4 non-obvious strategy tips

[EpicWestern]

Agree with the videos points 100%.

As per encampments, IMO their biggest benefit is the ability to produce a unit with just one of a resource, mainly horseman or bombards. Artillery tech isn't far away, but you can still start attacking 20 turns earlier or so which is huge.

 

[sugerdady87]

Agree with the videos points 100%.

As per encampments, IMO their biggest benefit is the ability to produce a unit with just one of a resource, mainly horseman or bombards. Artillery tech isn't far away, but you can still start attacking 20 turns earlier or so which is huge.

For me typically, I have my ancient era units that I'll just upgrade with a single copy. I still don't see the benefit of building one of these districts over CD/IZ/Campus. Tomorrow I'll try a game where I'll build them and see.

 

[greygamer]

Agree with the videos points 100%.

As per encampments, IMO their biggest benefit is the ability to produce a unit with just one of a resource, mainly horseman or bombards. Artillery tech isn't far away, but you can still start attacking 20 turns earlier or so which is huge.

I assume you are talking about catapults here. Archers are actually more cost effective and available earlier (they can move and fire), however the Encampment buildings are available and for 80 production you get +1 production, +1 housing (which can mean extra production), a specialist gives +1 production & culture and a great general point. Great generals can be used for no risk exploring in addition to their other uses.

I rarely find a use for catapults early on, I would rather use battering rams in conjunction with horsemen/swordsmen/heavy chariots or even spearmen

 

[teks]

For a city within range of a IZ already, the encampment would be giving more hammers. Since we want to maximize production, we want to build encampments with some IZs strategically placed to mazimize coverage.

Additionally encampments are the only district that can get a discount, a whopping 30℅ off on the district and its buildings through a single policy.

So, assume we have an IZ within range of our city.
The IZ gives us 2 production with a workshop, and maybe an adjacency production point. The game will be over before we ever recoup the costs.

The encampment has a huge 30℅ discount via policy, +2 housing, +6 production, free defense, a huge discount on the massively OP corps and armies, a resource discount...and a crappy xp bonus.

We are trying to suggest the optimal strategy, so we can't say that we don't need corps and armies, or we don't need that production. Encampments provide more production, cheaper, and faster and are highly recommended.

 

[DrCron]

For a city within range of a IZ already, the encampment would be giving more hammers. Since we want to maximize production, we want to build encampments with some IZs strategically placed to mazimize coverage.

Additionally encampments are the only district that can get a discount, a whopping 30℅ off on the district and its buildings through a single policy.

The first part is simply incorrect. An IZ with +2 from adjancency (I literally NEVER have an IZ with less than that, it's very easy to put it next to 2 mines or 1 mine and 1 quarry, or even 1 mine and 2 more districts) will give you +4 production with a workshop. An encampment will give you +3 with barrcaks (or stable) plus armory. So you need 2 buildings to still be 1 production below the IZ with just 1 building. For production, therefore, the IZ is more cost effective.

Regarding the 2nd part, I never play with more than 1 military slot, which I use for reducing the maintenance cost. Having more economic slots is always stronger, since economic policies are clearly better than anything else (including the one that doubles your adjacency bonus for IZ).

 

[Bro]

Funny, I always build catapults but never build horsemen, battering rams or siege towers. Catapults just seem so much more handy with their 2 range and not taking damage from attacking.

 

[teks]

The first part is simply incorrect. An IZ with +2 from adjancency (I literally NEVER have an IZ with less than that, it's very easy to put it next to 2 mines or 1 mine and 1 quarry, or even 1 mine and 2 more districts) will give you +4 production with a workshop. An encampment will give you +3 with barrcaks (or stable) plus armory. So you need 2 buildings to still be 1 production below the IZ with just 1 building. For production, therefore, the IZ is more cost effective.

Regarding the 2nd part, I never play with more than 1 military slot, which I use for reducing the maintenance cost. Having more economic slots is always stronger, since economic policies are clearly better than anything else (including the one that doubles your adjacency bonus for IZ).

Right right on adjacencies, sorry I thought they were strategic only. I normally just focus on ensuring maximum coverage with IZs, but I could probably squeeze 1-2 production out of them by building mines nearby.

However, your choosing to say the IZ is more cost effective by ignoring one of the most powerful policies in the game just because its military, and by ignoring literally every other benefit that encampments provide. I'm not impressed that you can squeeze one 1 more production from an IZ when I'm still getting housing, army discounts, free defence, and a 30% discount. All of these you are very highly underestimating. Housing espesially is nothing to sneeze at. The military bonus would be significant if the AI was a challenge, maybe one day.

What you want to do with policies is pick the ones which provide you with the most short-term benefit. You only pick reduced maintnence? I always pick whatever policy fits what my cities are building at the time, and switch as soon as they are done. I can produce several encampments all at once for 30% off and simply turn the policy back to reduced maintence when I'm done. Just as a build builders in several cities when I have the builder policy up, and I turn it off as soon as they are done. Policies are free to change.

