what do you build first?

[Swedishguy]

Warrior is good for getting a second population point. But if you get a warrior faster than a population point, start with worker. (Especially if there's farm or camp resources nearby)

 

[LemonJello]

I go with a worker first, then either archer or barracks, depending on techs that I have. If I don't have a warrior at the start, then I get a scout.

 

[marc_v3]

I avoid coasts like the plague. I dont see them being as productive as a village or a mine or farm later on.

BTW, if I dont chop early on, its because I am going to chop a immortal/swordsmen/quicha army

you can get an army of immortals realy fast if you chop. I just defeated 2 civs on Prince, and the cities had only an archer and a warior in their capital and a warrior in the other city. And I had almost like 8 immortals.

 

[Elros]

Like 8 immortals?

I'm intrigued. Are these some type of demi-god?

 

[alex sword]

6 - 14 Quechua's. Depending on on the distance to the two Civs I'm going to exterminate...

Exactly! But only if you play Incan. Warriors spam is not much effective with other civs. Anyway for non-Incan I recommend to build 3 warriors to terrorize neighbors and steal their workers. WW is noy issue in ancient ages and it's quite feasible to have one captured worker per one killed warrior. That's good ROI (returns on investment) in business terms.

 

[Ahoogah!]

I used to wait for my first city to grow before making Workers and Settlers. But no more! Now a worker is the first thing I build.

Second is the Scouts. (At least one, or in extreme cases, up to four. I hate when someone else's Scout outruns my Warrior to a goody hut. )

Third is defense. Usually just a single Warrior until I build Barracks. Then everyone is going to learn to shoot a bow! There's usually no one declaring war at this time anyway.

Fourth is two settlers. They go in opposite directions. (Hopefully one of them finds some Stone.)

Finally, the aforementioned Barracks.

From there, stuff happens.

 

[Carnage04]

there are very few times you shouldn't start out immedietely with a worker. You certainly shouldn't be just building warriors to grow your city, the extra unimproved tile with give you 1 extra production (3 Food/Production - 2 Food to feed the pop point = 1 production)

Building a worker first and allowing him to improve a tile can give you up to 3 extra Food/Production (Cows, Pigs, Wheat/Corn (next to fresh water), etc.) It also will allow you to rush your second build if you went for the ever popular bronze working as your first tech.

There are times when you should build other things first, but waiting to grow your city 'just because' isn't one of them.

The thing is....tiles aren't the only way to get production early. If you start out with Mining and are researching BW first...if you have a Warrior that will grow in 12 turns, a Worker that will grow in 18, and a city that Grows once every eight turns...after 16 turns you can have a warrior, a few left over hammers for whatever your next build is, and 60 Hammers of population just waiting to be exploited.

So you can have 1 Warrior and 1 Worker in less time than it would take to build 1 worker. Not a HUGE deal but still...

(Note: I'm a work and didn't really look into the numbers that well, but they do seem about right.)

 

[Rameau's Nephew]

The only times I don't start with a worker is if there is seafood (work boat), or if there's nothing that the worker can do. For example, if I don't start with mining and my whole BFC is covered with forests and animal hus. resources, he'll be uselss for 10 turns until either BW or AH is done. This is rare, but it happens occasionally with the increased foresting in BTS.

 

[Gamesmaster]

I usually build a worker first, the only time I don't is if I am following the Religious tech path from the get go and a worker would have nothing to do, then I churn out fogbusters until I can give a worker some gainful employment.

 

[azzaman333]

what do you build first?

Always depends on the start location and civ. Although most of the time I'll start building a warrior (or workboat) before I start my first worker.

 

[Underdawg]

Always depends on the start location and civ. Although most of the time I'll start building a warrior (or workboat) before I start my first worker.

Yes indeed. I usually find myself going warrior/workboat/scout first until city is size 2 before worker then proceed from there. As Azzaman said, it largely depends on your starting position and starting tech, which of course differs from civ to civ.

To Quote Vel from Apolypton who goes in depth.

