Warriors vs Phalanx

[Seeker]

Like all civvers, I like to expand rapidly at the begining. This usually means building warriors as my first unit, but THAT means that means that I often lose a city to barbs!


Well, the eternal debate continues...in a normal deity game, do you build warriors or phalanxes?

[carnide_]

warriors!

[cavebear]

I rather prefer Archers, but then, I lose a lot...

I think I agree with Carnide, though. You can get 2 warriors for one phalanx. It's a question of what you need them for. A warrior will provide martial law as well as a phalanx. Or 2 warriors can explore more territory than a phalanx. And 2 warriors can defend against one offensive unit better (it has to attack twice).

But warriors aren't worth goose crap if there is a defensive bonus under 100%; it just does them no benefit at all. A fortified phalanx is worth 3 (in simplest terms) while a fortified warrior is still just worth 1 (50% gets rounded down).

[arii]

On defensive terrain (river, forest) a warrior is often good enough. Usually early units coming at you are horses and a fortified warrior on defenssive terrain can sustain the attack or bring the attacker in the red. You can then rush build an other warrior an kill the attacker the next turn. If a chariot or archer is coming at you the best defense is to attack it with a horse.

[geofelt]

If you have one or two cities, you can defend with anything, even wariors. After that, I build a phalanx if the city is on defensive terrain, like a river. On ordinary terrain, an attacking defense is best. This means a horse, or an archer.
On a related subject, if your defender will clearly lose, don't lose the city to a barb and have it destroyed. Just vacate it and pay a reasonable ransom, or plan to use a dip to get it back later.

[Longfistking]

I usually take Ming's advice a wait a few turns to get an archer or a chariot out of a goody hut before I lay down a city. I have no luck on Diety and I usually get eaten up pretty fast by the barbs, unless I can get a city down on or near a river. By the time I get a chance to build a phalanx, the other civs are coming over the ridge already . . . (I really need to play on Diety more).

[Chainsaw]

If I have the tech, I build a phalanx, especially in new cities on the border. They mostly win against the early barb archers or horses. A warrior wins VERY seldom attacking an archer (believe me, I tried at least a hundred times). That way, you don´t have to worry about lost cities, especially in the beginning of your expansion, when you have to concentrate ressources on building settlers and caravans. A lost city when you have four or five means one fifth of your ressources is gone! I think it wise to invest ten shields to defend forty.

[Seeker]

True chainsaw, losing the city is a headache...but what is more of a headache is having to pay a huge ransom (if you have done well in the 'hut lottery')

[Chainsaw]

Exactly. Both sucks. Solution: Build a phalanx.

[Scouse Gits]

Neh - my vote is for the 'far from lowly' Warrior - eventually backed up with a horsey of some description, but then - if the shields are coming fast enough I often start with a Settler.


------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"

[DaveV]

Definitely warriors. I'd much rather have a horse than a phalanx. Since the barbs have a 150% attack factor at Deity level, it's definitely better to attack them than defend against them. I hardly ever build phalanxes; pikemen are much more effective against mounted units and come along pretty early.

[Dry]

At the very beginning of the game (before monarchy) I build a warrior - for martial law - then a settler, then an archer...
Later, a settler that will found a city comes with its archer, and I can start directly building a temple.
I have cities specialised in settler production: they build alternatively archer/settler and send them together to found new cities.

[Ming]

In SP games, it depends on the results of huts.
I usually wait a little longer than I would in an MP game to start my first cities because it's easy to catch up to the AI. You can find a great city site, and maybe get a few decent non units. If I find an archer, I will just build warriors for marshall law and wandering...

MP is a whole different story, and it depends on the game you are playing. Most of my MP games are on small worlds, and you will have contact with other players quickly in most cases. In the path to monarchy, you usually have to take one non path science, and I will always take bronze work. If I don't get a unit from a hut, my first build will be a warrior to wander, then a second warrior for marshall law, and then a settler.
Depending on the situation (contact, no contact) I will either build a second settler or a phalanx...
If I find a archer from a hut, he will come back to my capital for defense, and I will build one warrior to wander (assuming I didn't get lucky and get mulitple units from huts), and then I start cranking out settlers...
In MP games, we usually play double production, so I never build a city on a non defensive square... so early on, a warrior can usually defend. I build the the phalanx when asap if I meet somebody who is aggressive
Again, it all depends on the situation...

[kcbob]

We need a new acronym. Or maybe it already exists and I'm not familiar with it.

Since we are definitely not talking OCC, we are talking either ICS or 'xxx'. The 'xxx' would refer to Perfectionist Expansionist Theory, or PET. Maybe?

Anyway, I go warrior first. Then settler. Then, depending on circumstances, I will choose between warrior, phalanx, and settler. The circumstances are nearness of opposing civs, barbs in the area, and food output of the city.

But an interesting question has been raised in my mind by this thread. Should I wait and build archers instead of phalanx?

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[Chainsaw]

kcbob:
That would be thirty shields to invest, but then you have the possibilty to attack strong offensive units which would win against against a defender with a defensive strength of two.

