Seems like it's better just to build warriors

[Archon_Wing]

Come to think about it, slingers seem to be a liability early game. They're not good against anything.

* Slingers are absolutely useless against horse spawns. Warriors on hills can hold off either.

* Slingers aren't good vs anything in rough terrain

* Slingers can't even protect you from attack anymore. Previously you could run warriors around while a slinger plinks them to death. Nowadays the AI will just focus down your city and slingers do nothing to stop this. You need warriors to prevent the city from going under siege. Even with archers it's hard.

* Slingers also get crushed vs archers and chariots. Warriors lose to these but at least can hold ground.

* Archers are good mind you, but if your rival is in forests or hills, they're not very good at attacking those cities.

* Even scouts on good terrain are better for holding ground and they can help put a city under siege.

* Warriors work with Oligarchy and upgrade to swords which are much more useful.

So the only use in slingers is to upgrade to archers, in which case we save about 100 production for 120-160 gold. And archers cost gold to maintain.

So, why build them at all beyond the few you want to become archers/boost machinery with? Also, that brings up my other question. Do warrior rushes work?

 

[bite]

Slinger's upgrade to archers at a very low price point and can because an archer army with a lot of destructive power much more quickly if you build them as slingers first

 

[Spudsie74]

As a ranged unit, slingers can attack w/o suffering defensive fire. This is a biggie for me. You can have 2 or 3 slingers attack a unit, and not receive any defensive hits....they remain at full value after attacking. Warriors receive defensive fire when they attack. IMO, slingers are more useful than warriors, although archers are better still. Best of all is a combined arms attack, defense, warriors + slingers/archers.

 

[Leyrann]

Been saying this for years.

 

[Disgustipated]

warriors are much better against cities and take less time. My archer rush really is just a warrior rush. Warriors can damage city health fast and take it down in a couple of turns where it takes 3 archers quite a few turns.

Archers are mainly useful for taking out enemy units. Your warriors will get too shot up by enemy archers. Because the enemy has archers, so too should you. And in some cases they can make a "target" to soak up a city attack while your warriors (later swordsmen) take down the walls and take the city.

I agree slingers are useless. Never ever use them in a war. I found out early on the hard way. The only use for slingers is to get the archery Eureka. They aren't even that great against barbarians. Once I get the Eureka I hide my slinger in the city until it's time to upgrade him.

 

[Victoria]

The question is really about high level play i imagine, on low level play there is much less need for such considerations.

The current cheat against barb camps is a warrior and slinger or scout take a camp easily because the barb will always come out of the camp to attack the slinger/scout.
2 slingers getting a shot in first against a barb will stop it but a barb swarm will swamp them easy
A slinger can get you an archery eureka

Bottom line is taking a slinger rather than a warrior first on high level is a riskier tactic because you are vulnerable before archery and a scout is more flexible if not wanting to take a warrior but warrior is the safest approach.

I played plenty of games where I did not even get one archer and delaying archery to be able to chop in slingers is an option, especially with god of the forge. but archery is good, increases WW which does seem to matter in peace deals.

Life is not simple, each has its benefits and weaknesses and another consideration is what to build if you have a low production first city. To me it is a warrior while a high production city (7 or 8 prod with 1 pop) can cope little better without building strength first, especially getting that first builder can get you to agoge earlier but more importantly get you more early production which really helps.You have to be careful with high pop cities because no army = big risk once the opposition/barbs get archers.

Before I stopped I was taking the approach of low production cities building a warrior first and high production cities building a builder first and once I get to 120 gold I get a scout. 2 warriors and a scout is pretty good early and its possible to take a CS with it. I just do not find one build suits all occasions but warriors are certainly safer IMO.

 

[Chefofrats]

In my current game I built a lot of warriors in stead of a warrior/slinger mix to conquer two AI civs that spawned within 7-ish hexes from me as quickly as possible, before researching archery, since one of the neighbours was Nubia and I did not want to risk having to face their Pitati archers in the case of a delay in conquest (btw, three civs spawned so close to one another on a Huge pangea map... but I digress). It worked like a charm and kept working after I upgraded them to swordsmen. Later I ended up buidling a few archers for support, but the initial melee zerg worked really well. This was on King though, perhaps on higher difficulties it would be different.

 

[UWHabs]

Slingers suck, but archers are good. And you need archers, because trying to take out an AI warrior across a river on a forest/hill with a warrior at a higher level is just suicide. At least an archer can get a couple shots at him in.

I do rarely have more than 3 archers though. Need that for the eureka, and honestly, it's rare to have more than that able to attack a city at once. Ideally early going you get about 3 archers and 3 warriors to start attacks, and then upgrade them as needed, and that gives you all the eurekas you need with them, plus enough to keep going on the move (usually once you take a city, you need to leave a warrior back for loyalty/to heal, but only usually need about 2 of them to help take a city before they get walls up).

