Encampments not very useful

[PendragonWRB]

Absolutely they are valuable.
- Great for defense against barbs or when war weariness is spawning mech infantry in your homeland and your armies are away.
- Extra local and 'remote' production via trade routes. +1 per trade route is +25% at worst
(new cities getting +4 per route you 'loan' is great and come spaceship time focusing all routes)
- Faster ranking of your military (I try never to build a unit unless I am using the encampment/barracks/academy)
- Lower resource requirements
- Extra safe place to park your ranged units when fighting on your own soil

 

[BuzWeaverCiv]

Pretty sure they also let you build Strategic-dependent units more efficiently, too. They're a good way of routing units to the edge of your empire too (as their placement necessitates edge placement).

This is a good reason why I build them along with bonuses to unites and in a pinch you can work them for the additional housing. It may also be kind of obvious, but if you're attacked by late game Barb's or Civ's the additional bombardment is very welcome.

 

[Victoria]

I suspect the Real problem here is domination is too easy and so you do not need them or if the opposite is true, we would realise we loose more often if we build them.

 

[UWHabs]

I suspect the Real problem here is domination is too easy and so you do not need them or if the opposite is true, we would realise we loose more often if we build them.

Yeah, the fact that I can build about 8 units in the ancient/classic era and use those same units throughout the entire game without needing to build new ones certainly makes me need encampments less. If we have to rebuild our army every generation, then their value would definitely be a lot stronger.

 

[Gotag001]

Absolutely critical in SP, don't play MP so no clue there.

I would in fact love it if they made them a non district and allowed multiple for each city based on population.

Why? Because the AI builds them a LOT! Occasionally they even garrison them with a ranged unit!! (I know I know, but its something)

I play deity and I've had an entire shoestring attack almost founder when the AI had a well positioned encampment with an xbow garrison. At rough tech parity they hit hard. (pity that the AI moved the xbow out after a few turns..... sigh)

I also experimented with an always war game (war weariness crushed me eventually) with a nice defensible location and interlocking encampments with multiple ranged units and my god the carnage, had a bunch of lvl 7 field cannons.

In short, in SP I build one so that I can make units that require strategic resources, other then that no usually. However the AI uses them and that makes then good.

 

[miaasma]

they're just underwhelming for districts. depending on your starting dirt i find the production and housing they provide pretty useful, and at worst just supplementary if my city is growing fast

 

[Futumch]

The reduced cost for units - ones that normally require 2 copies of a resource - is handy. I also like the little boosts to trade and science which you can set up with a policy card (Military research). I don't build that many of them, to be fair - I use them to make a couple of Military Engineers to plonk down airstrips and missile silos.
I voted that they were blanced. Fence-sitting, I know.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

They're one of the VC specific districts. If you're going science, culture or religion you might only build one or two. If you're going Dom they're pretty nice and much better than theaters or holy sites. I think of the VC specific districts the only one that's universally good to build a decent amount of is the campus.

In general I spam commercial districts, build campuses and harbors wherever I can get good adj bonuses and make sure every city has IZ and ent coverage but I usually avoid overlap. In a lot of cities that leaves room for encampments that add a couple beakers, some flat production, housing, and the cog to ITRs.

When talking opportunity costs why build a theater, holy site or overlapping IZ/ent district instead?

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

I like them. Get a couple early, and if you happen to get two Generals... look out. I'm not sure if everyone knows that GG stack. True they aren't by any means necessary, but fun is the name of the game.

 

[Tacgnol]

OP here.

So I started a new game with random leader and got Tomyris so I decided to go for an encampment very early after failing to get a religion from a holy site. Built a stable and with the ability to spawn double cavalry with just 1 horses early game was pretty legit. Late in the game directly building armies is nice but what's really key is you can directly buy armies. So having one and getting a military academy is essential.

But still they are not really worth building elsewhere on single player, extra prod on trade routes and extra housing just aren't worth missing out on another district.

They're one of the VC specific districts.

I really disagree. In a domination game they are even less worth building because I will have plenty of resources and will capture AI cities with encampments anyway. And domination means a moving front so the defensive aspect is useless. Having 1 or 2 is still pretty essential but I'm not going to build any others.


So do the bonuses on industrial zone/entertainment district not stack at all? So if you have 1 factory within range and build one in a city's IZ does that city get an additional prod boost or is it completely wasted maintenance and production? If not I've been literally designing my cities to be as inefficient as possible, lol.

