What do you guys see as the "correct" starting date scenarios for fringe civs?

[lethrgy]

For example, the Vikings and Japanese start in the 500s, very close to the 600 start date and Prussia spawns on the same date as 1700. Do you prefer to take the later start date for balance/gameplay reasons or the earlier start date for challenge/those sweet few extra turns before the slightly later dates?

 

[Dracosolon]

I usually go for the closest scenario that still includes the starting date, so 3000 BC for Japan and Vikings but 1700 AD for Germany, etc. Apparently it's harder for some civs like Byzantium but I haven't really tried those yet.

 

[Cacaso]

An interesting case is the Netherlands, I suggest you guys do the test and check it out in game. Most likely you will never get a better result than what the 1700Start offers. So this is a case where I generally find it better to start on the 1700AD scenario rather than the 600AD and wait for the autoplay to start on the correct date. but honestly i think this holland case is one of the few exceptions, usually it's always good to start earlier as you have time to execute some planning to quickly build your economy, or forward things to reach the UHV.

 

[DanLT3]

Vikings is easier on 600 AD start.

 

[LukeAtmey]

I usually go for the closest scenario that still includes the starting date, so 3000 BC for Japan and Vikings but 1700 AD for Germany, etc. Apparently it's harder for some civs like Byzantium but I haven't really tried those yet.

Yeah, with Byzantium I guess the big thing is that 600AD start comes with Theodosian Walls and Hagia Sophia already built which is not that easy to achieve in a 3000BC start. On the other hand careful planning will let you have a much bigger army available to you on a 3000BC start so I don't know if 3000BC is necessarily worse than 600AD.

 

[brett0007]

Yeah, with Byzantium I guess the big thing is that 600AD start comes with Theodosian Walls and Hagia Sophia already built which is not that easy to achieve in a 3000BC start. On the other hand careful planning will let you have a much bigger army available to you on a 3000BC start so I don't know if 3000BC is necessarily worse than 600AD.

With Byzantium its a toss up, I prefer the 600AD as the definitive. But getting Legions for buildable roman roads and early game military is also very powerful. The thing that tips me to 600AD is that you start with the walls and the Hagia Sophia. Contsantinople's power is in its food output, not its production.

 

[Ecthy]

An interesting case is the Netherlands, I suggest you guys do the test and check it out in game. Most likely you will never get a better result than what the 1700Start offers. So this is a case where I generally find it better to start on the 1700AD scenario rather than the 600AD and wait for the autoplay to start on the correct date. but honestly i think this holland case is one of the few exceptions, usually it's always good to start earlier as you have time to execute some planning to quickly build your economy, or forward things to reach the UHV.

And yet, the UHV goal involving merchants in Amsterdam becomes a matter of luck, considering you must add different specialists to the pool in order to make the date.