Encampments not very useful

[greygamer]

In general yes, considering most of them are simply a free unit (i usually have masses of excess gold i have nothing better to do with than buy units with), free unit upgrade (again have more than enough gold) or in effect some free unit xp (which not exactly needed as the AI is so poor in combat currently). The extra envoys are the only real noticeable difference to your empire which can't easily be gained in other ways.

Which brings us to...the old opportunity cost argument which is often overlooked but is very important as it is not only a case of what you gain but what you lose by gaining it and in the vast majority of cases i would see that i would lose more than i gained by building encampments.

My first few games i built encampments and then stopped as i realised i wasn't actually getting anything noticeable from them the vast majority of the time and since i stopped building them i haven't missed them at all.

The free units are often available before you can build them and as a result very dominant, the great general bonuses deserve their own thread for a better discussion. There is a poll of most popular retirement bonuses but if everything gets boiled down to a popularity contest there would be no point in posting any comments in this thread.

The opportunity cost argument has been thrown around so much in this thread that I am bored with what is a very subjective term and gets used as an "I win the debate" button more often than not. You value envoys more than I do for example, so would place a different value on the opportunity cost (again probably a thread just discussing this would be more useful). You would have to compare strategies.along with opportunity cost, e.g. encampments can be produced earlier than CD so research and civics would also need to be part of that discussion.

When I spammed encampments I got so many generals I could afford to expend them for the bonuses without hurting my conquering, and of course I was denying those generals to the AI. I even used 1 just to explore with.

 

[Victoria]

Quite a while ago I used to build a CZ everywhere.Then I realised I had excess for what I really needed.
ED are great yes, the difference between +5 and -5 in production terms is the cost of the production in the encampment,
Yes there is more than that and it gets hard to quantify precisely.

In my current game At emperor I am going for a seaside victory, a culture win with no theatres. Near the end and now have it in the bag but..... One key thing for this success was 2 high prod cities as I need both eiffel and cristo to secure the win safely. Both are coming up at roughly the same time in both trees so I build everything I can to increae production in said cities and around.
If I failed either wonder the cost to me would be 700 tourism
What I forgot was that encampments have a cheaper card, it did not matter in the end but encampments I will never forget are cheap to build in a hurry and provide what a factory does.

Its all about situation, there are times for both and also personal preference.

Note I have not used the words opportunity costs... Those words are not quantifiable
My opportunity was getting both wonders and encampments would have worked best for me as they are cheaper to build, especially as there are not many you normally have and the AI likes to build them.

 

[greygamer]

Note I have not used the words opportunity costs... Those words are not quantifiable

Is it ok to add this to my signature?

 

[Victoria]

lol, yes if you think its opportunistic to do so

 

[greygamer]

lol, yes if you think its opportunistic to do so

Added an roll eyes smilie for good measure

 

[Victoria]

A tourism victory - all tourism apart from 1 dusty unthemed museum and a plastic ark come from seasides... I really enjoyed playing it... it was so different and only one little skirmish when they realised I was winning

 

[Art Morte]

That's hardcore, lol.

 

[Quillan]

Again we are at the point where people aren't defining their difficulty level and basing most of their arguments on steamrolling a dumb ai.

I play diety in SP and I use them early on as needed, almost every game. I use them every MP game.

The thing about encampments is that they do far more than just give prod and a lot of people just ignore those benefits when making their arguments: Geographic zoning, defense, housing (do you build a granary ever?), adjacency bonuses, 30% discount when needed, ability to build terracota/alhambra, single resource builds, unit exp, cheaper army/corps, CS bonuses, GGs. You may not need those things every game, but there are certainly games where they are very strong and the benefits are unique to the encampment. And you get the prod and trade benefits.

