Placement of troops in rapidly expanding empire

[TyranusBonehead]

Here's a question that's been forming as I play. I usually try for a rapid expansion in the early game. As a consequence, it takes a while to get those new cities connected into my road network and also placement of troops has become a question. I've been playing cautious and stacking troops near each city as protection, with 2-3 exploring. Is this sound practice? I'm wondering because sometimes the AI gets aggressive and comes in and takes a new town even before I've created my first warrior.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

UPDATE: Well I do figure that one thing I need to do is provide escort for my settlers.

TB

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

When I'm going for my initial rapid expansion, before I build a settler, I build a spearman, warrior or archer (spearman my preference) then the settler. So when I order the settler to build a city he won't have to spend any amount of time building its defensive units. So soldier, settler, then build the city.

Hope this helps.

 

[Hyronymus]

That's my approach too usually. Only very early in the game I take the chance and build cities without defense units at all. That's how I get my nice amount of cities . Then I always build spearman to defend the cities. I also tend to build workers asap to lay roads between my cities. That surely works good!

 

[TyranusBonehead]

I guess that's the quandry....how much time do you invest in preparing troops to protect a settler vs how quickly do you want to expand. Early game I want to expand quickly so I've been leaving my settlers undefended, but this approach has cost me at least once in a game Roman (me) vs Greece @ Regent level. I got overrun by the AI as I rounded up troops and sent them off to fight off the invasion (which takes time just to move them into position)

 

[TriangleMan]

I usually end up with one city, usually on plains, that isn't gonna grow much until it gets some serious worker attention, but has decent enough production. This city builds spearmen constantly. Another city, one with flood plains or wheat or cattle, will produce a granary, and then settlers constantly. The other cities usually more or less follow that soldier-settler patter.

 

[TyranusBonehead]

The question that comes to mind is what about those cities where you are producing only settlers, or only spearmen? Doesn't that cause any problems by itself, as opposed to trying to max production and keeping the populace grinning?

 

[bonscott]

Unless I have a settler factory, I typically alternate between warrior/spear and settler. Always try to have *something* to defend new cities, even if just a lowly warrior. The AI will get very agressive with you if you have undefended cities so even a warrior in each will up their attitude toward you a bit. Plus the warrior will upgrade to Sword and MI later on making them not totally useless. Bring a spear up to the city when you get a chance.

 

[Renata]

I build very few spearmen, and generally none at all during the inital expansion phase. Spearmen are *bad* at AI deterrence. You are much better off on the power scale if you build a mix of archers and warriors with the same shields. The AI rates two warriors stronger than a spearman; they also rate one archer much stronger than one spearman.

And if you simply want military police, you're much better off building warriors. You can build almost twice as many for the same shields, or you can build the same number, but have lots of shields left over for things like workers, settlers, barracks in critical cities, etcetera.

The AI also looks at population and territory as a component of your civ's overall power; you are less likely to be attacked early if you've expanded well. Wasting shields on spearmen that won't your power rating anyway just makes things even worse.

Renata

 

[TyranusBonehead]

Thanks Renata

 

[rajwhitehall]

When I play maintenance always seems to become a problem in the middle ancient age. That's when I usually have to drop science down to 60 or 50 percent because of maintenance for city improvements and units. So if I had built 40 warriors they are suddenly going to cost twice as much gold as if I built 20 spearmen, and probably have -10% or -20% effect on research. I play vanilla Civ and Warriors have short upgrade path while Spearmen can upgrade all the way to MI. I've also lost many warriors to barbarians appearing at goody huts, because of their low defense. I would say, alternate building warriors and spearmen. Use spearmen to search out goodie huts and garrison important cities. Use warriors to explore, hunt down barbarian camps, and garrison new cities. Use established cities with barracks to build *all* your military units. Don't waste production of a fledgling city on anything but city improvements, unless it's an emergency situation. Once you reach archers or horsemen, I see no reason to build another warrior. But spearmen always have a place. They're your insurance force.

 

[Tomoyo]

I usually build a few warriors to scout, a granary, then settlers and MP warriors. I almost never build spearmen in the expansion phase. Not only are they useless, but they cost way too much. I might build a few archers for arb control, however. I rarely escort my settlers when barbs are fairly low.

 

[Renata]

Sorry, raj, I disagree. I've gone entire games at every level up through Emperor without ever building a defensive unit (or ever upgrading a warrior past swordsman, for that matter). They're just not very useful, considering their cost. Offensive units are so much more versatile.

