Barracks worth it?

[warmachine]

Being a Civ fan but only just bought Civ IV, the concept of promotions seems like a worthy idea and that barracks give the XP for a promotion and more flexible way of investing to build well trained troops. Except that Combat 1 only gives +10%. Is that it? The +20% of Woodsmen I is better but not enough to be worth the inflexibility. Spend 60 production for something like these?

Or am I missing something?

[JackRudd]

The level one promotions are nothing special, agreed. The point is that promotions accumulate over the course of a unit's lifetime - and starting one off with a promotion makes it much more likely to get further ones.

(And the Combat I-V promotions are deliberately underpowered; what they lose in power they gain in flexibility.)

[clinton]

Remember, that 10% combat bonus makes a big difference with the new combat system. Check the difference it makes to the combat odds.

[warmachine]

That makes if combat consists of multiple rounds. So, what is the combat system?

[Quillan]

Basically, each unit has a strength score. That score is modified up or down at the start of the fight by all modifiers that apply to arrive at a final strength score. The final strength scores are compared to determine odds of winning each round of combat. The winner causes damage to the loser, but here is the kicker: the stronger unit causes more damage when it wins than the weaker does if it wins a round. Base damage seems to be 20 hitpoints, and all full strength units have 100 hitpoints. However, if unit A is twice as strong as unit B, then unit A will do 40 hitpoints when it wins a round of combat while unit B will only do 10. So, in that case, unit A (which should win 2 out of 3 on the strength ratio odds) only needs to win 3 rounds to win the battle. Unit B however needs to win 10 rounds (at 1:3 odds) to kill off the other units. Units that start the battle at less than full hitpoints have their strengths reduced proportionally.

The end result is that even a small difference in strength scores significantly improves the odds of winning a fight.

[MattPilot]

I'm not sure if i recall correctly, but if ya have a 10% advantage (ex. warrior vs warrior with combat1, or 3 vs 3.3) then the warrior with combat1 will have a 50% higher chance of winning the entire battle.



Ps. please don't burn any of my flags if i'm wrong - it has been a while since i read the combat exlained thread

[Willem]

Re: Barracks worth it?

Originally posted by warmachine
Being a Civ fan but only just bought Civ IV, the concept of promotions seems like a worthy idea and that barracks give the XP for a promotion and more flexible way of investing to build well trained troops. Except that Combat 1 only gives +10%. Is that it? The +20% of Woodsmen I is better but not enough to be worth the inflexibility. Spend 60 production for something like these?

Or am I missing something?

The thing is that the Combat 1 promotions leads to a number of other promotions like Medic etc., which are valuable to have and you can't get without it. So starting in a Barracks puts you just a few battles away from those. And having that first level of City Garrison definitely can help alot, not to mention extra collateral damage for your Catapults. All in all, it's certainly worth building a Barracks IMO.

[VetLegion]

With the unit costs as they are, barracks are very worth it. Sometimes I build them before Granaries.

[Velociryx]

I would answer this question with a question of my own, or rather, a pair of questions.

Approach the subject like this. As yourself.....

* In general, would you not agree that, all other things being equal, the unit with the most experience (ie - most number of promotions) will likely have an advantage in combat?

If so, then clearly, GAINING such an edge is important to keeping your core force of attackers alive, which saves you HAMMERS (since you don't have to constantly rebuild your core force)

* In general, do you see AI/rival civ troops with, or without promotions?

If the answer is "with" then a barracks becomes a necessity just to "break even" as far as promotions goes. Without the barracks, your forces are sorely disadvantaged vs. the units they will be facing in combat.

If the answer is "without" then the barracks is STILL a necessity, as it becomes the means by which you can gain a combat advantage against your rivals, and thus, save yourself hammers for the empire as a whole.

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Barracks is part of the basic infrastructure for me, that's not counting the civic that grants +2 happiness for a barrack.

[Quillan]

Every one of my cities gets a barracks. They don't get them all immediately, but eventually they will all have a barracks.

[MattPilot]

ya... just to shut that damn advisor up so he doesn't recommend it every other turn

[axisworks]

I've found the +25% city attack option for Heavy Tanks to be particularly useful. Barracks are pretty much required for building large armies.

[The_Paladin]

Definitely barracks are worth it. If you look at the cost of the barracks compared to the cost of the units (especially later ones) something that costs 60 production that will make your units even 10 - 20% better is definitely a good investment.

Early on when if aren't building a massive army, maybe not. If a city is only producing 2 or 3 archers then probably a barracks isn't a huge priority but if a city is going to produce larger numbers (even 5 or 6) then its worth it.

[swat-spas2]

Originally posted by Quillan
Units that start the battle at less than full hitpoints have their strengths reduced proportionally.

My understanding of the 1.52 patch was that combat power and hitpoints were no longer connected. In general damaged units are less effective by the fact that they have been damaged and thus take fewer hits to kill, but not lessened in fighting potency, thus can do far more total damage before dying than in 1.09.

On point though. Even though the barracks only gives one promotion, effectively a unit is very much closer to getting the next one. 4XP/5, means one good battle and you are home, reach out and kill someone and you're all set.

Sometimes those icelocked oil towns aren't building infantry. But its certainly necessary by the early-mid game in order to keep fresh units on a even keel with the AI or an opponent. By the late game, its not always the priority in a captured city or a new one, but if i get around to it, that city may have one. It is always useful to have fresh units to the front faster for example to use as cannon fodder so a more experienced unit can mop up the survivors. Giving them a fighting chance is a fine investment.