Barraks First!?!

[Shark Fin 101]

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!

[Bloody Monk]

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

[Shark Fin 101]

Hmmm...

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

[Grigor]

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.

[Shark Fin 101]

Hmmm.....

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.

[gunkulator]

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.

[Peaster]

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.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

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).

[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.

[Bloody Monk]

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

[rjmatsleepers]

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

[gunkulator]

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.

[Shark Fin 101]

Barracks

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

[solo]

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.

[Grigor]

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.