[R&F] Does anyone else think that barracks function weird in civ 6?

[Deggial]

The problem is not the barrack's effect. Early units (built without them) will have gained XP and some promotions. Later units (built with barracks) will be able to catch up to this level faster. Deleting the older, already promoted units seems unnecessary, imo.

The issue I have is - as usual in CIV6 - related to the UI:
There is no way to tell, which units enjoy the effect of barrack-increased XP gain.
As there is no clear notification (unless the combat-preview is active), which units gained the "Spear of Fionn" effect, which one climbed Mount Everest and so on and so forth. How are we supposed to keep track on these benefits? (Please, don't suggest to rename each and every unit that visited such locations ... this would be cumbersome to no end!)

 

[Arent11]

In civ 5 and earlier, barracks and similar buildings just gave 1 promotion level.

In civ 6 they give a bonus to earned XP but the catch is that it only applies to units trained after you build the building...inevitably, you end up with gimped units from previous eras which dont get the XP bonus and theres nothing you can do other than scrap them and train new units from scratch.

This seems REALLY dumb...

I was looking in the XML files and i saw that they tried to implement a "Retrain" unit operation but i dont think they managed to get it working because i dont see any retrain option at all in the game itself.

I think it is weird that they give you production & housing advantages or combat experience bonuses. In earlier civ games, your units started as veterans, which was quite good, but an additional unit was usually better.

I personally would prefer a "military infrastructure", that barracks, castles, walls etc. all provide "support" (as in master of orion) that allows you to maintain a certain number of units for free. And if you exceed that support, you need to pay lots of maintenance. In this way, if you want to create and maintain a large standing army, you would first of all have to create the necessary infrastructure, which would at the same time also help you to defend your country (walls, castles etc.).

 

[Depravo]

I personally would prefer a "military infrastructure", that barracks, castles, walls etc. all provide "support" (as in master of orion) that allows you to maintain a certain number of units for free. And if you exceed that support, you need to pay lots of maintenance. In this way, if you want to create and maintain a large standing army, you would first of all have to create the necessary infrastructure, which would at the same time also help you to defend your country (walls, castles etc.).

Nice.

Hopefully in Civ 7 we get some love for logistics / manpower.

 

[isau]

Kind of disappointing that the Encampment isn't a source of Loyalty for you and a spreader of Disloyalty in your rivals if you ask me.

 

[Equilin]

I never care about the increased experience gain. I think there is a cap on how many exp a unit can earned from one combat?

 

[manarod]

The real problem is that in single player you rarely lose a unit, so basically you retain the ones from ancient era, just updated. In civ4 you constantly build new units so barracks was important in the military city. In civ6 not so much

 

[UWHabs]

The real problem is that in single player you rarely lose a unit, so basically you retain the ones from ancient era, just updated. In civ4 you constantly build new units so barracks was important in the military city. In civ6 not so much

Yeah, far too often I create my army at the start, and then later on, I just add on units here or there as needed. And at that point, you just need 1 barracks/armory as your "unit-buying" city, as opposed to actually have infrastructure around your empire.

 

[Scaramanga]

Kind of disappointing that the Encampment isn't a source of Loyalty for you and a spreader of Disloyalty in your rivals if you ask me.

Encampment specialists give culture, which is related to loyalty as far as policies and Governors go.

 

[nzcamel]

(Please, don't suggest to rename each and every unit that visited such locations ... this would be cumbersome to no end!)

Well, you can't even do that if you wanted to, as many of those units will not have a second promotion at the time they first come across Nat Wonder X. And I don't think you can edit a units name once it has one.

I get they were wanting to make unit naming special...but I think they didn't consider that some players have practical uses for that.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I don't understand why you would scrap a unit just because it doesn't get bonus xp. IMHO the value of the promotion is mostly in the 50 hp heal that comes with it. It can be nice (especially late game) knowing that a unit will get its first promotional heal after just a few battles. That doesn't make your old units any less valuable though. If you aren't intent on making war you probably won't want many encampments. If you are looking for a Dom sweep they play an important role by getting you great generals. IMHO the production and experience are just langiappe; they're nice and you should take advantage of them but they aren't generally the reason encampments are important.

 

[Disgustipated]

I never care about the increased experience gain. I think there is a cap on how many exp a unit can earned from one combat?

It can add up, in my most recent Mongol game I got my very first level 7 promotion unit. I never had that in Civ6 before. Ordus combined with Kabul did the trick. All my cavalry class units had the benefit of the stable replacement, though I built some archers before that that got pretty high in promotions as well, but not nearly as much as my Keshigs turned field cannons (sadly they become largely useless at this point, I put off upgrading them as long as I could).

I think the main problem is some of the promotions just aren't that useful. There tend to be only one or two I really value. But getting the double tap promotion for keshigs was really powerful. That one alone is worth it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Oh, I didn't even remember they existed.

Yea it's quite useless. But then again, even if it did give an extra promotion from the get go, I still wouldn't really think of them much. I think the idea was that faster promotions means faster heals, but then again there's only so many promotions you can get.

 

[isau]

I don't care that much about XP on melee units.

Siege units on the other hand are a totally different deal. Promoted Siege (mainly down the right side of the tree) are game changing. That's why the Mapuche feel a little to me like cheating, because their +25% XP in cities with Governors ability applies to Siege right in the stage of the game where you're doing your early city slams. Once Siege start being able to shred walls and fire at will--particularly with the new changes to Great Generals that boost troop movement--they're pretty wild.

 

[Trengilly]

I never pay attention to the +% XP stuff. Except the new golden age dedication that adds 100% is pretty fun. And there was one game I played as Scythia where I discovered on turn 2 that my immediate neighbor CS was Kabul. That was pretty fun!

I think my biggest complaint about Civ6 (even more than AI) is that most of the districts I just rarely find it worth building.

 

[kryat]

I think the reason the barracks, armory, and academy (and naval counter parts) work the way they do is so that the newer units will be able to keep up with the older units. Older units take the span of a few wars in the early game to get to level 4, but by the late game, you usually have so many units and so many fronts that it would be hard for them to earn enough experience to be as valuable as your long-standing veterans, if the rates were identical. Instead, units built from the proper training facilities in the late game are able be competitive because they earn experience faster.

I personally think this is better than the approach in V because it dramatically shortens the time necessary for xp gathering time in the later eras to get the top tier promotions.

 

[acluewithout]

I think the reason the barracks, armory, and academy (and naval counter parts) work the way they do is so that the newer units will be able to keep up with the older units. Older units take the span of a few wars in the early game to get to level 4, but by the late game, you usually have so many units and so many fronts that it would be hard for them to earn enough experience to be as valuable as your long-standing veterans, if the rates were identical. Instead, units built from the proper training facilities in the late game are able be competitive because they earn experience faster.

I personally think this is better than the approach in V because it dramatically shortens the time necessary for xp gathering time in the later eras to get the top tier promotions.

I’d never thought of that, but that must be right. Well done sir!