Let's talk about opening moves

[greygamer]

And start scumming is starting a new game whenever you get an unfavorable start.

I wasn't commenting testing out strategies, I was commenting on criticizing people for worrying about the bad outcomes of an opening strategy.

I don't understand why you quoted my post in that case as it clearly stated it was to 'see how often it brought about disaster'
I take it you complete every game you start then? A strategy thread would seem to be a good place for people to discuss (worry) about bad outcomes of a strategy.
For the record I often loose interest in completing games I start if they are not interesting, what kind of 'scumming' would that be

 

[MyOtherName]

I don't understand why you quoted my post

Because that was the quote implying that being cautious is an error if favorable outcomes are merely "likely".

 

[fortydayweekend]

It's impossible I think to say that any sequence of moves is "better" than another without defining a goal and play-style (as well as level). 2 scouts using the warrior to chop barbs might be better for a no-conquest, happy-to-reload game. While 2 slingers might be the best for exactly the same map for an Ironman player looking to swamp the AI with archers.

Unless someone can build an empirical argument showing that 2 scouts > 2 slingers or vice versa regardless of those factors it's not likely to be settled quickly.

 

[greygamer]

Because that was the quote implying that being cautious is an error if favorable outcomes are merely "likely".

I think you misunderstand in that case, I was suggesting delaying the first military unit does not mean you are an easy target. Most early game decisions are going to be of the reward/risk type given that the player will have very little information to base it on. You seem to be looking at opening moves as a zero sum problem.

I have experimented with early settler, early military and double scout openings and my current viewpoint is they can all be made to work as the game progresses. It is down to the player understanding what works as the game unfolds. Also you can just have bad luck regardless of your opening.

For example my current test game resulted in no envoys despite 2 scouts and finding 4 city states by turn 26.

I was surrounded by AI civs; Monty far to the west (although I met his scout on turn 14), Ghandi built a city 7 tiles away, Trajan 4 tiles away, Peter 7 tiles away, Pedro was away to the east. I met everyone by turn 34.
Trajan denounced me on turn 32 but that city was attacked by Peter so I joined in a couple of turns later (I had 1 warrior/3 slingers) - Peter would eventually capture the city so I had to take it away from him ...eventually and then start rolling on the city states. All this with no horses or iron (I didn't even build chariots until later and my play was very sub-optimal with regard to policies / city management).

I have had more sedate starts I can tell you

2 scouts using the warrior to chop barbs might be better for a no-conquest, happy-to-reload game.

You can still go conquest with a 2 scout opening of course, I found the above quite fun ... especially the 1v1v1 fight right next to my capital. And no I didn't re-load, I just rolled with it to see how it went.

Unless someone can build an empirical argument showing that 2 scouts > 2 slingers or vice versa regardless of those factors it's not likely to be settled quickly.

I hope there is no right way to open, we wouldn't have anything to discuss if that was the case.

 

[c4c6]

2 scouts using the warrior to chop barbs might be better for a no-conquest, happy-to-reload game.

FilthyRobot usually opens his MultiPlayerLetsPlay videos on youtube with 2 or 3 scouts and is doing quite well. (I'm not certain, that all started games are published there, though.)

 

[Quillan]

My feeling is that the better the player the more value to information. S/he is more adaptable to early trouble and can change strategies quickly if barbs/evil ai are close.

For a weaker player then going military first is probably safer, although I just can't see it being optimal. Thats why I"m looking forward to your results greygamer

 

[greygamer]

My feeling is that the better the player the more value to information. S/he is more adaptable to early trouble and can change strategies quickly if barbs/evil ai are close.

For a weaker player then going military first is probably safer, although I just can't see it being optimal. Thats why I"m looking forward to your results greygamer

Oh going military first is currently always optimal. If you crush their cities their isn't much they can do. You don't even need to capture them, just pillage them for extra resources. The AI never in my experience try to stop the leader and as a result tend to hold each other in check - just sit back and watch the AI burn through their faith points for example in religious stalemates (You can swoop in later if you got a religion for an easy win.) I was curious as to how effective an early scouting game is. It's a strategy for the more able players without a doubt. Building an effective military early on is relatively straight forward and tends to discourage the AI from attacking you anyway.

And yes information is super important, threads like this hopefully give information so players are better prepared for unexpected situations and perhaps feel more confident about stepping out of their comfort zone.

