Why build Spearmen early on?

I've just recently come back to CivIII because 5 is driving me crazy (too easy to win).

ANYWAY, catching up by reading some of the guides from back in the day, I keep noticing that so many of them recommend building Spearman once possible. I'm not one of the top players by any means, but I did consistently played Emperor, and always saw Spearman as the bottom of the production chain.

How many of you actually build a Spearman as soon as possible?


Quick note: I DO understand how in certain situations a Spearman or Pikeman is useful. When moving a stack of offensive units, I do accompany them with 1-2 Spearmen or Pikemen. During wars I sometimes place one on a hill or forest that has a resource. I also employ them for key choke points or dangerous spots like Mountains/Hills near my own city. That, and later in the game when the AI is more organized I build proper defensive units post-Musketman.

But defensively, early in the game, I really don't understand them. Let's say we're playing Restless barbs. You're in your city with your Spearman (which cost 2x as much as a warrior) and a barbarian comes in. This barb will probably cause you to lose a few workers turns at least, and production on key squares he walks through, or, if it's a horseman, will even pillage your improvements and your Spearman can do nothing from the city! If you wanted to take the risk to attack, you don't need a Spearman. You'd have the same chance with a warrior. If you had an archer instead, though, you could kill the barb, heal, and repeat for the next barb. This also works in wars in which the AI sends units into your lands one by one. In fact, waiting on the defensive would allow the AI to assemble a proper stack, or just happily ruin your progress by pillaging/standing on good tiles.

Please give me a strong argument for Spearman being better than an Archer, or why it's worth setting you back 10 shields that could go towards your first Granary, Barracks, etc

P.S. Civ3>(Civ4+Civ5)

I don't.
I build some warriors to scout. Then build archers.
The situation of barbarians walking around... I never let it happen.
I build cities close, so when a barbarian comes close to my improvements, I take them out with offensive units. I go to them, I don't wait till they're close.
I don't leave cities vulnerable, because I fill them with units from cities nearby which is possible if you place your cities close.

Exactly bro, this is why I don't understand this Spearman business!

funny to ask for an answer if your nn is NoAnswer.

spearmen are very rare early builds and i cannot remember i have ever seen anyone advocating to build them early. they are too expensive for scouting and you will hardly need them ultra-early for their defense value. a little bit later in the game there may be useful situations for them, but in most of my games, i never build a single spearman (Emperor to Sid level games).

t_x

Over the years I've become more offensive (in-game and out ), but I still try to have spears in border cities and to guard captured or new cities in war zones. They upgrade well to future defenders, and I shuffle them around to upgrade to pikement and later riflemen. (I usually skip muskets and usually abandon games before infantry.)

But in the early game, when I'm ready to start building real military and I have spears and archers availalble, I'll build archers first.

Restless Barbarians? Really, I just don't understand some people... Dude, you either have Barbarians switched off or you have them RAGING, all this middling pointless tosh, really. But anyway, yes, when you're marching a Settler into potential Barbarian zone, it's better to have a Spearman with you because the Barbs normally don't attack Spearmen, but they quite like attacking Warriors. It's different every game really - Barbarian results may vary! Just a couple of days ago I had a regular Knight fail to defeat a Barb Warrior, he had to do his retreating thing. Good'ol RNG...

Thank you for your input, Everyone. At least now I know I'm not crazy!

templar_x said:

funny to ask for an answer if your nn is NoAnswer.

t_x

Click to expand...

Haha. Man, I can't believe it was 12 years ago I joined this site! I was 16 and civ4 hadn't even come out yet I'm really glad this site is still around!

It took me a while to figure out that spearmen were unnecessary in every city. In addition to the greater usefulness of archers, they also make you look stronger in the eyes of your AI opponents diplomatically.

Puppeteer said:

Over the years I've become more offensive (in-game and out )

Click to expand...

I build spears as settler escorts. Once I have archer or sword units, they become my preferred city defenders.

I might keep some spears in border cities, especially if relations with the AI are tense. Other than that, I find it very often to be a waste of shields.

