Poll: Ultimate Civilization Question!

[TheRightToArmBears]

I usually let my warrior explore first, if they spot somewhere better in the first turn I'll move there. That said, I tend to use legendary starts, so moving from the starting location would be utter madness. I suppose it makes the game easier, but it doesn't give me an advantage over other civs and I'm not a masochist.

 

[L. Declis]

Frankly, I let the Warrior have a wander. Does he find the ocean? No? Then I'll just settle there. Or, if there is a move which will still let me settle that turn, I'll consider it for resources/food.

 

[Stu35]

I give it 2 turns to seek out a good location.

I'm all about getting established first -a good early economy means that, if I miss out on some important resources later on, I can go fucking conquer them. On the other hand it's no use being sat on possible Uranium in the early years if you're going to get overrun by Horsemen.

 

[themyrmidon]

If I start in a spot looks good, I'm no fool, I take it. Usually I end up moving it once or twice, but have gone up to 5 turns before moving. I prefer the 'Tall' strategy of building a few really powerful cities, so the placement of each one matters quite a bit, especially the capitol.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

HOWEVER, one thing I've noticed is, sometimes the computer will tell you that a certain tile is a good spot to settle, yet there are no resources by it at all..like straight up desert shit area and maybe by a mountain, but then 150+ turns down the road I end up finding out there were 2 uranium and an aluminum spot by that location, so in the long term it would've been a great spot...so it's interesting to wonder if the computer makes those suggestions to you KNOWING those spots are there while you obviously wouldn't.

Yeah, it does. IN civ 4, you can even spot them in forests as forests wont grow on many resources like iron, horses, uranium, etc. So a big forest with an odd empty grassland tile is ... something. Early on, you have no idea as there are many early resources but mid-game you can usually call it.

The problem with founding a crappy city that you know may have aluminum or uranium is that it is going to be a crappy city for a long time before you discover those. I chase food in the early game with an occasional hammer heavy city for military. Food is what will make roaming in the first turns worth it. More population means exploiting the land faster and better. Luxury resources for happy cap and food are all that matter early on.

yeah now a days I tend to just send a warrior over to that tile and camp on it for 50-100ish turns, that way the computer doesn't pull that bullshit where it settles everywhere and anywhere that is beyond your "fog of war" sight(can't remember the better term for it right now, but youknowwhatimeannnn).

Your approach is how I tend to be also, I try to find a good food capital with a couple of luxury resources and I'm happy.

ALTHOUGH another thing I've noticed is, every single time I cheat to see what the computer does on its initial turns(just to try and learn better counter strategies), THEY ALWAYS GET PLACED NEXT TO A DAMN MARBLE TILE. It's infuriating to restart the match 15 times and not get placed anywhere near a marble, but all your computer opponents start a leg up from you on wonder construction every.single.time.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's worth moving to start on a hill. It's rarely worth moving otherwise. Your starting location will usually be fairly optimal for the area.

 

[Cabisco]

I always just set up where the game decided to start me, and this is backed with nuclear weapons.

 

[Riverwolf]

I just plop down wherever I spawn, mostly because I don't yet have the insight to know what a better place "looks" like (which is true for all of them.) With all future settlers, I rely on the suggestion marker.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

I'll happily delay settling the first city for a 2-3 turns if I can get some worthwhile benefit from it. I don't do it every time, usually decide to do when city positions need to be optimal i.e. small 3-5 city empires. Usually I can catch up with the AI pretty quickly, so the delay won't be too detrimental over the course of the whole game.

Though if I decide to sprawl across the map I tend not to bother I just settle where I am and worry more about scouting city locations and locating the nearest warmonger civ to prepare for an early game invasion to ensure no pesky AI will mess with my plans for awhile.

 

[Bostur]

Civ5 has such a strong starting bias that moving the settler rarely is worth it. If I'm inland and can see the ocean, or move to a hill I may do it, but more often than not I just settle on the spot. The game even seems to take faction bonuses into account when generating the starting terrain.

Civ1-Civ4 is a very different matter. There I use the warrior to scout and look for coast, river, hill and ressources. It's pretty important to settle within 3-4 turns though. I'd rather have a quick mediocre starting city than the perfect spot too late. With a quick settlement getting a perfect spot for the second city is much easier.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The second option. Every civ game I've ever played has the advisors straight up tell you to scout for a place that's by a river, the coast, or both, and with good starting tiles. Which may be why I'm so bad at them, following the advice of the tutorial.

Then again, I've only really played I-III and Revolution, which is a nice throwback to I. I have IV and V, but they're recent acquisitions, thanks to that Steam sale Humble Bundle.