My understanding is science victories are probably the quickest wins you can get. Unfortunately I enjoy moving units around so domination, religious and culture (you move archeologists right?) wins are more fun for me. So going for a 2 scout domination win adds a little challenge in the early game.

I'm still tweaking my 2 scout gameplan. God King can get you God of the Forge to really boost military output, but is it worth giving up +1 production for 25 turns? Survey or Discipline? A small military might need that +5 if the barbarians are at the gates.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Hmm, I disagree about the Science Victories being the fastest. Those are Religious Victories, in my experience.

But that's just me nitpicking on a insightful post. I agree with military being optimal. Once I saw the motto "When in doubt, make another Warrior", I generally followed with at least above-average results (except I built Archers or Chariots, but anyway, more nitpicking)

 

[greygamer]

Hmm, I disagree about the Science Victories being the fastest. Those are Religious Victories, in my experience.

But that's just me nitpicking on a insightful post. I agree with military being optimal. Once I saw the motto "When in doubt, make another Warrior", I generally followed with at least above-average results (except I built Archers or Chariots, but anyway, more nitpicking)

You are probably right about religious victory now I think about it.

Early on you can capture cities with slingers/archers and a scout even, ranged units drain the health bar and the scout just walks in, nice way to level your scout.

 

[diamond geezer]

Early on you can capture cities with slingers/archers and a scout even, ranged units drain the health bar and the scout just walks in, nice way to level your scout.

Except surely your scout should be scouting, otherwise he's just an inferior warrior...

 

[greygamer]

Except surely your scout should be scouting, otherwise he's just an inferior warrior...

Scouts are cheaper than warriors and don't go obsolete until the industrial era so have uses beyond scouting

 

[Quillan]

Oh going military first is currently always optimal. If you crush their cities their isn't much they can do.

I dont know that a warrior or slinger first is optimal --- it depends on the returns from your scout. Free early envoys can get you a stronger military more quickly than hard building as your first two units. Goody huts are goody. What we need is a huge number of simulations that provide an average return on a given map/rule set for a scout first and a scout second. My gut says that the average return on scout is higher than the value of military unit first after a number of turns.

Obviously you still pop huts and meet cs without scouts but certainly you do those things MORE with scouts. So we're talking about the marginal value of a scout performing its duties vs the other units.

Perhaps we're hitting, say, one more cs and one more hut because of going single scout first and 1.5/1.5 for 2 scouts. If we get an average value for those events (gold or builder or pop or faith or whatever from hut, a random cs bonus) we can see how many turns it takes to pay off delaying those first units and what other benefits they give us.

ie.
Say we find an additional culture cs and get an additional 40 gold, that cs bonus = faster code of laws and equivalent of free monument, which are quantifiable benefits and 40 gold is whatever % of buying a slinger.

I'm still tweaking my 2 scout gameplan. God King can get you God of the Forge to really boost military output, but is it worth giving up +1 production for 25 turns? Survey or Discipline? A small military might need that +5 if the barbarians are at the gates.

This is where I always say 'it depends' and that is why the early game of civ 6 is so much fun.

The '2 scout gameplan' is the same as whatever else you are doing from turn x(= time to build 2 scouts) onward, just probably better after turn x+y(# turns for benefit of 2 scouts > other opening).

 

[diamond geezer]

I dont know that a warrior or slinger first is optimal --- it depends on the returns from your scout. Free early envoys can get you a stronger military more quickly than hard building as your first two units. Goody huts are goody. What we need is a huge number of simulations that provide an average return on a given map/rule set for a scout first and a scout second. My gut says that the average return on scout is higher than the value of military unit first after a number of turns.

1. Is average a good measure?
2. What number of turns? There might be a very good result at 20. At turn 21 Gilgamesh comes knocking...

 

[Quillan]

expected (average) is all you can use; just like the expected return of building military units. You can worry about tail risk (ie. starting in a bottom 5% or top 5% of positions, for example) but planning for relatively rare occurrences wont be an optimal strategy unless the risk of ruin (ie gg turn 14) and the consequences of that are high.

if you have 2 scouts at turn 10 (depends on starting hammers obv) there is almost no chance of surprise attack - you can obviously adjust as soon as you learn about your surroundings. I dont know the # of turns, thats the point of doing the simulations. I can say that the longer you go the bigger the advantage to not starting military. Perhaps a probability of starting next to sumeria is also important but that has got to be fairly low given the # of civs and potential starting positions.

anyways, its just math that someone will one day do

 

[greygamer]

Scout first is more of a gamble, even with 2 scouts as my first build I have been beaten to city states by the AI and not discovered a natural wonder until quite late. An early military is more predictable as you should be able to take any early game city with 4 ranged and 2 melee units (one can even be a scout if you wish). There is something to be said for only scouting locally, meeting fewer AI so they don't get upset if you eliminate a neighbour because they have never met you. My standard opening would probably be scout before slinger currently as a scout is useful even if you don't scout beyond 50 turns.

