With what unit do you like to explore, initially?

[Hawkx9]

In the past, I'd always began by producing a settler, switching to horseman as soon as the tech became available (researching it first), but I've always been disappointed in its longevity. First of all, I enjoying playing on king level, so I don't need to produce warriors for riot control. Also, I hate losing units. If it's for a good cause, I'm cool with it, but I simply hate losing that first explorer (horseman) to a damned barbarian hut or over-zealous opposing civ. Granted, the horseman travels farther, faster, but the terrain never seems conducive to a "stroll across the plains." It's usually filled with ranges of hills, mountains, and other treacherous lands. Also, the horseman has no holding power if another civ is encountered. He cannot hold a bottleneck to keep the enemy from expanding.

As a result of all of this, I've been starting to use a phalanx as my first explorer. He's easily researched, costs the same as a horseman, and has much more staying power. He's much less likely to be killed by a stray barbarian (especially if on rough terrain) and can hold a bottleneck, temporarily at least, to keep the opposition from expansion. I tend to produce one explorer with my first three cities and am finding the "border guards" much more to my liking. Sure, it's a matter of taste, but isn't everything?

What do you think? What unit do you prefer?

------------------
Peace

[mindseye]

I like to use a combination of Horsemen and Phalanxes for the exact reasons you noted!

This brings up another question - does anybody ever actually use the Explorer unit?

- Tim

[Hasdrubal]

At the very early stages, I just use warriors. They are cheap and there won't be a unit available that can really hold it's own in battle anyway for quite a while to come. (What good is a phalanx if he stumbles across a village from which comes pouring a horde of barbs?). Horsemen vs. Warriors: for the price of one horseman, you can get two warriors. Combined, they have the same movement rate as one horsie, more if you consider that a horse more often than not can't move two squares a turn while exploring. Plus, all those warriors are great for martial law when they return from their explorings. After the initial stages, it really depends on the situation.

------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

[The Mad Monk]

I play at king level, and my first exploring unit is...a warrior. They're cheap, and you typically pull a horse or chariot out of a hut sooner or later. Besides, you want your first group of cities to be fairly close together, and since settlers move at the same rate, the rate of exploration is "good enough".

Another reason is that I always make a beeline for monarchy, so even the "easily researched" preq techs are out of reach for a while.

Mindeye: I play on huge, young worlds, where thick, continent-stretching forests are not uncommon, so yes, I find exploerer units to be very useful.

[Genghis Al]

I use worriors. Horseman are useless I never us them. All they are good for is to die, and thats all they do well.

[KhanMan]

This from a fellow Mongol? Hmmm.

Personally, I've started using horsemen a lot more for exploration. I used to used phalanxs almost exclusively, but that lead to me being boxed in, time after time, in mp games.

Horsemen cost the same as phalanxs, and, if the hut is on a plains, river, or grassland square, a horse can at least take down one barb, if you play it right.

Besides, while warriors cost half as much, the upkeep costs are the same, and that adds up fast.

I occaisionally use explorers, if I end up in a heavily-forested area (for instance, northern Europe/Siberia).

Of course, as soon as chivalry is availible, I switch to knights-best of all worlds.

"pax et bellum"
-KhanMan the sayenly lesser Lesser Sayen

[Smash]

I start with warriors.They are all you have sometimes and are cheap and expendable.4 warriors can cover more ground than 2 horseman.Both would be 40 sheilds.Hopefully the first group of warriors find units.Preferable 4 legged ones.Archers are sent back to the cities horses continue in the direction the warrior was heading so the warrior can go another way.

Sometimes I explore with diplomats.

I actually use explorers.They are very good on larger maps.Also very good for mapping enemies in MP as they ignore ZOC.Move in,move out.


ME...
The Zeppelin was better when I gave it less attack power and Theory of Gravity as pre-req.

[DaveV]

Horsemen. Tempo is key in the early game - you need to break past the choke points before they're closed off, and find the huts before the other guys do. Sometimes that extra move can make all the difference. And if you run into a lightly defended city, your horse can teach them a lesson.

[Ming]

I'll explore with any unit that is available, because exploration is key early in the game.

I usually use warriors, because I don't need a new tech to build them. They can be out cruising the board early. They don't take long to build, and who cares if you lose one. If I get a mounted unit from hut... fine, I'll use that.

I don't usually go for Horse early. I'd rather get to monarchy as fast as I can.
But, if the science path is blocked, I might take it... it all depends on the game situation.

Now, I've never been a big fan of explorers.
But in a recent game with Xin Yu, I saw them used in the proper fashion. He sent out a combo of an Alpine unit and an Explorer. What a killer combo. They could both move three squares no matter what the terrain was (and when you play on small worlds, bad terrain is the standard) and the explorer could get the alpine unit past zones of control. The vet alpine unit could usually defend itself against most opposition. I'll be using this combo in the future.

[jpk]

Explorers are very handy. Put your unit in a ship and explore the coastline. If you find a coastal goodie hut on rugged terrain you can tip the hut and, if necessary, get back to the ship.

[Ming]

That combo can also be used to help uncover some of the inland squares every turn too.
I've used that combo before when I have bribed an explorer, but I rarely build them.
I just hate the fact that they are counted as a supported unit!