I haven't done the math but my suspicion is people are overrating CD. For a great while a trader is only equivalent to working one more tile (and then its two, at say 4/3 or 3/4) and the CD gold is less consequential as time goes on. If prod is king (regardless of how you get there, ie. growth = prod etc) then 2 gold (+adj) and one route aren't necessarily as good as an encampment and probably not worth building in every city. GM can be great, sure, but if you have kongo in your game gl getting many. Dont get me wrong, me likey CD, but I think this deserves further consideration. Id much rather a harbour than a CD for example.

 

[greygamer]

Again we are at the point where people aren't defining their difficulty level and basing most of their arguments on steamrolling a dumb ai.

If you go back to the original post

Am I the only one who finds that encampments aren't terribly useful, even in Domination games?

I just got done winning a Domination victory on King as the Aztecs and I never once built an encampment. Rome had one with a barracks that I took over early on but I never actually built any units there, I trained a couple in a city with an encampment later on but the game was already won at that point, and I never built any of the district buildings..
Wondering if this is just my experience or applies on higher difficulties or if others agree

Playing at a level below emperor has a significant effect on what will happen early on, I often get forward settled by a number of AI when they have an additional settler at the start. Also playing with a civ that has an early unique unit changes things quite a bit. I test my deity starts using Catherine for this reason as she gets no bonuses until the medieval era.
Also game pace is a very important consideration.

I play diety in SP and I use them early on as needed, almost every game. I use them every MP game.

I like them after building my core army (4 ranged, 2 melee), however at deity the AI is getting +4 combat strength and a warrior can almost 1 shot a slinger so you do need to play smart even against "dumb" AI. This assumes you don't just focus archery at the start and even then a +30 walled city can handout 85 points of damage to an archer in 1 shot (against an archer with the emplacement promotion )

The thing about encampments is that they do far more than just give prod and a lot of people just ignore those benefits when making their arguments: Geographic zoning, defense, housing (do you build a granary ever?), adjacency bonuses, 30% discount when needed, ability to build terracota/alhambra, single resource builds, unit exp, cheaper army/corps, CS bonuses, GGs. You may not need those things every game, but there are certainly games where they are very strong and the benefits are unique to the encampment. And you get the prod and trade benefits.

I haven't done the math but my suspicion is people are overrating CD. For a great while a trader is only equivalent to working one more tile (and then its two, at say 4/3 or 3/4) and the CD gold is less consequential as time goes on. If prod is king (regardless of how you get there, ie. growth = prod etc) then 2 gold (+adj) and one route aren't necessarily as good as an encampment and probably not worth building in every city. GM can be great, sure, but if you have kongo in your game gl getting many. Dont get me wrong, me likey CD, but I think this deserves further consideration. Id much rather a harbour than a CD for example.

At the same time you do need to look after the gpt, so building enough CD is a consideration, I ignored that in 1 game and had to sell a (captured) city to cover me until I fixed the problem.
While production is king in a lot of ways, preserving your forces and having the gold to upgrade them is key.

 

[agonistes]

Again we are at the point where people aren't defining their difficulty level and basing most of their arguments on steamrolling a dumb ai.

I play diety in SP and I use them early on as needed, almost every game. I use them every MP game.

The thing about encampments is that they do far more than just give prod and a lot of people just ignore those benefits when making their arguments: Geographic zoning, defense, housing (do you build a granary ever?), adjacency bonuses, 30% discount when needed, ability to build terracota/alhambra, single resource builds, unit exp, cheaper army/corps, CS bonuses, GGs. You may not need those things every game, but there are certainly games where they are very strong and the benefits are unique to the encampment. And you get the prod and trade benefits.

I haven't done the math but my suspicion is people are overrating CD. For a great while a trader is only equivalent to working one more tile (and then its two, at say 4/3 or 3/4) and the CD gold is less consequential as time goes on. If prod is king (regardless of how you get there, ie. growth = prod etc) then 2 gold (+adj) and one route aren't necessarily as good as an encampment and probably not worth building in every city. GM can be great, sure, but if you have kongo in your game gl getting many. Dont get me wrong, me likey CD, but I think this deserves further consideration. Id much rather a harbour than a CD for example.

