Best Civilization/Country for a Newbie?

[Hypochondriac]

I've been reading a few posts, so far I've learned that USA is one of the more difficult countries to start with if your a beginner.

So what country/civilization is the easiest to play as a newbie?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Any. As long as you don't get in the habit of over-relying on traits or uniques you'll be fine.

 

[Hypochondriac]

Ok thanks, guess I will stick with USA then.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

The Random country/civ

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

Any. As long as you don't get in the habit of over-relying on traits or uniques you'll be fine.

That is exactly why there are few I can win on noble with (exception is RFC).

 

[Sian]

relying on any single specific civ (for either trait or 'patriotic feelings') is bad ... either because you use it as a couch, or that you're making the game way harder for yourself ...

Random civ, protentially with unrestricted leaders going Random/random is the best way to play when learning ... even though random/random can make for some hard/easy combos since stuff sometimes mix scarily well

 

[Yoshi1]

Inca...easy barb defense, financial for enoghh commerce (don't forget to build cottages), ind. to grab wonders (something new players like to do anyway ), and a good unique building.
He has it all.

 

[enKage]

Gilgamesh / Sumeria, bacause:
- his traits doesn't make any huge difference on your playing style in late game.
- his UB doesn't make any huge difference also (it is only cheaper than typical courthouse)
So after AD you will feel no difference between this civ and any other, this will help you to learn how to manage your empire properly, without trait benefits.

On the very beggining on the other hand - huge handicap - creative is nice on start and Sumeria has briliant early unique unit - this is for easy setup of empire.

------

The second chioce: Mao - two very neutral traits - Protective and Exp, expansive helping with early expansion

Starting with these traits of Mao you can improve your skills without sticking to one style of playing/victory.


-----

EDIT
Yoshi,
Making beginners to build a lot of wonders is the worst thing you could say! Wonder addiction is one of the factors stopping player in advancing to higher difficulties!

 

[Yoshi1]

No idea what you mean, he asked for the easiest to play...and that is HC because he is simply the strongest. Wonder building is important, to find out the strength of each of them.
While you suggest protective leaders? Trying to show him who are the weakest first?

 

[enKage]

Trying to teach him basics using the traits, that will not interfere too much in playing style.

The goal for newbies is not to win quickly and easily, but (at least should be) to win catching up basic rules and strategies, whitout getting addicted especially to Ind, Fin, Spi or Phi.
A begginer avoiding these traits is far more flexible advancing next levels.
Now I think also Organised trait is nice to begin with, as it has very little impact on lower difficulties...

Newbie will also not take advantage of Queachas - have you heard of hordes of barbs on settler/chieftan/warlord level at the very beggining? And when AI's and barbs get to archers, he would propably have something far better than quechas

 

[Yoshi1]

ok fine, you like to play teacher ^^
There is just one problem with that, he didn't ask for "what is best for me to learn the game as a newbie", he wanted to know who is the easiest aka strongest.

 

[michmbk]

Easiest to play as a newbie IMO would be civs like Darius, Huayna, Willem & Zara.

Best civ to play to really learn the game would be SID!!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=333474&highlight=lonely+hearts

No traits, no UUs, no UBs. Obviously that game was in isolation, so that's a totally different strategy needed, but Sid was a great test of the game without traits.

 

[Kid R]

If you've never played any other Civ version I'd choose a creative leader. It takes away a tedious piece of micromanagement you otherwise have to do for every new city (i.e. build a monument).

All the other traits just give various boosts to your ability to win, and you can do that just as well while you're learning by choosing an easy difficulty level.

Then when you've played all the creatives, choose another trait and play all those guys. That way you get a feel for what each trait does on its own, rather than going full random when you have two variables each game and it's harder to see what's different each time and why.

 

[Gwynnja]

Tokugawa, for the ability to tech pottery from turn 1 and two unique units.

 

[Ataxerxes]

For a first-time player, I'd recommend Creative as well so you don't worry about border pops (don't build Stonehenge if Creative). Very easy-to-use trait. Financial is also very easy to use. Organized is certainly easy to use, but not much use on low levels. I'd also avoid Rome - too easy to rely on Prats.

That said, I'd get away from specific traits quickly and try a variety. Each trait is used a little differently. Some are stronger than others, but all give an advantage. Some, such as Philosophical, need experience to use well.

I suppose you could try Toku so you're not dependent on any economic traits. Most people think he's a very weak leader, although not as pathetic as the AI plays him. Provides a nice intro to using Macemen in war, however.

 

[shyuhe]

Hatty is a nice and easy leader to learn the game with. It also lets you explore the various civics without anarchy penalties.

 

[Dr.Null]

Ok thanks, guess I will stick with USA then.

USA is a fine choice. Their UU and UB come so late that you'll have to get a winning position looooooong before they show up, and the leaders have a good mix of traits.

Germany is a similarly good learning experience.

 

[shpeka]

I vote Hatty (Hatshepsut).

Creative takes away the tedious cultural micromanagement. Spiritual helps you explore the new and exciting civics.

Probably the best combination for learning the game and the development of "good practices".

Some neutral traits like ORG/EXP/AGG etc. would also do the trick, but the abovementioned combo is definitely easier to play.

I would not recommend FIN since it may shift the focus of the game a bit too much.

 

[Gwynnja]

Creative takes away the tedious cultural micromanagement. Spiritual helps you explore the new and exciting civics.

Building a monument is tedious cultural micromanagement? Good grief. I think Gandhi or Asoka would be better. I agree with spiritual and personally love creative, but the indians' uu, ub, and traits lend themselves to learning game mechanics without the crutch of creative or financial.

 

[Deepsix]

...but the indians' uu, ub, and traits lend themselves to learning game mechanics without the crutch of creative or financial.

Couldn't agree more. My first game was Asoka and I found the combo helps to set up your empire quickly. It becomes a little difficult to wean yourself off of Spiritual though.