Producing military units or settlers?

Lucilla · May 21, 2002, 14:03

Whenever I try playing monarch level or above, either my military is too weak or I don’t expand quickly enough. I wonder what the best ratio for building military units / settlers is at higher levels.

How on earth do you manage to stay alive until at least mid game, having a decent number of cities and a military that is respected by the other civs?

centrifuge · May 21, 2002, 14:15

In the early going, expand as quickly as possible, by making settlers...but first be sure to hav at least a couple of defensive units in each city. Then after you can't expand peacefuuly anymore, build up the military and "add" your weakest neighbor to your empire.

Lucilla · May 21, 2002, 14:18

Thanks for your reply, centrifuge. Are you usually playing on large / huge maps?

Inverse Icarus · May 21, 2002, 14:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucilla
Thanks for your reply, centrifuge. Are you usually playing on large / huge maps?

usually, i have my main city build 3 settlers (with maybe a few warriors / spearmen between them, so i dotn waste sheilds).

after that i have each city make 2 settlers each before i "specialize" them.

i usually have a few main science cities, that build libraries / markets etc, a few war cities (usually grow to size 2, no culture / growth) and i have some "settler farms", cities with 2 or more cows

hope it helps.

Lucilla · May 21, 2002, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

usually, i have my main city build 3 settlers (with maybe a few warriors / spearmen between them, so i dotn waste sheilds).

after that i have each city make 2 settlers each before i "specialize" them.

i usually have a few main science cities, that build libraries / markets etc, a few war cities (usually grow to size 2, no culture / growth) and i have some "settler farms", cities with 2 or more cows

hope it helps.

I didn't think about specialised cities, so far. Seems as if building military, settlers and improvements in all cities (almost) equally, is not the best choice. I'll try your strategy in my next game and see what comes out. Thanks!

Theseus · May 21, 2002, 15:02

My new approach is to ignore the land grab... stick to high food-production sites, packed fairly close together (3-4 tiles apart), if possible.

I target 4-6 initial cities, and try to let each grow to 4-5 pop before creating the first Settler. In the meantime, Aarriors, an Archer or two and a Temple. When all of these "core" cities have reach 4-5 pop, they all build barracks, and then start pumping out the best offensive unit they can.

When I have created a large enough military force for aggression, off hunting they go, and now, with cities all at 5-6 pop, it is very easy to pump out a bunch of Settlers and Spearmen.

Lucilla · May 21, 2002, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
When I have created a large enough military force for aggression, off hunting they go, and now, with cities all at 5-6 pop, it is very easy to pump out a bunch of Settlers and Spearmen.

But isn't that too late for expansion? At that stage, usually all the good spots nearby are already occupied. I guess that strategy only works on big maps?

Cookie Monster · May 21, 2002, 15:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucilla

But isn't that too late for expansion? At that stage, usually all the good spots nearby are already occupied. I guess that strategy only works on big maps?

Ah but what I think Theseus means is that his army will just march in and take the juicy real estate. Ignore the land grab and build a small nation that is capable of popping out military units fast. Then just "expand" by "aggressive settling"!

Harovan · May 21, 2002, 16:05

Theseus' approach has a valid point. Take a standard/8 or large/12 or huge/16 map, build 4-10 cities, depending on map size and do as he said. The civ should be a militaristic, for cheap barracks and promotions. May I suggest the Zulu's, especially for large+ maps? It's unbelievable, what hordes mixed of vet impis with vet horsemen can do to an enemy, mislead by scouts.

Inverse Icarus · May 21, 2002, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich

Ah but what I think Theseus means is that his army will just march in and take the juicy real estate. Ignore the land grab and build a small nation that is capable of popping out military units fast. Then just "expand" by "aggressive settling"!

yes, that also works. razing enemy cities / and or keeping the decent ones is a great way to expand

Lucilla · May 21, 2002, 16:32

Seems as if I should cultivate my "I'm stronger than you are. Surrender!" diplomacy...

Theseus · May 21, 2002, 18:58

Yup, you guys got it.

There is further beauty: Expansion by aggression can be selective; I only focus on "acquiring" good sites.

While others use the 2-shield cities that come from the land grab as placeholders for future resources or for the "shape" of empire, I don't even bother with the AI civs' cute little vills, unless there is a resource uncovered, or I want to play with the metagame (e.g., "Hey Shaka, give me that little crap city over there... you won't? Fine I'll take it... Cathy, can I present you with a gift of one crap city? You're welcome.").

