NEVER Build Walls!

[TheMeInTeam]

If your castles obsolete too fast that is just because you are teching Economics just a little after of getting Engineering. You aren't forced to do that, you know.... [/QUOTE

If you want power plants, infantry (and everything you mentioned that "can do the offensive job" lose at not so great odds when defending against infantry), or any kind of corporation you need to tech economics. Also, if economics and soon corporation are but 1-2 techs away from engineering (typical in a tech trade ON game, not necessarily so if they're off), the hammer outlay for castles doesn't make a whole lot of sense compared with picking up two trade routes per city (FM and corp).

But not all games are played with standard settings, and sometimes people use spain .

 

[r_rolo1]

But that is exactly what I'm saying. If you want to go to the Ass. Line fast, you are suposed to expect a small life for your castles. But there is not forcible reason to do so and in some situations ( like using Spain ) not going that way to make your castles live longer is atleast a competitive option. What you said is pretty much like complaining that Henge should last longer because you can bulb astro relatively fast ( same argument but a little weaker ). You aren't forced to go astro fast , you know ...

Oh, and you, among all, should know that even rifles + cannons, if well used , are more than enough to bring even a Immortal AI with infantry to the floor Even more rifles + arties....

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, I know full well how to war with a backwards lead troop, but that's why I advocated cavalry...they're way more versatile against more advanced troops .

You could probably avoid getting economics all the way to flight if you want, and that's a worthy beeline.

But economics has very little outlay as a tech/civic compared to building castles everywhere, and it's usually easy to trade for it no matter your path if trades are on.

Also, if you delay it when you could have gotten it first you add a merchant to the opportunity cost of delaying it to use castles. Castles aren't holding a lot of economic water here.

 

[obsolete]

Losing that GM is actually much worse than it at first seems. Because it's not just YOU losing a GM, but it's also another AI that GAINS a GM.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Just out of curiosity:

If the AI in question wasn't ahead, how does the free GM in that era change things?

If the AI in question was already ahead, what does the free GM do for them?

Basically, I'm wondering how the AI tends to use that free GM, and what effect it will have.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

More often than not I see them on trade missions. Even the crappy AI will upgrade en masse' or deficit research.

 

[r_rolo1]

Especially the crappy, but boosted, AI will upgrade en masse. But they will probably spend most of their money upgrading their spears to pikes and axes to maces in this time window...

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I only build walls if I'm Protective and have a source of stone. That way I can whip walls for gold.

 

[Silver Marmot]

I hate the way walls make my cities look. I wish ordinary walls would be fixed in place like the Great Wall, and not adjust to surround my cities whenever I build something else that causes them to expand. Adding that to the game would probably be more trouble than it's worth, but still, I think it would look better if cities expanded outside of the walls.

 

[popejubal]

I only build walls if I'm Protective and have a source of stone. That way I can whip walls for gold.

Not anymore.

That died in the last patch.

 

[Bandobras Took]

So the free GM potentially creates a militarily dominating power out of an AI civ that was not one?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Not anymore.

That died in the last patch.

Which I don't have. Kiss it, Firaxis.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Yes, I know full well how to war with a backwards lead troop, but that's why I advocated cavalry...they're way more versatile against more advanced troops .

You could probably avoid getting economics all the way to flight if you want, and that's a worthy beeline.

But economics has very little outlay as a tech/civic compared to building castles everywhere, and it's usually easy to trade for it no matter your path if trades are on.

Also, if you delay it when you could have gotten it first you add a merchant to the opportunity cost of delaying it to use castles. Castles aren't holding a lot of economic water here.

Honestly, I see castles as entirely pointless.
Maybe if we had them become obsolete and corporations or somewhere in that area?

I'm not delaying a huge economic technology just so I can build a minor economic/espionage building.

 

[oyzar]

Castles are very good if you are running a high espionage component and you researched engineering somewhat early. They get better with protective and stone of course. Charlemange and Izzy are probably the two leaders who take most advantage of castles (both want to get engineering early, charlemange is protective and he have extra incentive to build courthouses hence making espionage more attractive obviously Izzy's UU makes castles that much better). In addition castles might be much more relevant against humans where you don't chose exactly when and where to attack all the time (or maybe against higher level AI who attack you in that period).

 

[obsolete]

Hmm, out of curiosity, I decided to re-read the original article. Which.. doesn't seem to be much of an article at all.

The author... also seems to not have even hung around long enough to make 10 posts in his whole career either forum... O_o

 

[Bandobras Took]

Honestly, I see castles as entirely pointless.
Maybe if we had them become obsolete and corporations or somewhere in that area?

I'm not delaying a huge economic technology just so I can build a minor economic/espionage building.

economic/espionage/defense/culture/slight-bump-to-power-graph-without-paying-unit-maintenance building . . .

 

[The Almighty dF]

economic/espionage/defense/culture/slight-bump-to-power-graph-without-paying-unit-maintenance building . . .

Which is still not on par with getting Free Market and Corporations.

Castles are pointless except in two situations:
1. You're Isabella and really want to make use of your civ's UB.
2. You came across engineering really early.

Walls are useful in a few, but they're pretty damn easy to whip. I'd suggest whipping them when you need them rather than building them beforehand.

 

[obsolete]

economic/espionage/defense/culture/slight-bump-to-power-graph-without-paying-unit-maintenance building . . .

If you need the bump in the power graph, then it looks like you have much worse problems.

And while a building doesn't require maintenance, you did just waste the hammers that went into it.

 

[Bandobras Took]

If you need the bump in the power graph, then it looks like you have much worse problems.

And while a building doesn't require maintenance, you did just waste the hammers that went into it.

Yes, my point in listing all five things a Castle does was certainly to focus on only one of the things a Castle does . . .

 

[The Almighty dF]

Yes, my point in listing all five things a Castle does was certainly to focus on only one of the things a Castle does . . .

That's 2/5 of the things it does. The other 3/5 (culture boost, espionage boost, small economic boost) are also pointless compared to what you're giving up.