this puts you at a disadvantage in terms of build order. Unfeasible.
Meh not by a margin that would make any difference, unless youāre like top of the top 1%, Viper vs Liereyy kind of thing, and even then idk.
Bad walling will put you at a much bigger disadvantage, for example.
Obviously donāt go get the boar with 3 vils, but with 5 or 6 vils i donāt see a problem, just force drop off a few times and keep on going 
But i donāt follow build orders to the letter, i canāt play like that xD
3 Likes
it does, for example taking 2 boars assuming you donāt change the order of resource gathering around (i.e. 7th etc. is always wood, 11th is food, and so on)ā¦ if you shift the order around, you will go to berries later, so build the mill later and since you took the boars early you will run dry of food under the TC when you are at 20 pop. This is when you need to click up, you have no food income (because in that moment villagers are being retasked) so for example itās impossible to do 21 pop MAA and you will struggle to get eco upgrades as you age up.
If you donāt believe, try, going to berries late (i.e. taking boar early) is a big deal. Itās obviously better to go early to 2nd boar than play with 1 boar and be forced to drop 2 farms but IF you are sure you wonāt get lamed (sportsmanship issue), you should take 2nd boar when itās meant to be taken, after you saturated berries.
Sure following the Build order would be better, assuming you have both boars! xD
But iām talking about a situation where you could get lamed, like having a forward boar thatās very exposed or something (goths), i think bringing in that boar early is the better option. Also you donāt need to shift the order around that much, just take 1 of the vils fom the sheep and bring the boar, the rest of the build order is the same.
""Mean to be taken āā???
I am sorry to qoute you, but this type of logic is what I can not agree, and I see it throughout this topic.
The idea that everyone must play the same way and do everything in the same order, makes no sense.
If the argument is that the other player is using Saboteurs and you only have access to Petards, then I agree, but if both players can do the same thing, I donāt see the problemā¦
Yes I understand that is annoying, but as long all players can do the same, just update your game play. The point is to win, not to win by making the other player play by my rules so I can win.
6 Likes
this game is all about adaptability. transitioning from sheep to boar earlier shouldnāt ruin your build. you end up losing maybe 10-15 extra food to decay
4 Likes
the reason build orders are followed is because they are the most efficient way of playing.
After the 23-24th vill, you can do what you want. Send 10 to stone, flood archers from 3 ranges, anything can be a priori viable. But to reach Feudal age in good state with a small opening army (which is ONLY men at arms OR scouts or you can do straight archers in theory also), you HAVE TO follow the build order. Anything else results in you reaching the same result, but at a later time and in a more inefficient way.
Adaptability only matters from minute ~12 onwards. Before that, there isnāt enough room for expression, anything that you can do due to creativity, like sending 8 to berries, sending 15 to wood and then retasking them to farms is ALWAYS inferior to one of the 3-4 build orders you can do.
food decay isnāt the issue, the issue is that if you take all wild animals immediately, you run out of food too fast. You want food to be a steady flow, not a burst and then nothing all of a sudden because then you could not be able to retask the villagers to something meaningful (unless you send those idle vills under TC that took all wild animals to berries, which results in 10 vills on berries, which oversaturates the berries, creates a lot of inefficiency/bumping and in short you get inferior resource collection and uneven resources which could result in you for example floating a lot of food but lacking wood.
Iām not sure who you are arguing with, I wrote something totally unrelated to this dumb comment you might wanna read the OP again. Iām not interested in the moralistic take of whether laming is āwinning at all costsā or an unfair strat. Here the key issue with laming (Boar) is that it creates too big of an advantage for too little effort. If you wanna discuss whether laming is moral, feel free to open your own thread, in my OP Iām assuming itās an unfair way of creating an advantage and Iām brainstorming solutions to make the game fair.
Iām not against one player tower rushing, walling in resources etc. but if you do this stuff very early (~min 5-7) it snowballs too hard and at that point there isnāt even much point playing particularly if you went Random civ and rolled a bad civ (e.g. Burmese).
If asking for ONE condition to limit laming is unair for youā¦ sure, itās a stretch of imagination but if you wanna be obtuse and contrarian you can keep arguing that people against laming are ācreating artificial rulesā. At that point why even have building progressions, just give Bombard Cannon in Dark Age, task all to gold and wood, build 1 BBC and the player with better micro wins, after all Siege Workshop being locked in Castle Age is also an artificial rule created by salty noobs who donāt wanna embrace the true BBC micro in Dark Age. Or make the starting Scout a FU Paladin, the one who lands the first hit and uses hills better wins the game thatās also true skill.
