Way too Early Strategy Plans?

[ftl]

It depends how much better a scout is at scouting than a warrior. Depending on how tough barb camps are, it may make sense to build a warrior first, use it to explore first but then have it transition to a combat role. You give up a bit of visibility in exchange for some combat ability.

 

[Amrunril]

It depends how much better a scout is at scouting than a warrior. Depending on how tough barb camps are, it may make sense to build a warrior first, use it to explore first but then have it transition to a combat role. You give up a bit of visibility in exchange for some combat ability.

True, but early scouting of the map is exactly what scouts are designed for, and if a warrior ends up being a better first build for that purpose, the scout really doesn't have much reason to exist as a unit.

 

[King Jason]

Scouts appear to have a movement of 3 now, compared to a warriors movement of 2. This combined with the change in movement rules means that a scout can move into a grassland and then into a forest or hill, whereas the warrior would have to end it's turn before being able to move into the forest or hill.

So before, unless you were presented with huge swaths of forests or hills there wasn't much difference between a scout or warrior. As the Warrior could always move Flat -> Hills/forest.

The movement rules are a big change for scouting though because the only time the warrior will be able to move two spaces is if both hexes are featureless flat terrain.

 

[Acken]

-Scouts will probably remain kings but it also depends on what the rewards of exploration really are. If huts are scarce or the rewards poor then delaying a scout can be perfectly fine. If stealing workers is no longer a thing or CS gold will also have to be factored in.
-Will have to see what are the early buildings
-Builder first is a very strong option depending on tile yield and whether or not you have to tech improvements. The yield benefit of early workers in the series has always been enormous.
-Military units will depend on barb behavior.

 

[Storminator]

Workers were always strong early builds because it took so long to build improvements. If you had a worker and a size one city, by the time you were done with the first improvement your city grew and you needed another improvement. If you have a size one city with a builder, it finishes the one improvement you need . . . And your city is still size one.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Acken]

The yield benefit comes even earlier I'm not sure how your argument make sense. You get the yield boost faster. The fact that your worker still has charges above your city pop is a non issue.
All things being equal that is. If a worker is the same cost as a 3Food granary then there is no question on what gives the best yield at pop 1-2.

 

[spfun]

Scout ( always )
Builder
Monument
Builder ( depending if city is 3+ at this point )
settler ( hopefully able to buy a warrior/slinger while building this, city size at least 5 otherwise build warrior/slinger )
settler or trader
settler or trader

Starts to get a bit to much to predict at this point. Eventual focus on science/culture for most cities, with one city dedicated earlier to having higher production and earlier encampment ( assuming we need military this time, unlike civ5 ). Cities at least sharing 3rd tiles so can create lines of districts for bonus stacking.

I'm hoping i can still use my favored Tall empires with only 3-4 cities and still compete but it we don't know enough to say at this point.

 

[Storminator]

The yield benefit comes even earlier I'm not sure how your argument make sense. You get the yield boost faster. The fact that your worker still has charges above your city pop is a non issue.
All things being equal that is. If a worker is the same cost as a 3Food granary then there is no question on what gives the best yield at pop 1-2.

You may be right. What if there is maintenance on the builder? Having it sit around for ten turns waiting to use is charge might not be the best play. Or maybe there is a eureka that makes your builder much better, and you'd rather get the eureka first. Or maybe fighting off barbs is to important to delay

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[King Jason]

Since we're doing the way-too-early-to-bother kinds of speculation, I'll mention the following;

So far we've observed
-A Granary costs 50 production,
-Builder costs 44.
-A Granary adds +1 food and 2 housing.
-A Farm adds +1 food and .5 housing.
-A newly constructed non-capital city has a housing capacity of 3. (Capitals appear to have a capacity of 7)

Judging by those premature numbers, a builder first seems clearly better than a Granary. Especially in the capital where housing seems to be a non-issue at the start of the game. The builder is cheaper than the granary, so the initial +1 food bonus comes online quicker, and on first growth, the +1 food bonus becomes +2 food (+1 from each farm).

The above doesn't even factor in resources or if your first 3 builds were farms to get an adjacency bonus. If we assume that that bonus doesn't come from a tech (which I personally think it will).

Until we see the real numbers for certain, there's virtually no way that Granary first beats out the builder, really. If there's maintanence, then the obvious path would be to build a worker, use all 3 builds immediately, and then a warrior to defend the investment. Barbarians usually don't start roaming in the first 25 turns and despite the changes to them in civ6 I doubt that to change. A "grace period" is pretty standard.

