Are Civs with great early units good or bad for new players?

[intellectsucks]

After reading the Sumeria domination guide, I started thinking about this question: Are civs with a great early unit, like Sumeria's Warcarts or the Aztec's Eagle Warriors, good or bad for new players?

It seems the strategies that make those Civs effective (spam your early unique unit, have that early army take out 1-3 neighbors, expand into the newly opened up territory and leverage your now huge empire to run away with the game), aren't easily translatable to other Civs. I know I played a couple of games as the Aztecs when i first ramped up to emperor and crushed it using the early Eagle Warrior rush strategy, but then struggled when I played as different civs.

So do early units take pressure off of new players and give them time to learn more in-depth strategy without having the AI overwhelm them or do early units act as a crutch that replaces the need to learn more effective strategies?

 

[The Civs 6]

I am going to speak for players who are new to 6, but not new to the franchise. Maybe not exactly who you had in mind, but still what I would call a "new player".

I think the civs with the characteristics you mentioned are good for new players, because they show off what makes 6 distinct and fun compared to 5. Imagine that you played a game like 5, the civs of which (other than Venice) are mostly similar, and generally with a static game style. And then you play the Sumerians - who use warcarts to just roll over the opposition and to secure bonus goody huts, and in general just explode in the early game. The player will realize that only the Sumerians get to do this, and that each faction has its own set of strats that are tied to its unique strengths. That is a fun change of pace, and really, the freshness of that is the main selling point of 6 compared to the rest of the franchise. Obviously the extreme example of this would be the Maori.

It's a good question.

 

[Vargas1]

I agree it's a good question. As someone who did come in being new to the franchise, I'd say that playing a civ with early bonuses is good for new players, but not necessarily a civ with strong early units. I do think playing Sumeria or Aztec or Nubia first can give a player a misguided sense of how easy an early rush can be. At the same time, having something to help with the early game is good as it gives you a lot more cushion while you learn about the game mechanics. Someone like RR Teddy is great for this - his major bonuses towards victory conditions come into play later in the game (tourism from film studio and extra envoys for diplomacy), but right off the bat you've got your +5 at home to help keep you alive, and an extra wildcard slot starting with your first real government. Australia also - the bonus production after a DOW lets you make early mistakes but have the chance to recover from them instead of getting overrun.

 

[UWHabs]

I think right at the start, they help, because they teach you a little in how to focus. An early strategy of "build as many war carts as possible until your neighbour is dead" lets you focus on that, and by the time you're through that, you can learn how to rebuild the economy and can proceed from there learning the next steps without worrying too much about safety or being overrun.

I think you need to very quickly get away from that before you move up in levels, or else you can very easily get a wrong impression of how to play the game, and end up 3 levels too high before learning other strategies.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think Eagle Warriors are probably better because they make you think of other ways of how to use units. The Egyptian Chariot Archer and Varu are expensive and must be used with a good plan.

War carts are 100% brain dead because there is no strategy beyond make them and roll your face. Same applies to stuff like Pitalis. Those probably don't really teach you anything besides play this civ.

 

[enKage]

Starting with Aztecs or Sumeria may lead new players to be too much dependent very strong on overpowered unique unit.

Instead I propose America - they have +5 strength on home continent what gives significant boost to defense, and probably you would balance your army . Also Cathy with +3 to all units is good for learning civ6

 

[Pietato]

Starting with Aztecs or Sumeria may lead new players to be too much dependent very strong on overpowered unique unit.

Instead I propose America - they have +5 strength on home continent what gives significant boost to defense, and probably you would balance your army . Also Cathy with +3 to all units is good for learning civ6

Then you might get dependent on those bonuses.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Each Civ is unique, so blaming some Civs for "not transferable" is not very appropriate. In fact nothing can be "transferable". For example, when playing as Australia I usually don't build units and denounce neighbors, in order to attract them to DoW on me. Is that strategy "transferable"? When playing as Russia I usually seek for Classical Golden Age and prioritize faith, is that "transferable"? When playing as progressive Roosevelt I always go for a very quick horseman rush, is that "transferable"? Can you list any Civ whose strategy is "transferable", "transferable" to whom?

No Civ strategy is transferable.

 

[Bibor]

Early units and bonuses are good, because they teach the long-term *potential* benefits of early aggression. The real benefit is obviously learning how to use that potential to full effect.
As players get better, they’ll move from early bonus civs to mid-game civs etc. as they skill up in effectively capitalizing on these potentials.

