I almost always build a Scout as my first thing after founding the capital city, then a worker. Only way I'm not building a scout is when I see I'm on a small island, that I can explore with my starting units, but that doesn't happen often. The worker can be replaced in the queue if scouts find a barbarian camp nearby and my first warrior can't deal with it. Third thing is a granary or monument, usually.
So I asked a friend, who also plays Civilization, about this and we almost got into an argument (Civ, serious business ) over whether it makes sense to build city improvements after producing the first two units, or - as he insisted - you need to build more warriors and perhaps even a settler first. He pointed out that going for a monument/granary means slower expansion, and that might even be true. I don't play much multiplayer, but in my games against AI I usually lag behind them in this regard in the start. I thought it was normal to catch up later, but maybe my overall strategy is bad?
No. I don't think so. Actually, it's a wonderful strategy. By the way, I would like to know why you don't play multiplayer?
Partly it's a habit from Civ 1and 2, and mostly because I don't like to play than hour or max. two a day, and it's hard to finish a Civilization game in one sitting in such short time. At least in my epxerience.
I usually start with some fighting units to defend my city and obtain some gold. After that, I start creating settlers for more cities and then I build scouts. Not sure if this is a good strategy, but it's been working for me and I don't hate how it's working.
I build a worker first. I'd rather get my resources started in the beginning of the game rather than later. I usually play on quick mode so it's usually fast anyway. This does, however, leave me susceptible to barbarian attacks because I usually use my warrior as a scout. I'll sometimes just go to a city-state and steal one of their workers. Doing this will speed up the starting process of building my civilization because then I don't have to wait a few turns to build a worker.
@McGumbolumbo Interesting startegy, I almost never steal workers from city-sattes, since I prefer keeping good relations witht hese brats - unless ones gives a quest to destroy the other, which becomes a legitimate target in my eyes then. Perhaps I should utilise worker kidnapping more
It's really useful early on in the beginning of games and if I recall correctly, you can instantly make peace with the city-state you stole from.
I don't know, since I haven't really tried it before. I'll see how this turn out in game tomorrow. Maybe you're right and I missed a way to gain an extra worker for almost free
I always focus heavily on my first city before I start branching out, so I usually start building city improvements and set a scout group out on automated walking so I can uncover some of the map in the meantime. Then I just research all the techs for the resources around me and when there are no more I start churning out settlers and warriors to protect them!!
How does it work for you? I never set scouts for automated movement, because while it saves time, I'm too afraid they'll get themselves killed by barbarians. When I control the movement, I usually try to end moving each turn on a terrain with defensive bonus. Is it too cautios for you?
Haha, I definitely agree that the auto pathing is very bad and should be avoided at all costs. It gets frustrating very quickly after they get caught or run to useless areas (FOR NO REASON!). So I too take the time to move every unit manually from turn to turn. But back to the original question: I always start with a scout to know the limits of my starting area. Especially the AI can be very upset if you settle around their territory.
Yeah, and it's been a source of problems ever since the first games. Youu'd think they would optimize auto-movement in 13 years, but nope, no such thing The real boon is getting to the ruins first, IMO. AI sometimes build its new cities too close to you anyway, and then gets aggressive over the proximity.
Maybe they want to encourage players not to use it, which would be very weird ... Yes, I agree. The AI always does what they do not want them done to them, like they always settle near my cities and then expect me not to do the same
In the very end there can be only one winner, so actually, it's a resonable approach for the AI tot ake. Besides, it would be very difficult to develop an cooperative AI that wouldn't easily fall prey to freeloading from human players.
I usually take basic units who can fight to do the scouting for me. Lots of treacherous elements out there, and I'd rather send someone out who knows how to defend themselves. Also, I'm more of a militaristic approach when it comes to these things at first, because without a good defense, you will be wiped out almost instantly. When I'm confident I can defend my territories, then I start with science and religion.
This would cost you a lot of opportunity in Civ 5, IHMO. Scout unit ignores movement penalty for rougher terrain, so if you replace them with warriors, you're going to need more time to explore the same area. There's a lot of locations that pay good for discovering them as first, the ruins - which replaced the villages/huts from Civs 1-3 - being the obvious example, as well as Natural Wonders. You also get a better welcoming gift from a city-state when you're the first civilization to meet them. Overall value of fast scouting is much bigger than cost of replacing a unit or two, especially considering that warriors, while tougher than scouts, can get killed by barbarians too.
