Initial build

[punkbass2000]

Well, what would you like to build first?

I realize that this poll will not likely be over before we play the first turn, but we will not have to decide this for about five turns, really (unless we have an unusually good start). On the off chance we play the fifth turn before this is over, I think it should at least be considered a good indicator if more than half of the total active members vote. I hope others agree with me there, or I'll have to go start another poll.

P.S. The extra digit in the unit stats indicates how many shields it requires to be built.

P.P.S. This poll lasts for two days, I hope that's long enough.

[punkbass2000]

I argue for spearman. If we hit some barbs early on (as we're likely to do, not being expansionist) we need a unit with good defense to defend itself and hopefully become elite. Also, having general spearmen from the beginning will be somewhat of an advantage, given that the only other Scientific civ is Persia/Vox, and lord help is if we start next to them. And it's not like we won't have warriors to upgrade, as we'll definitely build several warriors when a spearman's extra build time will delay a settler construction. I have played many, many ancient ages as Persia over the last few weeks, and there is always good spots for warriors to be built, and if worse comes to build, we can always build extra warriors later, if need be.

[statusperfect]

Warrior... depending on starting position.

We're playing in monarch so barbarians won't be a problem.

[Admiral PJ]

actually.. a warrior would be better,
We could think about building one barracks to build horsemen sometime, maybe after 5 cities.
Settlers will be needed soon, and we Need workers eventually too.

[Zero]

one or two warrior for fast exploring, barrack then any unit we build can be vet.

[BigFurryMonster]

We need a warrior to scout for other civs, resources and good city sites. We might, depending on the start position, need several moving out in different directions.

[WarriorPoet]

ARGH!!! We need to get a fast grip on these communications....

I'm glad/over joyed that these discussions are occuring, however, we need to validate the ministries and work that way. It's more efficient.

Starting a new thread....ugh....however, I would vote for warrior, you could build two before a settler, this gives you optimum exploration capability and does not interfere with necessary settler construction unless you're in an awesome start location....

[Jon Shafer]

Two workers, then a settler.

I'm not sure what to do with the first one... explore or defend (gotta watch out for that goody hut... first one always seems to spring up barbs for me). I tend to always try and explore with my first unit, but that might be a risk that everyone is unwilling to take.

[punkbass2000]

I presume that's two warriors.

[CiverDan]

I usually built warriors first too, unless I'n in a situation where I suspect another player will be close by.

[jordie]

Warrior, we need to explore first to get anywhere.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I presume that's two warriors.

Er... yeah...

I think building two Workers might be somewhat detrimental to our survival.

What should we do with this first Warrior then? Use him to explore or defend until we get the next Warrior?

[statusperfect]

Taking our starting position into consideration a granary would be nice.

[WarriorPoet]

Explore with both warriors....

[BigFurryMonster]

Originally posted by Trip
I'm not sure what to do with the first one... explore or defend (gotta watch out for that goody hut... first one always seems to spring up barbs for me).

It seems to me that popping a hut by getting it inside your cultural borders (as opposed to walking into it with a unit) always gives you a 'positive' outcome. Can anyone confirm this?