Millitary Budged 3600BC

[shade]

The first hut got popped and let us meet a troop of brave you men, trained in the art of archery.

The question is what will they have to do?
It is a NONE archer and I think it would be a pitty losing it during exploration. Therefore I would suggest returning it to our capital after it poped the hut(and didn't get killed by barbs hopefully) and stay there as a defencive unit.

Since then there will be no immediate need for our Capital to build a defencive unit we can start building a horsemen to start exploring our new planet.

Poll will last 2 days.

Shade

[SCG]

if we get a military unit from the hut, that would change the look of part 2 and part 3 of that poll. We definitely need a 2-movement explorer.

[shade]

not really

If the unit is defencive we can us it to defend our second city(that second settler will probably settle soon)

If the unit is a horsemen/chariot then this one could be used as our exploring unit(it would be dependend of our capital)...wich not necessarily rules out the 3th part.
2 explorers see twice as much as one.

Shade

[Ben Kenobi]

Explore.

Why do we need a NON unit when we are not going to use representive governments?

[atawa]

Why not disband the archer for 15 extra shields?

[cavebear]

Originally posted by atawa
Why not disband the archer for 15 extra shields?

Because its a very powerful unit for so early in the game?

Because it won't cost us any support when a city gets beyond 3 units?

[cavebear]

Let the Archer explore a bit and *then* return to Imperialis. He doesn't have to go far away, but it would be nice to reveal more of those intriguing stacked rows of identical terrain. It may tell us something about the kind of map we are facing. No one is going to show up at the city gates for a while.

[atawa]

Originally posted by cavebear


Because its a very powerful unit for so early in the game?

Because it won't cost us any support when a city gets beyond 3 units?

A valid point, but the chances of us being attacked right now arent that great, and the archer represents almost half a city in shields, witch in this stage of the game is a lot of resources.

I rather have a horse in every city as defender instead of an archer, you just walk out when someone is moving in and kill it.
Like you said, no one is going to show up at the gates right now.

[shade]

Obiwan18 a NONE unit has it uses, going over 3 units/city is a good one.

About disbanding such a unit...if it were the year 2000AD I could think about it but now?It is quite a strong unit we get dropped in our lap,It's free of charge and we haven't need the turns to build it.what could you want more(except a mech infantry or armor) at this stage of the game?

A valid point, but the chances of us being attacked right now arent that great, and the archer represents almost half a city in shields, witch in this stage of the game is a lot of resources.
I rather have a horse in every city as defender instead of an archer, you just walk out when someone is moving in and kill it.
Like you said, no one is going to show up at the gates right now.

so you'd rather kill it and build a settler in 10 turns instead of 20 and then build a horsemen in an other 10 turns to defend your city instead of using this unit and building a settler using the same amount of time... I think I would like to see your horsemen killing my archer when it's defending our capital.

Shade

[cavebear]

I view an inportant of this game as finding investments that will pay off for a long time. I think a non-Settler is one for building roads and irrigating. Any military non-unit falls into that category.

As we are a military civilization this time, we are surely going to be having more than 3 units per city. A non-unit could be worth dozens of shields in the long term. I'd like to see every non-unit placed in a city instead of lost while exploring (as so many will be). Let the risked explorers be built ones that, when lost, relieve our cities of a shield support.

[shade]

I agree Cavebear, we have to use the resources we get thinking for the long run.

Shade

[atawa]

My point was that it is highly unlikely that we get invaded, so disbanding an archer at the right time will get us an extra city, just disband it so our city builds a settler when it turns size 2, we then have enough time to build a warrior or horse b4 it turns size 2 again but will have the benifits of an extra city

But maybe I've been playing too much 2x2x king

[SCG]

non-settlers aren't that valuable - if you build a city with it, the game is much more likely to give you another from a hut. thinking long run, found the city and get the extra science and gold and production from it and let the game give you another one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obiwan18 a NONE unit has it uses, going over 3 units/city is a good one.

Now I see why my earlier post is ambiguous. It should say:

'What's the use of disbanding a NON unit."

I agree with you here shade, it's just that I feel exploration is more important than city defense.

[War4ever]

why not plunk the settler down so the hut is in radius and then pop the hut with the archer.....this prevents barbs and then we just play the roulette wheel with whatever the game gives us???????

as for disbanding the archer....Atawa makes valid points....and i can see his logic...

but, i would hold onto it , if we get the mounted unit we need to explore, i would think about disbanding to get that extra set out on the board..

as for the other non set....build asap....its useless putting him to work....every city is huge early in the game...