Desertsnow said:

I build spears as settler escorts. Once I have archer or sword units, they become my preferred city defenders.

Click to expand...

That's probably a bad idea. 1) Your settlers shouldn't be waiting for escorts. 2) Your settlers shouldn't need escorts.

You should be using warriors/scouts (pref. on high ground) to watch for barbs in the early settling phases...

That's probably a bad idea. 1) Your settlers shouldn't be waiting for escorts. 2) Your settlers shouldn't need escorts.

Click to expand...

I disagree with both these points, at least partly.

(1)

Once you have at least 2 or 3 Pop4-5 cities up and running, there's no good reason to make a Settler 'wait' for an escort. All the player has to do is coordinate output in 2 different towns so that the Settler+Escort get produced on the same turn, and then aim them at the same target tile (or if the Escort unit gets built first, it can trailblaze out to the intended city-site).

For example, if you've been lucky enough to to be able to set up a Settler-pump in a 4-5 FPT, 6-7 SPT Gran-town (maybe the Capital?), you can knock out Settlers every 4-5T. A vArcher or vSpear takes 4-5T to complete in a 4-5 SPT Rax-town, so if they start building at the same time, they'll finish at the same time. Even in a non-ideal situation (no pump-site, low SPT), it shouldn't be too hard to do something similar, maybe every 5-6T.

(2)

In PtW (or even Vanilla), Barbs are not bugged, making them a lot more dangerous, even at moderate settings, than they are in C3C (NoAIPatrol=0 only goes a little way towards fixing the C3C-Barb NW-SE 'tunnel vision' bug). Vanilla/PtW Barbs will spot any enemy unit within striking distance (didn't someone figure out that the 'Barb-radar' worked up to ~12 tiles away...?) in any direction and chase them all over the map until either the Barb or the target is caught and killed. Since it's not practical/ cost-effective/ game-efficient to cover a large part of the map with stationary Scouts/ Warriors on Barb-spotting/ -smashing duty, guarding PtW Settlers in transit to more distant city-sites is often a very good idea -- especially once HorsebackRiding has been learned, and Barb-Horses can easily catch up with them from well beyond visual range.

And in any version, guarding a Settler in transit also means that the new outer-ring city is immediately garrisoned as soon as it's founded, giving it both protection and Despotic/ Monarchic mil-pol (especially important at higher levels, when only the first citizen is born content). So rather than waste time/shields knocking out an rWarrior, it can start immediately on a Worker for terrain-improvement, or infrastructure for the city's intended purpose. I often use a Warrior as a Settler-escort, if I have nothing better -- or if I have a Settler(s) in the oven and too many units already, I'll temporarily fortify an exploring Warrior(s) in my intended city-spot(s), then later put him back on exploration once I've got a better defender mil-pol unit in place.

On topic though:

I'll use Spears sparingly in border cities, but they certainly won't be my preferred builds (not anymore, anyway -- I learned through bitter experience!). If I have 20s going begging, an Archer (or actually 2 Warriors, especially since Warriors upgrade to Swords/ Maces) is a better investment as a military deterrent. Similarly, if I can produce a 30s Ancient unit, I'd rather have a Horse than a Sword. If I've failed to deprive my neighbours of Iron/ Horses quickly enough, I will build Pikes though -- they have much better odds than Spears when defending against Knight-attacks.

tjs282 said:

I disagree with both these points, at least partly.

(1)

Once you have at least 2 or 3 Pop4-5 cities up and running, there's no good reason to make a Settler 'wait' for an escort. All the player has to do is coordinate output in 2 different towns so that the Settler+Escort get produced on the same turn, and then aim them at the same target tile (or if the Escort unit gets built first, it can trailblaze out to the intended city-site).

For example, if you've been lucky enough to to be able to set up a Settler-pump in a 4-5 FPT, 6-7 SPT Gran-town (maybe the Capital?), you can knock out Settlers every 4-5T. A vArcher or vSpear takes 4-5T to complete in a 4-5 SPT Rax-town, so if they start building at the same time, they'll finish at the same time. Even in a non-ideal situation (no pump-site, low SPT), it shouldn't be too hard to do something similar, maybe every 5-6T.

