Tweet
Well, I hope Zargon will not mind too much... I believe we need to decide pretty soon, so I am posting this poll now rather than waiting for him to do it.
After hesitating a bit, I've made the poll multiple-choice (mostly because I myself have no clear choice #1
). Be so kind and vote for all the options you consider reasonable, possibly commenting on your preferences (and perhaps on what to built NEXT).
I have posted sort of a summary in the D2Ch thread. For easier reference, I am repeating it here again (it does reflect my personal preferences though, so take it with a grain of salt and feel free to argue as much as you feel fit):
After hesitating a bit, I've made the poll multiple-choice (mostly because I myself have no clear choice #1
). Be so kind and vote for all the options you consider reasonable, possibly commenting on your preferences (and perhaps on what to built NEXT).I have posted sort of a summary in the D2Ch thread. For easier reference, I am repeating it here again (it does reflect my personal preferences though, so take it with a grain of salt and feel free to argue as much as you feel fit):
Originally posted by vondrack
a) Warrior. Some of you know how much I dislike these suckers...
I believe we already have more than enough. Yet another warrior does not seem to do much good - I do not think we need any more cheap explorers now and for the the next 13 turns, we have no urge to garrison Jackson.
b) Archer. However strange this may seem, I guess that building an archer might be ok. He would be completed soon enough (in 9 turns) to garrison Jackson once the pop reaches 3 there. He would be having a fine edge over barbarians that might come from the Northern Mountains. And he might come in handy in the unlikely case that another team tries to trigger our Golden Age.
c) Merc. Building a Merc seems to be just as fine as an archer, maybe even slightly better. It would take 13 turns to build him. That would be just in time to calm the third citizen down. A Settler would then take 6 turns, if I am not mistaken, which is again quite fine, as it would not deplete the population of Jackson too early. Good choice, I'd say.
d) Temple. Too costly both in terms of shields and upkeep. Using another garrison unit costs at worst the same as having a Temple. We do not really need the Jackson radius to expand, as everything we need is inside the inner ring. I would consider building a Temple only later, possibly in preparation for wonder building or in anticipation of the government change (should we go for the Republic). Wrong choice for now, IMHO.
e) Granary. With a Granary, Jackson would grow once in 4 turns instead of once in 7 turns. That would be nice, but only if we process the extra pop units into settlers and workers. However, considering its coastal location and awesome production potential, Jackson is likely to go for wonders later in the game (Colossus and The Great Lighthouse come to my mind). Granary would be of no use then (actually, just needlessly consuming the upkeep gold), as we'd be forced to stop the city growth anyway, in order to keep its population content. Wrong choice, IMHO.
f) Barracks. Just reread most of the Granary section and apply it to the Barracks. Jackson is likely to take on wonders and for such a city, Barracks would be just an unnecessary luxury. We do not need Barracks to bolster Jackson's defenses either (there will be no threat there in like thousands of years). Bad choice, IMHO.
a) Warrior. Some of you know how much I dislike these suckers...
I believe we already have more than enough. Yet another warrior does not seem to do much good - I do not think we need any more cheap explorers now and for the the next 13 turns, we have no urge to garrison Jackson.b) Archer. However strange this may seem, I guess that building an archer might be ok. He would be completed soon enough (in 9 turns) to garrison Jackson once the pop reaches 3 there. He would be having a fine edge over barbarians that might come from the Northern Mountains. And he might come in handy in the unlikely case that another team tries to trigger our Golden Age.
c) Merc. Building a Merc seems to be just as fine as an archer, maybe even slightly better. It would take 13 turns to build him. That would be just in time to calm the third citizen down. A Settler would then take 6 turns, if I am not mistaken, which is again quite fine, as it would not deplete the population of Jackson too early. Good choice, I'd say.
d) Temple. Too costly both in terms of shields and upkeep. Using another garrison unit costs at worst the same as having a Temple. We do not really need the Jackson radius to expand, as everything we need is inside the inner ring. I would consider building a Temple only later, possibly in preparation for wonder building or in anticipation of the government change (should we go for the Republic). Wrong choice for now, IMHO.
e) Granary. With a Granary, Jackson would grow once in 4 turns instead of once in 7 turns. That would be nice, but only if we process the extra pop units into settlers and workers. However, considering its coastal location and awesome production potential, Jackson is likely to go for wonders later in the game (Colossus and The Great Lighthouse come to my mind). Granary would be of no use then (actually, just needlessly consuming the upkeep gold), as we'd be forced to stop the city growth anyway, in order to keep its population content. Wrong choice, IMHO.
f) Barracks. Just reread most of the Granary section and apply it to the Barracks. Jackson is likely to take on wonders and for such a city, Barracks would be just an unnecessary luxury. We do not need Barracks to bolster Jackson's defenses either (there will be no threat there in like thousands of years). Bad choice, IMHO.
Comment