Do you always build stables instead of barracks?

[Artifex1]

Filthy says that melee troops are useless but I haven't fought many wars yet. Is it a bad idea to build barracks?

 

[teks]

Melee units do seem pretty useless..

 

[Lucius_]

If you somehow don't have horses, you probably shouldn't build a stable. Beyond that, it depends. I like using a mix, partly because of how units leap frog each other in strength. Like I said about horses, you need iron for knights, niter for muskets. So it depends on what you end up with for resources as well. The biggest difference though is in the promotion trees. Melee units can get +10 when fighting in a district, making them better at taking cities if you can park them in a district. Cavalry units don't have any promotions that can help with city attacks and they have innate weaknesses to anti-cavalry, which melee units do not have. All in all, I don't think anyone should write off melee units as worthless, as it all depends on the situation.

 

[teks]

Great points man.
It's just, it's a shame melee units are so slow.
IMO cavalry types shouldn't get defensive bonuses. Cavalry are a bi too good at all roles. They are just melee units trading a weakness to anti-cav in exchange for speed, and anti-cav are too expensive to expose that weakness.

 

[Agent327]

I only build Barracks/Stables to get Terracotta Army. Units get plenty of XP from combat, and for an early war Terracotta Army is kind of a major boost to your military.

 

[teks]

I only build Barracks/Stables to get Terracotta Army. Units get plenty of XP from combat, and for an early war Terracotta Army is kind of a major boost to your military.

They also give housing and production.

 

[Magil]

Doesn't barracks also buff ranged troops? Melee is one thing, but last I checked ranged units were still quite strong.

 

[Agent327]

Barracks are for all non-cavalry units, so yes.

They also give housing and production.

A limited amount, yes. But the question was about war purposes.

 

[kampori]

I only ever build one stables. That city can pump out the cavalry. Every other encampment has barracks. It's usually 1 turn quicker to build, and range units are much better than melee and cavalry, so there's that.

 

[Jarms48]

I always get stables. Though I don't have the game open so I can't remember, does a barracks work on archer units?

 

[Gtdead]

Stables only pretty much. I find it inconsequential anyway, especially if Kabul is in the game.

In any case, melee units are too slow for domV. They take forever to move from city to city. Now that balloon stacking got nerfed, I hardly even use artillery due to their speed too. I just spam tanks. It's really boring.

 

[Halcyan2]

No, because Barracks are cheaper than Stables.

I feel like Encampments (and associated buildings) are too expensive in the early game, which is when you need the most units. And by the time I do build them, I don't need to pump out any more units.

The main reason I build these is for Terracotta Army or for Armories and Military Academies. In those cases, I might as well just go with the cheaper Barracks and save some hammers.

 

[VirtuallyJesse]

Melee units are simply too slow with the new movement rules. If I ever have the choice, I always go Stables. Of course, you don't always have the choice. Still not sure if I like the new movement rules.

 

[DocRock]

The new movement rules are the worst of all changes. Please inform me if there is a mod to fix this.

 

[Rossticles]

It depends on where the city is. If it's on the border I'll usually build barracks, if it's behind a few cities from the border it'll be a stable. My reasoning is that those cavalry units can make up for that loss of movement that melee and ranged units get when trying to get to the front. I don't usually prioritize encampments though. I rarely build them.

 

[DocRock]

They give production, therefore I'll build them..

 

[kaspergm]

I actually lean towards baracks and melee units, although that may just be out of habit from Civ5. I do think melee units are good, though. A couple of Infantry corps can really do good damage to cities if promoted.

 

[blasto]

I find I never have to build either. I rarely lose my initial units and they upgrade accordingly over time to whatever they should including horse units.

I only build encampments when I want a wonder that needs it or as a defensive measure in certain situations for the extra range coverage.

 

[teks]

I find I never have to build either. I rarely lose my initial units and they upgrade accordingly over time to whatever they should including horse units.

I only build encampments when I want a wonder that needs it or as a defensive measure in certain situations for the extra range coverage.

The primary bonus the building provides are crap and I had the same outlook as you. Then I noticed that the encampment buildings also provide housing and production bonuses on top of it.
Barracks = +1 production, +1 housing
Armory = +2 production
Military academy = +3 production +1 housing
Total of +6 production, + 2 housing, Static defense, and some crappy exp bonus no one really cares about.

Their is also a city state that gives encampments a trade route. Buckle your pants if you get that, because encampments then become the best district in the game.

I think in multiplayer, where military units actually matter, players have picked up on their importance more then those who play single player, since the AI is utterly incompetent in combat.

 

[Magil]

Their is also a city state that gives encampments a trade route. Buckle your pants if you get that, because encampments then become the best district in the game.

Carthage, yeah. I started very near them in my most recent game as Germany. Didn't eliminate them, allied up to them, and build Encampments everywhere. Soon every city had 2-3 internal trade routes. It was a stomp.