I have been lurking for a long time, first time poster. Whenever I build a city the fisrt thing I build is always a good defensive unit to fortify in the city. I have not seen to much mention of this in any of the many winning strategies out there. Early on with sedentary barbs, is there really a need for this or is it best to jump right into something more productive or possible a culture rush?
Need for defensive warriors
- Thread starter PCGeek
- Start date
Rubberjello
Emperor
I have probably the most dreaded response ever for you -
It depends!
For sedentary Barbs, you probably don't need to worry about a good defender for a fairly extended period into the game. Other things to consider would be the closeness and "militariness" (attitude) of your nearest neighbors. For instance, I would have no qualms about settling an undefended city near India or China, but if was Aztec or Vikings, a good defensive unit is a fairly good idea.
I would welcome you here, but since I'm fairly new myself, it's not really my place to.
It depends!
For sedentary Barbs, you probably don't need to worry about a good defender for a fairly extended period into the game. Other things to consider would be the closeness and "militariness" (attitude) of your nearest neighbors. For instance, I would have no qualms about settling an undefended city near India or China, but if was Aztec or Vikings, a good defensive unit is a fairly good idea.
I would welcome you here, but since I'm fairly new myself, it's not really my place to.
thedirk
Master of Stealth
When I first began to play Civ III I too would build a defensive unit in each new city before building anything else. Lately I have begun to delay defensive production to focus on other things. If I'm going for a cultural victory (which means I'm playing a religious civ) I will always build a temple first. Once I'm further into the game I try to have a defensive unit on hand to move into a new city so I can still build my temple right away. Of course if I'm going for domination or conquest I will build offensive units first.
amirsan
King of all Kings
I always start a settler in any case just for future upgrades will always help.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
My own approach...
Usually there'll be a city (or two) with a granary producing settlers/workers, and a city or two with a barracks producing a stream of warriors/chariots/whatever. Since it takes 30 shields for a settler and only 10 or 20 for early military units, you should be able to produce warriors faster from your military city than you need them for settlers, and the balance can go scouting, barb chasing, etc.
The advantage with this approach is that a regular warrior costs 10 shields. So does a veteran one (plus his share of the barracks cost, of course). That veteran is more likely to survive, will become elite faster, etc. Plus your barracks city(ies) will likely be core cities eventually. So expansion throught culture is largely not needed. But cities further out need culture to better define your borders and resist flips. I'd rather put those 10 shields towards a temple or library, and let the core city go without so it can build warriors. It's a painless way of effectively transferring 10 shields from the more productive core, at 100% effectiveness.
Usually there'll be a city (or two) with a granary producing settlers/workers, and a city or two with a barracks producing a stream of warriors/chariots/whatever. Since it takes 30 shields for a settler and only 10 or 20 for early military units, you should be able to produce warriors faster from your military city than you need them for settlers, and the balance can go scouting, barb chasing, etc.
The advantage with this approach is that a regular warrior costs 10 shields. So does a veteran one (plus his share of the barracks cost, of course). That veteran is more likely to survive, will become elite faster, etc. Plus your barracks city(ies) will likely be core cities eventually. So expansion throught culture is largely not needed. But cities further out need culture to better define your borders and resist flips. I'd rather put those 10 shields towards a temple or library, and let the core city go without so it can build warriors. It's a painless way of effectively transferring 10 shields from the more productive core, at 100% effectiveness.
zerksees
in remission
I agree with rubberjello - it depends!
However, I almost always leave the cities open for a while at the start of the game. What I have found is that emperor and deity levels allow you this luxury for a lot less time. On lower levels I would leave a city undefended until 2500-2000 BC. I might try to keep a unit "in the area" so if a stray barbarian shows up I can get there in time. I will let it go as long as I can until other AI units start getting too close.
I build roads and that allows me to strategically palce a unit between cities and move it in there should a barb show up.
Early game strategies are so important that I hate to waste those precious early shields just sitting there in a city.
BTW I always play "roaming" barbs, standard map, seven AIs on continents
However, I almost always leave the cities open for a while at the start of the game. What I have found is that emperor and deity levels allow you this luxury for a lot less time. On lower levels I would leave a city undefended until 2500-2000 BC. I might try to keep a unit "in the area" so if a stray barbarian shows up I can get there in time. I will let it go as long as I can until other AI units start getting too close.
I build roads and that allows me to strategically palce a unit between cities and move it in there should a barb show up.
Early game strategies are so important that I hate to waste those precious early shields just sitting there in a city.
BTW I always play "roaming" barbs, standard map, seven AIs on continents
I usually build 2 or 3 (it depends on the starting location, prod. capability...) warriors for exploring, the last one usually acts as defender, MP and/or future settler-guide. The top priority is expanding, (settlers; when to build a gran. and when not also depends on the starting position), so i don't build expensive defensive units with sedentary barbs.
