Need help with a start. Deity/standard/standard. File inside.

[nauberry]

Just gonna be bland here. You settled in a bad location with very low production and started with two scouts and a slinger. That's a complete waste of turns. Those scouts are useless in a situation like this. I get it, scouts are fun but if you want to maximize your chances of winning on every map, building two scouts is a death trap.
Always settle near good production tiles, build only one unit (scout, slinger, or warrior) and a fast second settler. With two cities, you almost double your production right away. Staying on one city is a mistake, especially when your capital has low production. Look at it mathematically. In early game, the highest priority is to maximize your production as fast as possible. Because what is better? Waiting 15 turns to build 3 units or use those turns to double your production and build those 3 units in half the time a few turns later? In the 2nd scenario, you have the same amount of units but two cities instead of one. That's a no brainer.

Look at Tabarnaks game. He even managed to build two settlers before wasting time on units. Improving luxuries after the initial second settler is another option on many maps. You have better tiles, get the eureka for Agoge and can use the gold to rushbuy units if you get rushed. Early infrastructure is a win-win.

If you go for a settler immediately after your first unit, you won't survive the deity warrior rush. In my opinion you need at least 3 warriors if you are not in a good defensible position.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Usually you can get away with 1 or 2 early settlers.
However, sometimes the AI brings all their warriors and if you were hard building settlers you are usually dead.
Army First is always safer but in my first game of this I went builder/settler as well thinking I could get allied.
Depending on how close the AI settles on this map I think going only the Capital is viable.

I am pretty sure it is safe to say that game is a win from @Tabarnak 's position.
How does harvesting the spices help when you take the Russian Capital??

 

[DrCron]

I might have time to give it a shot this weekend, but in the meantime...

Guys, on Deity you start with a slinger every single time, unless it's a small island start with no neighbors and almost no room for barbs. This is not debatable, your first build should always be a slinger, players figured this out a long time ago, and it hasn't changed with the expansions. Your second build should also be a slinger roughly 90% of the times.

On a map like this one, which absolutely forces an early rush from you, it's even less debatable. Just start with two slingers, before even considering anything else. Build no more than 1 settler, the rest of your expansion should come through conquest. Play the map.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Second go around was easier.
This is why I don't like replays or reloads unless pc crash or major misclick.
I walked over the river and onto the hill this time.
Thinking to give me more production tiles, iron closer and expansion to the west later.
Spices in first ring is worth it IMO.
In my first game I didn't notice the River ran along the mountain.
Worked out much easier.
Kahn allied up with me pretty quick and Russia hates me.
I was going to build a bunch of warriors but seemed safe so went with settler x3.
Plus religious settlements gave me 5 cities by turn 51/52.
I figure Russia will attack soon so I want to chop in an Army now.
Perhaps get up walls.

Spoiler Turn 36 :

Spoiler Turn 53 :

 

[Bangau]

This is not debatable

Yes, it is. I've seen a lot of debate on this.

There are a few thread on CivFanatics on this, and I'm sure the conclusion wasn't 'always slinger first' and there definitely was some debating.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

@Bangau I do believe we debate about it all the time in all versions of Civ.

So Russia attacked around turn 55 or so and I am moving my Army in the wrong direction.
Peace Deals were good but I see no reason.
Kahn is on my side and I am slowly taking some Russian cities.
I certainly won't finish fast but I believe it is a win from this point.
Finally building a scout to go and find some other CS's and trading partners.
Russia and I are both in a Dark age and Khan is Normal so it might be safe to move Ping now.
FRElanor is fun though and one of my favorite Civs to play when loyalty starts to flip cities.
I am not as good at it as others though with understanding the pillage and math and stuff.

Spoiler turn 89 :

 

[DrCron]

Yes, it is. I've seen a lot of debate on this.

There are a few thread on CivFanatics on this, and I'm sure the conclusion wasn't 'always slinger first' and there definitely was some debating.

Hehehe, fair enough. I should have written "this is not debatable anymore". I also remember that when the game launched there were a bunch of players that brought the CIV 5 inertia with them and were convinced that the first build should be a scout. For veterans it was easier to accept the change, since the optimal first build has been changing for some editions now (warrior in the 1st 3 games, worker in CIV 4, scout in CIV 5).

But at this point, anyone who played a bunch of CIV 6 starts has eventually come accross one of those deity starts in which some aggressive enemies (or barbs with horses) are so close that it's impossible to survive without starting a slinger on turn 1. Since on turn 1 you have no idea if you'll get this type of start or not, the only way to be 100% sure you'll survive on any deity map is by starting with a slinger.

In this case, of course, we are not blind anymore to what the map will give us. We know early war is extremely likely to happen, so the slinger start is even clearer. And since we're on it, I'll add that if an early rush is possible, you shuold pretty much always go for it. Expansion through early conquest is way faster than expansion through building settlers.

 

[Tabarnak]

Like in multiplayer, you have to scout your environment and have a good idea of what will going on. With experience you can anticipate some turns earlier if you need to rush units or not.

I personnally really like to start with a scout. I don't see why a slinger first is superior. Maybe it's just my play style.

 

[Bliss]

Hehehe, fair enough. I should have written "this is not debatable anymore". I also remember that when the game launched there were a bunch of players that brought the CIV 5 inertia with them and were convinced that the first build should be a scout. For veterans it was easier to accept the change, since the optimal first build has been changing for some editions now (warrior in the 1st 3 games, worker in CIV 4, scout in CIV 5).