 

[BenitoChavez]

Warriors can be risky to build. If you don't get any iron then they get weak in the classical era and are useless beyond that. Slingers/Archers don't require special resources to upgrade and are excellent at defending. Ideally you would want a mix of both and what ratio you build depends on the terrain and what units your opponents are building.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I prefer archers. In a perfect world, I'll build enough warriors to put a city under siege and no more. Then I park 3 or 4 archers around the 1st target city and let the arrow swarm loose. I won't even use let the warriors to attack, as they would become wounded and wouldn't be able to carry on to the next city in a timely manner (which is potentially necessary due to loyalty mechanics). Once horses come online, I build them in earnest.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Warriors can be risky to build. If you don't get any iron then they get weak in the classical era and are useless beyond that.

Not useless. You upgrade them to Musketmen and then Infantry. Nitre comes along pretty quickly after Swordsmen. Even if I have Iron I don't always bother to upgrade my Wariors to Swordsmen, just go direct to Musketmen once I have Professional Army.

What I've been finding works well is to build 2 Warriors (joining my starting Warrior = 3 Warriors total), then 1 Slinger to go get the Archer eureka, then 1 more Warrior, then 3 more Slingers, then upgrade the Slingers to Archers, and then to Crossbowmen once I have Professional Army.

That 8 unit army gets the boost for Professional Army and is typically enough to win any war (I only fight defensively, i.e. don't take AI cities). I don't typically add another land unit until it's time to form Corps and Armies, at which point I faith buy new units using Grandmaster's Chapel to fold into my experienced units.

 

[UWHabs]

Not useless. You upgrade them to Musketmen and then Infantry. Nitre comes along pretty quickly after Swordsmen. Even if I have Iron I don't always bother to upgrade my Wariors to Swordsmen, just go direct to Musketmen once I have Professional Army.

What I've been finding works well is to build 2 Warriors (joining my starting Warrior = 3 Warriors total), then 1 Slinger to go get the Archer eureka, then 1 more Warrior, then 3 more Slingers, then upgrade the Slingers to Archers, and then to Crossbowmen once I have Professional Army.

That 8 unit army gets the boost for Professional Army and is typically enough to win any war (I only fight defensively, i.e. don't take AI cities). I don't typically add another land unit until it's time to form Corps and Armies, at which point I faith buy new units using Grandmaster's Chapel to fold into my experienced units.

Extra warriors doesn't hurt either since they have no maintenance. So even missing Iron you just hang on to them until later on in the game.

 

[Cedbird77]

Warriors can be risky to build. If you don't get any iron then they get weak in the classical era and are useless beyond that. Slingers/Archers don't require special resources to upgrade and are excellent at defending. Ideally you would want a mix of both and what ratio you build depends on the terrain and what units your opponents are building.

I would never say that Warriors are a risk because of lack of iron. That is a problem you have to solve.

Either by expansion , trade or by conquest with Warriors and whatever you need to secure some iron

 

[BenitoChavez]

Not useless. You upgrade them to Musketmen and then Infantry. Nitre comes along pretty quickly after Swordsmen. Even if I have Iron I don't always bother to upgrade my Wariors to Swordsmen, just go direct to Musketmen once I have Professional Army.

True you can upgrade them to musketmen, but that comes in the renaissance era which I wouldn't say is quick get to.

Extra warriors doesn't hurt either since they have no maintenance. So even missing Iron you just hang on to them until later on in the game.

There is an opportunity cost with building warriors. If I can't upgrade them to swordsman I would rather put that production into expanding and building my cities, or try to grab some horses and use cavalry.

I would never say that Warriors are a risk because of lack of iron. That is a problem you have to solve.

Either by expansion , trade or by conquest with Warriors and whatever you need to secure some iron

Sometimes none of those are options. Whether you can reasonably settle a city near an iron mine depends entirely on how the map is generated. Sometimes they are just too far away. On higher difficulties the AI usually only has a maximum of one iron mine and to get it you would have to trade your soul away. There is a time limit to conquering with warriors and whether you can grab a mine depends on a number of factors which you don't always have full control over.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

True you can upgrade them to musketmen, but that comes in the renaissance era which I wouldn't say is quick get to.

Guess it depends on your path through the tech tree. I usually prioritize Musketmen as it neutralizes the risk of a Knight rush. Personally, I've never paid much mind to whether I can build Swordsmen. I'm planning on Warriors to Musketmen to Infantry. In between Warriors and Musketmen I'm relying Archers and Crossbowmen to carry the battlefield, so the path from Warriors to Musketmen doesn't seem long to me, in game.

Not saying going Horsemen to Cavalry wouldn't work, too. But I like to build Warriors right away as they neutralize the Deity Warrior rush, and then since I have them, they form half my army with Slingers/Archers/Crossbowmen the other half and I tend to ignore the light and heavy cavalry lines. Sometimes I get around to building 3 Heavy Chariots for later upgrade to Tanks for the boost, but more often than not I faith buy the Heavy Chariots with Grandmaster's Chapel right before finishing the research into Tanks.