Hmmm.... I dunno about the *overrating CD.* If you tie in the the value of a trader to the CD... even if you don't have Muscat or Great Zimbabwe, CD's are almost essential for getting new cities off the ground, for setting up roads, for science or culture generation, gold of course... need gold for upkeep and upgrades. Alright, harbor has a trade route too, and encampment if you are lucky, but CD clearly generates the most gold. Easily the most valuable district for district spamming.

And of course people are basing their arguments on steamrolling a dumb ai. Multiplayer is a completely different game. It doesn't matter whether its III, IV, V, or VI, MP and SP are vastly different games.

No, people are not overrating CDs. They are still overrating the IZ, and underrating Encampments and EDs. And apparently underrating seaside resorts, too.

As for Kongo, as Russia I am destroying them with GPP. Destroying them. They are ahead in culture, but my Lavra + Aurora + Stockholm + CD spam has given me all 3 commercial amenities. Kongo is only a pita if, like me, you try to keep all the civs alive.

 

[Quillan]

Just because the OP posted his level doesn't mean the rest of the posters did sir...

Regarding the GMP, thats fine in your game, but not every game is russia for the lavra, you dont always spawn for aurora, and you dont always have stockholm, etc. On average on diety kongo blows everyone out of the water on GMs. Again, of course you can conquer all and say, see, i get em all

I recognize mp is different, but not everyone wants to play pure dom or pure hostility in SP so I stand by my comment.

As for CD, there are plenty of ways to replace that gold; a CD is worth what it is worth between the gold, the adjacency, and the trader just as an encampment is worth all of its attributes. My suggestion was only that people following a dogmatic approach to district choices doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. Strategies evolve and success is made by questioning dogma. As another poster said, the ai is weak enough that poor strategies can be successful without being dominant. This obscures good decision making.

 

[Victoria]

Nice post @Quillan
I hereby challenge the CD dogma!.... all too often I see "and of course I have a CD in every town ... naturally"
Maybe it needs a new thread...

 

[EgonSpengler]

Like, if your saying encampments are a bad investment. Are you comparing it to theatres and holy sites? I hardly bother with research centers even. Why are these better?

Someone in another post asked for a list, but I can't really do that because so much is situational.

Holy Sites are weird because if I'm going for a religious victory, they're #1 priority, both in terms of build order and quantity. otoh, if I'm going for any other VC, I frequently build none, and acquire a few by conquest.

Theater Squares are similar to Holy Sites, but not as extreme. If I'm going for a Cultural VC I build a lot of them (although I hadn't thought of Victoria's Trump-like resort strategy - I may have to try that now ), and even when I'm not going for a culture victory I usually build a few so I can get new Civics fairly quickly. One big use for getting new Civics fast is to have good agility in switching policies. I'll often skip Civics I don't need right away, just so I can have a 1 or 2-turn Civic ready to research later. For example, I'll adopt Professional Army, upgrade all of my units while I research a 1-turn Civic, then replace Professional Army without paying the fee.

Campuses are similar to Theater Squares, although slightly more important because keeping my army on the cutting edge is key to my ability to win wars (and I think it's important to maintaining a deterrent and to getting the diplomacy modifiers from Civs that admire strong militaries, however I'm not positive what the relationship is between an army's weapons and its size in these instances). So I'll build more than a few Campuses, regardless of my ultimate goal, and if I'm going for a Science Victory then they jump to #1.

I would say that Commercial Districts are my #1 district, only falling to #2 if I'm going for a religious victory (which I rarely do). Harbors are vital for a small number of cities. Conversely, Neighborhoods are ubiquitous, but come so late in the game they're rarely of great impact.