* Worker
This is a good first choice, and one that's widely used by the participants in the discussion forum. Its main strength is that, when the worker completes, you can begin to improve the land around your Capitol (especially the specials and flood plains) right away, ramping up your founding city's food, hammer, and coin production quite early on. Of course, a worker first approach implies that you have techs in hand that will give the worker something to DO. If you do not, or if your worker actions are quite limited, then this build is probably not the strongest move you can make. Specifically, if your starting strategy revolves around founding an early religion, and you start with Mysticism and some other non-worker related tech (Fishing), or if your worker-related tech does nothing to improve the outputs of the land (Wheel), or if it is not applicable to your starting terrain (Hunting, but no "campable" animals inside your cultural borders), then Worker first will actually HURT your game. In most other instances, it will help you, because if you're not racing for an early religion, then the techs you research before the Worker is finished will probably give him plenty to do.

* Warrior
For the safety minded player, one or more Warriors cranked out to guard the Hearth and Home does much to further that sense of security. Under no circumstances can a Warrior-first opening be described as "bad," because it provides key defense for your starting city, and it allows your city an opportunity to grow. It does, however, slow you down in other ways. From a raw turn perspective, you'll have your first worker out roughly 6 turns slower than a player who opts for a worker first. Figuring 4 turns to improve one piece of terrain, that's four turns "extra" that the worker first player is getting more resources than you (and those extra resources can be anywhere from 1-4 extra). This concept of getting more resources, more quickly is called "Turn Advantage," and is a crucial concept to 4x games. Creating Turn Advantage is the means by which you create a "lead" over the rest of the players in the game, and ultimately, win.

* Scout
For this to be an option to build, you must select a Civ that begins with the tech "Hunting." An extra early Scout can do wonders for your game. At a speedy two moves (and an average construction time of 8 turns), you can double your natural exploration speed, or quadruple your exploring speed in relation to those poor folks who start with a Warrior. That, plus the fact that Scouts (almost?--I've never personally had a bad hut result using a Scout, but perhaps others have) never get bad results from huts make it a compelling reason indeed to go with a Scout first, in your build queue. My personal best, as far as the goody hut gambit goes is three techs, a scout, a warrior and ~300g. If that's not enough to convince you it can be a good idea, then you prolly can't be convinced.

Works best on larger maps, free tech is more powerful in Epic games, where techs are relatively more expensive, and of course, Pangaea maps provide an extra bit of incentive to go with Scout first.

* Settler
The Settler first option raised some eyebrows when it was first proposed, and there are still some who naysay it as a valid approach, but no matter. It's a strong start, though for different reasons than some of the other options that let the city grow a bit (anything other than a settler or worker first), or focus on improving the terrain around the Capitol first (worker). TOC
The main advantages of Settler first is that it improves your overall (empire wide) production more quickly, allows faster early game growth (cities can grow from size 1 to size 2 fairly quickly, even with NO improved terrain!), and it allows for a flexible blending of production (can build a warrior from one place, while the second city builds a worker). Very strong beginning if your starting terrain isn't as good as it could be, but there are hints at better land nearby. Also good if you don't feel threatened (don't want or need an early worker), can't build a scout, and your strategy calls for non-worker-oriented techs. In those cases, Settler first is what you're looking for!

* Barracks
Represents a pretty serious time commitment, but the good news is that your city will grow while the Barracks is building, meaning that the rather daunting starting build time will shrink, and when you get around to building garrisons and other troops, they'll gain the benefits of promotions. Good start if you plan on being aggressive, but want to capitalize on the natural terrain advantages your starting city has to offer (which can be compelling, even without worker-improvement!)

* Work Boat
Very specific start. You must have the "Fishing" technology as one of your starting techs, and you must be coastal. If both of those conditions apply, then a WorkBoat first opening play can be quite strong. If you have Seafood specials off the coast, the WorkBoat can dramatically improve them (won't net you any hammers, but you'll see a nice jump in food and coins), a health bonus for your Capitol (and all the other coastal cities you eventually found), and the best part....unlike going with a Worker first, your city continues to grow while you're building the boat!

WorkBoat first can also be used to create a nearly indestructible ancient era scouting unit. I say nearly indestructible because eventually Barbarians will begin appearing in ships, but this does not happen right away, and in the meantime, you can zip around the map in safety! Better yet, depending on the map, it might even be possible to get a "circumnavigation" bonus (+1 move for all your ships for the rest of the game) for being the first to circle the globe...now THAT is one hard-working WorkBoat!