(2)

In PtW (or even Vanilla), Barbs are not bugged, making them a lot more dangerous, even at moderate settings, than they are in C3C (NoAIPatrol=0 only goes a little way towards fixing the C3C-Barb NW-SE 'tunnel vision' bug). Vanilla/PtW Barbs will spot any enemy unit within striking distance (didn't someone figure out that the 'Barb-radar' worked up to ~12 tiles away...?) in any direction and chase them all over the map until either the Barb or the target is caught and killed. Since it's not practical/ cost-effective/ game-efficient to cover a large part of the map with stationary Scouts/ Warriors on Barb-spotting/ -smashing duty, guarding PtW Settlers in transit to more distant city-sites is often a very good idea -- especially once HorsebackRiding has been learned, and Barb-Horses can easily catch up with them from well beyond visual range.

And in any version, guarding a Settler in transit also means that the new outer-ring city is immediately garrisoned as soon as it's founded, giving it both protection and Despotic/ Monarchic mil-pol (especially important at higher levels, when only the first citizen is born content). So rather than waste time/shields knocking out an rWarrior, it can start immediately on a Worker for terrain-improvement, or infrastructure for the city's intended purpose. I often use a Warrior as a Settler-escort, if I have nothing better -- or if I have a Settler(s) in the oven and too many units already, I'll temporarily fortify an exploring Warrior(s) in my intended city-spot(s), then later put him back on exploration once I've got a better defender mil-pol unit in place.

On topic though:

I'll use Spears sparingly in border cities, but they certainly won't be my preferred builds (not anymore, anyway -- I learned through bitter experience!). If I have 20s going begging, an Archer (or actually 2 Warriors, especially since Warriors upgrade to Swords/ Maces) is a better investment as a military deterrent. Similarly, if I can produce a 30s Ancient unit, I'd rather have a Horse than a Sword. If I've failed to deprive my neighbours of Iron/ Horses quickly enough, I will build Pikes though -- they have much better odds than Spears when defending against Knight-attacks.

Click to expand...

OK, I definitely don't remember well enough how it was back in PTW haha. I said all of this from the viewpoint of C3C, and I maintain that barbs are completely manageable, at least insofar as unaccompanied Settlers.

City placement on higher levels has you building cities 3-4 spaces apart, or 5 at MOST, and this is definitely close enough to allow your settler to walk to the spot on his own. In the case that you do wanna go for a long trips (maybe a resource claim), you can always send a Warrior, and even better an Archer. It makes absolutely NO sense to have a Spearmen accompany you because a Spearman is wasted when you attack. If barbs are in your way you don't want to turtle with your settler. Your settler is on a time-sensitive mission. Every turn you lose costs you upkeep and delays your entire new city by a turn. You're going to either block the barb and send the settler around, or you're going to kill the barb, which you don't need a Spearman for.

I'm sorry but 20 shields are a waste. If you do have the ability to spend 20 shields, as you suggested when things go well between settlers/workers, then you'd be far better off with an archer. The viewing range of any single combat unit is sufficient as to avoid your offensive unit being caught on the defensive and allowing you to be certain that you're the one attacking. The exception is Horsemen of course. However, Horsemen only appear in barb camps which you should already be scouting out with your scouts and/or Warriors (or Archers for those of you with luxurious shield outputs).

I can't reasonable accept the use for Spearmen in any of these situations.


As for spears in Border cities, yes that's viable, but at that point isn't "early on" anymore. And even so, in 70% of cases you're better off with an Archer there. Do you want your formidable spearman protecting your city while either 1) Barbs pillage the surroundings 2) the AI starts amassing troops outside your city? Or do you want to be able to take the initiative and kill off attacker, heal, and repeat?

NoAnswer said:

As for spears in Border cities, yes that's viable, but at that point isn't "early on" anymore.

Click to expand...

