The First Half Hour

[Drakan]

The first half hour


Most experienced players will agree, as in chess, the opening moves prove to be crucial in civ.

The vast majority of civilization games are decided within the first half hour of playing. It is very important to expand ASAP and as broadly as possible to cover up as much land (=key strategical resources, luxuries) and even more so the higher the echelon of difficulty.

It is true that you might be trapped in a small island with 8 cities at Deity and still reach a diplomatic victory, ok. But I am referring to other winning conditions such as space race, domination, conquering, Wonder building…

By this, I do not want to disencourage players who after the first half hour see it all lost and hit the reset. You must always play until the bitter end no matter if it is pretty straight forward that you are going to lose. You learn more out of defeats than from victories, and you never now the outcome no matter how bad are the odds… You play for the fun of it and for the challenge the game poses you. Imagine the British quitting after Dunkerque in WW2 ? Where would we now be here in Europe ? (And thanks also to the yanks for all their sacrifices in D-Day).

There are many good articles on strats for the first moves in internet forums. A must, at least for me, is usually building a granary (having a warrior or spearman to defend) and then pumping out as much settlers as you can all over the screen, even in deserts, you never know (saltpetre, petrol..). I usually do: warrior, worker, settler, granary, settler, settler….The beauty of the game is that remaining the same basically it is always different. So there are no fixed strats to win any given game. It is very dynamic, and what might be a superb strat on one, might be fatal on another. The more you play, the more experienced you are, duh, and the more you challenge yourself to react before a changing environment.

Those civs who stand the Sands of Time are the ones who have learnt to adapt themselves better to their surroundings. Much like Neanderthals, extinct but perfect for the Ice Age, and Cromagnon (our ancestors, better for a hot climate) in their day.

“If you fail to plan, you plan to fail”

[lmtoops]

Bah..

At high levels, the game can be lost in the first 30 min. , but it cannot be won. So your statement, "decided in the first 30 min.", is not true.

[Drakan]

In the first thirty minutes at higher levels if you assure your empire enough key strategical resources as well as luxuries to trade in the future you have an excellent launch pad to make other AI happy by trading, you obtain techs in exchange (to catch up), you obtain gold, maps, you prevent wars whilst trading etc...
All this Imtoops is decided in the first thirty minutes or so of gameplay at Emperor or above. Naturally, everybody, myself included, can recall a game in which they had no resources and no luxuries and still managed to win somehow or other. It is just a "generalisation" like all my assertions, it is only blatant there will always be exceptions to it, and I welcome them; otherwise the game would be a drag if everything was decided beforehand.
The point being, that the strategy you choose in those opening moves will prove to be very important throughout the rest of the game. EXPAND, EXPAND, EXPAND !

[lmtoops]

I'll expand a bit, but I'll add a few more words to fill out the thread.

I do not discount your point about the first 30 min being extremely important. First off the first 30 min. includes close to 20 turns (I've never really timed it...just a guess). So much happens in that time. In those moves, you find out where your opponents are, if you have resources near....on and on. So the first 30 min. is vitally important...and a poor opening can LOSE the game.

I know that early in my Civ2 days, I kind of flew through these first turns and I sucked at the higher levels. Then I found Apolyton, and discovered how managed my opening moves and how important they are.

But a second big problem, starting great but losing your momentum after the first 30-50 turns. The factors that lead to this are:
1. Turns take longer. With many more cities, diplomacy, AI moves. The game gets to be tedious. You can't let the AI optimally manage your cities, but micro management is very tedious.

2. Initial goals have been met. Players (me especially) fail to reevaluate and create new goals. I tend to glide aimlessly through a few turns.

3. The chances of winning "seem" hopeless...On the higher levels, you will be behind. The AI researchs faster, grows faster, and has a larger army. At high levels, players must keep their focus...which can be hard.

So a great start, does NOT decide the game. You must have a good start, you must not loose focus, you must create new goals or revaluate current goals, you must look for opportunites, you must micro-manage (at m-m the "key" cities)...blah...blah...blah.

[alexman]

It's true that everything is more important in the beginning of the game, because every little advantage gets multiplied as your civilization grows.

However, half an hour does not mean much in a TBS game. In some games where I can't reload (PBEM or GOTM, for example) by the time I weigh all the options and maybe even set up a test scenario, it takes me half an hour just to play the 3 first turns.

[vmxa1]

Yes time is not the issue, turns are. So maybe the first 40 or 100 turns would be a better indicator.

[Vince278]

I usually keep restarting until I get a starting position I can live with then play without a net (no do-overs from saves).

[Drakan]

I agree, I should have written down turns instead, that is what I meant. The first 40 turns or so are very important. xnks

[Aramis]

After the 1st 40 or so turns if it is plainly obvious that you cannot win the game, I would suggest starting a new one. In chess, a lot is learned by losing, and in CivIII as well. But one thing to learn in both is that there comes a time when it's best to concede and start fresh.

[Cort Haus]

warrior, worker, settler, granary, settler, settler

Hmmm, on Emperor this build queue allows only a single warrior to explore, find the goodies and city-sites, meet the AI's, defend three cities against barbs and keep all them happy at size 2. It also assumes an abundance of food to build a worker then settler straight off.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It also assumes an abundance of food to build a worker then settler straight off.

.....and then 2 more settlers straight afterwards?

I don't think so!

[Solomwi]

I think that's the same build queue fanes7 used to generate a great leader in 3900 BC.

[alexman]

It's actually not a bad build queue at all, if you have the starting location to pull it off, but it assumes you have lots of bonus food around your capital.

Your first settler, built before the Granary, will found a city that is going to produce your first military units, and your capital acts as a Settler pump.

[Solomwi]

Absolutely, if you can fill that big "if".

[Cort Haus]

I like building a second city before a granary if food is plentiful, but it's the single warrior that worries me. For starters, making contact early before everyone learns your starting techs is important to me to get in the loop.