Archery or no?

[athelious]

Playing on emperor and immortal, I still see it as a detour to go for archery. I wait until after AH and BW don't show horses or copper. Two warriors per city for barbs (30 hammers vs. 25 for the archer). I love the woodsman III promotion, makes it worthwhile to upgrade the warriors later. On deity, I believe you only get one unit free per city so I can see the advantage for archers there. Also variables to consider: starting with mining it might be worthwhile to shoot for BW first. Or starting with AG and a cow resource in your fat cross, AH might be worthwhile first. Conversely starting with hunting makes archery a quick grab.

I feel if I would go for archery (when I don't start with hunting) I would lose precious time to expand and block quickly.

 

[kristopherb]

Archery fast
Pro/charismatic but thats why i'm stuck on noble.

 

[ungy]

I feel if I would go for archery (when I don't start with hunting) I would lose precious time to expand and block quickly.

I agree of course that is a detour and I basically never used to go for it. However, often I ended up driven in settling city 2 to get resource, not to block.
I found that in a large land mass game, a bunch of warriors are not really that great for fog busting--you want to be on a hill but then an archer comes next to you--you're around even money--so I retreat. Then you start losing control of the fog.

In a small land mass game, you can build warriors and bust fine.