A Few "Not To" for Building Addicts.

[GoodGame]

This is funny advice.

I have to say RIcs is very wrong about Banks and Harbors (unless you're mercantilist). & Lighthouses are important if you just had to build a desert/hill coast city because of a non-seafood bonus.

And if it only takes 5 turns without chopping woods, and does some good, build it.

 

[jesusin]

your power score isnt affected by promotions, so dont build barracks. Plus its pointless to builb barracks in cities that wont build troops...unless you are whipping them instead.

Hi. I am not sure, but I thought that barracks themselves affected your power score.
Does anyone know if that's true. Does a barracks rise your power score more, less or as much as an Axe?

 

[Elandal]

Barracks affects the power rating. In vanilla 1.61 two axes worth, in Warlords 2.08 only a single axe.

See Strategy Article The inner workings of the Demo screen explained for list of items affecting power.

 

[cabert]

the power score isn't a holy document
barracks give you 3xp, and are prereq for Heroic Epic

do you plan to build units there?
yes? then barracks are useful
No? wrong choice, build something else

 

[Winston Hughes]

And if it only takes 5 turns without chopping woods, and does some good, build it.

No, no, no!!

That's precisely the mindset that causes the afflicted to end up building more or less everything. You have to ask yourself why that building will only take five turns. The chances are it's because, as a buildoholic, you've given priority to hammers over commerce. Switch to commerce producing tiles and speed up your research (or use the hammers to knock out some troops for defence or conquest).

'Does some good' is not enough to justify a build if you're trying to kick the building habit; only build stuff that will actually make a significant difference in the pursuit of your chosen strategy. Of course banks, harbours and lighthouses have their uses, but it's not worth building them for marginal gains when your efforts could be more helpfully directed elsewhere.

(GoodGame, I realise that you're probably not a build-addiction sufferer, and so your advice is meant as a more general comment. But for those who just can't stop building, it's necessary to take the bull by the horns and learn to pick the right builds based on need and not convenience.)

 

[jesusin]

the power score isn't a holy document
barracks give you 3xp, and are prereq for Heroic Epic

do you plan to build units there?
yes? then barracks are useful
No? wrong choice, build something else

I understand and I agree in general.
There are times in peaceful cultural games when your non-legendary cities have nothing useful to do. That's when I produce barracks only to rise the power graph so that an attack is less likely.

Thank you for the info, Elandal.

 

[cabert]

I understand and I agree in general.
There are times in peaceful cultural games when your non-legendary cities have nothing useful to do.

no, there isn't
build units and wealth (or science if you can manage to get another tech)

That's when I produce barracks only to rise the power graph so that an attack is less likely.

you should indeed build barracks then troops

 

[CivMonger]

yeah... I over build wonders... Current game I've managed to split the world into my half and everyone else's half, so I have a nice tech lead. Which means I'm building all the wonders now. Normally have 2 or 3 cities working wonders at a time >.<

 

[Winston Hughes]

yeah... I over build wonders... Current game I've managed to split the world into my half and everyone else's half, so I have a nice tech lead. Which means I'm building all the wonders now. Normally have 2 or 3 cities working wonders at a time >.<

Sounds like you could manage a higher difficulty level. On the other hand, it can be fun just to create a stupidly powerful civ, especially if you set yourself tough restrictions (eg. time victory only, but with the other conditions enabled, so you have to stop the AI civs getting their spaceships built, and must avoid winning by any other means).

 

[CivCorpse]

Building is way too much fun. I absolutely drool when I see city spots with both flood plains and plains hills. MMmmm, tasty hammers for me Mmmmmm. And I LOVE building libraries. Everywhere I settle I usually chop out a library for the culture pop. You say it isn't worth it in low commerce producing cities? I beg to disagree. I play on marathon speed so techs usually take 15-20 to research unless you are researching old techs you sort of ignored. Now then, you have five or six crappy commerce cities producing a whopping 5 raw commerce per turn. Build your library, if this is a production city then it won't take too long. Then assign a scientist when you get mercantilism. Since you're a wonder building hammer junkie you usually chopped/built/whipped the pyramids. I always do So now your base science is like 12. 4 from raw comerce at 80% research and 6 from beakerheaded scientist. The library boost this to 15. Big deal you say? Well multiply that by the 5-6 cities and it is a 15-18 point per turn bump. Techs cost about 3000-4000 when you get to banking so that means each twenty turns it takes to normally research a tech you get 300-360 extra beakers, research 10 techs and that adds up to 3000-3600....or a free tech. It's like getting to build an extra oracle. And that is with only 5-6 cities. Do this on huge maps like I play and it is like 10-15 cities for a 30-45 beaker per turn boost. And I build Universities in my production cities also as to start building oxford sooner. So the boost is even bigger then NINE beakers per turn per city. That comes out to 90-135 per turn for 10-15 cities. Plus the culture boost.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Building is way too much fun.

