The Dawn of Civilization / Opening Strategies

SeismoGraf

Warlord
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
169
It is the year 4000 before common era and you start with a handful of people eager to explore and conquer the world. I love the screenshot below, with the uniform black fog of war of Civ4 replaced by a beautilful cloud layer. While enjoying the music and atmosphere, the first challenge in the game waits: what to do with your warrior and settler.

In the opening there are few decisions to take, although with potentially game-changing consequences. I would define the opening of a Civ game, as the period from 4000 BC up to the foundation of the second city.

From what I've read there are quite a few changes compared to Civ4, for example:

  • Now every civ starts with a settler and a warrior, as well as the ability to produce scouts
  • Going settler first is no longer an option, because to produce a settler, the city is required to have at least 2 citizens
  • The economic dominance of a "worker first start" is moderated by several changes
What are your thoughts about the opening of a Civ5 game?
 

Attachments

  • civilization5_220568.jpg
    civilization5_220568.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 1,193
Well there are a few options

1. Worker first->for Farms
2. Scout First-> for ruins+Barbs (they are better than Warriors v. Barbs)
3. Monument First->for faster border claiming/Social Policies

Scouts are particularly cheap, so I would guess at least one of them first.
Then Worker/Monument, depending on the goodness of your current/nearby tiles


The problem with Workers is that they are expensive, 70 compared to 25 for a Scout, or 35 for a Warrior.
 
i'm thinking worker, then an extra warrior maybe a scout as well then ill build a setller followed by a monument.
 
Scout first. You get double gold (30 instead of 15) when you're the first to contact a city state, and goody huts don't spawn bad stuff anymore. Additionally, if you use terrain well, your scout will even survive against the wandering barbarians.

Next is either warrior, scout, or worker, depending on how dangerous the environment is (very dangerous: warrior, not dangerous: worker). By the time the worker's finished, you should have developed the most important techs, and have grown to enough population to be able to start building a settler.
 
It also depends on the civ your playing, a scout will be better for America. Or you could actually hold the scout off longer as America because it has less work to do.
 
Without knowing the exact mechanics, I think a few things can be said with a high probability to be correct in the release version.

As a rule of thumb, always move your warrior first to find the best spot for the capital. In case of doubt, losing a bit of "warrior time" will always be better than missing the optimal spot for the capital. Remember, the capital can't be moved.

A rare exception would be a settler placed on a hill (maybe adjacent to river), with good resources and at least 1 turn away from every other spot. Then I would probably settle in place, but only if the city borders reveal additional tiles as they did in Civ4. In some other rare circumstances it may be ok to move the settler 1 of its 2 movement points and then move the warrior.

Anyways, the worst-case loss of moving your warrior first is very small compared to settling your capital on a suboptimal tile.

In the OP screenshot the settler can found the capital immediately on 5 different river tiles. In the south-west there seems to be cattle, so I would probably send my warrior in this direction, to see if it is a good idea to settle SW.

Also as a rule of thumb, I'd say found your capital on turn 1 or 2. Without knowing your surroundings it is probably pointless to move the settler around longer; at least it was in previous Civ versions.

The cities now continue to grow while they produce a Worker. For example, if your goal is to pump out a settler exactly when pop reaches 2 or 3, then it pays off to calculate an exact timing for all previous production. Ideally the city grows by a pop and then starts the settler, thereby halting growth.

The effectiveness of early rushes, especially in multiplayer games is uncertain. Cities can now defend themselves, which means a player should be safe from losing his capital in the first 20 turns. Can a player investing heavily in economy with an early worker and settler be conquered or crippled with a single-city early military focus?
 
I'd bet scout first would be the way to go, huts and natural wonders should be well worth discovering, and getting the double gold from city states will help you get things moving quickly in your capital.
 
I would go scout first unless my tiles clearly warrant investing in improvements right away. The problem I could see is having a city that grows so fast that it tempts me to build a settler before a worker, since that would just be inefficient overall.
 
I can't imagine not building a scout first, especially given how expensive workers are. I'd probably go Scout --> Worker --> Settler or maybe even double scouts on some maps.
 
I'm not sure how long it takes to unlock the first social policy, but it might be faster to wait till the Liberty tree is unlocked before starting a settler.
 