Industrial Zones and Entertainment Complexes are both important for every city, to varying degrees. Luxuries are fungible, so if City-A has an Amenities shortage, sometimes the solution is to build an Entertainment Complex in City-B, even before you unlock Zoos. The usefulness of Industrial Zones has a lot to do with the map (Encampments don't get Adjacency Bonuses) and how close your cities are to one another. I prefer to spread out as much as I can, but sometimes that isn't very much.

Holy Sites in non-religious games, Space Ports in non-Mars games, Aqueducts and Aerodromes all rate behind Encampments, in my view. A friend of mine insists that I'm undervaluing Holy Sites in non-religion-VC games, but so far I'm not seeing it.

And of course I've been talking about Districts this entire time, but really, the value of anything I could build needs to be compared to the value of everything I could be building at that same moment, for however many turns each of them will take to build (someone mentioned earlier the Social Policy that reduces the cost of Encampments).

At any rate... nobody is building these things in order to win. There are a number of reasons to build them, but simply to win is not one of them. The only way to lose in VI is the early zerg, and unless you get a hyper unlucky start, just building 2 warriors and a ranged bang-bang-bang will insure your survival.

That's an important distinction. I was taking the 'value' of Encampments to mean "how much they improve my chances of winning, compared to everything else." I agree with you, the only time I get killed on the battlefield is the early rush, when I couldn't have built an Encampment yet anyway. So unless someone wants to mount a defense of the AI's warfighting abilities, I think the value of Encampments is solely in their non-military benefits and applications.

This point of yours ties neatly into something I was thinking about just this morning: If Encampments are indeed just as useful as other, commonly-used districts, does that mean they would be OP and in need of rebalancing should the AI ever get a dramatic makeover in its warfighting? I would think that, for the Encampment supporters, the answer must be 'yes', but maybe there's something I haven't thought of.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Nice post @Quillan
I hereby challenge the CD dogma!.... all too often I see "and of course I have a CD in every town ... naturally"
Maybe it needs a new thread...

I'm game. But yes, I think the people demand a new thread.

 

[agonistes]

Regarding the GMP, thats fine in your game, but not every game is russia for the lavra, you dont always spawn for aurora, and you dont always have stockholm, etc. On average on diety kongo blows everyone out of the water on GMs. Again, of course you can conquer all and say, see, i get em all

I was merely pointing out that certain values are dependent on certain outcomes - it seemed you were dismissive of the GMP; I was pointing out the GMP value is there if you pursue it. How you rate districts depends on both intrinsic values - those values that will not change regardless of strategy, and extrinsic values - those values that are style/strategy dependent. Perhaps leading with an example was a mistake on my part.

As for CD, there are plenty of ways to replace that gold; a CD is worth what it is worth between the gold, the adjacency, and the trader just as an encampment is worth all of its attributes. My suggestion was only that people following a dogmatic approach to district choices doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. Strategies evolve and success is made by questioning dogma. As another poster said, the ai is weak enough that poor strategies can be successful without being dominant. This obscures good decision making.

Nice post @Quillan
I hereby challenge the CD dogma!.... all too often I see "and of course I have a CD in every town ... naturally"
Maybe it needs a new thread...

\

You make me cry, Victoria. I'd give my right leg to have you like one of my posts. Alas... the quest continues.

As it stands, the entertainment district and commercial district are probably the two most valuable districts to build. They are the staples. Is it possible to come up with strategies where that wouldn't be the case? Of course. Easily. Is it possible that certain maps would change that? Of course. Anyone who wins a game with seaside casino resorts should be able to win a game without building a single commercial district. Hell, I could do it. In fact, I bet you (Victoria) could win a game on deity without building a single district.

Value has to recognize all the variables. ALL OF THEM. No subjective reasoning here. Most of those variables are going to assign more positive value to amenities and gold than to, say GGP. Because amenities and gold (and housing, but housing is easy to come by) are the gateways to almost everything else within the MAJORITY of the possibilities. Possibly cogs = gold in value, but I think its safe to say that the CD brings more to the table than the IZ now, hands down, and cogs are limited by amenities and housing, while gold is not (so much), and cogs are much easier to come by.

