[GS] Did GS nerf encampments? When do you build them now?

[Victoria]

I will build an encampment for a few reasons.

The GG +5 really counts bashing down the extra strength walls as LL said but the +2 MP it give foot turns them into cavalry that have to obey ZOC. That GG can give envoys from quests also.
The quest to build an encampment is often the deciding factor with me building one early.
The buildings give +1,+2 and +4 (+8 with Victoria) production with specialists also providing production
If your capital has an armoury and you have 3 envoys in military 2 CS you get +10 production toward units (including settlers/builders). But +8 in your non capital makes up for it, build one early in a second city with a barracks for second city settler creation.
Then there is the eurekas and inspirations including building 7 different districts.
And not only does it defend really well versus surprise barb attacks but can act as a road over a river.
Finally, have you ever built one 2 tiles from an enemy city and then put a catapult in it? It’s a bit dirty because the enemy city cannot shoot back.

But otherwise no, they are useless

 

[Disgustipated]

As for my timing, unless I'm Shaka/Alexander, I may try to build one before castles if I think I have a shot at Alhambra. If not, I'll try to get one in around Steam Power, but only if I have enough coal to actually build railroads. My last game as Pedro II I couldn't do either. Not sure building Alhambra is possible on Emperor, I wasn't even close. I can get it maybe 50% of the time on King. But it didn't help I had limited room and played peacefully since my neighbor was Gilgamesh. Coal was very limited as well, and power requirements brought me down to 0. In this particular case I didn't build an encampment until a protracted war with Zulu in which I faced over 20 armies! I gave up on land units though, and had to rely on Mineas to bail me out.

I actually build encampments more after GS came out. Infrequently before that.

 

[Loerwyn]

As a primarily Poland player, I'm a little biased towards them but I don't actually make use of them that often (which is something I probably need to correct). However, I feel they've saved my bacon more than a few times due to their ability to make ranged attacks against encroaching enemies and placing them in the direction of AI players does give me a little bit of an extra boost in combat, especially as I tend not to make a large army.

 

[CoconutTank]

I build Encampments a lot, but I do wish they did a bit more. Increasing the max stockpile for strategic resources isn't particularly powerful; I wish Encampments would increase resource accumulation by 1 per node, then maybe by another 1 per node with an Armory or something.

Edit: Minor nit that I missed, but in case it wasn't obvious, each Encampment's accumulation boost should only apply to the city its in, not globally.

 

[Loerwyn]

I build Encampments a lot, but I do wish they did a bit more. Increasing the max stockpile for strategic resources isn't particularly powerful, and I wish Encampments would increase resource accumulation by 1, then maybe by another 1 with Armory or something.

I'd like to disagree, if I may? I don't think there's much they can do without really revamping the strategic resource system. Maybe it's my less militarised nature, but I find myself hitting stockpile limits (even raised ones) really easily. Do you really need, say, 80-90 iron over the course of the game? Likely not. So I don't see how boosting accumulation (which sounds like an Ind Zone thing more than a Enc thing) would really help, except to possibly churn out units quicker for a relatively brief period.

 

[CoconutTank]

I'd like to disagree, if I may? I don't think there's much they can do without really revamping the strategic resource system. Maybe it's my less militarised nature, but I find myself hitting stockpile limits (even raised ones) really easily. Do you really need, say, 80-90 iron over the course of the game? Likely not. So I don't see how boosting accumulation (which sounds like an Ind Zone thing more than a Enc thing) would really help, except to possibly churn out units quicker for a relatively brief period.

Faster/greater accumulation would help with churning out units quicker, being able to upgrade one's army more quickly, and also have a higher soft cap on units that use strategic resources for maintenance in the later parts of the session. I don't think Iron is used for maintenance costs for any units, but lack of Oil, and especially lack of Aluminum are very prohibiting and dependent on the whims of map generation.

Edit: Now that I think about it, spending 80-90 Iron is pretty easy to do. Swordsmen, Knights and Cuirassiers each cost 20 Iron to train or upgrade to, so any combination of 5 of said units would require 100 Iron.