I've heard approx 25 turns, but I can't remember from where. But it might be advantageous to build a monument in that case and wait until you unlock the bonus building settlers, you're right.
 
since I plan to play as the americans, i think getting that scout first would be the best to maximize their bonus
 
I can see an early Monument being a valid strategy. Your first city only produces 1 culture/turn - a Monument increases that by +2! That drastically increases your ability to acquire early Social Policies and push your borders.

Maybe not first, but possibly second.

Another thing to remember regarding settlers - I am going to guess that you can't add one to your queue until you hit size 2.
 
I've heard approx 25 turns, but I can't remember from where. But it might be advantageous to build a monument in that case and wait until you unlock the bonus building settlers, you're right.

I know it's 15 turns on quick, so that sounds about right.
 
I think, seeing as I'm going to play Greece first, I'll go scout - monument - worker - settler.
 
I had not seen the cost figures mentioned by Krikkitone before. Workers expensive? They only cost twice what a warrior does; in Civ IV it was 4 times. A lot will depend on how useful the two units are -- how big are the improvements in tile yield from early techs? And how quickly will you be able to get the techs for your worker to do more than farm? And how useful is a warrior, especially if scouts are better against barbs?

More emphasis on early exploration should be interesting -- in Civ IV it was often possible, even optimal, to not bother exploring more than the very near vicinity for some time.
 
  • The economic dominance of a "worker first start" is moderated by several changes
What are your thoughts about the opening of a Civ5 game?

Well I know that workers no longer affect the growth of your cities (which is a plus for starting with them first). Are you saying there some negatives to building a worker first? That would be my first choice otherwise, with my warrior starting exploration. Then make a scout, nice that you don't need a specific tech for it now. When to build another settler will likely depend on how good of a location my first city is in: the better it is (i.e. lots of food resources) the quicker I will get a settle out. I've never seen a huge advantage, though, to building one right when you hit 2 pop. I've played enough OCC to know that one big city is better than a bunch of weak ones.
 
Much of the strategy during your first few turns depend on many things, as in previous civ games. Workers and Scouts are always a good idea, but depending on your Civ an nearby hexes, each may be more or less important. I can actually see for Germany, it may be more important to get a second warrior out earlier than normal to capitalize on their Barbarian bonus, though whether it should be the first produced unit is another question.

Generally I think this would be optimal for each civ though.
America: Scout - Worker - Settler (+1 sight means you can explore faster)
Arabia: Worker - Scout - Settler (get some roads prebuilt to get that first trade route up and running)
Aztec: Warrior - Worker - Settler (culture gains from kills, start nailing Barbs)
China: Scout - Worker - Settler (no real benefit either way, but scouting is important)
Egypt: Worker - Scout - Settler (get your production tiles up to get ready for Wonder production)
England: Scout - Worker - Settler (find yourself a coastal city location sooner if your not already on one)
France: Monument - Scout - Worker - Settler (capitalize on your culture gains early)
Germany: Warrior - Worker - Settler (Your goal is barb stomping, scouts are weak, you should have an army of barbs to explore soon)
Greece: Scout - Worker - Settler (find City States ASAP)
India: Worker - Scout - Monument - Settler (India works best with less cities, get some culture flowing early instead)
Iroquois: Scout - Monument/Scout - Settler (Roads aren't as important unless you have very few forests)
Japan: Scout - Worker - Settler (again, no real benefit, but might help to find your first conquest)
Ottoman: Scout - Worker - Settler (find a coastal city location ASAP)
Persia: Monument - Scout - Worker - Settler (Get that early Golden Age sooner)
Rome: Scout - Worker - Settler - Monument (I mention post-settler because you want to get this built in Rome ASAP to capitalize on their ability, maybe even before the settler)
Russia: Scout - Worker - Settler (a resource huntin we go)
Siam: Scout - Worker - Settler (Find City States)
Songhai: Warrior - Worker - Settler(again, go barb smashing)
Babylon: Scout - Worker - Settler (maybe??? no idea what their special is)

Again, these are just generalizations, your situation may require a change in presidence. If England is already a coastal city you may want to forgo scouting for a few turns for example)
 
Top Bottom