[SCG]

I explore with whatever is available to start, preferably hut units, if not warriors. Once i get writing, I'll send out a couple diplomats and they become my front line exploration units since they are movement 2, ignore ZOC, use no support and in a pinch can rally the natives to his cause

[Ming]

I also like using diplos to explore. I do hate sending them out naked (by themselves), but I can usually solve that problem with a few dollars later on, and get a non unit out of the deal.

But, there is nothing worse than having your diplo discover another unit with it's last movement point. Can you say "toast"

[East Street Trader]

1. Haven't tried this yet but in large map games where I've left a lot of unpopped goody huts scattered around I've been wondering whether I could afford at some point to get a settler unit (no doubt raised in the fair town of Dublin or Cork) to act as a gang of navies dedicated to building roads up to and in the vicinity of the huts. Then one of my horsemen explorers could use the roads to complete exploration quicker and the extra speed conferred by the road might allow him to escape emerging barbs when his luck is out on popping a hut. Of course, if the barbs encircle the horseman when they come out (don't you just hate it when that happens!) the tactic will have failed.

In the long run the navies' work invested in the roads will not be wasted either.

A bit elaborate maybe. After all I've probably got diplos and some cash by the time I could do this. But I might give it a go, just to see.

2. Incidentally I've tried and tried to combine legions and horses (from huts) in some way so that the legions can kill emerging barbs before they have time to do any damage. All I've managed so far tho' is to lose a few legions as well as the horseman. Anyone made that idea work?

3. A bit later I quite often explore with diplos but of course that's not going to be an option right at the beginning.

4. In deity the first exploring units are, of necessity, settlers. Even after I've founded, the second settler is sometimes primarily an explorer for quite a while. Especially if i've been blessed with a river site. But the only hut he pops is one on a mountain or in the arctic/antarctic. I've never seen a barb come out of a mountain hut and any which emerge into the cold seem to freeze to death before they can do any damage.


East Street Trader

[Sieve Too]

I usually tip a few huts with my Settlers in the hopes of getting some exploring NON units right from the start. I'll take what I get, usually Archers or Horsemen. Once I have Monarchy, Writing is usually my next goal and so Diplomats are my units of choice for exploration. Since you can always see barbs in the parts of the map that you "know", I send my Diplos right for the barbs to pick up some more cheap recruits. If I find the AI, my Diplo can establish an embassy.

The Explorer unit is off my typical tech path. It also requires support and although it ignores ZOC, the AI can demand that you remove it. Two Diplos can explore AI territory better than any number of Explorers.

[Steve Clark]

Whatever my settler or warrior can tip from huts. I tend not to build any units for exploring, even though I'm warming to the idea of having 2-movement units help stake out a larger territory.

[Hawkx9]

For all of you who are in favor of two warriors instead of a horseman... What about the support cost?? This is what always plagues me. I mean, my cities aren't going to be bigger than a 2 or 3 during "exploration" so the 4th unit is always going to demand support. I find this a waste of resources, don't you? Also, huts containing a unit almost always assign themselves to my capital when tipped. Unless you run around with your initial settler, how do you overcome this? The hut can simply be more than 10 spaces away from any city, but this is rarely the case, especially early. I try to avoid going over 3 supported units by any one city early on. I was under the impression that's what everyone did. Am I wrong?

[DaveV]

Hawkx9 - I do it the way you do, only more so . My early cities generally alternate between size 1 and 2 as they pump out setttlers. At size 1, the typical city can just barely support a settler, horseman, and a garrison unit. Maybe some of these people that are advocating sending out two warriors are playing 2x production?

[geofelt]

I go with what I get. I hope for chariot or horse from the first huts. I always explore a bit before founding the first city. I tried researching horse early, but I hate to delay monarchy in any way. Once I have horsemanship, I use horses to explore. If I find NON horses, I send them back home and continue exploring with a supported unit. It does not hurt so much to lose it. At home, I build a phalanx if the city is on defensive terrain such as a river or hill. If not, I build a horse. I use the first warrior to explore near a new city, and try to get it back before it grows to size 2.

[Ming]

Yes DaveV... double production does make a difference in this case. When playing a normal game against the AI, I will always use the "goody hut" strategy. I really don't see any need to rush building my first city against the AI. Once I have found a few huts and non units, then I lay down the first two cities... usually in pretty good places because I have a better idea of where to put them.
On the other hand, I haven't played a single production MP game in ages... so you are probably right

[Hawkx9]

Ahhh... double production, no wonder.

Say, Ming... (or anyone else) How long do you wander, tipping huts, before you lay stakes? Also, I know that huts have a 'pattern' and I have used the map editor to examine it, but I still find it difficult to predict hut locations. You never know what corner of the "hut pattern" you've just found, etc. Any tips?

------------------
Peace

[Smash]

for 1x deity vs AI
settlers usually wander abit and hopefully NON units are found then it is easy.IF NO units are found I do this:

2 cities.

Cities build warriors which are sent out.Most likely will find some kind of unit.Archers or legions are sent home.Horses and chariots keep exploring while warrior circles towards home.

