How do you typically open the game?

[myb7721]

Deity: Builder to get 50% melee ranged policy asap, then a bunch of warrior and slingers/archers then domination.

 

[Stallogarro]

I tend to start with a monument. But that is probably just my old habit from Civ 5... I like to have cultural expansion as quickly as possible. Come to think of it, I probably picked up the habit in Civ 4.
Gold wise, I tend to buy a second scout as soon as I have the gold for it for goodie huts and exploration.

 

[Esperr]

I stopped playing Deity because I like to just screw around now, but my BO was slinger>slinger>slinger>slinger 99% of the time. After that it was either set or worker. I would try to buy or build a worker early if I couldn't snag one, but other then that I didn't find them worth it until feudalism.

 

[Spudsie74]

(On Emperor). Usually Slinger, Scout, Builder (or Settler), Slinger, Slinger. Then Settler, if not already built. I try to steal as many settlers or builders as possible, also exploring (probably too much), to try and wipe out barb camps, find goody huts, and meet AI/City Sates.

Exploration: I go out aggressively after barbs, and usually try to get Archery as soon as I have 3 Slingers. I also try for as many Eureka's/Inspiration's as possible, & beeline Political Philosophy.

Usually wind up DOWing nearby Civ's to grab available Settlers/Builders. Good thing there is no DOW penalty in that first age.

 

[comatosedragon]

Gifting the lux to your neighbor makes your delegate much more likely to be accepted. If you get that far usually you'll get a DoF and hence save yourself a ton of pain.

(Immortal)
Is this really a thing? I have never seen an AI not accept your delegate, so long as you send it to them on the same turn you meet them.
The only time I have ever seen an AI not accept the delegate is if you wait a turn or two to send it. So I learned to always send it as soon as I meet them.

 

[Spudsie74]

Not only that, (on Emperor), I frequently have most Civ's ask ME for a DOF. It usually goes meet, exchange elegations (they go first), and DOF (they request). This happens all the time unless I have DOW'd another Civ. If I don't DOW the AI (usually from encountering/stealing a worker or Settler), I have found (since the last patch), that most Civ's start out wanting to play nice. Even stranger, last couple of games, Civs I have encountered, refused to invite to capital, accepted a delegate without sending one back, STILL request friendship. Perhaps this is do to my stile of play, which minimized early wars?

 

[Chibisuke]

I've been experimenting a bit more lately on deity with warrior openings. To be honest, I think it might be superior to opening with slingers. Slingers are great and it is important to get archers asap. However, I have found lately on deity that due to the buffs that the devs have given to the AI, you need to be even more aggressive than before. This is especially true now that the AI are using escorts much more now. Warriors are more sturdy right at the start and if you pump out 3 of them at the start, those 3 could likely easily take over a city that the AI forward settles at you, or capture a city state that the AI captured. I am lately waiting a bit before I build more than one slinger and it seems to work well. Archers were just way more powerful before. Now that the AI builds tons of them and also gets walls up so quickly, I think warriors are becoming more useful early game.

 

[Arent11]

I've been experimenting a bit more lately on deity with warrior openings. To be honest, I think it might be superior to opening with slingers. Slingers are great and it is important to get archers asap. However, I have found lately on deity that due to the buffs that the devs have given to the AI, you need to be even more aggressive than before. This is especially true now that the AI are using escorts much more now. Warriors are more sturdy right at the start and if you pump out 3 of them at the start, those 3 could likely easily take over a city that the AI forward settles at you, or capture a city state that the AI captured. I am lately waiting a bit before I build more than one slinger and it seems to work well. Archers were just way more powerful before. Now that the AI builds tons of them and also gets walls up so quickly, I think warriors are becoming more useful early game.

Yes, you need 4 warriors to take a city state (3 if you count your initial warrior). That is, in fact, not much more production than 2 warcarts. I think the nerf of archers/ranged units was necessary & maybe doesn't even go far enough. But that's my opinion.

 

[megabearsfan]

I play mostly on Emperor (sometimes Immortal). My first build depends slightly on the situation. In general, my opening builds are (not necessarily in this order): Scout, slinger, extra warrior, builder.

Usually, I'll build a Scout in order to go after ruins and look for viable city locations while my starting warrior circles the area around my capital looking for barbs. Then I usually go with a slinger if I find early barbs or a hostile A.I. civ (Alexander, Montezuma, Peter, Gilgamesh). If my warrior and scout find lots of city states and few barbs, then I might go with a builder.

After that, I'll look at a settler and/or monument.

 

[mckinney156]

Archers are pretty good at destroying walls though, it depends on what the AI is using to fortify the city with as to the longevity of your archer rush. Either way, Warriors are *completely* useless when the walls go up and that's even if you have a battering ram. I'll stick with archers.

Now if you get quick swords on the other hand......

