Worker or Warrior Start

[JK777]

I have been reading the Civ 5 strategy forums looking for some in depth strategy guides. However, I guess that with the recent patches it is difficult to write a guide that doesn't end up being overtaken by events within months if not weeks.

So I decided to do my own playtest looking at one of the great conundrums from Civ 4 should your first build be a warrior or a worker. Now, before I hear great cries of "it depends" lets make some ground rules. We are using Washington, small map, no barbs or ruins (aka goody huts) as I want to take some of the random nature out of the equation. Now someone will quite rightly say that one of the main reasons for Warrior or Scout first is to "pop those goody huts". I completely agree, but I refer you to my previous comment; let's keep all other things equal and consider this after the test.

So here's the comparison at Turn 50

Worker first


Build order: Worker, Warrior, Scout, Library and National College (all complete)

Science: 23 - completed, AH, Pottery, Archery, Mining, Masonry, Trapping, Writing and Calendar (not in that order)
Gold: 362+5
Happiness: 9
Golden age: 330/500
Culture: 88/90 +7
Size 5 and growth in 4

Warrior first

Build order: Warrior, Scout, Worker, Library and National College (5 turns to complete)

Science: 10 - completed, AH, Pottery, Archery, Mining, Masonry, Writing and Calendar, Trapping in 4 turns
Gold: 321+5
Happiness: 4
Golden age: 296/500
Culture: 87/90 +6
Size 5 and growth in 6

OK, it's only one scenario but for now its enough for me to head worker first unless difficulty levels don't allow me to. The question is are any of the goody huts significant enough to enable you to catch up?


EDIT: 15/3/11I have now added monument first as an option, slightly different scenario. Anyway included below

 

[Smote]

Try scout, worker, warrior? All goody huts other than maps are very powerful.

Scout-archer, ~90 gold, 30 culture, extra pop, free tech, all are very good.

The wasted turns on the warrior does in fact set you back, as you have shown here.


One game I actually did worker-worker-warrior as my opening.

 

[apotheoser]

Uhh if there's really no barbarians or goody huts I would go Monument first every time.

OK, it's only one scenario but for now its enough for me to head worker first unless difficulty levels don't allow me to. The question is are any of the goody huts significant enough to enable you to catch up?

Uh is this a joke. You realize a 30 culture goody hut can you give a free worker on the 20th turn or something, right? The goody huts are incredibly powerful. How are you going to value +1 pop, or +30 culture, or +random tech?

 

[JK777]

Surely, it should be relatively easy to consider some of the other options. Firstly, we are not saying in either option that we are not building a worker or a scout it is simply the order of the build. For arguments sake let's say that worker - scout rather than scout then worker results in one less goody hut.

If that's hut had provided a new Tech, say 50 beakers of research. Then you can see from above that the worker first yielded 13 extra beakers for 5 turns (excluding those yielded by a faster library). There is more than 60 beakers right there. So worker first is still better.

From a culture perspective it is difficult to compare without running a comparison of monument first, however, don't forget the patch now means you can get monuments from a social policy (still want to build them?). Either way you might speed up you policy acquisition but at the expense of some other factor, gold science etc. The game is a trade off

For a +1 population goody hut you could argue that you are missing out on the extra beakers that one population gives you and the additional production/gold. But on a one for one basis we are only talking 2 beakers per turn and 1 gold/production. This is unlikely to build to the sorts of beaker comparisons mentioned above.

So perhaps monument first is a good strategy, but for now I remain unconvinced.

I will run a comparison tonight using the same basis and let you know

 

[walkerjks]

I think the bigger argument against worker first is when your strategy needs other civs. In a lot of strategies, you really need to go out and meet other civs and (usually to a lesser extent) city states. You need people to sell your luxuries to. You need people to setup RAs with. And you might need (at least benefit from) an early maritime alliance. For those strategies, 1 scout (and perhaps 2) make more sense than worker first.

It's partially about ruins, but not completely.

