First uses of paid labor (money-rushing)

[Shiber]

Fellow Apolytonians,
With the imminent government switch to Monarchy, our nation is entering a stage where paid labor is made possible and projects can be rushed with the investment of money. Currently we have 487 gold in our coffers and our income is rapidly growing.
Therefore, I suggest that once we switch to Monarchy we hurry temples in the towns of Chiquita and Marseilles and a spearman in the completely defenseless Cherbourg and Rouen, and afterwards rush spearmen in Here It Is and Marseilles so that the swordsmen currently garrisoning those towns can go where they're needed more (the German front for instance).
Also, it would be a good idea to rush the walls in Napoleton and Seeberg if we spot German units approaching and we find that we're not prepared to defend those towns yet.
Note: it's important that before we rush a building or a unit we build at least one shield of it. Otherwise the price we'll have to pay for rushing will be double.

What do you think? Is money-hurrying justified in all the abovementioned cases, some of them or none? Are there are other buildings or units you think we should money-hurry?

[Panag]

hi ,

, rushing the temples yes , the walls , ......

we should use the money for something like temples , cathedrals , stuff like that , ....

we should save some for later , ....
or for when there is a national emergency , ...

, we could just wait until we have a 1000 gold , and then use what ever comes above it , ...

have a nice day

[Shiber]

Panag, I said rush the walls only if an enemy unit is one tile away from one of our towns and we realize there's no way we can get our own units there in time to save the town. In such a case, rushing a wall is much better than losing the town.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
Panag, I said rush the walls only if an enemy unit is one tile away from one of our towns and we realize there's no way we can get our own units there in time to save the town. In such a case, rushing a wall is much better than losing the town.

hi ,

okay , but rushing walls for one enemy unit , ....

is it not correct that ones our cities have a certain size the walls are useless , ...?

have a nice day

[GodKing]

Save enough so that when we can upgrade to pike, we can do so. Otherwise, sounds OK to me.

[GhengisFarb™]

NO rushing walls. Their a waste of shields anyway and I'm hoping we can make peace before those cities finish them so they can be swithched to something usefull.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
NO rushing walls. Their a waste of shields anyway and I'm hoping we can make peace before those cities finish them so they can be swithched to something usefull.

hi ,



cathedral would be intresting , ...

or an extra unit , or worker , ...

have a nice day

[GhengisFarb™]

You can accomplish the same effect of walls by allowing the city to grow. Both Seeburg and Napoleton have grassland. So building temples and growing the pop equals building walls.

In the Civ3 rule system walls are useless unless you have a city that CANNOT ever grow past size 1.

Barracks will give a bonus to the units built there and doesn't become useless once the city grows.

[Shiber]

Ghengis has a good point. Anyway, the final decision lies in the hands of the city planners. If they see enemy swordsmen approaching and they think a wall will help then they'll rush it.
A wall is no biggie. It only costs 4 * number of shields left to produce (or 160 if we haven't started production yet, since the price goes double in such a case). Of course it's best to avoid unnecessary costs when possible, but sometimes we might wanna make that investment in order to have better chances of keeping a town.
Anyway, there's no point in debating about this now anyway. The Germans haven't made any aggressive moves yet other than moving two archers out of Munich and into our territory, which we can handle perfectly well without walls.

[Kuciwalker]

Walls are stupid and pointless.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
Ghengis has a good point. Anyway, the final decision lies in the hands of the city planners. If they see enemy swordsmen approaching and they think a wall will help then they'll rush it.
A wall is no biggie. It only costs 4 * number of shields left to produce (or 160 if we haven't started production yet, since the price goes double in such a case). Of course it's best to avoid unnecessary costs when possible, but sometimes we might wanna make that investment in order to have better chances of keeping a town.
Anyway, there's no point in debating about this now anyway. The Germans haven't made any aggressive moves yet other than moving two archers out of Munich and into our territory, which we can handle perfectly well without walls.

hi ,

we better get some workers and units , ...

then we should start to build , ....

have a nice day

[Kuciwalker]

we better get some workers and units

Wow! What an original idea!

Panag, DUH!

[GodKing]

Walls are cheep and fast to build. With monarchy, I would rather switch to barricks and rush them if necessary.

Walls work when the city is size 6 and under. Larger cities they become worthless. How long will it take to clear the jungle and allow enough grasslands become availabe to let these cities grow? Particularly when just a single enemy warrior can pillage any improvements and can capture all our workers.

Walls do have a purpose. Just a limited one. I would much prefer to use the efforts and energies in another more long term and usefull project. I would also like to keep our cities from the armies that are not yet visable, but which surely must be on their way.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd rather rush a spearman or pikeman. They cost less.

[Shiber]

Skywalker, just because you are not clever enough to appreciate Panag's genius and originality it doesn't mean you can make fun of him!