Initial build

[statusperfect]

Anither warrior to garrison the city. THen granary. Then settler. The settler will be escorted by our first warrior.

[Jon Shafer]

Do you really think we'll have enough time to build a granary before our city reaches size 3 (and thereby meaning we have to build a settler)?

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by statusperfect
After second warrior we should build a granary and start pumping settlers.

Our city grows quickly enough as it is, it does not need a granary. Also, we do not have pottery yet, and there is no reason to believe we'll have it within the next 5 turns or so. In addition, we shouldn't build infrastructure in the capital if avoidable, as we may want to perform a palace jump in the near future.

[BigFurryMonster]

I'll put some additional research into this. Stay tuned.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by punkbass2000


Our city grows quickly enough as it is, it does not need a granary. Also, we do not have pottery yet, and there is no reason to believe we'll have it within the next 5 turns or so. In addition, we shouldn't build infrastructure in the capital if avoidable, as we may want to perform a palace jump in the near future.

You have a point.

[CiverDan]

Keep the second warrior to guard the city. We don't need to do that with the first one since there is no real chance of having someone close enough to city to reach it before the second warrior is built. Going out with the second warrior is more chancy for that reason and potentionally due to barbs also. This is why we must always defend our settlers also.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by CiverDan
Keep the second warrior to guard the city. We don't need to do that with the first one since there is no real chance of having someone close enough to city to reach it before the second warrior is built. Going out with the second warrior is more chancy for that reason and potentionally due to barbs also. This is why we must always defend our settlers also.

I disagree. If our second unit is a warrior, then I think we should explore. However, I might agree to a garrison if it were a spearman.

[WarriorPoet]

No granary, I want scouts (warriors), and settlers, period. Granaries are a waste of time to research and to build, until you've built a few settlers already.

Also, explore with your warriors, no garrison until you get spearmen.

[CiverDan]

I generally build warrior to settler build, then spear. I will then explore with my first warrior. I just dislike leaving cities undefended in MP especially the capital, too many bad things can happen given the unpredictability of human players.

[BigFurryMonster]

I disagree about the building of granaries. I think they can be very useful, since the limiting factor in the beginning is not production, but food.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by WarriorPoet
No granary, I want scouts (warriors), and settlers, period. Granaries are a waste of time to research and to build, until you've built a few settlers already.

Also, explore with your warriors, no garrison until you get spearmen.

Agreed. There's really no need for garrisons on Monarch, as the first two people are content anyway.

[BigFurryMonster]

I think we're on Regent level, even.

[Jon Shafer]

We weren't really supposed to be, but I guess that's just how the ball drops...

Make sure one of us starts the game next time.

[punkbass2000]

They put us on the wrong level?!

[Jon Shafer]

Apparently...