 

[UWHabs]

The extra scout can also meet a new city-state earlier, yielding a bonus that way. Or maybe you get out earlier to a Natural Wonder and get the happy (or the insane gold from El Dorado).

With barbs and huts off, then yes, I think worker first is likely better (although people are starting to make a case for monument first).

It also depends on the situation. Obviously in some cases, you might need multiple techs to unlock a useful worker action (ie. if you have spices in a forest as your only close resource, you need both calendar and mining to get it). In that case, then delaying the worker is likely a good idea.

We do need some tests. As far as I can tell, the 4 likely valid opening strategies would be:
1. Worker first
2. Warrior first
3. Scout first
4. Monument first.

A few more tests and we can likely narrow it down.

 

[DaveMcW]

Scout first is really "Settler first, as soon as I can get 2 pop".

 

[Tabarnak]

Uhh if there's really no barbarians or goody huts I would go Monument first every time.



Uh is this a joke. You realize a 30 culture goody hut can you give a free worker on the 20th turn or something, right? The goody huts are incredibly powerful. How are you going to value +1 pop, or +30 culture, or +random tech?

Going Liberty first is not always the best idea. When going NC first, i guess it's the way to go. But are you going to let AI settle best spots around you?

Warrior or worker first? I already have a warrior. I prefer scout first.

 

[NoAnswer]

Your comparison isn't quite what you said it would be. You realize that in the "Warrior first" scenario, you did not follow the warrior build with a worker. Instead you inserted a scout. So really, the comparison you are making is Worker or Warrior-Scout-Worker...

The few turns it takes to build a scout, I think, make a huge different so early on in the game, and you ought to revise your comparison accordingly. All you should have inverted was the sequence of warrior and worker.

I believe that if you did this, it wouldn't be so one-sided in favor of worker first.

 

[apotheoser]

Going Liberty first is not always the best idea. When going NC first, i guess it's the way to go. But are you going to let AI settle best spots around you?

Why not? Is there some rule that says I have to build more than one city?

 

[Michl2602]

When I first saw this I thought: "What a weird question. Scout first, what else?"

After having tested the other variants for some time, it got me back to the roots.

"What a weird question. Scout first, what else?"

PS.: After patch the Scout-start normally grooves, as culture is worth much more, cause there are always enough good SPs to take. So if you find a culture ruin, the start was tremendously good. If you find weapons (making it an archer) or a worker the start was still very good.
It's near to impossible imo, that a scout doesn't bring you the biggest return. Probably when playing "Small Peninsula" and you're not the Maori.

 

[Vladesch]

Another thing to consider is by going scout first you have a lot more mapped territory and have a better chance of finding a good spot for your first city, especially if its a comparison between scout-worker-settler and worker-scout-settler.

I think an early settler is hard to beat.

 

[Tabarnak]

Why not? Is there some rule that says I have to build more than one city?

No. That's why why i put a question. If you let AI settle best spots around you, then you decided to go 1 city or just 2-3 cities and maybe going mass puppeting. Obviously, Liberty is kinda weak if you play that way. Landed Elite gives more hammers. Scout first is the best to search for CS and other distant AI for future trades.

 

[JK777]

So worker vs monument first. I thought this would be a no-brainer with the early option to grab monuments for your first 4 cities from the social policies, but perhaps I was wrong.

Now this was a difficult one because I ended up with much more culture than I expected and so had to choose policies. Clearly, people will say well if you had chosen this policy and not that one then x,y, and z would have happened.

Turn 51
Worker first
Tech +8 beakers
Techs taken: Mining, Pottery, Animal Hus, Trapping, Bronze working, Writing, Archery, 3 turns to The Wheel.

Size/growth: 5/7
Production +9
Gold 342+7
happiness: 12
Golden Age 378/500
Culture 87/90 +6 2 social policies. Tradition and free culture building

Monument first
Firstly I have 2 cities (instead of 1 due to the 3rd social policy

Tech +10
Techs taken as above but Wheel is completed
Size/to grow (in capital) 5/12
Production +9
Gold 285+10
Happiness +8
Golden Age 220/500
Culture 121/205 +8

Now, the worker first meant I didn't build a monument and so had some turns to build something else. However, not enough to get a settler out.

