That's correct.@Veshta
I think you missed the point of the OPHe is arguing that, even if you want to use the barracks and other XP giving buildings, the balance between the costs of making and maintaining those buildings and making and maintaining some extra units heavily favour making extra units and forget about the XP buildings. Not exactly the expected result, you should reckon ... reminds me of the more useless building of BtS, the custom house: in most cases you would be better building wealth than building it
Absolutely. And that's another issue altogether, as well... city state benefits are WAY too much for the cost to obtain them. I'm guessing they'll probably be nerfed in a future patch, but at the moment... wow, it's a bit insane.
Perhaps if city state benefits were nerfed a bit (especially Maritime benefits), and Granaries/Watermills made a bit cheaper/less costly to maintain, they'd be worth building more.Hmm, in a small way I guess... personally I think it'd be more useful to give them a hammer bonus to building units in addition to the XP bonus (perhaps a +10% hammer boost). Either that, or reduce the cost of the buildings. Or both.
I think you'll find my math is fine, and I know how to play the game fairly well. You can skip the derision.
In my current game in 1170 AD I have five such cities. Plus several more that I could potentially convert to such a status if I shifted around tiles and citizens.
Because as most Civ veterans know, it's not the later game that matters, it's the early game. By 1200 AD you will often have the game fairly well in the bag (or at least heading that way). Being able to produce stuff more quickly matters less at that point. Barracks, Stable, Armory and Forge all become available fairly early on, and they should become useful at the times when they arrive in the tech tree. Otherwise, why put them in so early if they're of no use until later?
If you truly don't need the units, you're wasting your time building them given that there are so many other things to build. But I don't see how you could ever not need the units until you win the game. If you're producing units and then deleting them immediately, you're probably doing it wrong (unless you're not going for a Conquest victory).
I think you'll find my math is fine, and I know how to play the game fairly well. You can skip the derision.
In my current game in 1170 AD I have five such cities. Plus several more that I could potentially convert to such a status if I shifted around tiles and citizens.
Because as most Civ veterans know, it's not the later game that matters, it's the early game. By 1200 AD you will often have the game fairly well in the bag (or at least heading that way). Being able to produce stuff more quickly matters less at that point. Barracks, Stable, Armory and Forge all become available fairly early on, and they should become useful at the times when they arrive in the tech tree. Otherwise, why put them in so early if they're of no use until later?
The key to a successful campaign in the early-mid game is to have the strongest army possible. With such low unit numbers overall in Civ5 compared to Civ4 though, buildings like the Barracks/Armory/Stable/Forge are fairly useless in the key early-mid game interval. At present it's better to produce a larger army of non-promoted units than to waste valuable hammers producing buildings which give minimal benefits to your smaller army. It shouldn't be that way. That is the key point I have been trying to make here.
If you truly don't need the units, you're wasting your time building them given that there are so many other things to build. But I don't see how you could ever not need the units until you win the game. If you're producing units and then deleting them immediately, you're probably doing it wrong (unless you're not going for a Conquest victory).
You'd be wrong. Had a cakewalk first game on Prince, won easily on my second Emperor game, Immortal wasn't much trickier, will be trying Deity next. Civ5 isn't that hard, at least with the present AI.
Because you don't need a lot of units in single player, since the AI sucks. Multiplayer would of course be different, and I'd play differently in that circumstance as required.
Not yet, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be much more easy/hard than any other nation.
Not at present in Civ5, though I'll get to that once I'm done with the Deity AI (which shouldn't be long, just need the time to play through another game). In Civ4 I have racked up countless hours in multiplayer games, and while it's a different game, a lot of the general concepts will be transferrable to Civ5. Stuff like attacking early with superior numbers, maintaining the element of surprise, etc. I'm fairly confident that I'll do alright in Civ5 multiplayer when I get started.
Sure, that's not particularly difficult to achieve. I prefer the 5-6 Horseman rush against the AI myself, but I can see how against human players who build/use Spears properly, Horses may not be quite as effective as Swordsmen. Same principle though: spam units and go kill someone as early as feasible.
Good to know. I still question why you wouldn't be building up units for the next war rather than disbanding them, though.
I'll admit that I am a bit of a wonder hog (at least in single player), so there's that. I probably wouldn't bother as much with them in multiplayer. But there's also the fact that new buildings come along quite quickly, since the research rate in Civ5 is rather fast compared to production speed.
