Worker or Warrior Start

[snarzberry]

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?

Certain types of maps and starts definitely change the answers. And in response to your question about if keeping your options open is really an option at high levels I can say that it is in some situations, I'll give an example.

It's better if you ask a different set of questions. Based on what civ you are, what you can see of your surroundings and what neighbors you know of, then what first if-

gameplay is to remain at 1-2 cities, build up a fighting force and puppet enemy cities?
gameplay is to expand and settle new cities of my own?
gameplay is to remain at one city and aim for a peaceful victory type?

These are more broad questions and pertain to multiple win conditions, even on deity. For instance, let's say you are Mongolia and you roll a start with good resources and hammers. You decide, wisely, that the best way to proceed is to get an army of keshiks into the field as soon as possible. No alternative will reap more rewards than this plan well executed.

You can field an army of 4 keshiks (soon to be supported by a khan) and a melee unit by turn 80 if things go your way. Let's say you then puppet your entire continent of 2 neighbor civs by turn 130.

You find yourself now in a position that many have claimed is non-existent in civ 5. That is, a flexible one. Since you have only your original city (or more likely a second additional city that you needed to settle or annex unless your capital is coastal with a 4 horse resource) plus puppets, a cultural victory is still on the table. As is every other win condition.

What I'm trying to say is that the better question is 'how am I going to go about setting myself up in a winning position?'

For instance, in the puppeting army scenario, I would start with scout-monument-granary, with the intention of rush buying the library and having the NC built by the mid 40's.

If I had decided to expand as fast as I could to grab local resources then scout-scout is on the table as an option depending on the map.

 

[Captsac]

Warrior, Worker, Warrior works for me. I play only Multiplayer. Instead of lucky Ruins, that you may or may not find, I focus more on protecting that Worker and protecting tiles from Barbarian pillaging. Once I have Iron I can upgrade the Warrior. Once the scout is done scouting (if it doesn't die to Barbs first) it's pretty useless and weak. Playing as the Aztecs also allows me to rack up culture with kills and it's easier to do with 3 Jaguar Warriors. I can take out every encampment around me while gaining experience for a Cover upgrade later on.

 

[DaveMcW]

the scout... it's pretty useless and weak. Playing as the Aztecs

Yes, UUs change things a bit.

 

[Airey]

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

Shouldn't this be in the general Strategy Articles forum?

Anyways...warrior first requires more aggressive playstyle to leverage the benefits (ie. Worker steal, Warrior rush on low level). Other intangibles include meeting AI/CS earlier and $ from OB sale, barb camps. Early view of the world map helps setting up suitable strategy.

Worker first usually means needing the initial Warrior protecting the Capital's BFC.
This is more conservative and strategies used are usually not map dependent (ie. NC beeline).

 

[Captsac]

Yes, UUs change things a bit.

Hehe, yes of course. But I'll start with the Warrior no matter what Civ I choose. I get off to a stronger start if I can destroy any close encampments or even save the encampment to farm experience for my units. But like I said I only play MP, SP is much different.

 

[Smote]

I find scout to be more effective than warrior. Its less of an investment, and is able to defend vs barbs, or with a warrior is able to take out an encampment on flat ground. Also, it gets the ancient ruins faster and has a chance of becoming an archer.

Also, the scout can worker steal from CS later.

I find scout first to be the safest play, and sometimes with a little luck from ancient ruin, the best play economically. That said, worker first will usually beat scout or warrior first economically, if scout first doesnt get that +1 pop or culture or bunches of gold.

To me, the decision comes down to land, and opponents. If you can immediately tell that mountain ranges and/or ocean are protecting your capital, you do not need as many forces to defend from barbs, and worker first becomes more viable. Also, on archipelago, worker first can be much more viable. Of course, in a match vs aggressive opponents, scout first is important, or an opponents scout will make your worker useless.

 

[Tabarnak]

(Multiplayer)

About scout, if he doesn't upgrade somewhere from a ruin, i disband him when he have finished scouting. But if he gets an upgrade and or can get +1 visibility without much trouble, he then becomes more useful.

 

[Smote]

Thats a good tactic. I usually save mine, because I prefer it to the 40 gold or so itd save, for the additonal protection. It can provide zone of control, or badly hurt a good unit that attacks it, if its fortified on rough terrain.

 

[NukeAJS]

A nice thing about warrior first is that your options/opportunities to steal a worker from a CS increase/become sooner than if you go worker first. Basically Warrior1 goes West and finds nothing. Warrior2 goes East, finds a CS, nabs its worker, declares peace immediately, and the end.

Benefit -- you could get a worker doing stuff (IE - working), about the same time if you went worker first. Plus, you would have two warriors and a worker instead of just one warrior. More map is uncovered.

Negatives -- It's contingent on a CS being relatively close. Most CSs don't get a worker fairly soon. It could have diplomatic consequences that range from eh? to a restart.

 

[Tabarnak]

Most CSs don't get a worker fairly soon.

A trick to determine if a cs is going to pop a worker soon :

-He doesn't build a unit yet
-CS has settled on a hill
-Good production tiles around(with no food tiles prior to be worked), wheat tiles are a good indicator.

 

[qemist]

It could have diplomatic consequences that range from eh? to a restart.

You mean losing the game.

I rarely build a warrior. Scouts reveal the map faster (much faster if heavy forest/jungle cover) and are just as good or better at stealing workers, if that is your cup of tea. I generally play Persia, so this is not strictly relevant to the OP.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

I've been going monument first for a while now and I'm really enjoying it. By the time the monument finishes, I have a decent idea of the layout of my world and, by the time my first civic pops I've got an idea of how I want to approach the next couple dozen turns.

For example, one game I went warrior, worker, warrior after the monument and used the Honor tree to take out my nearest neighbor.

In another game I went worker, settler, warrior and spread out very quickly and opened up a plethora of win conditions by having many cities (sans culture).

I prefer this opening with most civs.