 

[Loerwyn]

Faster/greater accumulation would help with churning out units quicker, being able to upgrade one's army more quickly, and also have a higher soft cap on units that use strategic resources for maintenance in the later parts of the session. I don't think Iron is used for maintenance costs for any units, but lack of Oil, and especially lack of Aluminum are very prohibiting and dependent on the whims of map generation.

Edit: Now that I think about it, spending 80-90 Iron is pretty easy to do. Swordsmen, Knights and Cuirassiers each cost 20 Iron to train or upgrade to, so any combination of 5 of said units would require 100 Iron.

Touché.

 

[Bliss]

Faster/greater accumulation would help with churning out units quicker, being able to upgrade one's army more quickly, and also have a higher soft cap on units that use strategic resources for maintenance in the later parts of the session. I don't think Iron is used for maintenance costs for any units, but lack of Oil, and especially lack of Aluminum are very prohibiting and dependent on the whims of map generation.

Edit: Now that I think about it, spending 80-90 Iron is pretty easy to do. Swordsmen, Knights and Cuirassiers each cost 20 Iron to train or upgrade to, so any combination of 5 of said units would require 100 Iron.

Touché.

Or they could simply, you know, make Encampments buff unit production just like Military CS do, or make them cheaper, or both.

 

[CoconutTank]

Or they could simply, you know, make Encampments buff unit production just like Military CS do, or make them cheaper, or both.

Encampment buildings give generic production (which is technically better than a unit-specific production bonus) and housing (which is nice to have and doesn't show up that often on other districts). Military Academy grants bonus production for corps and armies, which are always better to field than individual units.

 

[Bliss]

Encampment buildings give generic production (which is technically better than a unit-specific production bonus) and housing (which is nice to have and doesn't show up that often on other districts). Military Academy grants bonus production for corps and armies, which are always better to field than individual units.

Make all districts give +1 all yields if we are talking about versatility. lol. But on a serious note, Barracks give +1 production and armory +3. 1 Envoy sent to Military CS give +2 production for units building. If you have military inspiration, it is a much cheaper and better investment to send a envoy...

 

[CoconutTank]

Make all districts give +1 all yields if we are talking about versatility. lol. But on a serious note, Barracks give +1 production and armory +3. 1 Envoy sent to Military CS give +2 production for units building. If you have military inspiration, it is a much cheaper and better investment to send a envoy...

Ok, but the first Military CS bonus only applies when building units out of your Capital, and for no other cities. The latter Military CS bonuses require a Rax, Stable or Armory. Methinks Encampment buildings are still pretty important for building units.

 

[MaxNacemit]

I would say that the utility of encampments depends on playstyle, wincon and diplomacy skills. If you have a neighbor you can't pacify but don't want to waste your resources by building an army and conquering him, they can be of immense help. If you need Integrated Space Cell or resource stockpiles(although IMO they are not needed in the later parts of the game as it's the resource flow that matters), then they can be rather useful. Great Generals - same. If, however, you're a peaceful sci/culture/diplo player like me, they're much less useful.

 

[Abaxial]

Can you say "overlapping fields of fire"?

 

[MrRadar]

Can you say "overlapping fields of fire"?

Meaning "crossfire"?

 

[Pfeffersack]

I built them more often then before, alone for additional storage of strategic ressources (which can be sold to the AI for a good extra income) and access to miliatry pioneers. Extra production and houding don't hurt, too. Finally, the policy card speeding up their construction is a much better deal now because of boosting harbours, too. Maybe ist only me, but even one not-so-water-heavy maps it tend to build ports wherever possible, so there is always the temption to also get the cheaper encampments

 

[CoconutTank]

Hmm that's a good point. I do occasionally get good deals on strategics from the AI, but it's hard to part with relevant strategics, and that's usually what the AI is asking for. They'll occasionally trade 3 gpt for my stash of 6 niter... but y'know I really need those Frigates and Musketmen sooner than later lol.

Agreed that Veterancy is an awesome policy. I already liked using Veterancy a lot before it included Harbors, and speeding up Harbors (and Lighthouses specifically) feels great.