Edit: It was a humble bundle. I have no idea why I put Steam Sale, except maybe because I got them as Steam codes.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Civ 5 always gives you a decent starting position, but I like to tweak it if possible by repositioning for one or more of the following:

1. River - allows you to build the watermill and hydro plant, plus you generate extra gold in trade routes.
2. Isthmus - on a continent or decent sized island, cutting down the time required to circumnavigate the landmass makes your ships much more efficient.
3. Hills - sometimes I move onto or off hills depending upon what my long term plan is. The extra hammer allows for a faster start and the defensive bonus is great, but the windmill is a fairly important mid-late game building and and being on a hill locks you out of it.
4. Mountains - if you can reposition so that you're within two tiles of a mountain, it opens up two wonders for you to construct. If you reposition next to one, you can build the observatory, which is insane when combined with the science national wonders.
5. Marble - If the game spawns me with marble slightly out of reach, I usually move closer to it so that I can get as much out of the bonus to ancient and classical wonders.
6. Civ bonuses - Celts, Huns, Japanese, Russians and Spanish all get bonuses from specific tiles, so if you can position these within 1 or 2 tiles of the city you can exploit them really early on. Then there are unique buildings unlocked later which benefit from optimal positioning, such as the Longhouse (near as many forests as possible) or the Floating Gardens (extra food from lake).
7. Coast - The game is usually good with coastal placements but I find that sometimes you can tweak it by moving up or down the coast to increase the amount of land squares you can work.

I never spend more than three turns moving though, even two is pushing it.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

move the first turn, only loser empires stand still the first turn

unless god decided to put your settlers in an actually good place

 

[Laughing Man]

Move to an optimal position, the premise of the game is that done correctly you can build an empire from anything by correctly selecting the build actions and general world actions that will in turn over come the dis advantage of a poorer starting position.

However let's look at it from a purely turn for turn basis, assuming that you and the enemy used the exact same actions through out the game. They start in a position that gives them 2 food and 2 production vs your start position that gives you 1 food and 1 production. They get their next civ and their first produced item in half the time you do, if I remember correctly that 20 turns for a warrior (an item with the smallest production cost) and 40 turns for their next Civ vs your 40 turns for a warrior and 80 for your next Civ. The effect from that point on wards is an exponential increase in the oppositions ability to produce Civ and items.

Now if you take just five turns to move to a position that matches your opponent then you have your first Civ in 45 turns instead of 80 and your first produced item in 25 instead of 40. Yes you're still behind your opponent but the gap is much much smaller and much much easier to overcome.

Yes the games design means that can tailor your build to overcome dis advantages and still win but why would you do that? You can still win but you spend the entire time doing it on the back foot, spending a couple of extra turns at the start to give you a better starting point means you spend less time catching up and more time able to dictate the pace and action of the game and can better choose your inter actions with the other leaders.

You also have to remember that a lot of the land upgrades, especially desert / tundra etc can indeed over come the dis advantages of those bits of land but since they aren't unlocked until later in the tech tree you're again on the back foot the whole time.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Move to an optimal position, the premise of the game is that done correctly you can build an empire from anything by correctly selecting the build actions and general world actions that will in turn over come the dis advantage of a poorer starting position.

However let's look at it from a purely turn for turn basis, assuming that you and the enemy used the exact same actions through out the game. They start in a position that gives them 2 food and 2 production vs your start position that gives you 1 food and 1 production. They get their next civ and their first produced item in half the time you do, if I remember correctly that 20 turns for a warrior (an item with the smallest production cost) and 40 turns for their next Civ vs your 40 turns for a warrior and 80 for your next Civ. The effect from that point on wards is an exponential increase in the oppositions ability to produce Civ and items.

Now if you take just five turns to move to a position that matches your opponent then you have your first Civ in 45 turns instead of 80 and your first produced item in 25 instead of 40. Yes you're still behind your opponent but the gap is much much smaller and much much easier to overcome.

Yes the games design means that can tailor your build to overcome dis advantages and still win but why would you do that? You can still win but you spend the entire time doing it on the back foot, spending a couple of extra turns at the start to give you a better starting point means you spend less time catching up and more time able to dictate the pace and action of the game and can better choose your inter actions with the other leaders.

You also have to remember that a lot of the land upgrades, especially desert / tundra etc can indeed over come the dis advantages of those bits of land but since they aren't unlocked until later in the tech tree you're again on the back foot the whole time.

Spoiler

but I do like your breakdown of using it in a turn by turn basis, I think I'll apply it that way the next time I boot up civ V (I played it 10+ hours a week for like 2 months straight, so got a bit burnt out but my craving to "one more turn" my social life away is rising)