Well what are we talking about here? First 20T? First 50T? I certainly won't be building Spears at that point -- only Settlers and Warriors/Scouts, with maybe an occasional Archer/Chariot if I can find a good shield-rich but food-poor site, and minimal infrastructure (e.g. a Gran in a potential pump-town, a Rax in a low-food, high-shield town, Walls in border cities, especilly those without freshwater). I aim to have my first ring (7-8 cities, built at CxxC to CxxxC spacing) complete by the 80-100T mark, and I want those cities guarded well while they grow, which is when I may start turning out the occasional Spear from a Rax-town (in between building more Warriors and Archers)...

And even so, in 70% of cases you're better off with an Archer there.

Click to expand...

I agree, but if I'm going to put 20s' worth of unit(s) in a city, 2 Warriors are actually more intimidating (vs. the AICivs) than 1 Archer, especially at higher levels where the AICivs start with lots of extra units.

Do you want your formidable spearman protecting your city while either 1) Barbs pillage the surroundings 2) the AI starts amassing troops outside your city? Or do you want to be able to take the initiative and kill off attacker, heal, and repeat?

Click to expand...

Why is it an 'either-or' situation? Sure, if I have only a single unit in a town, I'd rather have a high-A than a high-D unit -- but I'd rather have at least one of each, or a pair of 'dual-use' units (e.g. Swords). So when I talk about putting a Spear in a border city, he won't be the only one there -- he'll also be covered by at least 1 and preferably 2 attack units (Warriors or Archers, later Horses or Spears Swords) who can go out and kill intruders before they do damage.

If the RNG goes bad on me, though, I don't want to be forced to pull my last unit out of the town to attack the incoming unit(s) -- even if I win, the city will be left un(der)defended over the IBT, and if that last unit loses as well, the city is as good as gone: in that case, I'd rather have a full-HP strong defence-unit, than a weakened attack-unit, as the last man standing. A vSpear fortified behind Walls is indeed a pretty formidable 'last-ditch' defender in the Ancient Age, to hold the town long enough for (attack-)reinforcements to arrive from a neighbouring town(s) during the IBT.

I don't keep multiple units in every city, though, only in those cities bordering AI territory or unexplored lands. I play Continents maps (aiming for high-tech 'builder' victories), so at least some of my 1st-ring cities will be coastal, and hence can be left largely undefended in the early game -- before Mapmaking is discovered -- and only lightly garrisoned afterwards (a single Warrior or Spear). Under Despot, 7-8 towns would give me 28-32 free units (one-third Workers + explorers, two-ninths defenders, 4-ninths attackers), and although that drops substantially if/when I go Republic, the extra income should make up for it temporarily until I can get all those towns to Pop7 (21-24 free units). Those of my cities farthest away from potential hostilities can then contribute most/all of their free unit-allowance to the more inland border cities.

tjs282 said:

If the RNG goes bad on me, though, I don't want to be forced to pull my last unit out of the town to attack the incoming unit(s) -- even if I win, the city will be left un(der)defended over the IBT, and if that last unit loses as well, the city is as good as gone: in that case, I'd rather have a full-HP strong defence-unit, than a weakened attack-unit, as the last man standing. A vSpear fortified behind Walls is indeed a pretty formidable 'last-ditch' defender in the Ancient Age, to hold the town long enough for (attack-)reinforcements to arrive from a neighbouring town(s) during the IBT.

Click to expand...

OK well I can see from this that you have a very different playing style from me. I've never built walls before, and have never, ever had more than 1 unit defending a border city unuless I'm suspecting war.

So you have like actual dozens of ancient era units in your cities? How do you even afford those upgrades later on?

As I normally play with Raging Barbarians, I like to have one or two spearmen in any town that I build, and then upgrade them when possible. That holds true for more advanced units that spearmen as well. Archers are good as well, but I have upgraded by Barbarians a bit, so they are a bit more deadly. I use Gallic Swordsman for the basic unit, and Cossacks for the Mounted Barbarian. This does make the game a bit more interesting.

NoAnswer said:

OK well I can see from this that you have a very different playing style from me.

Click to expand...