Think about it. How many units do you have most the game? How much gold are you really getting from reduced maintenence? Is it really worth not turning it off now and then in favor of production boosts?

 

[sugerdady87]

Funny, I always build catapults but never build horsemen, battering rams or siege towers. Catapults just seem so much more handy with their 2 range and not taking damage from attacking.

Ditto. There isn't even a guarantee you'll have horses in range. I think I may have built a siege tower once in Civ 6.

 

[Victoria]

Policies are not fee to change, they cost money if changing in a non civic defining turn.
I always keep a few cheap side civcs for such occasions.
Like builing walls but having them all 1 turn away waiting for a turn where I can put in double envoys and limes for the production overflow together just for 1-3 turns

 

[greygamer]

Funny, I always build catapults but never build horsemen, battering rams or siege towers. Catapults just seem so much more handy with their 2 range and not taking damage from attacking.

Ditto. There isn't even a guarantee you'll have horses in range. I think I may have built a siege tower once in Civ 6.

I tried siege towers, thinking they might allow a capture without damaging the city walls, but you do damage to both the walls and the health bar. So yes they are a bit quicker but only make sense if you don't make battering rams at all. Battering rams help until bombards come along at which point I scrap them.

 

[EpicWestern]

I assume you are talking about catapults here. Archers are actually more cost effective and available earlier (they can move and fire), however the Encampment buildings are available and for 80 production you get +1 production, +1 housing (which can mean extra production), a specialist gives +1 production & culture and a great general point. Great generals can be used for no risk exploring in addition to their other uses.

I rarely find a use for catapults early on, I would rather use battering rams in conjunction with horsemen/swordsmen/heavy chariots or even spearmen

No, I was talking about bombards. You can build a bombard with 1 niter instead of 2 when you have an encampment, but yeah, naturally if you're going bombards you probably built some catapults earlier and attempted at least one attack with them. Archers are great really early on, but they, along with units further in their upgrade tree become obsolete really fast. Late game artillery is simply mandatory. Along with battleships its really the only unit type that matters. So catapult->bombard->artillery is just the most natural line to take, and encampment makes the middle part of that process a significant bit easier.

I'm still fine with rushes with other types of units though. My last domination victory I spawned as Scythia and had one horse resource nearby, so encampment into horseman was simply a no-brainer. Lots of civs have strong melee units and along with the +4 govt bonus comes in handy a lot. But you really have to transition to siege weapons at some point.

 

[KmDubya]

I find building a military production city with an Encampment early to be quite beneficial. It'd be the first district in that city and will let you make all the strategic units with a single resource, plus reap the benefits of the increased experience gain. On top of that it will make for a better internal trade route with extra hammers. As an extra bonus it can be built towards your enemies and help form a formidable defensive position.

I'm also a fan of building siege once past the era of the archer. By the time of the Renaissance I want to have bombards with musketmen in front. Upgrading to corps, then armies and adding observation balloons keeps them dominant and then upgrade to artillery. I also find upgrading to bombards happens a lot faster than getting crossbows to upgrade to field cannons.

 

[greygamer]

No, I was talking about bombards. You can build a bombard with 1 niter instead of 2 when you have an encampment, but yeah, naturally if you're going bombards you probably built some catapults earlier and attempted at least one attack with them. Archers are great really early on, but they, along with units further in their upgrade tree become obsolete really fast. Late game artillery is simply mandatory. Along with battleships its really the only unit type that matters. So catapult->bombard->artillery is just the most natural line to take, and encampment makes the middle part of that process a significant bit easier.

I'm still fine with rushes with other types of units though. My last domination victory I spawned as Scythia and had one horse resource nearby, so encampment into horseman was simply a no-brainer. Lots of civs have strong melee units and along with the +4 govt bonus comes in handy a lot. But you really have to transition to siege weapons at some point.

I'm a little confused then as encampments are an ancient tech and bombards are renaissance, they are relatively a long way off unless you are spamming campuses and research grants on fast pace. Otherwise by that point it is possible to have conquered much of the map already (ymmv), older military units will likely have reached the 4 tier of promotions. You might as well push on to the next era for field guns & cavalry by the same logic and just upgrade what you have.

For me beelining to crossbows & knights makes more sense, from there you could beeline nationalism for corps (encampment specialists give +1 culture remember so you will get there quicker.)

Still whatever works for you

 

[EpicWestern]

^ I'm with you on that you should start rushing early and not necessarily waiting for catapults/bombards, that's part of the reason you might as well get an encampment early so you can more easily get that experience. The tier 4 range advantage from siege units is huge, and having something (or more of something) middle game to attack with helps you get there.

 

[Bro]

^ I'm with you on that you should start rushing early and not necessarily waiting for catapults/bombards, that's part of the reason you might as well get an encampment early so you can more easily get that experience. The tier 4 range advantage from siege units is huge, and having something (or more of something) middle game to attack with helps you get there.

I conquer the first AI with archers and warrior, on the next one I have catapults with me and the third goes down with crossbows.