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Personally my first build is ALWAYS a unit, which means either a scout or a slinger. If I'm playing small/continents it will be a slinger because there isn't much to explore. On larger continents maps and all pangaea maps I prefer the scout. At that point nothing is more important than having units to explore and exert control over the map. Maybe I would feel differently on an island map but I almost never play those. The more I use scouts the more I like them. In addition to CS bonuses and goodie huts they can be used to steal builders/ settlers as well as to lure ai units. The next several builds are determined by what I've learned about the map. It's usually a slinger but situationally I've been experimenting with working a builder into my first 3 builds. When it works it's great for extra production and the craftsmanship eureka, but that plan is easily stiffled by barbs. I hate it when my builder is stuck hiding from barbs until I have the muscle to control my territory. I don't spend gold until I know I can upgrade my slingers, and I don't consider a monument until my initial army is off and winning prizes.I guess that makes my opening scout or slinger/ slinger/ builder or slinger/ slinger x2/ warrior. Then comes a monument followed by more military and settlers.

 

[Victoria]

Archers are pretty good at destroying walls though

To be accurate

Archers are 50% as good as warriors with a ram

to be roughly accurate

Archers are a little best less than 3X as good as a warrior without a ram vs a wall.
Archers do roughly 30% less damage against a city without walls

To be obscene

Have a knight with a RAM and a great General or two... as persia

 

[Lee Duane Fitzsimmons]

I usually play on larger maps with no barbs and not quite so many AI civs and city states. This type of setup allows for larger empires to emerge. Me likes these types of scenarios.

With this type of game, I usually go with 2 scouts and then settler, settler, settler, settler, etc.

I will then use the newer cities to produce workers and have at least one city concentrate on production. This city will build barracks and start cranking out my military.

However, my strategy is specifically geared for the setup that I play...

Oh BTW...

I refuse to tolerate the presence of barbarians anywhere in my game. I'm getting sick right now after having to type the "B" word...

 

[megabearsfan]

Personally my first build is ALWAYS a unit, which means either a scout or a slinger. If I'm playing small/continents it will be a slinger because there isn't much to explore. On larger continents maps and all pangaea maps I prefer the scout. At that point nothing is more important than having units to explore and exert control over the map. Maybe I would feel differently on an island map but I almost never play those. The more I use scouts the more I like them. In addition to CS bonuses and goodie huts they can be used to steal builders/ settlers as well as to lure ai units. The next several builds are determined by what I've learned about the map. It's usually a slinger but situationally I've been experimenting with working a builder into my first 3 builds. When it works it's great for extra production and the craftsmanship eureka, but that plan is easily stiffled by barbs. I hate it when my builder is stuck hiding from barbs until I have the muscle to control my territory. I don't spend gold until I know I can upgrade my slingers, and I don't consider a monument until my initial army is off and winning prizes.I guess that makes my opening scout or slinger/ slinger/ builder or slinger/ slinger x2/ warrior. Then comes a monument followed by more military and settlers.

I like Scouts too, especially now that they have a later-game upgrade. In V, I didn't care too much about my scouts. They had a really cool promotion line, but without being able to upgrade them, they were pointless after Medieval era. Being able to upgrade to Rangers in VI makes me want to keep my scouts around and get them promoted. I just wish there were an early Medieval or Renaissance upgrade for Scouts, so they they wouldn't get so easily murdered by classical/medieval barbs. Something like an Explorer, or maybe change the Ranger to be called "Frontiersman" or something like that, and add a late Medieval / early Renaissance Ranger unit armed with a compound bow or flintlock. Or maybe change the Survey policy to add +100% combat strength for Recon units when defending?

 

[Mr. Shadows]

@megabearsfan I agree it would be fun if there was an intermediate recon unit in between scout and ranger. I find that scouts die quickly in clumsy hands, but they can do A LOT if used properly. The biggest benefits come early, but (situationally) if you can get them 2-3 promotions with the 2x exp card they can be beastly once they become rangers.

 

[Victoria]

but they can do A LOT if used properly.

From experience I would say one of the most important "properly" properties is moving them one tile at a time and always thinking twice before they use their last movement point/s.
Another "properly" is using them as a sacrifice unit to stop your 3 promo archer dying. I often build one as a flank, support & sacrifice unit.

they can be beastly once they become rangers.

The main issue is they do not loose their vulnerability factor. The AI still targets them and they are squishy still.

I rate an un-promoted scout as 8/10 for usefulness and a promoted ranger as 4/10. I will never build a ranger as their value is away from cities unless still being used sacrificially and most of my time is spent around cities.

I am now using a scout opener 95% of the time.. the 5% is when I suspect I am on an island. There is the odd time two enemy warriors start walking toward my territory and I will change that build to a warrior.

I have played rangers enough now, to me when they die it feels like I lost a competition in building a wonder. Too much expectation smashed on the rocks of despair.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

From experience I would say one of the most important "properly" properties is moving them one tile at a time and always thinking twice before they use their last movement point/s.
Another "properly" is using them as a sacrifice unit to stop your 3 promo archer dying. I often build one as a flank, support & sacrifice unit.


