Diety level

[Smash]

If I can support 100 units then I'll build 101

I've just never had the nerve to defend with warriors(bluff basically) or the 10 cities-10 phalanx Republic thing.I want cutting edge units and lots of them.Vets of course.At least 3 per city most likely with some higher sheild barracks cities supporting half dozen or more.In mp games I often end up with 25-30 cities supporting 100-130 units.No wonders,no infastructure and a crappy civ.But a well defended crappy civ

[rah]

I don't go quite that overboard. And If I'm going to support 100-130 units, that resource is going to go out and pay for itself by taking other's cities.

In a lot of games I average 4 units per city and am still able to build wonders, and a good infrastructure with many trade routes. (I too am usually well defended)

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

In SP - a Phalanx and a Horseman are better than 2 Phalanxes, in the early game. Even a Warrior and a Horseman will do, usually. The main threat in the early game is barbarians. The AI civs might be far away, and they usually attack in dribs and drabs. A Horseman unit lets you kill the barb Archers (especially), and/or lets you chase after the King.

I usually start by building Warriors only, back them up with Horsemen, and better attack units when they become available. I start building Phalanxes in new cities when I already have several cities down - and especially on rivers.

I've thought about dispensing with the Phalanx altogether and just building Horsemen as my 20-shield defender, but I just can't make myself do it... Plus, the LW upgrade is nice to have.

In the later game, the idea is to have much better technology than the AI does. I seldom need more than one defender in any of my cities, because it's usually a Musketeer facing Elephants, or some similar mismatch. And it's a rare occasion when an AI civ gets close to my core cities after the early game, anyway.

[rah]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
In SP - a Phalanx and a Horseman are better than 2 Phalanxes, in the early game. Even a Warrior and a Horseman will do, usually. The main threat in the early game is barbarians. The AI civs might be far away, and they usually attack in dribs and drabs. A Horseman unit lets you kill the barb Archers (especially), and/or lets you chase after the King.

Agreed phalanx and horse are better than two phalanxs, but you only get one off the path tech prior to monarchy. You have to choose one or the other. (at first anyway, it can be rectified quite easily after monarchy) But if i get horse riding early from a hut, that's what you have to use, since you don't want to take a second tech off the path.

While horses can be quite effective fighting off the early barb attacks, if the barb archer can approach the city on hills or mountains or good river squares. That horse may not be able to kill it. But it is easier to chase the kings. If you've got that tough terrain against your city, you can always move the phalanx out of the city to defend. There are advantages and dissadvantages to either. With the tiny worlds we play MP games on, the terrain is usually harsher than most of the normal sp games.

[rrrhal]

I like to build a settler in my capitol first thing - I start my worker on a forrest to get the 2 shields. That way the settler is built before the capitol gets to size 2. Civ2 wont disband your capitol it just gives you a settler as long as you have no other cities. Your other settler has to be content with exploring/ building roads for 14 turns and found the 2nd city after the settlers are built.

I find that very early in the game 1 warrior is usualy enough. I want 3 units of some sort in my capitol and second city before
HG and colosus are built.

Capitol:
Settlers, warriors, Wonder (if I have a tech - settlers otherwise)

2nd City:
warrior,settlers,settlers, warior, wonder

3rd City:
warior, settlers,warior,settlers,warior,warior

This is all subject to change if I get some good units out of the huts. I'll defend with good units and send the wariors out to explore.

[-Jrabbit]

Lately, I've had increased early success by using movement x2 units for early defense. Why? Because an early Barb king is HUGE -- it takes many turns to earn 150gp at that point in the game. Thus, Horseback Riding is now my preferred junk tech (unless I get a couple units from huts).

Post-Monarchy, I tend to take Writing (dips) and use a small mobile bribe force as barb defense.

My typical build pattern --

1st city -- warrior, settler, warrior, temple
2nd city -- warrior, settler, settler, warrior/horseman
3rd city -- warrior/horseman, settler, horseman

But it can change a lot depending on terrain, specials, and hut results (not to mention that Barb king!!). The goal is usually to get to Monarchy ASAP, then get Trade. But I've been experimenting with early Republic lately...