 

[greygamer]

I wonder what would happen if they went back to the concept that encampments give bonus production to units only and IZ give bonus production to non-units only ?

 

[Captain Potato]

I like them for flavour but they're very niche for single player if you're playing for optimal efficiency. They could be buffed considerably without being over powered (at least for single player; I've read they're better for multiplayer).

Thematically they should be something you look to build in an aggressive civ that builds lots of units, but it doesn't work out like that. When playing aggressively, what you want is more units. Building an Encampment plus barracks/stable is well over 200 hammers for what essentially amounts to +1 hammer a turn. So that's 200 turns to pay for itself. Ignoring the Encampment you've got 200 hammers to spend on more units. To make it better it needs to pay for itself much sooner in raw hammers, even if the hammers given are restricted to unit building.

Funnily enough you get more use from Encampments in a peaceful game because 1) you'll do more combat in your own territory 2) you'll have less land for resources and 3) you'll be building fewer units early so you can spare the hammers.

 

[Siptah]

I just want to add to the arguments above in terms of pro usefulness:

If you happen to have two or more militaristic city states in the game you will automatically have some additional encampment bonus by accidentally fulfilling quests. If one of those is CS is Carthage (which makes encampments really, really good) or Valetta, you probably want to send those 6 envoys anyway.

 

[bbufa]

I think it's not useless, if you can be suzerain of some military cs, encampment will add unit production (both military and civilian units). You will save much time to train builders, settlers... as well, not only military unit.
Great Generals effect stack. If you have 2 GG support than you army is just...crazy.
In this save file (1.0.0.56), Carthage and Valletta are next to my capital (and I can meet them before anyone else), and I'm Scythia... Be suzerain of a CS in ancient era if CS first quest is easy xD

 

[Victoria]

Is it about having more units... Or better units?

I think it is straight forward. In multiplayer where you are up against people who are roughly as good as you, they say that encampents are very useful. I would therefore propose that the only reason a domination player does not use them SP is because the AI is bad.

 

[greygamer]

I like them for flavour but they're very niche for single player if you're playing for optimal efficiency. They could be buffed considerably without being over powered (at least for single player; I've read they're better for multiplayer).

Thematically they should be something you look to build in an aggressive civ that builds lots of units, but it doesn't work out like that. When playing aggressively, what you want is more units. Building an Encampment plus barracks/stable is well over 200 hammers for what essentially amounts to +1 hammer a turn. So that's 200 turns to pay for itself. Ignoring the Encampment you've got 200 hammers to spend on more units. To make it better it needs to pay for itself much sooner in raw hammers, even if the hammers given are restricted to unit building.

Funnily enough you get more use from Encampments in a peaceful game because 1) you'll do more combat in your own territory 2) you'll have less land for resources and 3) you'll be building fewer units early so you can spare the hammers.

Where are you getting the 200 hammers from? The district cost is variable based on other factors. If anything that would suggest building encampments early is best.
Also it's not just +1 hammer per turn return. Encampments provide other benefits as previously mentioned which you simply ignored, 200 hammers buy maybe a couple of units but no other benefits.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think it is straight forward. In multiplayer where you are up against people who are roughly as good as you, they say that encampents are very useful. I would therefore propose that the only reason a domination player does not use them SP is because the AI is bad.

Precisely. The military benefits of Encampments just don't improve my ability to win a war against the AI.

I can envision 1 or 2 discrete situations where a static fortification with an innate ranged attack would be better than a ranged unit, but I can just as easily envision not getting myself into that situation, managing that situation without the fortification, or rendering that situation moot within the overall strategic picture. I can also envision situations where fewer, better units would be more handy than more numerous units, but I've only ever built a Corps or an Army once, just to see what it was and what it did. I don't use Corps or Armies, not because Corps & Armies don't do anything, but because what they do isn't needed. I've also only built Terracotta Army once, just to see what it did, in a game where I'd already conquered my entire continent and had 40 cities.

I haven't tried playing at Deity yet, so maybe up there I would use the additional military stuff more than I do. At Emperor and Immortal, though, the raw bonuses the AI gets force me to work hard to keep up in science, culture, gold and/or faith, whichever applies to the game at hand. In anything other than a Domination game, spending too much time & resources developing my military is just as bad as spending not enough. In a peaceful game, just give me a mid-sized army of melee and ranged units that aren't a full era behind, and I can defend myself against the AI just fine. In a conqueror's game, I'll need a slightly larger and more diverse army, where production, trade routes, and income are more useful than XP bonuses and fixed fortifications.

