Okay then, a settler, warrior or barracks? Simple enough methinks :).

I take it we want to build a warrior for exploration/defence (mil. advisor can decide) and leave the settler building to Thunderfalls correct? However, you can always post your opinions here if you think otherwise.

We need a warrior but neither for exploration nor for defence. At the moment we only need a warrior to keep the peace when the city grows to size 2. Sure, he will eventually evolve into a rifleman (;)) but for the time being we can explore with the two mounted units and also fight off any threats with them and the archer we have. Definitely warrior then. :D

I agree with Duke o' York. :)

One extra point about the SSC being where it is, is that on the land we've discovered so-far, it is likely that any new huts that give us units will be closer to thunderfalls, or other cities and hence won't require SSC support. Another plus! :goodjob:

Yeah, by defence I meant use as milita as well, but forgot to mention it. Just for future reference, how high on the priority list are barracks? For me I most times never build one, ever, but I'm intreseted to know if you more experienced players value them.

That would depend on how close our neighbours are and at what level of knowledge. There is no chance that I will let another civ share my continent unless I'm playing OCC so they must be wiped out as soon as possible. If they have the Great Wall and/or decent defenders then I may build barracks in a couple of higher production cities near the front but then rehome my vet elephants or crusaders before taking them to the enemy. I don't particularly like barracks but Sun Tzu is very good. :)

OK, I go with the flow and vote warrior too! ;)

Definitely a Warrior. Settlers slow the city growth and a Barracks drains gold for little apparent benefit.

I pretty much agree with Duke o York and an MonkE. Until production is increased, and a city can devote itself to production of Mil units all the time, Barracks are a big drain. The first improvement in a lot of cities at Deity will have to be a Temple, until mid game. As the SSC grows, it can resupport units to it, and under Monarchy can have 3. Soooo... Warrior, then wonder (we should complete a tech by Warrior #1).

I agree that barracks aren't that important. I rarely build them before Gunpowder will usually have SunTzu anyway. Not until mobile warfare will I build any considerable amount and even then only in my high production cities.

Build a warrior to prevent unhappiness. Don't build a settler as it will slow down the cities growth. Pretty simple - just wait unitil we have hundreds of cities and dozens of build options then it will be harder ;)

As I was the 16th vote for warrior, (to 0 for the other two choices), I don't know what else I can add. Like NRK said, pretty simple. A real no brainer....LOL.

Given what we now know about the land we are on, I now favor a new production for RC. We should build a Phalanx. Here is why:

1. We will spend 12s and 4 days for a Warrior, wasting 2s; we will spend 7 days and 21s on a Phalanx, wasting 1s.

2. It will cost only 3 production days to give a Phalanx instead of a Warrior. 3 days is a good deal, given the current game situation.

3. A main purpose of a quick Warrior is now moot (freeing the NONEs to explore, fight, and destroy an AI civ on our continent).

4. RC will not build another Unit, for a long time.

5. RC will need a D=2 defense unit.

6. Then NONEs will be freed for barb pursuit (the archer will not be requited for defense in RC).

7. The Phalanx will cost no support (same is true for Warrior).


It is tricky to build the Phalanx, since it is not available yet. Here is how... switch to Settler, next turn BW will give us Phalanx & then switch to Phalanx & it will complete in 3 more turns, then start Colossus. :)

As I mentioned in the TF's build queue, this poll is no longer relivant to what we know of the world today.

Ideally, we should be having new polls after every group of turns.

So we are in fact building a Phalanx now?