 

[Sostratus]

Most Civ’s’ bonuses could be cast as a “crutch.”

For new players, though, I would think the only deleterious choices would be a Civ with a more “radical design element” that either goes around a core game mechanic or changes one dramatically. For example, Maori are a very unique civ to play. Probably not the best choice for the first few games. Maya and Gaul are less extreme examples, and the aforementioned ultra early rush civs can have similar influences.

IMO the best beginner civs are all-arounder vanilla civs like Rome, where you get a decent bonus that helps you the whole game but isn’t so concentrated that it falls into the above category. USA, England, China maybe. May or not be easy to play well, but all very easy to play with bonuses that can help you find your footing as you learn the ropes.

 

[Pietato]

I agree. Rome.

 

[Abaxial]

Early unique units means early era score for building one, which helps ward off an early dark age.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Rome is the best “starter” civ. The free roads help a new player redeploy their units, and the free monument gets you civics faster

The UU is powerful but usually doesn’t appear early enough for a brainless early rush like Gilgabro

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Most Civ’s’ bonuses could be cast as a “crutch.”

For new players, though, I would think the only deleterious choices would be a Civ with a more “radical design element” that either goes around a core game mechanic or changes one dramatically. For example, Maori are a very unique civ to play. Probably not the best choice for the first few games. Maya and Gaul are less extreme examples, and the aforementioned ultra early rush civs can have similar influences.

IMO the best beginner civs are all-arounder vanilla civs like Rome, where you get a decent bonus that helps you the whole game but isn’t so concentrated that it falls into the above category. USA, England, China maybe. May or not be easy to play well, but all very easy to play with bonuses that can help you find your footing as you learn the ropes.

So that's what Vanilla Civs are for: Starting the game and getting better so that you can use the OP Civs to their true potential.

 

[The Civs 6]

Start them on Kongo to condition them to believe that RV's don't exist.

 

[MrRadar]

Rome is a powerful drug. You could get addicted to free monuments and free road network to soon

I'd also suggest Black Queen Catherine and the French, as early game neutral. Then the crutches kick in very gently and not in a jump-start way. Higher diplomatic visibility will help to do slightly better in combat if attacked, an earlier spy will give the first taste of spying ahead of everyone else, easier mid-game wonders go hand-in-hand with learning about the placing unique improvements and the unique unit comes in time when the player is already established and may be looking forward to flex their muscles around the home continent. Nothing obscenely OP, just discreet soft cushions here and there, placed in an unobtrusive way.

 

[jasper]

People really over thinking.

Yes they are good for beginners. Sumeris war cart is a very simple design and bonus that doesnt require knowledge of other mechanics to work properly. Simple is good for beginner. Sumeris is good for the same reason rome is good, simple straightforward bonus.

Doesnt translate well to other civs? How many civs have military unique units and use those units offensively to take more cities? Theres an entire victory condition for exactly that playstyle.

Taking early cities with basic units is a good strat for a lot of civs not just sumeris and qztec. Many civs have archer, swordsman and horsemen uus.

 

[Vargas1]

People really over thinking.


Doesnt translate well to other civs? How many civs have military unique units and use those units offensively to take more cities? Theres an entire victory condition for exactly that playstyle.

The difference is that Sumeria (and Aztec to a slightly lesser extent) require no considered strategy whatsoever to support the early conquering - the units are unlocked from the beginning so you don't even have to plan your research, they require no resources, and they are stronger than anything else at the beginning of the game. If someone learns about early warfare from Sumeria, they're in for a rude awakening when they try the same strategy with warriors who are evenly matched, or when they have to plan ahead to get iron for legions, Ngao Mbeba, etc. Even Pitati archers - one of the strongest early units - require you to get to archery first and require you to augment with at least one or two melee/cav units to actually take the cities.

 

[Socrates99]

Rome can be a bit of a "crutch" type civ too since you can put off building for culture for quite a while. If you're looking for civs that are good for learning early builds US or Catherine are great suggestions. Australia would be fun too since it's easy to find adjacency bonuses and he has that rubber band protection in the production bonus. Plus the outback station can save poorly placed cities.

That being said I dont really think early rush civs are bad for new players. Sometimes new players might struggle with that balance between early rush and expansion. Do you settle a couple cities first? Improve any tiles? Work food at all or just focus on production? Make nice with one neighbor so he doesn't backstab you while your armys out on its rampage? If you dont build up at all loyalty can be a problem for early rushers. Theres a lot of ways someone with no knowledge of the mechanics can kneecap themselves by spamming warcarts.