Bigginer's Civ

[Japanrocks12]

Maya. Agricultural and Industrious, with the extra food they can expand like crazy and create their infrastructure with relative ease.

 

[Coffeedragon]

Rome. The only real problem with the Romans is they are too easy.

Strategy: Set Research to the max possible without going bankrupt. => Iron immediately.

Secure a source of Iron. If you don´t have and your neighbour has, stealthy buildup of Arches or Horses or something, then surprise. Whatever happens, get the Iron.

Peace, man! Once you have the Iron, take your time. Build a few more cities, mine the hills. Where you have many shields => get a barracks. Amass legions. You need nothing else. Legions rule! Later, get Math and have stacks of Legions and Catapults for even greater pleasure. Move steadily over your neighbour. Occasionally make peace for techs and money; 20 turns later attack again. Check in the treaties window that 20 turns are really over before you declare war again, and declare BEFORE entering his territory, to keep reputation high.

After you control your continent, go to Republic and research a while. Later, explore the world, meet new people, kill them. You can´t do much wrong with the Romans. They are born survivors. Trust me!

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Rome needs BW first on the way to Iron. Nothing you write is really incorrect - but everything will work even better with Persia.

 

[Coffeedragon]

...but everything will work even better with Persia.

They are actually pretty different. I like the Romans better, for 4 reasons:

-Lower corruption makes for more comfy expansion.
-Fast, cheap barracks.
-More Elites, more Leaders.
-Legions have only second-best attack, true, but best defense AT THE SAME TIME! No worry about counterattacks, they simply do their thing and ignore the enemy.

It ultimately comes down to personal style of course.

 

[Pentium]

Beginners playing on Chieftain won't face many counterattacks. Also, Persia get to iron faster.

 

[The Dark Master]

Persia I don't wan't to hear any complaints either.

 

[Coffeedragon]

Beginners playing on Chieftain won't face many counterattacks.

Not worrying about counterattacks is a bad habit, though.

Still, from the purely Chieftain viewpoint, taking the weak opposition into account, Iroquois are best for conquest, Greeks or Babylonians for Cultural Victory.

 

[cleverhandle]

I totally disagree with earlier posters saying that scientific is a bad trait. It's great for new players, as long as cheap libraries isn't all they build. A 40 shield library early in the game is all the culture you need, and it gives fast research. Add that to a builder trait and the civ is unstoppable. Sort of.

Sorry, but I just can't disagree more. IMO, the single element that will raise you up through Regent/Monarch to Emperor+ fastest is good trading. Chieftain/Warlord is already counterproductive enough in this regard - the AI is so slow that productive trades are scarce. When you're scientific, snagging a free tech at each age and having an abundance of cheap libs/unis you start to think that you can just out-research the AI as a matter of course. As you reach higher levels, you'll realize just how wrong that is but it's a really hard adjustment to make for a lot of people. Playing Sci civs early on only makes it harder. I'm speaking here from my experience of being stuck at Warlord/Regent for a long time - overemphasis on research and unwillingness to trade held me back tremendously.

Anyway, the three best civs, in my opinion, are Persia, Sumeria, and the Iroquois.

The question was not what civs are the best, but what civs are the best to start with. Those are two very different things.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

For a first timer, I would recommend Greece. They are not a good military civ, but Scientific/Commercial will really help the player as he advances in the game. Usually this means that they would be weaker in the Ancient Age, but the main reason I recommend the Greeks is for their Hoplites. The best defensive unit of the Ancient Age all but guarantees that the Greeks will survive to at least the next Age. The newbie might not have the best Civ by the Middle Ages, but at least he'll be alive. You can't learn how to play when you can't get out of the first age.

 

[Coffeedragon]

Sorry, but I just can't disagree more. IMO, the single element that will raise you up through Regent/Monarch to Emperor+ fastest is good trading. Chieftain/Warlord is already counterproductive enough in this regard - the AI is so slow that productive trades are scarce. When you're scientific, snagging a free tech at each age and having an abundance of cheap libs/unis you start to think that you can just out-research the AI as a matter of course.

Dunno; bear in mind that not so few will never play at Emperor+. Up to, and including, Monarch, you can outresearch the AI if you play it well. Worrying what he is going to do at Emperor is perhaps too early for a new civ-er.

I say have fun, and worry later (or never) about being competitive at Sid.

 

[eldar]

Let's look at the individual traits again and see what bad habits they might engender in the average noob:

Religious Cheap Temples! Minimal Anarchy - let's change govts as often as we like!
Scientific Cheap Libraries! Free techs!
Militaristic None that I can think of, except maybe over-agressiveness?
Industrious "I already have enough workers!" As someone wiser than me said already - you don't have enough workers.
Commercial Over-expansion, maybe, but little else early on. For Joe Average Noob, "early on" is the most important thing.
Expansionist Loads of free goodies!
Agricultural My cities grow so fast!
Seafaring Let's build lots of boats!

J. Ave Noob isn't going to "get" Commercial though, will mis-understand just what Seafaring can do for him, and may not fully comprehend just how powerful Agricultural is. Still, to encourage best practice all-round, Rome is a good choice. However the Noobs will struggle with Rome, and quickly lose heart if they have no iron - I know I did, and they still remain one of my "mystery" civs. Their trait synergy sucks. I played Persia a lot, and later the Ottomans once PtW came out. Sci/Ind are two of the most "obvious" traits to a new player, I guess why I liked them.

So, yeah, Rome. If you can bear the pain, then the lessons learned will be worth it.

 

[Fried Egg]

eldar

Religious Cheap Temples! Minimal Anarchy - let's change govts as often as we like!

But changing governments often is not a bad habit...as long as you only do it with a religious civ!

Scientific Cheap Libraries! Free techs!

What? And building libraries is a bad habit?

Commercial Over-expansion, maybe, but little else early on. For Joe Average Noob, "early on" is the most important thing.

Over expansion? In my experience, new players usually under-expand. Encouraging them to expand as much as possible is usually a good thing.

I think that the important thing to remember is that you must play the game differently when you have different traits. Don't stick to formulas.