Who wins? Well I am not sure. But after so many games of Civ 5 I am of the opinion that a win without waging a war and settling the best space quickly is tough at higher difficulty levels. So I think as a builder you have to get those settlers out fast. Perhaps monument first better suits that strategy.

 

[apotheoser]

No. That's why why i put a question. If you let AI settle best spots around you, then you decided to go 1 city or just 2-3 cities and maybe going mass puppeting. Obviously, Liberty is kinda weak if you play that way. Landed Elite gives more hammers. Scout first is the best to search for CS and other distant AI for future trades.

I don't think Liberty is weak for that at all. The free worker and free Great Engineer early are essentially providing tons of hammers. Landed Elite is just the marginal difference between how big your city is and how big it would have been - ie, a handful of hammers per turn. Obviously after Meritocracy you go back for Landed Elite, so we're only really talking about how much food you lose in the interim, which is going to end up being 1-2 squares worth of hammers for a few dozen turns.

The GE alone is probably worth 100 hammers, when you rush Oracle/Stonehenge.

 

[Tabarnak]

I don't think Liberty is weak for that at all. The free worker and free Great Engineer early are essentially providing tons of hammers. Landed Elite is just the marginal difference between how big your city is and how big it would have been - ie, a handful of hammers per turn. Obviously after Meritocracy you go back for Landed Elite, so we're only really talking about how much food you lose in the interim, which is going to end up being 1-2 squares worth of hammers for a few dozen turns.

The GE alone is probably worth 100 hammers, when you rush Oracle/Stonehenge.

I prefer work an engineer from a workshop later than going for an early wonder with Liberty. But i also prefer many cities so maybe it's just my playstyle.

 

[EditorRex]

I prefer work an engineer from a workshop later than going for an early wonder with Liberty. But i also prefer many cities so maybe it's just my playstyle.

Yeah, I was going to say that Apotheoser is well-established as a fan of the OCC Cultural strategy. I haven't tried that yet (I'll do it next game), but in many respects, what works for that strategy is contrary to what works in most other game plans. That leads to this reframing of the entire question this way:

Build what first if gameplay is for Domination win?
Build what first if gameplay is for Space win?
Build what first if gameplay is for Diplo win?
Build what first if gameplay is for Cultural win? (And for this, I suspect Apotheoser is right)
Build what first if gameplay is for Points win?
Build what first to keep your options open (or is that really an option at higher levels)?

And.... do certain types of maps or starts change the answers?

 

[Tabarnak]

Many players think that since Landed Elite is from the Tradition branch it should be only good for 1 or 2 cities. This is wrong. The more the better.

Obviously, i don't want to mix between strats focused on diplo, science, etc. victories styles. I'm a pure warmonger btw

 

[Martin Alvito]

Build what first if gameplay is for Domination win?
Build what first if gameplay is for Space win?...

...Build what first to keep your options open (or is that really an option at higher levels)?

And.... do certain types of maps or starts change the answers?

Domination is fundamentally different than the other types. Tearing up the tech tree is one way, but not the only way, to set up knocking off other civs. By contrast, rapid research is the only way to win by any other condition on Deity.

Tabarnak's production strategy in the multiplayer forum is a good way to keep your options open. It isn't strictly optimal for non-Domination games, but it gives you a balanced position. Opening that way consistently is probably a good way to improve your play in the middle of the game.

Map and civ matter now. The more luxuries you have, the more attractive a city-state game becomes on Deity. If you're luxury poor, you're going to have to rely on Research Agreements, because they are a lot more cash efficient per point of .

 

[slobberinbear]

I play single-player on King, so take this with a chunk of salt.

I like monument-scout or scout-monument. Worker and Warrior after that.