If I have the gold, Ì´d still get rather a phalanx than a warrior, maybe as the second martial law unit, but still better than a rather weak warrior which is quite useless in a fight.

[Ming]

I can't remember the last time I built an archer in MP or SP. They just don't seem worth the production. Granted, I love when I get them from huts... but a phalanx defends just as well, and an archer still has problems taking out a unit with a defense of two. For 10 less shields, I can have a horse who moves two and can attack in a pinch...
Unless I get warrior code from a hut, I usually work toward Feudilism next... and a vet pikeman is the unit I want to defend up until gun powder.
The three attack from an archer just isn't good enough.

[Simpson II]

My attitude is, a warrior is good enough for initial expansion. Once I have the first facility built (a temple, mostly) it becomes inconvenient to replace, so I like to build a phalanx.
Otoh, in SP I've often realized that my capital city is defended by a warrior and no walls while my enemies run around with dragoons, so I'm not fanatical about it...

Most of my MP games have been 'friendly' large or standard map affairs with 1x1x, so I've built warriors early on, and gone straight to pikemen when I could. However, I doubt I would survive a small map. When I get chivalry I have some knights wandering around on the roads between cities to rush to the rescue.

[Ming]

I hear what you are saying... but...

quote: A phalanx will NOT survive 2 horsemen barbs

They have the same chance as an archer... you assume that you will get a chance to attack them first, which may not be the case with their two movement. Also, they usually both attack on the same turn.
And even if you do attack out, it may be weakened so much in the attack that even if it becomes a vet, it probably won't survive the the remaining attack.
Plus, if the barbs happen to be archers, there is a chance your archer won't kill it.
Your tactic depends on a lot of if's
I just sit back and let the defenders do the work.

Here is why I don't build archers anymore.

For me, until I get monarchy, I don't want to take any science off the path that will delay the discovery of Monarchy. As we all know, minus any sciences from huts or other civs or free from the start, you usually have to take one science not on the path. Given that choice, I will always take bronze over warrior code. Bronze allows me to build a defensive unit, and start building a wonder. (which I can change to a different wonder later as better wonders become available) No other science on the direct path to Monarchy provides a wonder. Warrior code doesn't allow for building a wonder either.
Once I have Monarchy, production isn't that much of an issue anymore, and I can crank out both defensive and offensive units as needed. Plus, I usually go for writing next... and then, who needs to build archers when you can out and bribe attacking units with diplos

That is the nice thing about Civ... Different strokes for different folks
[This message has been edited by Ming (edited September 19, 2000).]

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Dry on 09-19-2000 12:27 PM And even a legion can be killed by an archer, mostly not by a horsemen.

In my experience, on open terrain a Horsemen almost always kills a Barbarian Legion. Barb Legions have a defense of 1, AFAIK.



------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Mercantile]

i have very little MP experience, however i have noticed that certain units perform better against others.

For instance, odds of taking out a barb legion with a non vet horse are slim, much easier to take out that archer.

Barb archers will maul non vet warriors.
Legions take out anything pretty much on anything.

My theory is warriors early on then mix in some better units. I rarely build certain units, but i tend to have one of each at least somewhere in my empire

------------------
Do you wish to trade blows or goods? I offer both.

[geofelt]

Does anybody build a barracks first? In some games, I have built a barracks early in a high shield city, and used it to build vet phalanx for every other city. As I recall, this worked very well.

[Caesar]

In duels, warriors, warriors and warriors, you only start building phalanxes if you've lost GW and or Sun Tzus. But usually by then I have pikemen. In my opinion its pointless to build phalanxes in every city because I need the production and with 3 warriors in a city, I can keep martial for the production equivalent of one and a half warriors and if someone attacks I will usually have enough time to get a phalanx before they conquer it. Unless I'm building a wonder, then I go with 3 phalanxes, unless I haven't had contact with the enemy or the city is far inland with cities all around. Sometimes my research goals don't include bronze working for a long time. First I go for Pottery, then I go for the 3 Ms (as I like to call them), masonry, map making and monotheism. Then for feudalism. Once I get feudalism I stop building warriors, not by choice. If I'm on the offensive, as soon as I hit mono, I turn my sciences off, 70% taxes for bribing and 30% luxuries for happiness. This basically allows me to survive even if I miss miches, sun tzus and or great wall. But once they get feudal I go to mathematics before shutting it off.

[BlackJack]

Hmmm ... Lots of good stuff to think about. ... I think I'm still sticking with the phalanx as the first unit though - the defense is just too comforting early in the game; and yes my phalanx usually holds off two horse attacks in a turn. After exploring a bit, to find the right location and pickup cash or non units, what I do is found my first cities, pick BW as the first advance and start building a settler; BW tends to be discovered when I've got just the right shields and just before the cities go to size 2.

[Dry]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 09-18-2000 02:30 PM I can't remember the last time I built an archer in MP or SP. They just don't seem worth the production.

This was what I thought (a long time ago, when animals could speak ) until I played deity/raging hordes/no reload .
What I need is a good early military unit, strong enough to deal with the early barbs, until I get monarchy.
Warrior code is for me the good compromise between cheap-to-build, one research step technology and strong-enough unit to avoid the loss of early cities.

