Does anyone use this start?

[MxM]

Quite I like having worker in the beginning of the game, but the problem is if you start building worker you will get behind in science and city growth.

So instead I start building barracks, but I do not finish them, instead, at the moment when city just turn the size 2 or 3 (depending on situation) I switch to worker. This way I do not lose that much in science, and get worker relatively fast.

At the same time I have extra time to research technologies for worker to do something and I have barrack completed faster than if I would go worker, barrack.

What do you think of it?

[snoopy369]

No, building a barracks at start isn't very useful. Warrior-Worker or Worker first, one of the two. Early warrior is much more useful (especially in MP).

[martin mcmartin]

indeed, barracks is not a good choice. there may be one scenario in which it can be usefull: you are landlocked and you have just popped a warrior from an early hut. a build up of troops is the only way out. build the barracks, rush a few units and go for it. sometimes the upgrade of the units just make the difference in taking a city and die trying.... that has happened to me a lot of times. do the worker first approach, it takes 8/10/12 turns maybe, but after that you are sailing. you will easily win back the lost terrain in science since you will be able to get money (and thus science) out of the special resources.

Mc

[Blaupanzer]

An early barracks implies troops to build in it. If you start with mining, the OP strategy might work if copper turns up within reach of the worker. Otherwise you will need a settler and the barracks ate up the free time used to deploy the first settler, preferably accompanied by the warrior you haven't built yet, before the barbs show up. Similarly, if you start with hunting and are protective, you could build archers in the early barracks. At least, they don't require a resource.

Very risky strategy overall.

[The Priest]

I have certainly found myself doing this.

I am sure the technicians are right that this doesn't add up, but there are times it seems tempting. It does depend a lot on the starting techs and terrain as well.

For example there is not much point leading with a worker if you will not have the techs to do any improvements when the worker finishes.

It probably always is best to build a warrior instead, although sometimes it I am researching archery, and I know it is going to be tough (raging barbs, or too many civs), the tidiness of just having good quality units can appeal. I think the killer for this strategy though is that the storied hammers decay I think, so you steadily lose the storied barracks hammers.

[Ming]

I usually build a warrior first. I may build a work boat first if I have a sea special. Rarely will I build a worker before the city grows to size 2. If I'm week on production, I may start on a warrior or work boat, but then switch when the city goes to size two to a worker.

In an MP game, 99.9% of the time, I build a warrior first.

[MxM]

The thing is that even after building warrior, most of the time the city is size 1. Building barrack is simply waiting for the time to pass for the city to grow, and then switching exactly at the right moment to worker (or settler) when it reaches the size 2 or 3.

[Theben]

You'd be better off building another warrior to pass the time. The *only* reason to build a barracks that early is if you're going to early rush a close neighbor. And even then it'd probably be better to build more attack units.

[Willem]

Originally posted by MxM
Building barrack is simply waiting for the time to pass for the city to grow, and then switching exactly at the right moment to worker (or settler) when it reaches the size 2 or 3.

But you always lose a certain amount of Hammers when you switch production like that, so it's alot more wasteful and inefficient compared to just building something. That's fairly important so early in the game.

[snoopy369]

You don't lose hammers unless you take forever to use them (25 turns? I forget exactly). They do decay eventually, but a short turnaround loses no hammers.

That said, you 'lose' hammers in the sense that they are more valuable put in a warrior that you can use right away than stored in a barracks. You should ALWAYS make a warrior - or two - or three - instead of barracks, that early in the game, because the extra units are more useful than the barracks, always.

[Jaybe]

Units lose hammers (at normal speed) after 10 turns, buildings after 30 turns. The percentage lost per turn (once the decay starts) is small: 10% or less (I forget, could be only 2 or 5%).

[MxM]

so if you build warrior, then you can not switch to settler or to worker, because the warrior start decaying after 10 turns. With barracks, you can finish building it later without any loss of hammers.

[Jaybe]

While I won't deny your statement, MxM, I wouldn't confirm it either. Particularly because I have never played at normal speed (except during my first one or two games of Civ4).

[snoopy369]

You build the warrior and finish it... it takes rather less to build a warrior than a barracks.

The real problem is that 30 turns is still not nearly reasonable timing for a barracks build. You shouldn't be building a barracks in your capital for fifty turns or so, minimum, unless your capital is your best mil city and you have at least one better worker/settler city, to the point that you're willing to limit your cap to only mil units. Barracks just isn't that good of a build in general - most cities shouldn't ever have it, and most capitals are included in that - and the early explorer helps much more (not to mention the early city defender).

[conmcb25]

Agreed with all the above, my first build is never a barracks. Its almost always a warrior and possibly a scout (if available and the world setings have CIVs spread out)