But at this point, anyone who played a bunch of CIV 6 starts has eventually come accross one of those deity starts in which some aggressive enemies (or barbs with horses) are so close that it's impossible to survive without starting a slinger on turn 1. Since on turn 1 you have no idea if you'll get this type of start or not, the only way to be 100% sure you'll survive on any deity map is by starting with a slinger.

In this case, of course, we are not blind anymore to what the map will give us. We know early war is extremely likely to happen, so the slinger start is even clearer. And since we're on it, I'll add that if an early rush is possible, you shuold pretty much always go for it. Expansion through early conquest is way faster than expansion through building settlers.

The two scouts from my screenshot are there because I wanted to replicate my first attempt with this start. Just that.

If barbs and early aggression is the argument for going slinger first, isn't it undebatable that a warrior is superior to a slinger? You will need 2 regardless if you plan on early war (to defend your archers). Aside of that, a scout could get some profitable goodie huts that also benefit early defense: another scout to be used as meat shield, gold, envoy (1 envoy to a CS - gives you +2 production towards units, +2 culture or +4 gold. All neat that early); a builder (which could theoretically give you +3 production towards future units), a pantheon (+25% towards unit production).

However, I agree that after realizing how close the 2 other civs are, you need to immediatly switch production to units.

 

[Casualty of war]

If I didn't know where the Iron was, I would replay this. I tried to Grow-and-Loyalty out of this, Eleanor doing what she does best, and missed it by that much. I was able to turtle up and get Temple of Artemis and the Pyramids. You can military push out of there, as long as neither of your neighbors attacks too early or both neighbors decide to come take your stuff. Not a speed run map but a good one to play for the experience. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Bangau]

Just downloaded the mod you use and tried the game and some very strange things happen:
- I meet Peter and try to send him a delegation, he refuses... I have played well over a thousand hours on deity standard speed, and the AI always accepts a delegation on the turn you meet.
- Next turn Peter denounces me. I try to send him a bribe ('gift'), but he refuses all trade. Even a gift. Wow...

I think the turn timer somehow influences the AI's behavior OR Peter has decided he'll wage war on me as soon as we met. That would be a first for me.

I'll continue playing, see what happens.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Just downloaded the mod you use and tried the game and some very strange things happen:
- I meet Peter and try to send him a delegation, he refuses... I have played well over a thousand hours on deity standard speed, and the AI always accepts a delegation on the turn you meet.
- Next turn Peter denounces me. I try to send him a bribe ('gift'), but he refuses all trade. Even a gift. Wow...

I think the turn timer somehow influences the AI's behavior OR Peter has decided he'll wage war on me as soon as we met. That would be a first for me.

I'll continue playing, see what happens.

You may have a conflict with the mod like you say.
I downloaded the Mod and Turned it OFF.
I didn't experience anything unusual but like I say I turned the Mod Off.

 

[DrCron]

If barbs and early aggression is the argument for going slinger first, isn't it undebatable that a warrior is superior to a slinger? You will need 2 regardless if you plan on early war (to defend your archers)"

(...)

Aside of that, a scout could get some profitable goodie huts that also benefit early defense: another scout to be used as meat shield.

No, warrior isn't superior to slinger to defend from barbs. The only barbs that will cause you trouble are the ones with horses, and horsemen are very strong against warriors. You want slingers and going animal husbandry as first tech almost every time, so if early aggression is a serious problem you can get archers ASAP. It will take you too long to upgrade warriors (for a good example of a difficult early situation, see the triple early war on this thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/can-someone-advise-how-i-survive.615582/#post-14755059).

Also, regarding having 2 warriors to invade close enemies, that will happen later. Your main initial concern is defending. With archers you can easily slaughter the AI units (since the AI won't know how to move them properly) and worst case scenario get a lot of money on the peace treaty when the AI loses its attacking power.

Regarding goodie huts, I think one shouldn't plan an optimal strategy based on random elements that may be good or mediocre based entirely on luck. Huts could give you a scout, which will be almost useless if you already have one (extremely useless if your continent is small), or give you a builder when you don't yet have the necessary techs and/or are fighting for survival and can't send him outside the city, or give you faith points when it's too late for a pantheon to help you defend against an invasion. Oh, and scouts are terrible meat shields.

 

[Tabarnak]

You may have a conflict with the mod like you say.
I downloaded the Mod and Turned it OFF.
I didn't experience anything unusual but like I say I turned the Mod Off.

I have let it on and haven't seen anything special(well i can't really compare it was my 3rd single player game from civ6).

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I have let it on and haven't seen anything special(well i can't really compare it was my 3rd single player game from civ6).

That's fine but I want to know why do you chop the spices as you take the Russian Capital?
Is it because you have enough luxuries after taking the capital or some other reason?
Are you chopping Spices to grow faster or get faster production.
I know some players like to chop everything down but I tend to forget to chop luxuries or extra copies.

@DrCron
Horseman Barbs seem to get crushed by my fortified Warriors.
Now Horse Archer Barbs are another story.
It is obvious that you share the same view as another Slinger First Preacher on this site but I am not so certain you can dismiss other First Builds, that very strong players have proven over and over again, as less superior.
I think it is clear that you can tell your position from the map and depending on what map you play could make other First Builds far better than the Slinger.
I agree that Slinger First is a strong opening build but depending on the map and settings it most likely is not always the best.
It could be considered the most valuable First Build as a general rule though.
Perhaps safest First Build.

 

[Tabarnak]

Are you chopping Spices to grow faster or get faster production.

Chopped trees, spice are just unimproved. To not have to wait 2 more turns to get Throne bonus from Russian capital capture.