As ever, there's always more than one way to skin this cat.
Another factor to consider in the early game is that you are probably researching at full stretch, so you are not saving cash. If a roaming, restless or raging barb does raid a city there won't be much gold to steal, so the worst it can do is destroy the shields you have invested into the current unit you are building. If that's likely to be less shields than it costs for the defender then you are better off letting them raid than building the defender. Harsh economic facts of civ-life.
At higher difficulty levels there's also no guarantee that a warrior defending your city will survive a barb attack, so you could lose the defender AND the work in progress anyway.
[edit]I've just read a neat trick in a DaveMcW post in one of the Tournament threads. If you maintain a minimum +1 gpt income then barbs will only steal your gold (as long as there's only one attack per turn), and therefore you protect your work in progress on units and improvements. This makes it even more cost effective to avoid building early defenders
Thanks DaveMcW.
A higher priority early defence task against barbs is to keep them from pillaging your nice new fields and roads and mines and killing your valuable work-force and troops outside town. These things take time and effort to replace and you can lose a lot of production capacity while doing so.
As a city and your civ gets bigger there comes a point where it needs a unit or two as military police to reduce the unhappiness factor without spending an arm and a leg on entertaining the population, and that can become a significant motivation for putting defenders in the city. Any cheap military unit will do for this purpose, of course, and I often have to ask myself why I've put an expensive vet spearman in an inner core city when he could be replaced by an old regular warrior on police duty and go to the front line to defend the empire properly. When you have a cluster of cities the capital should rely on the civ frontiers for defence. Unless you are a masochist, by the time you are fighting hand to hand inside your own capital you are probably not going to enjoy the rest of the game.
Of course, if there is a big, ugly bully living right across the street early on then the calculation changes, as he'll take your cities away from you, not just raid them for gold and shields. A strong military will help to deter him from trying, but put the units inside you cities only if that happens to be the best tactical place for them anyway.
Another factor to consider in the early game is that you are probably researching at full stretch, so you are not saving cash. If a roaming, restless or raging barb does raid a city there won't be much gold to steal, so the worst it can do is destroy the shields you have invested into the current unit you are building. If that's likely to be less shields than it costs for the defender then you are better off letting them raid than building the defender. Harsh economic facts of civ-life.
At higher difficulty levels there's also no guarantee that a warrior defending your city will survive a barb attack, so you could lose the defender AND the work in progress anyway.
[edit]I've just read a neat trick in a DaveMcW post in one of the Tournament threads. If you maintain a minimum +1 gpt income then barbs will only steal your gold (as long as there's only one attack per turn), and therefore you protect your work in progress on units and improvements. This makes it even more cost effective to avoid building early defenders
Thanks DaveMcW.
A higher priority early defence task against barbs is to keep them from pillaging your nice new fields and roads and mines and killing your valuable work-force and troops outside town. These things take time and effort to replace and you can lose a lot of production capacity while doing so.
As a city and your civ gets bigger there comes a point where it needs a unit or two as military police to reduce the unhappiness factor without spending an arm and a leg on entertaining the population, and that can become a significant motivation for putting defenders in the city. Any cheap military unit will do for this purpose, of course, and I often have to ask myself why I've put an expensive vet spearman in an inner core city when he could be replaced by an old regular warrior on police duty and go to the front line to defend the empire properly. When you have a cluster of cities the capital should rely on the civ frontiers for defence. Unless you are a masochist, by the time you are fighting hand to hand inside your own capital you are probably not going to enjoy the rest of the game.
Of course, if there is a big, ugly bully living right across the street early on then the calculation changes, as he'll take your cities away from you, not just raid them for gold and shields. A strong military will help to deter him from trying, but put the units inside you cities only if that happens to be the best tactical place for them anyway.
Thanks everyone, this article and all the other pieces of info I have gleaned from forums has turned my starting game around significantly! I am actually starting to enjoy playing. Before I would get wiped out fairly early on and get remembered as Whoever the Hopeless.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
If I think that a city needs a defender first of all, I'm going to send it in from another city, probably alongside the actual Settler.
I use a unit that defends my settler while he gets to his destination point. Barbarians can kill your settler while getting to a spot, so you need something like a spearman or pikeman to cover him. After the city is founded, defensive unit fortifies in it.
Darkness
Shadow creature
Usually, yes, but in the beginning of the game there is no need for that, as barbarian activity is really limited and you're usually quite some space away from your closest AI competitor...
G
Gainy
Guest
i dont think ive ever played a game with anything above sedenetary barbs on, so i never really have the need to build anything apart from warriors. I only build decent defending units if ive built everything else i can, im at war, or im about to declare war on another civ.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
In this case, the city won't be needing a defender first of all ...
Similar threads