The main issue is they do not loose their vulnerability factor. The AI still targets them and they are squishy still.

I rate an un-promoted scout as 8/10 for usefulness and a promoted ranger as 4/10. I will never build a ranger as their value is away from cities unless still being used sacrificially and most of my time is spent around cities.

I am now using a scout opener 95% of the time.. the 5% is when I suspect I am on an island. There is the odd time two enemy warriors start walking toward my territory and I will change that build to a warrior.

I have played rangers enough now, to me when they die it feels like I lost a competition in building a wonder. Too much expectation smashed on the rocks of despair.

Careful movement is a must, and I agree completely on using them as sacrifices, although I'm still getting better at that. I find that I can usually do that multiple times because (at least initially) they can take a hit, retreat, heal repeat. Something I've over-looked until now is that they also exert ZoC, including to lay siege. Inevitably it's going to get killed, but it can keep the momentum going at the beginning of my push while I'm rounding out my army. Up until now I've mostly ignored the double recon card, so in my last several games I've been using Greece so I can get away with over-using it. I see exactly what you mean; by the time it gets three promotions it's my baby and feels WAY more important than any one unit ever could be. Then again the whole point of playing this way is to give me an idea of exactly where the usefulness ends and the novelty begins. I'm already sure it isn't worth investing heavily in but I think that as I get better at using scouts it may (occasionally) happen naturally that I have highly promoted recon unit.

 

[megabearsfan]

Careful movement is a must, and I agree completely on using them as sacrifices, although I'm still getting better at that. I find that I can usually do that multiple times because (at least initially) they can take a hit, retreat, heal repeat. Something I've over-looked until now is that they also exert ZoC, including to lay siege. Inevitably it's going to get killed, but it can keep the momentum going at the beginning of my push while I'm rounding out my army. Up until now I've mostly ignored the double recon card, so in my last several games I've been using Greece so I can get away with over-using it. I see exactly what you mean; by the time it gets three promotions it's my baby and feels WAY more important than any one unit ever could be. Then again the whole point of playing this way is to give me an idea of exactly where the usefulness ends and the novelty begins. I'm already sure it isn't worth investing heavily in but I think that as I get better at using scouts it may (occasionally) happen naturally that I have highly promoted recon unit.

Oh, yeah, you have to treat a promoted Scout like a piece of fine porcelain. It's one thing to punish the player for being careless or wreckless; it's something completely else to leave a unit completely useless for it's primary purpose. After all, isn't the point of a Scout supposed to be to explore the frontier? The fact that there's at least two phases of exploration between the initial exploration and the unlocking of rangers makes me feel that there really needs to be a medieval or renaissance upgrade (maybe even both). You have the extra exploration phase that may begin when you unlock ability to embark. Depending on your map and tech path, this may come late enough that Scouts are useless at exploring any potential islands that might be accessible across shallow water. Then there's the exploration phase that begins when you can cross oceans, and I don't even bother sending Scouts out for that (assuming I have any left). I feel like there should be a recon unit specifically for those exploration phases.

I'd say that Scouts should be made more survivable by either granting them an inherent +100% defense against barbarians, or by changing the Survey policy to "Double exp for recon units. Recon units gain 100% defense against barbs." That would at least (hopefully) allow Scouts to make it through ancient and classical era. As long as it's only a defensive buff, and it only applies to barbs, you can't exploit a Scout rush or anything like that to attack other players. Then I think there needs to be a late medieval / early renaissance upgrade that you can send out with your Caravels to explore other continents (as opposed to sending a Knight or whatever). I would even say that the Spanish Conquistador should be a UU replacement for the medieval / renaissance recon unit (instead of musketmen).

 

[Chibisuke]

I've been playing exclusively with warrior warrior warrior openings for a while now on Deity, and I don't think I plan on going back at this point unless there is another rebalancing soon. As long as there is at least 1 AI opponent within range, I don't think anything is better than that. AI gets archers and walls too quickly to wait to attack them. You can generally pump out 3 warriors before they can get there and 3-4 warriors will easily take any city at the start of the game, including their capital. I've played so many Deity starts and after all the tweaks the devs have made, I feel like even more aggression is necessary. Assuming you can get some iron and upgrade them to swordsmen, get a battering ram and you can go on a storm of conquest that's easier now than using archers.

 

[AnnandRR]

Not only that, (on Emperor), I frequently have most Civ's ask ME for a DOF. It usually goes meet, exchange elegations (they go first), and DOF (they request). This happens all the time unless I have DOW'd another Civ. If I don't DOW the AI (usually from encountering/stealing a worker or Settler), I have found (since the last patch), that most Civ's start out wanting to play nice. Even stranger, last couple of games, Civs I have encountered, refused to invite to capital, accepted a delegate without sending one back, STILL request friendship. Perhaps this is do to my stile of play, which minimized early wars?

Usually followed by forward settling you if you accept their DOF request. I find it easier to refuse the DOF and capture the settler.