Warriors vs Phalanx

[Seeker]

Like all civvers, I like to expand rapidly at the begining. This usually means building warriors as my first unit, but THAT means that means that I often lose a city to barbs!


Well, the eternal debate continues...in a normal deity game, do you build warriors or phalanxes?

[carnide_]

warriors!

[cavebear]

I rather prefer Archers, but then, I lose a lot...

I think I agree with Carnide, though. You can get 2 warriors for one phalanx. It's a question of what you need them for. A warrior will provide martial law as well as a phalanx. Or 2 warriors can explore more territory than a phalanx. And 2 warriors can defend against one offensive unit better (it has to attack twice).

But warriors aren't worth goose crap if there is a defensive bonus under 100%; it just does them no benefit at all. A fortified phalanx is worth 3 (in simplest terms) while a fortified warrior is still just worth 1 (50% gets rounded down).

[arii]

On defensive terrain (river, forest) a warrior is often good enough. Usually early units coming at you are horses and a fortified warrior on defenssive terrain can sustain the attack or bring the attacker in the red. You can then rush build an other warrior an kill the attacker the next turn. If a chariot or archer is coming at you the best defense is to attack it with a horse.

[geofelt]

If you have one or two cities, you can defend with anything, even wariors. After that, I build a phalanx if the city is on defensive terrain, like a river. On ordinary terrain, an attacking defense is best. This means a horse, or an archer.
On a related subject, if your defender will clearly lose, don't lose the city to a barb and have it destroyed. Just vacate it and pay a reasonable ransom, or plan to use a dip to get it back later.

[Longfistking]

I usually take Ming's advice a wait a few turns to get an archer or a chariot out of a goody hut before I lay down a city. I have no luck on Diety and I usually get eaten up pretty fast by the barbs, unless I can get a city down on or near a river. By the time I get a chance to build a phalanx, the other civs are coming over the ridge already . . . (I really need to play on Diety more).

[Chainsaw]

If I have the tech, I build a phalanx, especially in new cities on the border. They mostly win against the early barb archers or horses. A warrior wins VERY seldom attacking an archer (believe me, I tried at least a hundred times). That way, you don´t have to worry about lost cities, especially in the beginning of your expansion, when you have to concentrate ressources on building settlers and caravans. A lost city when you have four or five means one fifth of your ressources is gone! I think it wise to invest ten shields to defend forty.

[Seeker]

True chainsaw, losing the city is a headache...but what is more of a headache is having to pay a huge ransom (if you have done well in the 'hut lottery')

[Chainsaw]

Exactly. Both sucks. Solution: Build a phalanx.

[Scouse Gits]

Neh - my vote is for the 'far from lowly' Warrior - eventually backed up with a horsey of some description, but then - if the shields are coming fast enough I often start with a Settler.


------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"

[DaveV]

Definitely warriors. I'd much rather have a horse than a phalanx. Since the barbs have a 150% attack factor at Deity level, it's definitely better to attack them than defend against them. I hardly ever build phalanxes; pikemen are much more effective against mounted units and come along pretty early.

[Dry]

At the very beginning of the game (before monarchy) I build a warrior - for martial law - then a settler, then an archer...
Later, a settler that will found a city comes with its archer, and I can start directly building a temple.
I have cities specialised in settler production: they build alternatively archer/settler and send them together to found new cities.

[Ming]

In SP games, it depends on the results of huts.
I usually wait a little longer than I would in an MP game to start my first cities because it's easy to catch up to the AI. You can find a great city site, and maybe get a few decent non units. If I find an archer, I will just build warriors for marshall law and wandering...

MP is a whole different story, and it depends on the game you are playing. Most of my MP games are on small worlds, and you will have contact with other players quickly in most cases. In the path to monarchy, you usually have to take one non path science, and I will always take bronze work. If I don't get a unit from a hut, my first build will be a warrior to wander, then a second warrior for marshall law, and then a settler.
Depending on the situation (contact, no contact) I will either build a second settler or a phalanx...
If I find a archer from a hut, he will come back to my capital for defense, and I will build one warrior to wander (assuming I didn't get lucky and get mulitple units from huts), and then I start cranking out settlers...
In MP games, we usually play double production, so I never build a city on a non defensive square... so early on, a warrior can usually defend. I build the the phalanx when asap if I meet somebody who is aggressive
Again, it all depends on the situation...

[kcbob]

We need a new acronym. Or maybe it already exists and I'm not familiar with it.

Since we are definitely not talking OCC, we are talking either ICS or 'xxx'. The 'xxx' would refer to Perfectionist Expansionist Theory, or PET. Maybe?

Anyway, I go warrior first. Then settler. Then, depending on circumstances, I will choose between warrior, phalanx, and settler. The circumstances are nearness of opposing civs, barbs in the area, and food output of the city.

But an interesting question has been raised in my mind by this thread. Should I wait and build archers instead of phalanx?

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[Chainsaw]

kcbob:
That would be thirty shields to invest, but then you have the possibilty to attack strong offensive units which would win against against a defender with a defensive strength of two.

If I have the gold, Ì´d still get rather a phalanx than a warrior, maybe as the second martial law unit, but still better than a rather weak warrior which is quite useless in a fight.