Switch Granary to Barracks

[WarriorPoet]

Please read the War Ministry's other recent posts on the developing crisis in the West.

Then vote whether we should change our granary production to a barracks.

Reasons:
1) NDE is bent on aggressive expansion, and no doubt has an edge on us.
2) GoW clearly has a growth and industrial edge on us, just by looking at their start position.
3) We have no food bonuses near our city, and thus, won't be in a position to capitalize on the benefits of a Granary. I.E. we won't have a good settler factory here anyway, perhaps our resources should be better spent.
4) When you can't expand peacefully, then you have only one option left. You must become a survivalist!
5) NDE's second city negates our capability to control the military zone. This zone is a vital part of our nation's defense capabilities and will no doubt be full of vital resources.

After the Barracks, we should build a couple horsemen, then a settler, then more horsemen, ad infinum, until we have at least 6 horsemen, then we must assault the new NDE city and reclaim control of this vital terretory.

[BigFurryMonster]

And then what? The other two Civs will be far bigger than us by then. It is better to assure us of their military alliance, build some defensive units and start grabbing the empty lands ASAP. Scare ND away, don't hit them before all land is filled with cities.

[BigFurryMonster]

Also check out:

Settler Rush

[WarriorPoet]

Yes...this only worked because of the food bonuses nearby...and it will have only a limited benefit for us.

I will rest with the 2/3 majority decision. I don't LOVE going to War, but I have the sense to realise when it's inevitable.

BFM, you know what you're talking about, obviously, but so do I. I use settler rush, too, but we weren't blessed with the right terrain, nor the right tactical situation to make this work...

[punkbass2000]

I tend to think we should build up a purely defensive army and continue to expand.

[CiverDan]

I say switch to barracks. I am never a fan of granaries to begin with. With so many neighbors near i say switch. My biggest fear is if someone, i.e. NDE were to attack while we we still in the "pump out settlers" mode after building a granary, we'd be dead because our growth would be outpacing our ability to defend ourselves. Note that just because we build the units doesnt mean we have to attack with them..especially with horses. If we were to build archers....we would basically be forcing ourselves into an early attack because they become obsolete quickly...

[Jon Shafer]

I've changed my mind again.

We need to put up a strong military showing in the Military Border, yes, but we do not need a barracks to accomplish this. Switching from a granary now would severely inhibit our REX, while giving us maybe 1 extra unit. A settler every 10 turns instead of 20 will be a huge boost in the long run... Therefore, I go back to my original proposition: 1 granary, the rest barracks + horsemen + spearmen.

[BigFurryMonster]

Indeed. Remember that I do not propose to REX massively - not all cities will be devoted to building settlers, just one (Invictus). All other cities can and will build military things (barracks, horsemen, you name it). For this one city though, I request a granary. It will help military in the long run, but also in the "medium run" since we'll have more productive cities quicker. It might be a good idea to pack those cities close to Invictus to avoid corruption, so that production be maximized (for military purposes).

[BigFurryMonster]

And yes, we will probably expand slower than other Civs nearby, either way. This will cause the loss of good land between us and GoW / ND. But we =need= to take the lands N and E of us, to have a decent number of cities to start pumping out units, not to mention the luxury and trade advantages.

[WarriorPoet]

Hmmm....the War Ministry will reform its strategy per the growing sentiment...