FilthyRobot usually opens his MultiPlayerLetsPlay videos on youtube with 2 or 3 scouts and is doing quite well. (I'm not certain, that all started games are published there, though.)

Multi-player and solo (above prince) are two different games as human players get no bonuses but the AI get extra units etc. especially from emperor and above

 

[c4c6]

Multi-player and solo (above prince) are two different games as human players get no bonuses but the AI get extra units etc. especially from emperor and above

I'm aware of this (unfortunately the AI isn't very efficient with those extra units, so the difference is maybe smaller than it seems). Psychological effects also play a role ...

I think, the answers to the question 'How to Open' have many similarities for both cases. Anyway methinks only very general statements can be made. Solo: difficulty level, map (you know it: Pangea or Continents etc. _OR_ true Random map), random civ ... matters A LOT.

Whether you start with Warrior(defensive), Builder, Slinger(techBoost) or Warrior(offensive-take early city), you always can find easily a situation which simply does not fit well for your predefined approach. The unit to find out which approach may fit best is the Scout.

Even if the Scout fails in "its start" i.e. to discover Goody Huts, City States or Natural Wonders, it provides the important knowledge: where are the Barbs, other Civs, the Sea, potential settling places ... or if not available the knowledge: That is missing nearby. So Scout first.
Probably the first Scout can't answer the questions immediately, so Scout second. And then quickly adapt to what they find out.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Maybe opening with Scouts, Slingers or Builders depends on your immediate surroundings, too. Lots of Rainforests, Woods or Hills might prompt a Slinger before Scout, since those will be roughly equal in exploring. Flat land might prompt a Scout to take advantage of the increased movement.

I've been amazed at how Civ VI made terrain so important in comparison to Civ V. For me, it's a big improvement, since it forces the player to adapt and change strategies instead of just doing the same thing over and over. Just like Sun Tzu valued the terrain in war, so we are.

 

[fortydayweekend]

For me the main advantage to the slinger/slinger start is to be able to grab AI cities before walls go up. Safety aside, that's possibly the biggest opportunity cost to a 2 scout start - 10 turns or so of AI building defenses. It's irrelevant if you aren't doing an early rush, and likely to slow you down a lot if you are.

 

[Ornen]

Two key questions:

1. How much should one focus on military?
2. What exceptions should you make in the opening build?

Scouts aren't even the only 'other' you can build – it's not just scouts vs slingers, but scouts vs builder/settler/trader/granary. If you build two scouts, a builder, and a settler, you're not going to get your forces up in time for walls. That doesn't mean you can't take cities, but it'll be harder and there'll be less of a window for it before your archers become outdated.

I have very, very rarely seen anywhere near enough payoff to justify scouts in my early builds. Very few free envoys, since the AI nabs em pretty quick (second scout especially useless for this purpose). A few huts here and there, but these usually don't yield a notable bonus.

Instead, I would rather build a builder, a settler, and sometimes a trade route. The builder boosts your best tile yields and gives you some key eureka/inspiration bonuses. The settler claims precious land off the bat that you might not have a chance to grab if you wait on it. Especially useful if it's on the way to your first conquest, doubly so if you build a trader to go with it. The trader also nabs another key eureka, builds a road to connect your cities and get your troops to the front faster, and offers a nice food/prod bonus for your second city.

All three of these fall into the category of 'consistently very useful' for me, while scouts fall under 'sometimes kinda useful'. Outside of these three – and I won't always go for the trader – it's hard for me to justify much besides slingers/warriors in my early production.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

I always open with one or double scout (deity); by my last 2 games were: Double dow and with 7 warriors in total in front of my capital, I was toast. Next game, plenty of land, one ai far away. Then suddenly literally out of nowhere 4 horse barbs and one horse archer near my capital. I doubt I would have time to build more than 2 slingers. So now I understand ppl with the security of building armies right off the bat.