Here is my plan for the early part of the game. We build a couple of Warriors and send them out to explore. We should research Bronze Working first so that we can build up some Phaixes (Hoplites) for our defenses.

As for for Foreign Affairs, it depends how big our neighboring civilization is. If it is the same or smaller, we should take it out, but if it is bigger, leave it be until we can build up. Also, we should wait to see our starting position.

The starting position and starting techs will be posted tonight! Then the game will commence :D

Tornight, really? I can't wait!

The plan sounds good CG. Just remember, foreign affairs does the exploration work.

CG- Let us work together on planning out our expansion and defenses, that way we can both put in our ideas for this crucial stage of growth.

We should destroy small civs upon contact with them. Feck the prime directive! When we encounter a larger expansive civ we should attempt to make peace with them, block them in some forward cities and hold them in place for experimentation! :satan:

With the aquisition of Marco Polos embassy we will know where everyone is (map trading), making exploration easier and military conquest that much quicker. The military advisor could use their influence in parliement to press the issue under the guise of increased concern about the nations trade industry! :D

I don't see why we should build Phalanxes so early on. There are plenty of huts to give us more powerful units and the shields could be better spent on settlers for more cities. I recommend producing two warriors from the first city then a settler. The second warrior should be ready just before it hits size 2 so it can control any unrest. The same should go for the second city. As I said before Marco Polos wonder is a great asset to exploration and should be obtained as early as possibly. Maybe before hanging gardens or pyramids?

In my opinion phalanxes suck !! Early on I like 'defending' against hostilities using high attack units with two movement points (horsemen at first and then chariots and then elephants) to kill any enemies before they get the chance to attack. I usually do not build defensive units (except for warriors for riot control) until I can build pikemen and especially musketeers. An exception might be phalanxes on mountaintops.

We got Bronze to start. I think Phalanxes are very valuable. :)

After we have several Warriors, some out, some guards, then perhaps a Phalanx for our Capital. Once it has some value worth guarding. After many turns, we'll only build Phalanx, when we are rich and capable and have value - and our enemies are dangerous. And even then, won't we use Diplomats to guard against the barbarians? Or don't I understand the Rules?

Remember, no city bribing and we must maintain a spotless reputation.....

We have the opportunity to build Phalanxes right from the start, and you never know when a barbarian landing party will land right next to a city and attack without any chance to take them out first. I like to have Phalanxes at least in the capital and important cities.

Build some warriors first in case of barb assault, then as we meet more civs and barbs get better upgrade to phlanx.

Originally posted by Leowind
We have the opportunity to build Phalanxes right from the start, and you never know when a barbarian landing party will land right next to a city and attack without any chance to take them out first. I like to have Phalanxes at least in the capital and important cities.

I have rarely (never ?) seen barbarian units with two movement points arrive from the sea and attack on the turn they appear near the start of the game. Early on barbarian triremes usually carry archers. This means there is always at least one turn to respond to barbarian threats and the response I like is either bribing them or killing them with a high-attack unit like chariot, elephant or (very early) horsemen. I don't like allowing them to attack first - phalanxes easily get killed by archers and chariots (unless they are on a mountain/hill).

Also, the barbarians get a bonus when attacking on Deity. There is no bonus for when they are defending, so, whenever possible, attack the barbarians unless we are confident the defending unit can handle the attacker.

Also, IIRC barb archers have a defense of one instead of two like regular archers.

Originally posted by Zelig
Also, IIRC barb archers have a defense of one instead of two like regular archers.

I still never really found anywhere that has proven/tested this....?

Try here (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2combat.shtml/), section 3 n.

And also, the barbs attack is multiplied by 1.5.

Yeah, I've seen that and looked at his links to the Barb calcs as well. Even there it is just stated. I haven't gone much past that.... In practice it seems to be the case, horsemen and even warriors can readily attack and kill Barb Archers, but I haven't seen any actual game programming to prove it is the case. Doesn't really matter much though.... with the attack bonus the Barsb get, it is definatley best to attack them whenever possible.

With the Barb bonuses on attacking, I plan on having two Phalinex (I would like to call them Hoplites ;) ) in each city to fend off the Barbarian attack.

It's much better to have 2 move attack units. With the barb bonuses a non-vet chariot will kill a veteran fortified phalanx 50% of the time, and we probably won't have veterans for a little while.

Originally posted by CivGeneral
With the Barb bonuses on attacking, I plan on having two Phalinex (I would like to call them Hoplites ;) ) in each city to fend off the Barbarian attack.

The problem I see with this is that since barbarian archers/chariots can kill phalanxes fairly easily our cities can get reduced in size from barbarian attacks unless we have city walls which are very expensive to build early on. Having two high-attack units with a movement of two is better than two phalanxes IMHO, and one high-attack unit is often sufficient (whether it is sufficient depends on geography plus various other factors). And of course a few diplomats are always very nice to have since noone can resist a fistful of $$ ;)

Originally posted by TheViking

The problem I see with this is that since barbarian archers/chariots can kill phalanxes fairly easily our cities can get reduced in size from barbarian attacks unless we have city walls which are very expensive to build early on. Having two high-attack units with a movement of two is better than two phalanxes IMHO, and one high-attack unit is often sufficient (whether it is sufficient depends on geography plus various other factors). And of course a few diplomats are always very nice to have since noone can resist a fistful of $$ ;)

That's what I meant to express, however, rereading my post I see it doesn't say that. :crazyeye:
Until chivalry even 2 horsemen will by sufficient to defend a city from barbs most of the time.

Okay, I'm learning some things about Barbs on Deity and the early game here :D I still like Phalanxes over Warriors for defense because you won't have to upgrade them later, but they do take longer to build. The case for two-move attack units and diplos as defense makes good sense to me. The problem is that no-one is voting for HBR in the science polls, so where do these 2-move units come from?

And perhaps not in the early game, but I have regularly seen barbs land and attack in the same turn. Not as often as when they land and give you a chance to attack first, but it does happen.

Originally posted by Leowind

The problem is that no-one is voting for HBR in the science polls, so where do these 2-move units come from?

Well, it looks like writing is winning as alternate tech, from hut units, hut techs and bribed barbs, we should be able to get some 2 move units.

With some luck huts will provide us with some chariots and/or horsemen. 1 or 2 hut units should be sufficent to guard the empire against barbs in the early game. Later on we should have discovered writing so as to bribe units and reduce the cost by capturing leaders. If at all possible the tech advances should not be bogged down with advances like horseback riding until absolutely necessary. However this depends ultimately on what game strategy we will be going for. Is it a total war of AC landing game?

Bloodlust isn't turned on, so we have our options. We can eliminate everyone or win by spaceship. In the first game we won by spaceship and in the las game we won by conquest.

We won by conquest last time!

Originally posted by Jayne
We won by conquest last time!

There, post edited. :D
I was only here for the first game, and I thought we won the last one by spaceship too for some reason.

Is it not aa good idea to focus on one or the other? Should a decision not be made now as to what way we are going to win this game?

I think it pretty much depend on. E.g. how well we are doing in science compared to the AI, or how strong the AI is militarily. Last game, we would've been able to do both IMO.:)