Renata

 

[FenrysWulf]

I never use escorts or build spearmen from other cities. When I start a game, the first thing I do is build about five warriors, fortify two in the city and send three or four others in different directions to explore. After that I have my main city build settlers as often as possible, found new cities, and let them build their own warriors. Usually the AI is worrying about their own peaceful expansion, and it's not until all the free land is taken that they get aggressive. The AI expands so quickly that I don't think you can afford to waste your time building defensive units. Once I'm done expanding, I'll build horsemen and send them to the border cities. That way, if the ai attacks, I can use them as a mobile counterattack to cover the borders, so defenders aren't necessary. Horses are essential for my style of play, so if I don't have horses in my borders I will begin a new game.

 

[Shadow Phoenix]

Only Place For The Army Is In The Opponents Territory

 

[TyranusBonehead]

Well since I seem to be struggling with military tactics, so far I've been using my troops mainly for defense. There was one game however where I was winning on domination and decided on principle to boot the AI off my continent, so I invaded and took over 3 cities.

 

[rajwhitehall]

No problem, I'm learning more all the time. I recently discovered the joy of horsemen in the ancient age. But unless you're playing an ultra aggressive game, how do you survive without a spearman or two in each city? With a defense of 1, archers, horsemen, and chariots just don't cut it. (Swordsmen are good all-around units though, but don't upgrade). When an AI declares war on me, the target is usually obvious and I like to pile on the units into the city, where the enemy force destroys itself. My offensive units clean up the mess and then, my counter-attack takes an enemy city or two which usually brings them to the negotiating table. But without the defensive units it would cost even more in the long run replacing dead offensive units.

Sorry, raj, I disagree. I've gone entire games at every level up through Emperor without ever building a defensive unit (or ever upgrading a warrior past swordsman, for that matter). They're just not very useful, considering their cost. Offensive units are so much more versatile.

Renata

 

[Aleph-Null]

If I am expanding I put bare minimum defense in my inner cities. Sometimes, I leave them undefended. All the defense I had in my capital will go to my new cities on the edges. The capital is safe because it is being defended by those new cities. Those cities are the spearmen for my capital and inner cities.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Sorry, raj, I disagree. I've gone entire games at every level up through Emperor without ever building a defensive unit (or ever upgrading a warrior past swordsman, for that matter). They're just not very useful, considering their cost. Offensive units are so much more versatile.

Renata

This is going to be highly dependent on the type of government you are using. If you're a republic or democracy offensive units cost a lot of gold per turn. In fact, if you have offensive units and you're a republic your science is going to be non-existant.

If its a small map and you're doing domination then your strategy sounds great. But if you're going to be going to modern age and you have civs on other continents you'll be wiped out by their infantry.

 

[Zelda's Man]

I generally use one defensive unit for each city. Generally my second or third city makes units for all. Warriors are used for exploration in the expansion phase and then returned to a city for happiness effects until republic when they are disbanded for shields. Offensive units are usually stacked together preparing for a battle against closest/weakest civ.

Defensive units are also good for the offensive side of military strategy. The AI rarely uses bombarding units properly so protecting a stack of archers with a spearman or two is a good idea IMO. Defensive units are also great for protecting your own stack of bombarding units. An infantryman protecting a stack of 15-20 artillery can decimate a large AI city so your calvary can run right through. Oh course this is not expansion-phase tactics, but only a strategy for using defensive units.

 

[FenrysWulf]

No problem, I'm learning more all the time. I recently discovered the joy of horsemen in the ancient age. But unless you're playing an ultra aggressive game, how do you survive without a spearman or two in each city? With a defense of 1, archers, horsemen, and chariots just don't cut it. (Swordsmen are good all-around units though, but don't upgrade). When an AI declares war on me, the target is usually obvious and I like to pile on the units into the city, where the enemy force destroys itself. My offensive units clean up the mess and then, my counter-attack takes an enemy city or two which usually brings them to the negotiating table. But without the defensive units it would cost even more in the long run replacing dead offensive units.

The problem is that defensive units of mine never seem to win. The AI can attack my spearman with a warrior or archer and probably win 3 out of five times. So if I'm going to lose anyway, I'd rather hit back than sit there and take it. I do put at least one unit in each city to prevent the AI from just walking in, but I don't usually upgrade them the entire game.