 

[Gorbles]

shrugs

They're still good even against a lacklustre AI because if spawn conditions are unfavourable you often find yourself unable to mount an effective offensive on certain Civilisations. Try hitting Monte when he's cut off by a large lake and guarded by trees. Those Jaguar Warriors are an absolute pain, and he goes all-in on City-States as soon as he's able to.

 

[teks]

I like them for flavour but they're very niche for single player if you're playing for optimal efficiency. They could be buffed considerably without being over powered (at least for single player; I've read they're better for multiplayer).

Thematically they should be something you look to build in an aggressive civ that builds lots of units, but it doesn't work out like that. When playing aggressively, what you want is more units. Building an Encampment plus barracks/stable is well over 200 hammers for what essentially amounts to +1 hammer a turn. So that's 200 turns to pay for itself. Ignoring the Encampment you've got 200 hammers to spend on more units. To make it better it needs to pay for itself much sooner in raw hammers, even if the hammers given are restricted to unit building.

Funnily enough you get more use from Encampments in a peaceful game because 1) you'll do more combat in your own territory 2) you'll have less land for resources and 3) you'll be building fewer units early so you can spare the hammers.

+1 hammer per turn for every trader using that city.
+3 hammers per turn from buildings.
+3 housing from buildings, which translates to hammers, food, science, culture, and gold too.
With an edict that 200 hammers is cost down 30%.
And a massive discount producing corps and armies

 

[FurballRocker]

Ironically i find they are least use in a domination victory or when you have any sort of military focus which is seemingly what they should be used for.

As standard i aim to conquer two neighbours before significant warmonger penalties come into effect which tends to mean i focus on building units very early and stopping on the way to build an encampment gives the AI a greater chance of having walls up before i am finished with them so early on i find them a liability rather than a bonus.

I could lock them down and build them later but they take up a valuable district slot and as i am going very wide with amenities being at a premium and thus aiming for lots of little efficient cities taking up a slot with an encampment means sacrificing a more useful district. Doubled with the fact that most captured AI cities tend to have a district slot wasted on a holy district which makes the districts i can build even more of a premium.

They do add a bonus to production and also to trade routes but when you have 20-30 trade routes powering your cities and quickly running out of important things to build it makes little difference. If i really wanted to production i would build an IZ anyway which also gives great engineers, most of which provide good on use bonuses or at least much more useful than any great general retiring bonus.

They do add some culture but when you have added just a monument to all your cities to allow them to expand without i find finish the culture tree very early on in the game and if i do find myself lacking in culture i would rather build a theater district which will allow me to house all my stolen works or archeology digs.

They do provide great general points but i find the new system of great generals affecting units specific to their era unintuitive. It's a good idea but with no simple way to see which general is affecting which unit and even if they actually are it becomes more of a chore to use them than a bonus which isn't exactly needed anyway as the AI is not a particular threat.
I think it would be much better if generals simply gave their bonus while you were in set era's rather than affecting units of set era's as it would be a lot more obvious if they were doing anything or not.
Also the legacy bonuses from retiring generals are generally quite poor in comparison to their opportunity cost with the only ones i ever found 'game changing' being the envoys bonuses (when i have got generals from captured encampments).

They do allow you to build units with only a single copy of a resource but if you are playing a military expansionist type style you generally end up with two copies of most resources anyway and as you built a large military early on you tend to mostly be upgrading rather than building new units so only need one copy to upgrade anyway.

They are powerful on defense but if your playing military expansionist then you are generally attacking rather than defending which makes static defenses generally redundant and you will usually have a bigger pointy stick score than any AI so they will never surprise attack you.

I sometimes utilise captured ones to build armies and corps late in the game but then that is more to speed up the mopping up operation rather than because i actually need them especially as by that time i am generally bringing in 1000-2000gpt so can just buying my military to use it up.


Having said all that i feel they would be good in a tall style empire, providing strong defense and also allowing a small but highly trained defense force with you having a lot of extra population and thus district slots available but as you are effectively gimping yourself by stay small in the current game it makes them useless.