious leader, which is to build one settler in my capitol and then start on a wonder. That's hardly REXing. When I talk about the second city being a "settler factory" I'm not saying "rapid expansion." I'm saying build a city that can build settlers. If you don't place the city in the right place, it won't build any settlers, or build them too slowly. A wonder's not going to do you any good if you only have two or three cities when it's finished.

If I wanted to rapidly expand, I would choose a leader with aggricultural and either commercial or expansive. I would do what the author says, build a granary early and pump out settlers every 4 or 5 turns. I certainly wouldn't build wonders.

IMO you're assuming too much.

 

[Spoonwood]

Alright, I'm not completely up to speed on the message board lingo so I don't fully understand your post, although your advice is greatly appreciated. "5 fpt in Despotism" ? Not totally sure what this means.

Anyhow,
-All of your build orders don't look to me like you have a warrior for exploring. Usually the first warrior i build explores but if you're going with 1. or 4., especially, you don't leave much room for an explorer. 2. and 3. are the closest things to my plan except you only build 2 warriors. Now, in emperor, your city needs 2 warriors at size 3 hence why I'm building 1 warrior for exploring, then 2 for defense, then granary, then settlers/or settler/granary/settlers...
-Thus I must assume that your suggestion is to forgo the explorer, get the two defenders up, then take my chances at city placement?

Thanks!

5 fpt means "five food per turn"

A warrior or two for exploring may make sense. Sometimes I don't do this from the capital though, and have the second city put out warriors for exploring. One can see enough to place the second city from the cultural expansion of the capital. That said, using the capital for getting a warrior or two for scouting also can work well. To me, it's a tossup as to which usually works out better.

At Emperor and above your capital does NOT need any warriors. One can just raise the luxury slider instead. You can put more cities out this way faster, which after a certain point usually implies more units, shields, and food for growth.

MPs, that is "military police" do have their uses, and they can help keep science high. However, if one has a choice between warriors as MPs and warriors as scouts, in the early game warriors as scouts works better. Also, if it comes down to earlier cities vs. MPs, earlier cities usually work out better also. If you delay getting out a settler by a turn or two, maybe MPs work out better (maybe not, this seems kind of close actually). But, if you lose 5 turns on training a warrior or two, I'd take the earlier settler anyday of the week for just about all map types and raise the luxury slider instead.

 

[Spoonwood]

Your build strategy looks like one for rapid expansion. IMO agriculture and commercial would be the better traits, i.e. (faster population growth + more happiness).

I figure industrious is for building wonders. In your settings, my industrious build order (first 20 turns) would be warrior warrior settler warrior wonder. Make sure the settler goes to a river location so that it can build your future settler factory. Your capitol becomes your wonder/unit factory.

Industrious does NOT help you build wonders faster. Industrious allows your workers to work faster, and gives certain cities a shield bonus... I believe it's at size 13 if I recall correctly, but I'm not sure here.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Yeah I play C3C... Commercial isn't bad at all though I haven't messed around with agricultural too much yet.

I always assumed having a granary in your capital, or at least whatever city you're using to build settlers, was a given. Maybe this is a mistake?

And I've looked at strat guides and done searches but got lazy when I didn't find the answers I was looking for right away

Thanks though!

I prefer commercial but think that Agricultural is stronger. VMXA's point about starting with Alphabet is part of my preference. Start on the Republic slingshot and backfill my trades. Starts me right off with left to right research.

Related thought, would granary depend on map size? On a large map where you need lots of settlers, would granary be better for more settlers than on a small map where you need to grab fast?

 

[GamezRule]

Expansionist can also be useful on high levels if Barb's are on, although other traits are probably more desirable.