Maybe... I've only recently moved up to Emp, but in my Monarch games I tended to be a relatively non-aggressive builder/trader for at least the Ancient age, and often well into the late Mediaeval. As I say, I always play Continents, and usually aim for the high-tech VCs (preferably Space), although not necessarily with Sci-Civs.

So I usually won't start wars myself in the early game unless e.g. there's an Iron/ Horses/ Saltpeter just across an AICiv's borders with mine that I can grab relatively easily. Otherwise I'll expand until I run out of expansion room, then trade + intimidate/ defend until I've built an AI-smashing, continent-grabbing military. If an AI starts something earlier than that, I'll try and bribe another neighbour(s) into dogpiling him to buy me some more time while at the same time weakening my ally(s).

I've never built walls before, and have never, ever had more than 1 unit defending a border city...

Click to expand...

The 50% D-bonus from Walls effectively turns a D=2 Spear into a D=3 Pike, or even almost a D=4 Swiss Merc if the city is on a Hill-tile, and/or across a River from the attacker. If I only have one unit (left) in a city, a Walled vSpear has a better than 50% vic-prob against an incoming rSword, if my Horses/ Archers/ Swords couldn't kill him, or at least damage him sufficiently that he retreated.

Masonry can usually be acquired quite early via trading (a lot earlier than Feudalism!), and at only 20s, with 0 GPT upkeep, I think Walls are well worth building. Certainly in any non-freshwater border-cities (even for Agri-Civs, 'Ducts are a much slower/ more expensive way of getting the 50% D-bonus -- and can't be built until Construction anyway, usually one of the last Ancient techs I research), but I usually Wall all my border/coastal cities until they can get to Pop7+, at which point the Walls are sold. And for a Mil-Civ, a 10s Wall-build is a no-brainer, despite getting short-changed on the selling price.

... unless I'm suspecting war.

Click to expand...

I always expect war, sooner or later, precisely because I'm usually not expanding aggressively in the early game. As I say, I will be counting on owning my continent at some point, one way or another (and warfare is generally more cost-efficient than Culture-flipping), but I'll only go overseas if it's necessary to win the game. Otherwise, I am not too fussed about the other guy(s) unless their continent(s) is/are significantly larger than mine and/or someone looks like running away.

So you have like actual dozens of ancient era units in your cities? How do you even afford those upgrades later on?

Click to expand...

No, I don't build dozens of units in the early game, I'll build up to my free-unit allowance, and only beyond if budget allows and/or Colonel Efftree is whining that we're still weak against our nearest neighbours. And having built my forces, I try to avoid throwing those units into battle before I can muster a decent stack of them. Upgrades are done as soon as I can afford them, piecemeal if necessary, with the high-A units on the (potential) front(s) upgraded first.

But it's not that hard to rack up a decent Treasury -- at least at Monarch/Emp -- by trading everything tradeable (now that I have CivAssist, which really helps), and by zeroing SCI% on the last turn of research. At 10s difference (i.e. 30g before Leos) per head (and if I have Iron), Spears-->Pikes and Swords-->Maces is not that expensive. Let's say I have 8 Pop7+ core-cities, each supporting 1 Spear and 2 Swords (and 1 Worker), that'll be a grand total of 24*30=720g for those upgrades. Dropping research low enough to get 240 GPT for 3T is quite do-able if a decent core has been built and roaded, most/ all the AICivs have been contacted by that point, and CoL/ Philo/ Republic has been sold.

The Warrior-->Sword upgrade is very expensive for its time, but going from A/D=1/1 to A/D=3/2 is definitely worth it. By the time I'm upgrading stuff, I don't usually have more than 1 Warrior per city and anyway, if I (now) have Iron, I can build Swords from scratch, if I want them (although Horses are also useful).

I'd usually only do Warriors-->Maces, Pikes-->Muskets (both 90g per head) or Horses-->Knights (120g per head) if I'm absolutely rolling in gold though -- if not, Warriors and Pikes can advance with my SoD and garrison captured cities, and Horses can skirmish low-D units and either win, run away, or die heroically, while I'm building Maces and Knights (or Muskets) from scratch in my best core Rax-cities...