A phalanx will NOT survive 2 horsemen barbs: my early phalanx are not veteran, so on the first barb, she will be an almost dead [veteran] phalanx, on the second, she will be a dead veteran.
An archer will, with a little bit of luck, survive: he attacks the first horseman. After that, if veteran: he will survive the second horseman attack, if not, well there is still a chance...

A non vet phalanx has NO chance against a chariot.
A lucky warrior will have the possibility to attack the chariot if it is on an adjacent hex, or even at 2/3 if its is one hex away along a river or road.

With the ability of being offensive, archers are also easier to veteranise. Not a small advantage for the future.

I have seen horsemen, archers and chariots as early barbs, legions comes a little bit later. And even a legion can be killed by an archer, mostly not by a horsemen.

Of course, later in the game, after you have discover monarchy you can research and build more effecient units (in terms of: utility/build costs). The cheaper phalanx is a good defending unit, but don't let it alone in an exposed city, put at least a horseman.
But even then:
phalanx + horseman = 40 prod. points; 2 techs to research and phalanx may come out too late for martial law
warrior + archer = 40 prod. points, only 1 tech to research and warrior will come out on time for martial law.

[Dry]

Yes, lots of good stuff here...

Ming: you are right, there's a lot of if's, but my point was: archer have a chance (even if small), phalanxes have no... well, I exagerated, of course they have, but smaller.
You are also right for the WOW, but I usually don't build wonders so early... depends on play style... after monarchy WOWs are only one tech away.

I hear you all about phalanxes surviving horsemen, and I noticed it also (even warriors have survived very first barbarian archer !!!) but my experience is just that since I changed my strategy from phalanxes to archers, I lost only one city (I'm talking here about very early cities: one of the 4 or 6 firsts) every 4 or 5 games, while in the past, by building phalanxes I lost at least one city per game.
An early city is something I do not like to lose... not to say that if the city is not destroyed but taken, this is a direction in which it is much more difficult to expand: you need to wait for diplos ... or go and try to retake/destroy the barbarian city with... guess what... with... (no, not with phalanxes ), with... archers!!!... well yes, maybe also with horsemen, you are right .

Maybe it has something to do with game version, but i think that when I changed my strategy I played already with 2.42 version. Today I have the 2.62 (I wanted to try the scenarii). Maybe I should try again the phalanxes...

[Ming]

You sound like you get really unlucky with Barbs...
Using phalanxes, if I lose a city to barbs, I'm in a state of shock. I might lose one city every 10 or 20 games... and that's usually because I don't have a phalanx in the city yet.

[rah]

Another great revelation...I agree with ming here.

I will usually go warrior(to wander) warrior settler then a second settler or phalanx. I have not lost a city to barbs in a real long time. And playing raging, after 3000 I like sending settlers out with a phalanx. I hate moving a settler and exposing a barb. Losing a settler early in MP can really hurt. And since we play on small worlds, the chance of running into another civs horse or non-archer is a higher probability. Other players will usually attack a settler/unless it's on a mountain, with a horse. If the phalanx is along, they won't risk a non-horse.

One last note. I have surprised many a player early when they discover a 1pop city early and attack and see a fortified phalanx defending. I love taking out other players non-units.

I think I've built about 3 archers in my entire civ career. My thinking is, for 25 more bucks/or one or two turns more, I can build another city.

The wonder issues is also important.

Having said all this, In SP I don't worry about it much, and will use just warriors until about 2000.

RAH

[kcbob]

quote: Originally posted by geofelt on 09-19-2000 04:08 PM Does anybody build a barracks first? In some games, I have built a barracks early in a high shield city, and used it to build vet phalanx for every other city. As I recall, this worked very well.

I usually don't build barracks until after Mobile Warfare. Vet status through warfare is good enough for me and I hate to have to rebuild the barracks after they've been sold. But I do love to capture an enemy city with a barracks intact. Quick healing of the troops is always good.

And after I do build barracks, I spit out vet armor units as fast as I can. Stack a couple of them on a mountain in a fortress for defense and they'll save you a lot of grief from attacking enemy units.

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[smilo]

I usually build one phalanx and fill up with warriors to keep people content. The order in which I build them depends on the given situation, if i need defense quite fqst i first go for a warrior and then a phalanx, if I have time a phalanx comes first. When i started playing civ, about 50000 centuries ago, I only build warriors, but in raging the risk of loosing a city to barbs is just to high. One phalanx does an excellent job in keeping barbs and even other civs at bay (in the starting millenia of course).

Archers, actually I can't recall building one ever, for the same reasons as Ming and Rah pointed out.

[cavebear]

I have decided to stop building archers, except in specific situations where I really need that blend of attack and defense where my rush-building is limited by available gold. You've convinced me otherwise.

My preference is now warrior, chariot, pikeman...

It now seems evident that 2 archers are not as valuable as 2 pikemen. In fact, nothing until 2 knights is worth a chariot and a pikeman.

------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance...