30-09-2004 23:45									#1
	Barraks First!?! Got spare money?

I've noticed that lot's of Civilization 2 players build Warriors first. The main reason for this is that the manules adopt a conservitive stance. Thats OK but not great. NOTE: this is without tech bounus at the start.

Let's consider our options... first we have a settler, but that would destroy the city as its not big enough.

Next we have warriors. They are OK but aren't good for anything, 1 mp 1 defense 1 attack.

Our third and final option is Barraks. Thats my choice, as if you research Horseback riding first, you can explore the map faster than a warrior with 10 turn head start. Since your Horse will be veteran without battle, ( so will your other ancient units ) he will be able to fight of Hoards of Barbs off.

Shark Fin 101

Have a Good Day!

	01-10-2004 01:05									#2
	Remove this text

Here is another point of view.

When you say Warriors are not good for anything you are not exactly correct. Warriors ARE excellent as cheap Martial law units, and for that purpose they do not need to be vets. Also, the Barracks is very expensive, relative to the available gold, in the game's beginning, costing 1g per turn maintenance. It depends on game circumstances whether an early Barracks is required; but, where it is not, it may not be the best First choice.

Also, there is a one city "feature" whereby, if you can get enough gold from a hut, rush building a Settler at size one will not destroy your One City Capital, and you will get another Settler. Hopefully, I have remembered that "feature" correctly.

Perhaps there are good reasons to choose Warrior as first build, after all.

Monk

	01-10-2004 01:43									#3
	Hmmm... Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Perhaps you are right I must admit I never thought of them that way. But then again I pursue the perfectionist route and I've always insisted on my defense being purfect. About the Hut, where are you going to get the unit that goes to the hut? You must keep in mind that this is for the first shields.

However I did not know about the rush thing.

Shark Fin 101

	01-10-2004 02:15									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I am fond of the size 1 settler strategy, which can always be followed at the cost of delaying growth if there is coal or forest access. I do not know how to evaluate the value of that strategy, but I like it.

If there is a hut nearby, I will pop it with my settler, delaying city founding to do so. Depending on the outcome, the next steps will vary:
Hut: Archer - found the city on the best available site with a forest or coal option, hopefully on a river. Build settlers. Explore 5 turns with the archer, returning to the city. Then disband the archer in the city, which will allow a size 1 settler.

Hut: Horse: use the horse to explore and play normally

Hut: Chariot: either explore with the chariot or treat it as an archer and disband it for a size 1 city

Hut:25g - does not allow size 1 settler unless there are special terrain options

Hut: 50g - allows size 1 settler as in the Archer example

Hut: 100g - allows size 1 settler option several turns early, or a normal size 1 settler strategy plus some other strategy.

Hut: Tech -you lose. found your city and play normally.

	01-10-2004 02:51									#5
	Hmmm..... Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That is interesting strat. But it still puts you behind dosen't it? I prefer to settle were I drop, even if its in a bad spot. I don't usually build a second city until later, WAY later, so my civs are never very big until I counquer someone.

	01-10-2004 03:03									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Sometimes it is worth it to move if there is a better spot within view. You wouldn't want to settle one tile away from water or on shield grass when regular grass is adjacent. Similarly, settling on a river will boost trade output by about 50% which is well worth waiting a turn for.

I also want to make a point about warriors. You can build more than 2 warriors and send them off in different directions long before you can even build 1 horse. At the beginning there is a lot of rough, unroaded terrain so even a 2 mover like horseman will only get to move twice maybe half of the time.

	01-10-2004 06:15									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree that warriors (or more Settlers) is the best way to start production. I really learned a lot about opening the game by reading DaveV's article in the Great Library about the "ICS" strategy.

In a nutshell, you want to make a lot of settlers and cities as fast as possible (so, NO barracks, temples, etc). You make a few warriors/horsemen for exploring huts, etc.

You can make barracks after you have a lot of cities, but if you can wait a little longer, it's more cost-effective to build Sun Tzu's. Then you build an army and wreak havoc.

	01-10-2004 06:18									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I don't build many improvements in the very early stages of the game. Barracks, at 40 shields, are just too costly. You could build 2 exploring horses for the cost of that barracks, and go out and find huts yielding possible units/cities/cash/techs with them. Or better yet, build a Settler and use it to found an additional city - which will speed your research and allow you to build more, better units.

I used to build Phalanxes as a matter of course - now, I generally build Warriors, with Horsemen as the second defender if needed (the best defense is a good offense in the BC years). I'll only build a Phalanx if the city is on good defensive terrain (the Horsemen-as-defense tactic is also less useful if the city is surrounded by forest or hills, for obvious reasons).

	01-10-2004 08:09									#9
	Got spare money?

Compared to building a barracks, warriors are a real bargain, since they have several uses for expediting early expansion, although fighting may not be one of them.

Building lots of them is the quickest way to become supreme, the rating allowing the most respect and tribute.

If they all hang around long enough for Leonardo's, they even become useful for waging war, eventually justifying the curious name chosen for them by the game's designers.

	01-10-2004 09:43									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by solo If they all hang around long enough for Leonardo's, they even become useful for waging war, eventually justifying the curious name chosen for them by the game's designers.

...because those lowly 10 shield Warriors have become 40 shield Riflemen, which is a very nice Return on Investment, to say the least.

Monk

	01-10-2004 10:42									#11
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I don't tend to build barracks at all. My fortified warriors on rivers can be quite effective. If they look too weak to withstand the threatened attack, I withdraw from the city to leave it undefended and pay the Danegeld. Later on, my diplos bribe the approaching enemy and recruit them into my army.

And in the (roughly) one third of cases where all this fails, I start a new game.

RJM at Sleeper's

	01-10-2004 17:40									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Once you have a decent sized empire. one or two cities with barracks are not a bad idea to pump out Elephants, Crusaders, whatever. Don't get too attached to them because you're gonna lose them all at gunpowder anyway.

	01-10-2004 18:34									#13
	Barracks Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Very interesting indeed.... but I like to take somebody out early... VERY EARLY. That way you get least resistance... and you can keep them from getting huge. Although I do most of my fighting in the middle ages and the modern age ( howitzers ).

Shark Fin 101

	01-10-2004 19:09									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If you want an early rush and start on an average or large continent, it's probably best to tip a lot of huts for an earlier army, before founding some cities and starting with a barracks. See DaveV's latest tournament game for a great example of how this works.

	01-10-2004 19:12									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

DaveV's ICS strategy is the proven best at early wipeouts. Check out his game in the Apolyton Comparison Game spoiler thread. His strategy is to overrun your territory with cities. Most conquest games of that type are over by 500AD.

The faster you produce settlers the earlier total war can begin.

	02-10-2004 02:37									#16
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by solo Compared to building a barracks, warriors are a real bargain, since they have several uses for expediting early expansion, although fighting may not be one of them. Building lots of them is the quickest way to become supreme, the rating allowing the most respect and tribute. If they all hang around long enough for Leonardo's, they even become useful for waging war, eventually justifying the curious name chosen for them by the game's designers.

Solo makes great points (as usual!)

A mildly useful trick with Warriors is to build a lot of them just before getting Gunpowder (with Leo), and then disband the resulting Musketeers for the shields. 5 net shields/unit isn't much, but it helps.

Shark Fin - what size maps do you play on? On small maps, early conquest of the AI is possible, but you probably won't want to waste time building barracks - you'll want to be tipping huts and gathering units ASAP. On a big map, where you don't meet the AI for a while, your only enemies are barbarians, and nonvet Horsemen and Diplomats do just fine against those.

	02-10-2004 03:42									#17
	Suffering from ads?

Sometimes You get bronze tech from the start, then I build phalanx.
Or I'm starting building settler and change it to phalanx when I reach this tech.
But most often I build a settler - and very rarely the city is 1 size when about to finish it. Very rarely.

	02-10-2004 09:25									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Sometimes You get bronze tech from the start, then I build phalanx. Or I'm starting building settler and change it to phalanx when I reach this tech. But most often I build a settler - and very rarely the city is 1 size when about to finish it. Very rarely.

Someone - I think SG[1] - gave me the idea to build Horsemen instead of Phalanx. Horsemen are pretty good against all early Barbarian units, while Phalanxes generally lose to Chariots and Archers...

	02-10-2004 15:27									#19
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

hm, I rarely build horsemen, which I always treat as a mistake, because exploration is important, but I just think other techs and other units are more important.
My strategy most usually is build cities, buid cities, build cities
(in civ1 my strategy was build chariots and smash the heathens )

	04-10-2004 08:06									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

As STYOM said, horses are vastly more useful than phalanxes. In this game, the best defense usually is a good offense. Phalanxes lose, horsemen win.

The bulk of my military builds are warriors. Cheap martial law. Eventual musketeer/riflemen upgrade. Supremacy and tribute. And two warriors can explore much faster than one horseman, because they can go in two different directions and because the horsemen spend half their time in slow terrain.

Other than defense, the other place where horsemen can be more valuable than warriors is in popping huts. But dips are much better yet, because one dip can use its second move to bribe one barb horse, which can kill two more.

	04-10-2004 09:13									#21
	Tired of ads?

If I have a city on a river, a phalanx will nearly always defend successfully against Barbs, allowing a 2-move unit nearby to capture the barb leader for a quick 150g.

If I am garrisoning a chokepoint against an AI which I don't want to take out yet, a vet phalanx in a fort on a mountain will last against almost anything up to the modern age.

Otherwise I agree that a phalanx is the third-best option to either a warrior (cheaper martial law) or a horseman (offense is better than defence).

	05-10-2004 03:30									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Grigor DaveV's ICS strategy is the proven best at early wipeouts. His strategy is to overrun your territory with cities. Most conquest games of that type are over by 500AD. The faster you produce settlers the earlier total war can begin.

Overrun territory with cities!?! I can crush giant empires with 7-8 cities! Then again maybe thats just me

Six Thousand Year Old Man,

I usually play on large worlds.

Shark Fin 101

	05-10-2004 03:42									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Speaking of opening strategies.... has anyone looked at the map for CivFanatics gotm45, which started a few days ago? At the risk of slightly spoiling it - - this is your chance to stop reading - - - you start on a small swampy island with no grass or forests (just a few jungly-rivers, hills, huts, and specials). I found this map extremely frustrating and still am not sure of a good opening strategy.

If you just make cities near specials, they reproduce extremely slowly, because either the food or shields will be low. So, irrigation and/or planting forests (before or after making cities?) may be a better idea, but that's pretty slow too.

	05-10-2004 19:27									#24
	capital city + expansions city Support Apolyton

I always build my capital immediately, the build a second city. I use this city in the early game, solely to provide settlers, to allow quick expansion, while at the same time, using my capital to build an army and exploration units. Later, if my empire is lop-sided, I move my capital to the centre of the empire, to limit corruption and waste.

	05-10-2004 19:53									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

In MP it's expand expand expand. A barracks first costs expansion at an exponential rate.

And since we play on small rocks, the horseman exploring and defending with options while not eliminated is somewhat minimized.

While I too sometimes I'm erroring by not going horsemen, when another human players shows up, it's nice to have a phalanx ready.

	06-10-2004 02:39									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by rah In MP it's expand expand expand. A barracks first costs expansion at an exponential rate. And since we play on small rocks, the horseman exploring and defending with options while not eliminated is somewhat minimized. While I too sometimes I'm erroring by not going horsemen, when another human players shows up, it's nice to have a phalanx ready.

It's all about terrain, and not just building the same defender in every city. No question, a horse is less useful when your city is in a forest, or in the hills. And when your first city is on a rivered forest tile, Phalanx is best. Goes for MP as well, I'm sure.

	07-10-2004 00:07									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

But you have to look at your civ as a whole, you only get one off path tech on your way to monarchy. If you don't burn it from a hut, it's either horseman or bronze, you can't do both, or you're going to be in despot for a lot longer.

	07-10-2004 05:27									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by rah But you have to look at your civ as a whole, you only get one off path tech on your way to monarchy. If you don't burn it from a hut, it's either horseman or bronze, you can't do both, or you're going to be in despot for a lot longer.

True - and the terrain you've uncovered by the time you have to choose an off-path tech will probably influence the choice. Unless you want an early start on a WoW... in which case, BW is probably the choice.

	07-10-2004 23:51									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My strategy for a city is: settler-phalanx-temple-wonder-settler-some other unit.

Thrid city or fourth may produce a horseman before building a wonder.

	08-10-2004 00:10									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

That strat would be death in MP. (or at least on the worlds we play)
But I guess it still works against the AI