2nd warrior in each city can be finished before size 2.If I find a gold hut I rush them and send them in other direction for short excursion.If not,they fortify and either 1 starts wonder(if wonder tech) 1 starts settler.No wonder tech, then both start settlers.

1 unit returns to each city just before size 3.
or
Settler(s) are finished before size 3.

If hut units are supported then instead of 2nd warrior I switch to a settler and move supported units towards home.Again,if gold huts are found then settler(s) can be built on or before the same turn as cities reach size 3.

If 1 city started a wonder then 2 units head there and get resupported(if necessary).Monarchy is usually close now so 3 units will be ok.

[Ming]

Hawkx9... It really depends on what I find.
Against the AI, I really don't feel a compelling need to lay a city down until about 3200 BC. If I get a few non units, and find two solid city locations, I'll stop my wandering much earlier.

Knowing where one hut is helps a little... then you start guessing. I will pick the direction that I'm most interested in, and follow the pattern. If nothing is there, I will check where my other units are to see if somebody can easily check in the other directions. Once you know two full four patterns, you know where they all are... assuming no ocean

[East Street Trader]

Hawkx9

I am another of the delay founding brigade. IME it pays to hold your nerve. I often look in the 5 top cities screen after founding and am not too dismayed to see the A1 civ capitals are at size 3. You will (usually) still get your early wonder of choice and your better land development/use of crutches will soon catch you up in population.

I suspect that this tactic may only work - or work best - on large maps. One of the main points is that your hut units get well away from your capital and then any new unit is a Non. Once you found, delay tipping any still untipped huts too near your cities (maybe even until they are inside a new city's radius).

You also make early contact with the civs on your continent and get to occupy strategic points. And as the exploration phase ends you have units to send back for martial law purposes.

Incidentally, if the first hut is a unit, IME the next one is too; if the first hut is a tech the next one is too, etc. In fact if the first is a four footer the next one is likely to be the same (but that's less dependable).

The downside is bad tech slowing you up in getting to monarchy. (But then the early contact might solve that from good tech trades.)

Oddly enough advanced tribes can be quite a problem too.

Try it (on a large map). I think you'll like it.

Ming - tried to stay unburned by advancing my diplos one square at a time - turned out I don't have the patience - so I'm back to saying what I usually say which is *!#> ^*}<.

East Street Trader

PS And before you found you don't get barbs - but I expect you know that.
[This message has been edited by East Street Trader (edited June 15, 2000).]

[Scouse Gits]

EST - Why are Advanced Tribes a problem?
-------------
SG (2)

[East Street Trader]

SG(2)

1. The cities are distant from your capital and have productivity/happiness problems to be managed. Treasury won't be up to quick fix solutions. Exploration phase can get bogged down by having to divert units to martial law/defence purposes.

2. The untipped huts in the pattern which are near the advanced tribe city won't yield NON units (IMO it is hard to over-estimate the value of those early NON units. They boost city productivity in the critical early days but their freedom is still a great boon in early democracy and beyond).

3. Because your cities now develop in separated clusters you don't get to have internal communications which makes defense in the early middle game quite a lot more taxing.

4. But worst - this is subjective but I'm pretty sure about it - your research seems to slow.
[This message has been edited by East Street Trader (edited June 16, 2000).]

Horse of course.

[DaveV]

Why is everyone so worried about finding supported units in a hut? I want to have four cities as quickly as possible; each city can support a garrison unit and a scout. If either of those units comes from a hut, so much the better. During those turns when you're wandering like the Ancient Mariner, you could instead be generating trade arrows, and researching techs on the path to Monarchy.

[Ming]

DaveV...
Against the computer (not human opponents) delaying starting your first city may actually put you ahead of the game. If your starting location doesn't have much trade, dropping a city right away could hurt you.
(Yes, I'm sure the ICS'ers will comment on this one)

If there is no or limited trade available, your capital and second city may be generating so few beakers at first, that each science will take forever to get.
By spending some time looking for a location that has some trade specials, and looking for huts, you can get off to a faster start.
As we all know, tipping a hut before your first city only provides good things... non units, money, or sciences (maybe a science you don't want early) Some claim that eventually, you might get a city, but I've never wandered that long...

This strategy can get you out on the board much faster, assuming there are some huts nearby, and you get a unit for one or two of them.

I usually can have some money in the bank, a few non units way out ahead scouting, and have a capital producing three to four times the science beakers that an average starting location gets you. And sometimes, a science or two too.

The AI always gets off to a slow start, so you really aren't falling behind... you will catch and surpass them quickly.

BUT, as I said, I don't recommend this in an MP game. However, I will still take a turn or two to see if there are any trade specials or huts nearby in an MP game. But, I won't wait too many turns or I will fall behind big time against humans.

[DaveV]

Ming - just because you can get away with something against the AI doesn't make it a good strategy (someone told me that once ). The fact that you're not recommending wandering for a long time in MP says something.

There's a fine balance here between spending too many turns searching, and building your capital in a bad spot. I hate it when I build my capital one square out of range of a whale; on the other hand, I hate it even more when I'm ten turns into the game with no cities built.