The only problem when I overdo the warmonger bit is that reputation falls to an all time low... which can be, mmm, problematic, in the late game.

Lucilla · May 22, 2002, 13:55

So when do you start building city improvements / culture? If you are at war and capture cities you need to fortify them with some units and you won't have the time for building anything else but military units.
Don't you then stay behind in the tech race (no libs, etc.)? Unfortunately you can't get techs from conquered cities.

Theseus · May 22, 2002, 14:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucilla
Unfortunately you can't get techs from conquered cities.

Huh?

1. I do get techs from beating up and then making peace with civs.

2. Captured cities, especially in that I focus on capturing the "good" ones, often become my highest producers. And, don;t forget, the AI knows the placement of future resources, so very often my captured cities are extra-valuable.

In general, I try to be at war when I have meaningful relative strength, both at the unit level and in number of forces. So I'll build up an attack force, and send it on it's way. Then some defenders, probably half the number of attackers, and send them out. Then, while those guys are off doing the nasty, I build up religion, science, finance, and culture. Any cities that max out currently available buildings (which happens often, as they are mostly "good" cities), go back to building military units, until I learn a new tech that allows a new kind of building.

Lucilla · May 22, 2002, 14:36

Thanks for the input.
Yes, I sometimes get techs (and also cities) in peace negotiations. What I meant is, that you have to negotiate. They don't come for free, like they did in Civ2 when you conquered a city.

Theseus · May 22, 2002, 14:41

I think it's an improvement. There is now a very meaningful additional reason to negotiate peace treaties. It's one of the reasons I disagree with the "continentals" (mmy term... the people who HAVE to gain unilateral control of their primary continent); this way you fight, negotiate peace and extort techs, but leave some AI cities nearby to do again in the future.

Arrian · May 22, 2002, 15:10

Also consider your starting position. The smaller the map, the more crucial it is to have good land around your capitol. But it's important even on huge maps. Some people like playing out every start. I can understand that "ironman" philosophy, but I don't subsribe to it myself. I advocate restarting until you have a good starting spot. If you get really, really good at the game and want an extra challenge, then go ahead and take that all-jungle start.

You don't HAVE to warmonger, but there are advantages to it. First off, the chance for Great Leaders. Second, the ability to beat tech out of the AI while hoarding your money. Third, territorial expansion and gaining control of the resources in that territory. Fourth, weakening of the AI by ruining several AI civs - this takes them out of the tech trading system.

If you do decide to fight, there are two different schools of thought on civ choice:

1) Choose a civ with a powerful early UU, such as the Iroquois or Persians. Advantages: your units outclass the opposition in most cases, golden age during war. Disadvantages: golden age most likely wasted in despotism with few cities.

2) Choose a militaristic civ, like Japan or Germany. Advantages: militarism increases chances of unit promotion to elite, which means more chances for Great Leaders...cheap barracks help jump-start early military buildup...Disadvantages: unit parity at best, may even be outclassed early on... militaristic is only useful if you're fighting - it's a useless trait during peacetime, so make the wars count.

I've beaten this to death in the strategy forum, but Japan makes a great warmonger civ, particularly if you like the "mongol horde" approach to conquest. Persian Immortals are slow, but will cut through spearmen like a knife through butter. Mounted Warriors are fast and powerful. They are the single most powerful UU in the game.

It's all about priorities. I fight for GL's, a second core area (forbidden palace and environs), and tech parity. I also do not like sacrificing my golden age to ancient despotism. I want my GA during the Middle Ages, where I build all the stuff I neglected in ancient times and then some. Not to mention those juicy Medieval Wonders.

If you go the warmonger route, I suggest ignoring the landgrab for the most part. Just make sure you have a good core of productive cities, and access to horses and iron. Then take the rest.

-Arrian

"If you're going to fight, clash!" - Robin Williams, Goodmorning, Vietnam

The Eliminator · May 23, 2002, 12:27

Playing on continents - huge map, I take my chances and make nothing but settlers and warriors until about 1000BC, then I make spearmen and start on wonders, while still making as many settlers as possible in my outer rim territories. Then I go after the weakest or best placed neighbour.

Lucilla · May 23, 2002, 12:50

Lots of good ideas here. Thanks!

I prefer using fast UUs like the Jaguar Warrior or Impi, which gives fast exploration in the beginning. But I agree with Arrian that this might trigger a too early Golden Age. Samurai and Rider are later, so that's maybe the right direction for me to go.

These two also have the advantage that they become available with chivalry, that the AI doesn't seem to research often, so I'm most of the times the first one to have it.