 

[DrCron]

I'm not impressed that you can squeeze one 1 more production from an IZ when I'm still getting housing, army discounts, free defence, and a 30% discount. All of these you are very highly underestimating. Housing espesially is nothing to sneeze at. The military bonus would be significant if the AI was a challenge, maybe one day.

What you want to do with policies is pick the ones which provide you with the most short-term benefit. You only pick reduced maintnence? I always pick whatever policy fits what my cities are building at the time, and switch as soon as they are done. I can produce several encampments all at once for 30% off and simply turn the policy back to reduced maintence when I'm done. Just as a build builders in several cities when I have the builder policy up, and I turn it off as soon as they are done. Policies are free to change.

Think about it. How many units do you have most the game? How much gold are you really getting from reduced maintenence? Is it really worth not turning it off now and then in favor of production boosts?

"Housing espesially is nothing to sneeze at" -> Yes it is. I literally NEVER had any issues in a game for low housing. Just build your cities on rivers or coasts and it's ok (I never build aqueducts either, and hardly ever build more than 2-3 neighborhoods in one game).

"free defence" -> I literally NEVER needed more bombardment than what ancient walls provide (and even these ones usually only for barbs).

"a 30% discount" -> On encampments, which I'm arguing are not needed. 30% off on something you don't need is useless. I get 100% off by not building them.

"What you want to do with policies is pick the ones which provide you with the most short-term benefit" -> Only if you keep getting cheap civics to be able to change every few turns. This is not good if you are b-lining (which you should be doing in every game).

" I can produce several encampments all at once" -> Several??? One is already a waste, several is ridiculous.

IZ are better because they give more production, and production is extremely expensive in this game. Harbors and CH are better because there's nothing better than trade routes. And cities next to mountain ranges should have a campus so your units are always up to date. Building encampments is simply not optimal on single player.

 

[paulthebug]

"Housing espesially is nothing to sneeze at" -> Yes it is. I literally NEVER had any issues in a game for low housing. Just build your cities on rivers or coasts and it's ok (I never build aqueducts either, and hardly ever build more than 2-3 neighborhoods in one game).

"free defence" -> I literally NEVER needed more bombardment than what ancient walls provide (and even these ones usually only for barbs).

"a 30% discount" -> On encampments, which I'm arguing are not needed. 30% off on something you don't need is useless. I get 100% off by not building them.

"What you want to do with policies is pick the ones which provide you with the most short-term benefit" -> Only if you keep getting cheap civics to be able to change every few turns. This is not good if you are b-lining (which you should be doing in every game).

" I can produce several encampments all at once" -> Several??? One is already a waste, several is ridiculous.

IZ are better because they give more production, and production is extremely expensive in this game. Harbors and CH are better because there's nothing better than trade routes. And cities next to mountain ranges should have a campus so your units are always up to date. Building encampments is simply not optimal on single player.

I would spam encampments using the 30% discount card when I find Carthage, especially so with Japan, even before CD.
The one district that I find really awkward is harbor. There is no CS that offers special bonus to it. The science path is a little out of the way also.

 

[Jarms48]

I would spam encampments using the 30% discount card when I find Carthage, especially so with Japan, even before CD.
The one district that I find really awkward is harbor. There is no CS that offers special bonus to it. The science path is a little out of the way also.

Could be a good time to reintroduce the old Maritime city-states from Civ 5, +2 food in the capital, +2 (+4 at 6 envoys) in every harbour district.

"Housing espesially is nothing to sneeze at" -> Yes it is. I literally NEVER had any issues in a game for low housing. Just build your cities on rivers or coasts and it's ok (I never build aqueducts either, and hardly ever build more than 2-3 neighborhoods in one game).

"free defence" -> I literally NEVER needed more bombardment than what ancient walls provide (and even these ones usually only for barbs).

"a 30% discount" -> On encampments, which I'm arguing are not needed. 30% off on something you don't need is useless. I get 100% off by not building them.

"What you want to do with policies is pick the ones which provide you with the most short-term benefit" -> Only if you keep getting cheap civics to be able to change every few turns. This is not good if you are b-lining (which you should be doing in every game).

" I can produce several encampments all at once" -> Several??? One is already a waste, several is ridiculous.

IZ are better because they give more production, and production is extremely expensive in this game. Harbors and CH are better because there's nothing better than trade routes. And cities next to mountain ranges should have a campus so your units are always up to date. Building encampments is simply not optimal on single player.

I'd still advocate a single encampment in the capital, specifically for the +1 production on local trade routes. You can get it very early in the game, and those extra hammers build up quickly.

 

[gettingfat]

At least build one for the Terracotta, and in cases not enough strategic resources. It's sometimes better than IZ if Carthage is under your control.

 

[greygamer]

I conquer the first AI with archers and warrior, on the next one I have catapults with me and the third goes down with crossbows.

Big thank you to ShinigamiKenji adopted getting a knight corp through great general, stack them with siege tower and a great general and it's a medieval blitzkrieg! No siege weapons for me they are too slow.