And yes, I'm a relative noob, playing only since 01/02.

[DrSpike]

Hehe I've gone the other way since I have been playing early landing games..........polishing the early republic with the lean defence, 1 cunningly positioned diplo.

Still, even then others are attaining good results with Monarchy and some early exploration/kings.

A testament to the game.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by rah


Agreed phalanx and horse are better than two phalanxs, but you only get one off the path tech prior to monarchy. You have to choose one or the other. (at first anyway, it can be rectified quite easily after monarchy) But if i get horse riding early from a hut, that's what you have to use, since you don't want to take a second tech off the path.

Aha... prior to Monarchy, I almost never build Phalanxes. Warriors and then Horsemen. SP, naturally. You're right, for my 'off' tech I try to get Horseback Riding. It's a tough call though - Bronze also lets you start a Wonder. Were it not for that, Horseback would always be my first 'off' tech. I suppose I'm not all that consistent with my tech choices I am consistent, now, in just building Warriors early on. Yes, sometimes I get burned. But other times, I have some NONs to fall back on and use those to garrison my 'edge' cities.

While horses can be quite effective fighting off the early barb attacks, if the barb archer can approach the city on hills or mountains or good river squares. That horse may not be able to kill it. But it is easier to chase the kings. If you've got that tough terrain against your city, you can always move the phalanx out of the city to defend. There are advantages and dissadvantages to either. With the tiny worlds we play MP games on, the terrain is usually harsher than most of the normal sp games.

Yes... on crummy terrain maps, I suppose the Phalanx makes more sense. I usually play on big, old (5billion) maps, and try not to build cities adjacent to good defensive terrain, like hills or mountains. Unless a really good sweet spot is involved.

[rah]

The other advantage of Bronze is that it's required for trade. But getting 4 legged units out hut snarfing also has it's advantages.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by rah
The other advantage of Bronze is that it's required for trade. But getting 4 legged units out hut snarfing also has it's advantages.

Right, of course, that too Damn it, you're making me doubt my strategy, crafted through long hours of effort and muddled early games

Getting trade early means getting MPE early, and then you can swap for Pot or Horseback or whatever...

[ColdWizard]

barbs have a tendency to bite me in the ass when I only defend with warriors, so I try to defend with a phalanx and an offensive unit

[rah]

Yes, I'm usually torn between bronze or horse. But the decision is usually made for me. I get horse or another tech off the path from a hut, or I get a 4 legged unit or two from a hut. If i get one or two from huts, I'll do bronze every time.

The other advantage of bronze is that you have to have something for the early barb archer to impale themselves against so you can go after the king. The earlier in the game you get the 150 the more the advantage is. Of course my favorite is with the barb horses where the king doesn't keep up, and with one diplo bribe one horse for 41 and kill the king for the 150. and then sometimes the other horse.

RAH
And yes, horse work much better on the maps you're probably playing. On some of ours, having the 2 movement unit isn't always helpful when most of the terrain require 2+ movement points.

[DrSpike]

In MP bronze is my choice 90% of the time........because its on the path to trade, and you can get horsies from huts.

[rah]

I also prefer Bronze, but sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt. Getting that tribe from the hut away from your capital on a grassland, surrounded on three sides by unexplored black defended by a lowly warrior and 3250 bc has just arrived.

RAH

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by rah
I also prefer Bronze, but sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt. Getting that tribe from the hut away from your capital on a grassland, surrounded on three sides by unexplored black defended by a lowly warrior and 3250 bc has just arrived.

RAH

Gaah, I hate when that happens. Makes for 2 or 3 nerve-wracking turns.

I once played a game on the Giga-earth map - I started in Australia. (This was ToT, raging hordes). I got barbs at 3250 and every 3d year thereafter for a very, very long time. I had over 1000 in the treasury from barb kings, at one point - and I was spending money rushing chariots all the while.

That was too much of a good thing. IIRC, I didn't build a single Phalanx except in my wooded-river capital.

And I'm sure there's an Australia-barbarian joke in there somewhere