So...as you can see, even deciding what to build first, while on the surface seems to be a fairly trivial decision to make, is actually a bit trickier than it initially appears to be. There are a lot of factors to consider, cos while you're working on one thing, you can't work on some other (well, you can always "switch" if you change your mind, but the hammers don't carry over...they are "stored" with your first choice, so if needs be, you can switch to something else, build it from scratch, and then go back to what you had initially selected, or...not, and eventually, you'll lose those accumulated hammers).

 

[WhimpyCiv]

Used to be, I'd build a worker or two right off the bat. I still will if I haven't got any decent extra-food tiles in the two-square city radius. Then maybe a warrior or archer then a settler.

I'm trying a different approach now, and it seems to work a little better in some situations. Warrior first. If my civ started with a scout, then another warrior. Probably barracks then. Then more army. Send out the initial warrior or the second warrior (if you have the scout) exploring. I know what you're thinking: Doesn't he ever build warriors? I'm actually trying not to at this point. I get my first workers by stealing them from neighboring civs when the worker strays near the border. Scouts can't do that, which is why I have to build a second warrior.

What are they (the other civ) going to do? Leave their only city undefended while they send their warrior out to get my city, which has built a warrior for protection while they wasted their time building a worker? And how long is it going to take them to GET to my city? If they seriously start heading in my direction, I can have another warrior or two sent out to meet them. So, assuming that they build a worker and a warrior while I build a warrior and start barracks, then I steal their worker: I end up with more population in my city, roughly equal military strength (2 warriors each, though I have a barracks partly completed which potentially gives stronger units), AND also I have the worker. Very few civs will stay at war with you in the early stages of the game for very long. (The Zulu are probably an exception to that rule.)

Also, the improvements that the enemy worker has built that might give that civ a "Turn Advantage?" You're at war with them for the moment. Pillage the improvements. They're very likely not going to risk all (or at best, 50%) of their military to come out of the city and fight your warrior on probably 50/50 odds at best.

I'm playing Prince level (just starting out there) and it's almost certain that any civ to which I do that is going down. Just make sure it's a reasonably close worker (within 10-15 squares of your capitol). Also, you should have a decent food square (even flood plains might be good enough) within two squares of your capitol so that when you expand, you can work the bonus food plain and someplace that gives you shields (gold is great if you can get it, but forested grassland hills is OK too).

As you might guess from my handle, use this strategy at your own risk.

Thoughts?

 

[BrantleyL1]

IThird is defense. ...

Fourth is two settlers. They go in opposite directions. (Hopefully one of them finds some Stone.)

I assume that you send them with one of your warriors/archers - sending a settler unescorted is ASKING them to get eaten by a bear.

(I mention this in case any newbies think that sending a settler out is safe...)

 

[Diamondeye]

I agree with the poster referring to the slavery technique. Cranking a worker out first instead of warrior, then worker whip, is, as mentioned in the large quote a couple of posts above, loss of momentum. Only time I might start out with a worker is if I dont start with mining.

 

[NovaDream]

I almost always build a worker, chop another worker, and then chop a settler. Then a warrior to escort the settler, and in the new town build another worker while I improve the tiles around the city.

 

[Ahoogah!]

I assume that you send them with one of your warriors/archers - sending a settler unescorted is ASKING them to get eaten by a bear.

(I mention this in case any newbies think that sending a settler out is safe...)

I NEVER get eaten by bears! If your workers or settlers are getting eaten by bears, then you're being too reckless. You're faster than them. It's those freakin' wolves (or panthers) that are the problem. Warriors is another story.

But usually, no, I don't send escorts this early. It's a gamble, I know. But I'm only going four squares away. And if I can settle another city, the animals won't enter the borders anyway.

 

[Airefuego]

All hail that post by Vel from Apolyton! Makes all the options clear.

I've always been warrior-first, but I'll be considering the other options from now on.

 

[Silence101]

I might have to try the settler first option sometime...

 

[Nishdog]

That work-boat option seems pretty interesting if you're in the right situation. "Your band of fishermen have circumnavigated the globe!"

 

[Airefuego]

I pretty much did that by mistake one time, when I built a city on the land-bridge between two massive chunks of Pangea. Bridge was two squares wide.

So city had coast to the south, and a fish two squares to the north. To get there my work boat had to go around half of Pangea. It took 25 turns and went through 3 other civs territories... all hail open borders!