Pheasants VS Buffalo

Kitana · January 21, 2001, 14:55

I've been experimenting in starting games up to about 1AD. And I've come across something that most of you probably know about but I thought people new to the game might find it useful.

There are two specials Pheasants and Buffalo that can be interchanged. Mine a Buffalo and you get a Pheasant. Irrigate a Pheasant and you get a Buffalo. Pheasants produce more food than Buffalo but they never produce trade arrows. Buffalo produce more shields and if they have a road produce a trade arrow. So for the early game it is benificial to irrigate Pheasants and change them into Buffalo, build roads and irrigate it to produce two food, to help boost trade arrow production and shield production.

------------------
Kitana
Shogun of the Japanese

Smokey tha nuke man · January 21, 2001, 15:42

personaly, i feel that early in the game, your objective should be to expand. to expand requires settlers, which in turn requre food for support. pheasants produce two sheilds (as do all forests) along with the extra food.also, growing cities to a big size allows more trade to be prduced form caravans, making up for the pheasents lack of trade production. thus, in the early to middle game, i feel that pheasents are more useful than buffalo. after that, it's based more on the needs of the individual city.

------------------
"our words are backed by nuclear weapons"
"oh, yeah. well, our nukes are backed by 100%money back guarantee, so there."
[This message has been edited by Smokey tha nuke man (edited January 21, 2001).]

January 21, 2001, 16:25

quote:

Originally posted by Kitana on 01-21-2001 01:55 PM
Buffalo produce more shields

i thought pheasants do. ?

?

------------------
- SilverDragon, scourge of the western skies

Email me at
SilverDragon141@aol.com

jcarkey · January 21, 2001, 16:33

Pheasant in early, buffalo in later. Just like Smokey said.

------------------
If Al Gore invented the Internet, then I invented the spell check- Dan Quayle

If someone doesn't agree with you, you haven't explained yourself well enough-Luther Ely Smith

She turned me into a newt...well I got better- Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

Sieve Too · January 22, 2001, 11:26

Nah, Buffalo are better than Pheasant even in the beginning. I'll take the extra trade and shields now rather than the 1 extra food and slightly faster growth. Growth is a double edged sword, especially at deity. Having more shields and trade has no downside.

The other back-and-forth change your Settler can make is to swap Corn for Silk and vice versa. With a road, Silk yields 1 food, 2 shields and 4 arrows - very nice. I keep Corn longer than Pheasant though, since it makes sense to build the road on the Corn first (it's faster). Also, mining Corn to Silk takes 15 turns whereas Pheasant to Buffalo only takes 5. 15 turns is a long time when there's so much else your Settlers need to do at the beginning.

Kitana · January 22, 2001, 14:12

I play using a Perfectionist startegy and am not too concerned about rapid expansion or growth (unhappiness problems.) So I find the trade and extra shield more beneficial than the extra food. Now that is not to say if there is no close water source I won't leave Pheasants as they are but generally if it will take less that 10-15 turns I'll do it.

------------------
Kitana
Shogun of the Japanese

La Fayette · January 23, 2001, 09:41

I agree with ST: buffalo better than pheasant in most games, either early or later on.
Then, if you have buffalo, you build a road quickly and it's OK.
If you have pheasant, your problem, in the early game, is: shall I start irrigating NOW or shall I build a new city or do something else with my settler? (my advice would be: wait a little; building cities and roads is a high priority).

Theben · January 31, 2001, 05:19

In late game the buffalo even equals the pheasant in food production, as forests do not benefit from farms.

I back Sieve Too. I'd rather have the extra trade and shield instead of growth (which I can usualy get plenty of elsewhere) especially if it's my SSC or I'm in repub/democracy.
The ONLY reason, IMHO, to keep pheasants would be if it is on a river square. This makes it just as useful tradewise. Even better if your city placement calls for placing a city near that square. By building on that river square you'll get +100% defensive bonus in the city.

Kitana · February 1, 2001, 15:10

I have to agree with Theben about building on Pheasants on rivers, I think it would be the only case that I don't switch a Pheasant to a Buffalo. Unfortunately I rarely find them.

------------------
Kitana
Shogun of the Japanese