I am arguing with no one, I made a general comment, however, my comment is the ENTIRE post, not just the last line, if I pick a single line in anything said here we will have a multitude of side chats, and would not be helpful, however, your response to the first part of my comment was well written and informative. (Even if I still like to play my way)
I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong or your Idea is wrong, I was stating that the type of logic used, is something I can not support. I read the OP, I did not want to address every single little detail (as you just did to my post), I took what I thought to be the spirit of the OP and the replies afterward and made a general comment, but if that offends you, my apologies since it was not my intention.
I can see we are going to disagree. 
1 Like
There are at least 4 aspects to take into consideration when you decide to follow a build order
Map
Map generation
Civ
Player
Map
Some maps are open, some maps are closed. Open maps have higher probability to see laming in action. Not every open map have the same probability: Socotra has higher laming potential compared to Arabia, that have a higher laming potential compared to Runestone, for example. It is part of the game. Maps like Arena or Hideout give zero chances to lame or get lamed.
Putting more boars in the center of the map in order to avoid laming? That a map issue, not a game mechanics to be affected. You can propose a new map, whose name would not be Arabia but something else, with these features.
Map generation
Besides the map, there is the map generation. Not every Arabia is the same. Sometimes Boars are near the TC, sometimes not. Sometimes they are behind, sometimes in the front. Land conformation and resourse position help you to decide your strategy and build order. If you have distant woodline, you can decide do short-wall around the lumbercamp instead of walling the entire base in the earlier feudal. Sometimes resource positioning force you to chance strategy: if you have forward gold, maybe it would be better not going directly to archers, because the gold could be exposed to early rushes, so you can make man-at-arms to gain time.
Same for the boar: if you have a boar far forward, you can decide to variate the standard build order in order to not be lamed, like someone suggested. Or to patrol the area with your scout until you can safely lure the boar.
Side note
About the lamed resources, I donāt agree having the sheeps lamed is better. If you have 2 sheeps lamed, you lost 200 food (even more if you are Mayan or Tatar). More then half a boar, but the enemy scout is unaffected. If the enemy lame your boar, he lose half the HP, and that can impact the efficiency of the future attack. In order to lame, even scouting is sacrified so the enemy could not have found all his resources, leaving open spaces for a counter-laming. Laming has a risk, you sometimes can take advantage of it in your reaction.
Civilisation
There are civ with a higher laming potential, like Viets, Mongols, Goths and meso civs. Even the Burmese you mentioned have a bonus that could help: seeing the Relics in the map can help you find the enemy base earlier.
If you are vs one of these civs, you should pay more attention to laming action.
Player
Even if at low Elo is more rare to confront the same opponent over and over, sometimes you know that an opponent is more inclined in laming.
Soā¦
Taking these 4 aspect into consideration, you can choose to modify and adapt the standard build order.
Changing the standard is not such a disaster, player like Survivalist make variation and experiments constantly, and sometimes they come out with good ideas. And sometimes these ideas become the new meta.
Even low ELO can make some changes: Iām 1.2-1.3k, but I made a little adaptation to the standard M@A build order to fit with my playstyle and with the bonus of the Vietnamese civ.
You could even make your own āanti-laming build orderā and maybe become famous for it 
A build order that secure your resources from laming without impacting too much your early eco. Imagine a laming opponent that have to face it: he sacrifices his scouting to lame, and then he have to return to the base with nothing.
1 Like
building placement, walling, etc are all done before minute 12 and include adaptability
how does taking boar instead of sheep mean you run out of food any faster?
yes this, this is why laming is balanced
If the game was limited to that, i donāt think a lot of players would call it complex. thatās totally false. if you get lamed and letās say stealing a boar and 2 sheeps will you really follow your build order like a robot ? only maa and scout really ?
4 Likes
you obviously have to adapt but laming 1 boar puts you at a BIG disadvantage. In some cases where you have a weak civ or a civ with evident gaps (Indians, Burmese, Teutons etc.) itās the difference between having an even game in Castle Age and you getting MAYBE a lead in Imp (maybe!). Not sure how the fact of high impact for low effort is hard to understand wording.
And there is nothing complex of fancy about laming. Itās a very simple strat that as the name itself implies is LAME.
this is stuff that is pretty much all mastered in my elo I am guessing u are in an elo where people donāt know how to wall which I reckon is ~1000 or so.
I explained it above, learn to read. If you donāt build a mill because you task extra villagers to 2nd boar, you have 4 extra villagers taking boar/sheep and that means running out of resources faster. On top of that, there is a smooth progression to taking berries early and normally they run out at ~16 min mark or so, if you take them later, they run out at ~18-20 min mark which is not good because at that point, again, you have too many on food and since your pop is capped by the villager spawn time (at 18 min u can have 38-40 vills at most), you probably donāt have enough on important resources to have a good castle age (stone/gold/wood).
tl;dr: mess up build order early, have problems later on. Itās much like going to Engineering School but having skipped the Trigonometry class in High School. You will probably get through but not with a good performance.
doesnt mean it isnāt adapting. you adapt to the civ matchup, adapt to the map, adapt to scouting.
eg. if you are up against a scout civ you build different walls than if you are up against an archer civ etc
so your claim about āadaptibility only starting at minute 12 is just wrongā
a. you are wrong
b. well done on the ad hominem attack
c. well done on the self-burn since you apparently still need to learn from a ā~1000 or soā player on how to deal with laming
charming. and you didnt explain anything. what im suggesting is instead of gathering from 4 sheep 2 boars 4 sheep. you change the order to 2 sheep 2 boar 6 sheep. you lose a tiny amount extra to decay, because there are fewer vils eating the first boar. but it changes nothing about the berries. this is easiest to do with civs like lithuanians or indians, others might need to do loom
6 Likes
I donāt have to learn how to deal with laming, Iām arguing that laming is a cringe strat done by bad players and good players shouldnāt lame. I could also cry about Persian Douche, Tower rush etc. as those are unfun strats to go vs, but I donāt. Because I get that itās a war game. But what separates laming from other unfun strats, like Stone walling on Arabia, Hussar raids, etc. is that laming has BIG IMPACT FOR LOW EFFORT, very often laming is game-deciding and itās not very interesting to win or lose the game at minute 7.
if you do this, you wonāt have enough wood for the house ā mill sequence. Doing 21 pop MAA is extremely hard in this sequence, doing 20 pop Scout rush is impossible as you donāt have enough wood to do Mill early enough. So again, you think you are smart but u rly donāt know what you are talking about.
Why wonāt you have the wood man? i donāt undestand why it would change anything, youāre only using the 6 vils that are on sheep, the rest is the same! o_O youāll still send the 3/4 to wood at the same exact timing!
3 Likes
I disagree.
1 - war is about resource control, and boars are a dark age resource. In fact, the lamer is not āstealingā resources, resources are not matched by default to a player.
2 - it hasnāt a low effort, it requires quite a control to be successfull: you have to move your scout in short tracks while mantaining the vill productions. If the oppponent notices the laming, you have to deal with the enemy scout that may be in the way. You could end up without the boar (that returns in his spot after) and with your scout with half HP, if not dead. In the best scenario, you have anyway an half HP scout that will be soon dead in a 1v1 fight with a vill or the enemy scout.
3 - it is not always game deciding: I have seen and played several games in witch the lamed player wins. Wat And he wins by adapting. Thatās why all the suggestion were going in that direction. If you prefer to cry, you are free to do it
2 Likes
If you lose 2 vill in feudal , you are in disadvantage as well do you still dont do nothing to to get any advantage ? Donāt think so.
I wasnāt promoting laming, i find it not interessting at all, still it requires skills and adaptation to survive the early feudal and get any advantage 
maybe you want another examples of early adaptations ? Civs matchup ? How is your map ? What your opponent do ? losing a vill on a boar? make a choice about getting a deer or scouting ? how and where to wall (if any ) ?
Thatās an incredible thing to say there is no adaptations at all in early game even if you omit the lame and then say:
Ah youāre probably at very least 2k (and even a 2k+ there is some errors like thisā¦)
Stop being condescending toward others thatās ridiculous
3 Likes
Thank you, your entire post was well stated, properly explained and informative.
Laming for me is another way to deprived your enemy of resources or screw yourself if the enemy is prepared. Losing your scout early leave you open for his scout to harres your villagers and slowdown your production.
1 Like
Sheep laming can be even more impactful than boar laming since you get the extra food without even losing hp on you scouts, but who cares right?
Didnāt know that sheep laming is not impactful, itās way impactful at my ELO (~1950)
Also if you lure the second boar earlier, your animal resources dim out earlier but you also get more resources than standard. Just learn how to lame earlier without affecting your uptime.