NEVER Build Barracks!

[TheMeInTeam]

The usual problem is how healthy warrior is left. it usually is no good to repeat that even if full fortify.

You usually don't need more than 1 fight/warrior with the barb spawn rules...

 

[CarlH]

You usually don't need more than 1 fight/warrior with the barb spawn rules...

I have adopted TMIT's spawn bust strategy and, in my experience, warriors on forested hills with WI are usually successful against barb archers. They are almost always able to heal by the time another archer comes along.

 

[Continental Op]

I build barracks, at some point to almost every city I got. But then again, I almost never build walls (except the Great Wall), unless I can't think of anything better to build. I don't know if this is smart playstyle or anything, that's just the way it goes with me.

But I do think barracks are more important than walls, though. It may be harder to defend a city without them, but then again it's easier to take it back. Besides, walls get obsolete pretty fast.

 

[Grey Fox]

He he.

Who did that?

crusher1

@obsolete; are you serious, or is it only a joke on the NEVER Build Walls! thread?

 

[noto2]

*hand to forehead* ...nice try Obsolete, but it went right over their heads...

 

[Negator_UK]

My tuppence :-

1. If you build barracks then don't build at least 3 units there you are a noob, unless you expect to be in nationalism civic soon.

2. Build barracks in your HE city - then point 1 applies only more so....

 

[dannythefool]

But I do think barracks are more important than walls, though. It may be harder to defend a city without them, but then again it's easier to take it back. Besides, walls get obsolete pretty fast.

Side note - entirely irrelevant to the idea behind this thread: Walls will never survive a city capture, so building them in one of your cities does NOT mean it will be harder to take it back later. What kind of an argument is that anyway, you're not supposed to plan like that. You are going for the win! ;-)

 

[Lynxx]

Ok, this thread made me log on and post for the first time in how many years? (I am not posting that much really)

Absolutely brilliant thread!

Thank you obsolete!! Even though you should probably tone down your post a bit to allow more people to see the light...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

*hand to forehead* ...nice try Obsolete, but it went right over their heads...

Maybe not. I'd say this post accomplished obsolete's goal quite well. Neither this nor the article upon which it is based are considered articles any longer, and that was probably his point .

The difficulty is: who judges? What is the minimum threshold for something to be a strategy article? I can't pretend to be an authority on it and I don't think anyone else truly can either. However, I do believe there is at least some expectations that strategy articles be constructed based on logical considerations that are viable to gameplay...and many aren't.

 

[UncleJJ]

The difficulty is: who judges? What is the minimum threshold for something to be a strategy article? I can't pretend to be an authority on it and I don't think anyone else truly can either. However, I do believe there is at least some expectations that strategy articles be constructed based on logical considerations that are viable to gameplay...and many aren't.

It's not difficult at all. Obviously it is the moderator of the forum who judges whether an article qualifies for the forum or would be better elsewhere. Members can message him if they feel something is out of place.

 

[cheffster]

Nopeola. No barracks! Nyet. That's because you can spend the shields on units instead. You can use those units to discourage attackers, beat back attacks more effectively, and go on the attack.

Meanwhile, because all civs expand, at least at the beginning, you end up having to build barracks in over half the cities to be effective. And in the part of the game where they most matter, barracks are much more expensive than units. And you can't use them when you go on offense, which you need to do to win a war. Historically, the biggest barracks were failures.

Even for places like Istanbul, I'd rather spend the effort on naval units or armies than barracks. You don't need no stinking barracks if both sides of it are your lake.

When I stopped building them, back in civ2, my games went much better.

Just think about it! How many times did you get all those shiny promotions and find out you STILL came just short of taking that last city? How many times did you realize, IF ONLY I HAD ONE MORE stinking unit instead of a barracks... I could have captured that city.

NEVER Build Barracks!!

Well put.

And think even about this:
Do your settlers get extra xp from a barracks? NO
Do your spies get extra xp? NO
Workers? NO ...
Missionaries? nada,
Corporate Executives at least? Newp


So then at least ALL your military units get 2 xp right?
WRONG!