And don't fudge your arguments simply because its intellectually stimulating/fun *cough* *cough*.

In fact, let's say that before a game starts, a rule is made: you can only make 2 of each district (meaning 2 of that type total and not meaning 2 districts per city), except 1 type of district, of which you can make as many as you want. Everything about the game will be random: map size, map type, opponents, etc. Except you know there will be goodie huts and camps. Also, you will be ASSIGNED one victory condition that you must pursue, you cannot pick which one to go for (although I guess this rule might not make sense... its possible to 'hammer' your way to any VC you want on any map, isn't it?). Under these conditions, which district would you choose to be able to free build?

 

[PendragonWRB]

Assuming not playing a civ with a unique district that replaces one of the above ones and also not seeking a religious victory that would generally be
#1 Commerce
#2 Harbor
#3 Science District (I do note though that this is avilable earlier than the above two)
--- below this point not all districts evenually built in every allowed city ---
#4 Industrial District (focus on those districts which are sufficient to bring every city in the empire within 6 hexes of an IZ)
#5 Encampment District (focus here is on designated unit building cities; possibly also a city expected to see a lot of defensive combat; perhaps also one in capital if non coastal if also going science victory for the space race civic)
#6 Theater (only as needed to create new great work slots)
#7 Entertainment (only as needed for amenities; and also consider the 6 hex range)
#8 Religious district (only if there's a tile with a significant enough adjacency bonus; for faith buying a few key great people before the AI can.)

I question Science so high in the list. Yes, you want one or two early in your first cities, but I never build more because I actually fear too much science growth. The sheer size of my empire drives decent science growth and if I build more than my original amount, production slows to a crawl and my cities have a hard time coming 'online'. I play Immortal and I do fall behind the AIs but I catch them eventually and they are just too dumb to take military advantage of their science leadership.

Commerce, Harbor, and Industrial never 'hurt' my empire, but Academies have the negative side affect of slowing production to a crawl. Yes I miss out on some Great Scientists but they mostly just accelerate your science even more (until the space bonuses come along). Great merchants however help with Amenities and Great Engineers are always welcome.

 

[Chibisuke]

I think campus is higher than harbor just because you will likely have very few harbor cities. I don't think campus is as key compared to commercial as I used to, but it is still important particularly early game. Great scientists can really speed up your tech tree and that is important for most victory conditions.

Nowadays I would say focus on getting several early campuses asap and then prioritize commercial and then industrial, then circle back campus on about half of remaining cities.

 

[Victoria]

You make me cry, Victoria. I'd give my right leg to have you like one of my posts. Alas... the quest continues.

Done!... I have no idea why I have not before... if I think about it.. maybe its the disarming avatar and scary title.... I am a gentle soul in reality. I like most people that put good work and argument in and you do so in spades.

And don't fudge your arguments simply because its intellectually stimulating/fun

Damn! its the only reason why I am here!

Under these conditions, which district would you choose to be able to free build?

Probably a harbor. Depends on the VC.... but then I play England


... I am not by any means a brilliant player. I just like to play. There are many smart people on this site that are no doubt better than I. I learnt long ago there are always many better than yourself. The idea is just have fun and do not compare, thats my motto.
Saying that.. give me a challenge and I will happily try, as long as its something inetresting... not a normal domination game for example.

 

[teks]

Guys, Gals.
Just for your informations.
Opportunity cost is quantifiable. I'm an eco major and we measure it all the time.
The fact that it has no value is simply because no one could think of anything which was actually better to build in its stead.

 

[diamond geezer]

My approach to Encampments is I build one early if I need to because I don't have 2x Horses or Iron. Usually I then capture some AI cities with Encampments - the AI seems to like them. After that, later they are useful in boosting my high production cities.