Barbarians

[Campo]

SG, I think it's a little more complicated.

First, I don't build phalanxes at the very start, even if I have Bronze Working. I put at least one warrior in each city first.

Second, I don't build a phalanx in low-shield cities. For example, if the choice is between a 5-turn warrior and a 10-turn phalanx, then it'll be the warrior. But if the choice is a 4-turn warrior or a 7-turn phalanx, then I might go for the phalanx.

Third, I'm more likely to choose phalanx in a low-pop/low-food city. Either its population is 1 and so couldn't build a settler, or its growth is slow and I don't want the population reduction of producing a settler.

Finally, my ancestors came from Italy, so I have to have some phalanxes to honor family tradition!

[DrSpike]

Still, one horseman will do the job of a couple of phalanxes though. With active defence you are always attacking barbs that defend with 1.

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by Campo
SG, I think it's a little more complicated.

If it is anything to do with this game -- this ranks as the understatement of the century

However, a city's primary responsibility to the Empire is to replace the Settler that created it - anything more than a Warrior will (generally) delay this

[rah]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
However, a city's primary responsibility to the Empire is to replace the Settler that created it - anything more than a Warrior will (generally) delay this

While I agree with this statement, two additional things must be considered.
1. The city must survive to produce that settler.
Prior to 3200 or so B.C., that's not a problem. But when the barb ship appears in that one square ocean and drops two archers right next to a new city, a city with one warrior is toast. Even a horse is unlikely to be able to kill both in one turn. Or if one of the archers is on a mountain, I doubt the horse will kill even one. This does not guarentee that a Phalanx will save the city (unless it's also on good defensive terrain), but sometimes it does. Now if this is your 9th city, no problem, but if it's your 4th or 5th, big loss.
2. Barb kings. You can't collect them unless they attack, (unless they can't keep up with the 2x movement units) With a phalanx on good terrain, i'm more likely to let one attack. But Again, if this is your 9th city, that 150 in gold is not as valuable as when you can get it before 3000 b.c. 150 in gold in the first 1000 years can make a heck of a difference, and can be worth the risk.


After my5th or 6th city, I will usually escort my settlers with a phalanx. As a result, I don't lose valuable settlers as often. Those little things add up, especially early.

So there is good arguements for both sides. But I hate it when those of you that risk it with just warriors, and lose a city or settler, whine about all the bad luck. It's not just bad luck, It's the stratagy that you chose knowing the risk. I've had people quit when that happens, and say you got lucky. That's BS.

Rich

[DrSpike]

I love this game; valid but different opinions abound on virtually every aspect. Since a nice debate seems to be starting I'll muddy the waters with a minor threadjack.

The discussion has considered expansion and defence, which are essentially different possible priorities for shields in the early game. But how does exploration fit in? The areas are clearly linked, since horses are better than 1 move units for exploring as well. I guess to be consistent comments should also be elicited on forgoing shields for trade arrows to get techs such as horseback riding and monarchy.

So, who explores with what? What's your early game tech/shield balance and why? How do your answers depend on qualifiers such as map size and difficulty level?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I use warriors almost exclusively to explore - in order to find a horse in a hut. After that, the warrior takes a scenic route home to defend. Phalanx is my defender of choice. At navigation, I build a few explorers to bring light to the map darkness. They are the fastest units in the game until alpine troops.

During the first build order, I will maximize shields to build that defender quickly. Thereafter a settler. Once that is done, all attention focuses on arrows. By the time another unit is needed, I have techs for better bad guys.

[Campo]

So, who explores with what? What's your early game tech/shield balance and why?

Unless I have an ideal starting spot at 4000BC, I have my settlers look for 2 or 3 huts to tip, hoping for a horseman. If I get a horse then he's my explorer. If I get an archer I might let the settlers wander several turns more, though if I see a sweet city spot I'll take it. In either case the archer continues exploring until he tips a horse, then the archer returns to the city area.

If I'm unlucky enough not to get any NON unit then my first warrior is my designated explorer.

I really like NON units for exploring so I chance hut-tipping until I've found a couple. Backfires sometimes, but usually turns out okay.

Early trade/shield balance -- actually I'd call it trade/shield/food balance, because settler production is so critical and I have to get cities over size 1. I found early cities based on specials, and I work those specials. Desirable early ones are whale, wheat, buffalo, pheasant, etc -- something with shield/food balance. After I have several cities down then I'll focus more on trade -- silk, wine, gems, etc. After that I'll go for high-shield production.
For my SCC (I almost always have one) I aim for max food production until I get population of 3 or so, then max trade (but still food surplus).

[Campo]

In the early game I only seem to get warriors or horsemen from huts. I can't remember the last time if ever I got anything else. Is that standard? (Diety level)

[DrSpike]

Archers are quite common. And it's DEITY.

[Campo]

And it's DEITY.

DrSpike,

We changed the spelling here in the U.S. You're using the Olde English version.


You're not buying it? Well okay, maybe I screwed up...

[DrSpike]

You know, the extra smilies really don't get used enough.



Me expecting further smiley abuse.

[rah]

Originally posted by Campo
In the early game I only seem to get warriors or horsemen from huts. I can't remember the last time if ever I got anything else. Is that standard? (Diety level)

Hmmmmm, I've never gotten a warrior from a hut. I pretty sure that that is not possible.

You have the chance to get the best unit that anyone's techs allow. I love getting crusaders but legions, but then you know that someone else has them too.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

you can't get warriors from huts, just archers!
and yes, we should use more smilies...

[War4ever]

well i come from the school of taking chances....yes there are times when i get caught with my pants down by enthusiastic scout....however those are few and far between..

warriors are my unit of choice....they are expendable and on small worlds should be used exclusively until you tip some other faster units.

i do at times escort my sets...but i like to wander around unescorted..especially when i have 20 cities and the extra unit doesn't even make my city happy....

what units you use totally depends on the map, size, and style......

early warning systems can make the warrior defence viable...

while your guarding i am just expanding........though, you do run the risk of someone marching in and not being able to do anything about it..

in short...i swear by the warrior and die by it if need be

[Scouse Gits]

Hear, hear!
I guess for me, War just said it all

SG[1]

[DrSpike]

War - Is that always the case with you? Would you explore with warriors in say, a small map duel?

[War4ever]

i always explore with warriors....i am bound to get a four legger from a hut or two....even when i do i keep looking for more huts/enemy cities...

its important to find huts.....the more the better..that means a few warriors on the board...IMO the huts you take, you take away from your opponents