If I don't have Iron by the beginning of the Med Age, the Spears and Horses obviously can't be upgraded, but I will have built Archers instead of Swords, and my cities may have some Cats as well. I'll still need Feudalism though, to get me to Invention ASAP, at which point Cats-->Trebs costs the same as Spear-->Pike, and although Archers-->LBMs costs more (20s = 60g per head), I'll need those LBMs to increase my Army-strength rating if I can't build Maces. If I was smart enough to have a Leos prebuild in the works as well, upgrade-costs become a much smaller concern, and I'm then only 1 tech from Gunpowder anyway...

(And if I haven't got Iron OR Horses, well, I've probably quit that game already... )

When I finally do march off on my continent-owning crusade in the mid- to late Med Age, any Ancient units which I didn't feel were worth upgrading will be disbanded to put some shields into a better unit's box, or become resistance-quelling garrison units, or frontline cannon fodder if necessary. If they win their fights, I get another city(s) and my unit-allowance goes up. If they lose, hopefully I've still done some damage, and I won't have to pay maintenance for those obsolete units anymore.

In the late Med/ early Industrial, Knight-->Cav upgrades are dirt-cheap. Musket-->Rifle upgrades are as feasible as Archers-->LBMs, and even Muskets-->Infs is still cheaper than Horses-->Knights, especially at this later stage in the game when there is a lot more GPT floating around. But I'd have to be really rich (or really desperate!) to do the LBM/Mace-->'Rilla...

I appreciate that this approach would probably not work on Pangaeas though, or at higher difficulty levels...

tjs282 said:

Very good post

Click to expand...

^ All good points my friend. If you're just moving up to Emperor, let me give you some advice you won't get in any guides.

There's two ways to play Emperor.

1) You can be very careful, anticipating every move of the A.I. and very, very slowly grind your way to catching up with the A.I. in the lower-middle of the scoreboard. (This is what you get in guides) You're absolutely going to win if you know your stuff, and there's no suspense in that.

2) You can take it a little less seriously and still win. Be willing to take risks, don't always assume the A.I. will do this and that (then you won't have to prepare for it ). This way you can still win, but you can also enjoy it. You'll be in the upper middle of the scoreboard, you'll have negotiating power, you'll have the ability to build wonders and you'll have to restrain yourself less when it comes to building things like libraries (too much of a luxury in careful play, except really in 2-3 cities). This is the advice you won't get from other people, but I can vouch for it. You don't need walls, you don't need spearmen, you don't need escorts.
I continually destroy my game saves because I'm a bit of an addict when it comes to this game. I have things in my life that I need to do, and when I get into a sweet emperor or deity game, I'm completely removed from this planet, which I can't afford unfortunately. So yeah, I'm not one of the top players here, but trust me, I know this game inside out. I always win emperor, and I've done the deity just to see if I can, but I don't enjoy it.

(Note that number 2 unfortunately does NOT apply in Deity games)

You can play risky and win and it's more fun for two reasons: 1) You get more freedom. 2) You live with the suspense and the actual chance of not winning. By the first approach you can't lose. Both of those are great elements to a game in my opinion, and maybe that's why I get so addicted.

I've played the current COTM (Incas) two times already and deleted it. The first time I was about 30 hours in and doing beautifully (significant tech lead in middle ages, several wonders, 20+ cities incl FP and a steady 4-turn research at about 70%). However, I deleted it to ensure I could do work the next day (real world assignments, pay bills, etc). The next day after that, I missed it so much that I even went through the trouble of getting programs that can find files in your computer that you've deleted from recyle bin. After many hours I was able to recover the game saves in their correct file size, but for some reason the game couldn't read them.... so, I started the whole thing again, about 20 hours up to middle ages again. Deleted it before I went to bed lol.

I'll never finish a proper game again in my life but trust me, I know what I'm talking about. I'm really good at this game and I GUARANTEE you that you only need a few warriors and archer/horsemen- leave the rest up to chance and you'll have a hell of a game. I should add though, that for this to work, you really need to go overboard when it comes to micromanaging. I'm talking like, every single turn.