Barracks only effect land units...
Yep that's right folks, so even after you spend all those s on making the friggin barracks all your naval units and aerial units WILL NOT gain any extra experience points towards a promotion.

Conclusion.

BARRACKS ARE A WASTE OF HAMMERS.

 

[Vulcans]

generally i use baracks in my main producing cities all situations for axe rushes etc. the only time i dont use them is when im playing Huayna Capac, and am doing a Quechua
rush. in such situations giving 6 or so Quechua before anything else(no worker or settler or anything) can catch the opponent with their pants down, and mean a few cirties/workers stolen from the opponent, and maybe even a nice capital location.

besides the Quechua/warior rush, i would generally opt for investing in baracks for the promotions, as stated, promotions make all the difference in combat. and if they are winning combat they will then also gain more promotions, and next thing you know you have a group of CR3 units which can take down any achers etc of the time before cultural defences go over 20%.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not difficult at all. Obviously it is the moderator of the forum who judges whether an article qualifies for the forum or would be better elsewhere. Members can message him if they feel something is out of place.

The mods hold ultimate authority but there are multiple mods and on top of that, they take their duties seriously. Unless there is a set in stone criteria and an objective means of judging it, it's a little hard and I'm virtually certain the opinion of the CFC community as a whole play a part.

This is also weighed against the usefulness of thumbing through old articles to kick them out rather than just letting them die ----> doesn't seem an efficient use of anyone's time.

IMO, however, the war academy could use an update on some of the more recent + strong guides.

 

[troytheface]

Fact- bowmen barracks= double star- one animal or barbarian and cover.
an uber unit in one build

Fact- Second unit, double star and formation. a mini stack in two builds

the evidence is clear. Babylon, Hunting, Archery, Barracks first build. this is the superior

 

[Continental Op]

But what if you have to do an early rush against Sitting Bull with chariots? And I do mean HAVE to, or otherwise you could only get out two cities separated by Native Americans before the land runs out, with Augustus Ceasar waiting on the other side. Surely barracks will be a must then?

 

[sosasoser]

At some point I'm going to always build barracks in all of my cities that I expect to be producing my land based army. That won't always be right away, but I've never had a hard time fitting in the build either with an early whip/chop or later when I'm pausing between wars to recover. Granted, I'm playing at noble right now and it could be different at higher levels. I finished off a 1352 AD domination win last night having built barracks in all of my cities except the very recently captured. Maybe it slowed me down...but who cares? That's an early enough win for me and a personal record.

 

[Soirana]

You usually don't need more than 1 fight/warrior with the barb spawn rules...

i checked your way of spawnbusting actually [a bit work from screenshots and comments]. It often needs to much warriors to early for my taste, i'd rather squeeze out earlier settler.

Probbaly matter of taste and balancing safety/expansion. As long as warrior gets within chance of second fight he is mostly dead meat and where from WI arises if he was not in fight before?
[I've tried early rax+woodsmen warrior spawning - I'd rather tech archery]

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Do not go rax. Get 3-4 warriors out before the era of animals ends (usually ASAP after worker 1st).

Sometimes on immortal you'll have to replace 1-4 warriors if you're really, really unlucky. Other times you won't lose any warriors at all (mostly depends on luck w/ animals actually).

I'm saying this for the worst-case scenario too ---> isolation. For example in each of the past 4-5 Immortal U games I also used warriors exclusively. The only time it got hard was in the Caesar game, but when you get 15+ cities peacefully that is to be expected. Even then, I only lost a couple warriors and had 0 improvements pillaged.

The early fortification to +25% and defensive terrain make a huge difference. Once they're there barbs that spawn will heavily favor the AI since they'll be closer to them.

 

[r_rolo1]

And another sarcasm thread goes serious ....

 

[Soirana]

i still rather have city spawnbusting for me.

Problem is not archers. I had situations were axe spawns in the only available tile kills busters and heads toward me.

Worst case is actually starting with someone else who build Great Wall and barbs start swimming towards you damn know from there

You know 4 extra warriors = 1 extra worker afterall... As i said matter of taste. I'd take worker and fight barb later on...