Build Queue Strategy

[Rhothaerill]

As a companion piece to Asmodeus's research thread, here is my suggestion for the first few build queues. We are expansionist and have a great opportunity not only to pop huts, but to gain first contact with the civs around us. Spain is easy of course, but good info and first contact are often worth their weight in time spent pursuing them. To that end I propose our first build be another scout. We have one we can send off one way, but if we have a second scout we can send him the other way and double our area covered. Then we can build our first warrior for military police and protection.

Thoughts?

[Anaximander]

Scout? I would build a warrior and send it exploring. That way if it runs into any barbs it can at least defend itself.

[Rhothaerill]

If you're careful, a scout will never come into contact with barbs. They don't pop barbs from huts so there isn't that worry. The two move ability means that they will be able to outrun any random barbs they meet, plus they can cover a lot of territory in open ground as well as getting to high ground like mountains quickly for better viewing capability. But the key ability of the scout is in finding the other AI civs before they find each other. If you have the opportunity to trade with the other civs first that is a powerful thing.

[Rhothaerill]

Further on this line...

I'm not one to often extol the virtues of the expansionist trait since it isn't one of my favorites. But the power of the expansionist trait lies not just in good hut popping and early granaries. The best thing about the expansionist trait IMHO is the usefullness of the scout in information gathering. If you know where the other civs are and what they are doing then you have the advantage. If you are the first to contact a particular civ you have the advantage. Warriors are good for exploration for non-expansionists, but the scout is far and away the better unit for exploration than the warrior. For better or for worse we have the expansionist trait. I suggest we use it's capabilities to their fullest.

[G'Kar]

Another scout is definently worth the shields, I love uncovering the map (and getting freebee techs). I would build a scout first, warrior second.

[ormuzd]

I think second scout will be good option too. And after this a settler maybe. It depends from the situation the scout(s) will discover.

[Kloreep]

Definitely a second scout. Then warrior, then see where we want to go from there.

[OPD]

Build four scouts then a warrior then a granary. Use the lux slider for happiness and remember the laws of hut popping.

[Tassadar500]

Shouldn't the DM decide this

[Beta]

The second scout served us well in the aborted earlier game. I would defintely build a second. By then - we will be able to tell from the lay of the land as to whether or not a third is worth it.

[Timevus]

I agree with the scout then warrior idea.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Scout then Warrior seems prudent, if we are going to use the Expansionistic trait at all.

[OPD]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Scout then Warrior seems prudent, if we are going to use the Expansionistic trait at all.

Expansionist can be very powerful if exploited enough.
Perhaps building 3 scouts then a warrior, then we'll have one for n,s,e and west. It'll save us having to pay for contacts and alot of the time there are distant huts unpopped.

[GodKing]

First should be a scout. Then we can determine the best course of action from there. I will often do a barracks, grainery, warrior, scout, or settler depending on the specifics of the situation. If one of our scouts gets a settler/city, then we might even consider a wonder (not that we have much of a chance on deity). Just ideas. I think that the scout is almost universally recognized at this point as being best for our first build.

[Jonny]

Scout first, definitely. Then a warrior, then we'll see what to do from there.