Edit:

More numbers for the sake of discussion, all subject to change;

-Scouts cost 20 production.
-Warriors cost 30.
-slinger cost 25
-trader cost 34

Looking at it again, the fact that a scout costs half as much as a builder, I'd probably just build a scout first and then the builder. The scout is significantly cheaper than everything else and the early gold/eureka/hut bonuses of exploring make going anything other than scout not worth it in my mind. By the time your builder is online your city would likely be pop 3 anyway so it's growth would receive a burst going forward. I highly doubt the difference in growth speed of builder first over scout first will recoup any potentially loses of exploring.

 

[m15a]

What if there is maintenance on the builder? Having it sit around for ten turns waiting to use is charge might not be the best play.

Then, just build 3 improvements right away? There's no rule against that, right?* Plus, it might be a benefit even before you get the population to work the land (because of adjacency bonuses or so you can switch which tiles you work or to connect resources).

This is likely all hypothetical anyway since your city will likely grow before/while you're building the builder and will probably grow even faster once you build improvements.

*EDIT: You may have to wait for your borders to expand though.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

It makes you think, if scout first is always the way to go, should they just give you one at the start of the game instead of making you build it?

 

[m15a]

It makes you think, if scout first is always the way to go, should they just give you one at the start of the game instead of making you build it?

Scout first isn't *always* the way to go. It's just always the way to go with whatever strategy people are expecting to use in Civ VI. Even Civ V had cases where scouts were not worth building first (islands). And maybe there are some uncommon strategies people want to try, too. Maybe people will always build a scout first except with civ X, which gets a unique monument replacement building or whatever.

 

[qwerty25]

Assuming slingers have retreat from Melee attack imma mass Slingers for a Zerg rush on my first game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[4N4C0ND4]

Can we assume that we have a starting warring on T0?

Wheither or not, I think double scout opening will be mandatory as in CiV, even more with the move changes. After all, knowledge is power...

 

[JtW]

Scout first isn't *always* the way to go. It's just always the way to go with whatever strategy people are expecting to use in Civ VI. Even Civ V had cases where scouts were not worth building first (islands). And maybe there are some uncommon strategies people want to try, too. Maybe people will always build a scout first except with civ X, which gets a unique monument replacement building or whatever.

Ed said in an interview that the testers are generally divided between "scout first" and "builder first" which he was happy with because it meant there was no obvious best starting strategy. Don't remember which interview it was though.

 

[Balkans]

1. Scout - Builder
2. ASAP
3. It depends what to do first imo. Something for growth obviously, but i'm thinking that i wont blow builder charges in advance, in my mind it looks kinda flexible to wait the moment your pop grows and then decide what line you want to go...
4. The optimal builder count would be that you have improvement online the moment your citizen is born. In my mind, since it's insta improvement, it is a must if possible to play this way.. Am i missing something? From your question i read that you would improve more tiles than you have citizens... does that mean that citizen no longer works the tile but all the city tiles are summed for your food, production, etc??
5. What district comes up first, second, etc... will depend on the early game strategy and the amount of early game tactics possible ... hopefully there will be room for all kind of weird strategies from the start ... so you can go crazy what to build first.

 

[Karmah]

Wasn't ed beach point to not have a starting strategy that could work even half the time ?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

For all those saying "scout first always". What if they read those and start you with a scout.

 

[King Jason]

For all those saying "scout first always". What if they read those and start you with a scout.

Then you build a builder.

Wasn't ed beach point to not have a starting strategy that could work even half the time ?

This concept has limitations. Ignoring the "Move the settler?" debate for a second, There will always remain the same, optimal strategy in your first (2) turn(s)* of a game of civlization;

Settler your city.

There's no way around this. As a game carries on, the variety of possible successful strategies increases exponentially; especially as you take a lead. It's a cumulative distribution. In the beginning, however, with the smallest possible number of choices available to you, it's far more likely that one choice will make itself apparently better than the other.

Especially when you factor in the incalculable (to a player) unknown; For example, this is where we go back to the settler debate. To settle in place is the most efficient action you can take - even when it isn't. The reason? Because statistically you have a better chance working with what you have rather than taking the risk of finding something better. That doesn't mean that sometimes moving the settler isn't the better choice - it means that settling in place is more often the better choice. Therefore you should simply always settle on turn 1 and take what the RNG gave you.

In that case, it's not about whether you do or don't find a better spot; it's about whether you should bother trying. The answer to that question is no, as the return isn't really worth the risk.

This same logic applies to first builds.

 

[qwerty25]

Wasn't ed beach point to not have a starting strategy that could work even half the time ?

Ehh I doubt that'll happen.

Honestly civ as a game has very low risk. You can plan many things and can determine ahead of time what to do. Plus almost everything in civ is exponentially added upon previous decisions.