 

[Victoria]

I've never paid much mind to whether I can build Swordsmen

If you can get the iron working eureka then pushing iron working before a third settler allows for an early sword rush which is rather strong and now with +1 movement on warriors they are sort of early knights.

 

[KayAU]

Slingers are weak, certainly, and much worse than Warriors for most applications. They do have the advantage of being able to attack without receiving return damage. They also have an advantage to getting the first strike in a battle against a Warrior, as Slingers can attack into the adjacent square regardless of the movement cost to enter that square. On the other hand, they do relatively little damage, and using Slingers to hunt barbarians in the early game requires some care.

However, I don't get Slingers to get Slingers, I get Slingers to get Archers. Playing on Epic speed, I just about always get the Eureka for Archery, and so that tech is reachable very early in the game. Once you start upgrading those Slingers to Archers, it becomes a different game. The added range is a major, major tactical advantage. It means your Archers will almost always be able to land a hit and do significant damage before an opposing melee unit can attack them. It also means you will be able to focus fire much more easily, and that your Archers will be able to attack more often. And they do so without receiving return damage. The higher frequency of attack also means you can level them up more quickly (which also heals them and makes it easier for them to survive).

I have pointed this out before, but while a range 1 unit can only strike into the nearest 6 tiles. A range 2 unit can reach up to 18 tiles, depending on line of sight. If you add movement into the consideration, an Archer can attack into, in the best case, the 36 tiles surrounding its initial position, while a Warrior/Swordsman can reach the 18 nearest tiles. The extra movement point added to the Commando promotion for melee units does help significantly. At that level, the Warrior/Swordsman will also be able to reach up to 36 tiles. The ranged advantage for Archers at that point becomes almost the same as for the Slinger: they can attack into tiles regardless of movement cost, and they don't receive return damage. They will also still be able to focus fire more easily. Another point to consider, is that at that level, which Archers can more easily reach, they will often have a +12 to their ranged attack against melee units. Finally, Archers will arrive earlier and more reliably than Swordsmen. They don't require resources, and the base research cost to get there is 25 + 50 = 75. In comparison, Swordsmen require Iron, and take 25 + 80 + 120 = 225 research points to get to.

I would like to give a special mention to what I believe is the best unique unit in the game, the Pitati Archer. I already think the Archer is a great unit, and the Pitati Archer is a significant upgrade to it. Apart from the higher ranged strength, shorter build time and faster promotions (from Nubia's abilities), the most amazing thing about the Pitati Archer is the combination of speed and range. That extra movement point means that the nearest 60 tiles are potentially within reach. It also means a Pitati Archer can do things like run away into a forest, and fire at a pursuing attacker who will not be able to fight back next turn.

 

[Slip de Garcon]

Slingers are weak but cheap to upgrade to archers. I usually knock about three warriors out then start producing slingers. Try to kill a barb with them to get archery quicker, then upgrade them all, and I've suddenly got a few archers and it's off to war we go.

 

[Chorazin]

I only build a slinger to get the tech boost to archery. From then on you build archers and upgrade your original slinger you built. The gap in not finding iron and waiting for niter can hurt you, no one is going to willingly trade away their iron in a multiplay game so you are relying on a close by city state having iron you can suzerain or conquer.

If a neighboring player has iron and notices you do not he most likely will go for the quick kill, I guess against AI's who are a lot less ruthless than human players you could get away with it? Although at Deity it is still rough in an early war id imagine. By the time infantry comes along the game is over for a lot of players, you have either rushed a victory condition or lost an early war and your civilization has disappeared beneath the sands.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I only build a slinger to get the tech boost to archery. From then on you build archers and upgrade your original slinger you built. The gap in not finding iron and waiting for niter can hurt you, no one is going to willingly trade away their iron in a multiplay game so you are relying on a close by city state having iron you can suzerain or conquer.

If a neighboring player has iron and notices you do not he most likely will go for the quick kill, I guess against AI's who are a lot less ruthless than human players you could get away with it? Although at Deity it is still rough in an early war id imagine. By the time infantry comes along the game is over for a lot of players, you have either rushed a victory condition or lost an early war and your civilization has disappeared beneath the sands.

In single player, you can afford to delay Archery until you've built 3 - 4 Slingers and then upgrade them.

Similarly, against the AI, you don't need Iron to defend. Your Archers can hold off Swordsmen and your Crossbowmen can hold off Knights. Easier if you can upgrade to Swordmen / Knights yourself, sure, but not strictly needed, even on Deity.

Which is as it should be, as if it's game over if you don't get a particular strategic resource, that's bad game design. Civ 6 has that right, for single player at least. Not having a strategic resource may force you to make compensating decisions, but doesn't sink your game.