NURSE!! We've got a serious case here. Break out the anti-builder remedy, and cancel my nine o'clock.

Now, Corpsey (you don't mind if I call you Corpsey, do you?), breathe deeply and repeat after me: "Building is good, but only in moderation. I don't need to build everything to be happy. I must not neglect my military."

 

[GoodGame]

Your point on working commerce tiles is well taken. What I had in mind were the Groceries/Markets/Libraries in non-specialized city. Once the city gets so big that building them takes only 5-7 turns, then the bonuses are worthwhile to the whole empire, even if the city isn't being specialized that way.

Those 5 turns of lost commerce will be paid back in full by 10's of turns of bonuses.

No, no, no!!

'Does some good' is not enough to justify a build if you're trying to kick the building habit; only build stuff that will actually make a significant difference in the pursuit of your chosen strategy. Of course banks, harbours and lighthouses have their uses, but it's not worth building them for marginal gains when your efforts could be more helpfully directed elsewhere.

 

[HiroHito]

we compulsive warmongers need the same level of support as buildalcoholics

 

[Winston Hughes]

we compulsive warmongers need the same level of support as buildalcoholics

Maybe some kind of 'buddy system' would help. Pair up each builder with a warmonger and get them to play succession games together. Could be interesting...

 

[Sisiutil]

Maybe some kind of 'buddy system' would help. Pair up each builder with a warmonger and get them to play succession games together. Could be interesting...

Sounds like a recipe for a lot of murder-suicides.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Sounds like a recipe for a lot of murder-suicides.

Probably. But maybe we'd find that +=.

 

[jerVL/kg]

Hi. I am not sure, but I thought that barracks themselves affected your power score.
Does anyone know if that's true. Does a barracks rise your power score more, less or as much as an Axe?

Barracks do indeed affect your power score. I build a barracks in every city regardless (unless it's a crappy one-tile island) just in case I need to build or draft a unit there. It's annoying to build a unit in a city, just to discover later it doesn't have a barracks.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Toward the late game, libraries are sort of worth it, as 25% more commerce is a lot once your city is working 12 towns. But the point is, before then, the hammers are a lot better spent on axeman... almost all the time. I still believe that the barracks and courthouses in every city can't go wrong though.

 

[KMadCandy]

Goodgame had said "And if it only takes 5 turns without chopping woods, and does some good, build it." so in response,

No, no, no!!

That's precisely the mindset that causes the afflicted to end up building more or less everything. You have to ask yourself why that building will only take five turns. The chances are it's because, as a buildoholic, you've given priority to hammers over commerce. Switch to commerce producing tiles and speed up your research (or use the hammers to knock out some troops for defence or conquest).

i am totally a buildaholic. i agree with what WH says here. i was going to post it myself in very close to that wording, so it must be right you can even do the asking yourself/rearranging tiles being worked in a third way to get some 'oh this city will be getting better' feeling we builders love...have it emphasize food instead of (or in addition to) what WH suggests above. yay for bigger cities! (sometimes)

 

[cabert]

this thread is getting good

Toward the late game, libraries are sort of worth it, as 25&#37; more commerce is a lot once your city is working 12 towns. But the point is, before then, the hammers are a lot better spent on axeman... almost all the time. I still believe that the barracks and courthouses in every city can't go wrong though.

courthouses can be totally useless, believe me (low number of close cities) for more than half the game (in dates, not in turns).
And barracks can be a real waste : is it better to have 1 promoted axe or 3 axes?
Is it better to have 2 catapults or a barracks? I very often build catapults in commerce=barrackless cities. Those are suicidal units anyway, and the difference isn't worth the building.

We should be aware of what we're doing. When we play in "automatic mode" (= saved queue, or such things), we must be aware that it's very often suboptimal. How important is it to play an "optimal" game? IMHO it isn't a big deal, except you won't climb levels as fast as "optimal seekers".

When I put my brains on the task, I see which buildings fit in my global strat and which doesn't. It's not tedious. In fact it's the fun part, to be selective.
Still, I very much always play games based on "should do" (= no conscious maths) or "could be fun" (= trying exotic strats).
I am aware I'm not getting optimal results from this, but I still play cIV and warlords for my pleasure after more than a year . I (almost) didn't play any other game since cIV is out.
Optimal? none of my business