Unit selling and the opening build

[MyOtherName]

The early game is a tension between three factors:

• Scouting afar to collect goody huts, meet city states, and discover continents and wonders
• Building military to defend against barbarians / AI rushes and to scout nearby terrain
• Developing your city and/or expanding

But given the high value on expanding, the solution tends to converge to the point where you do the bare minimum amount of investment into the first two factors (or even less than that!) so as to develop your empire as quickly as possible.

(or, to overdo the second point with an eye to conquering your neighbors so the investment doesn't go wasted)

For example, some people have already decided never to build a scout, preferring instead to build slingers (or warriors) to do their initial scouting and pull them back to defend and/or clear barb camps.


However, the ability to sell units for gold means the cost of investing in the first two factors isn't as much as it immediately seems. Recall that, at least on default settings, you can buy a unit or building at a price of 4 gold per cog, and you can sell at a price of 2 gold per cog.

Thus, building a unit and then selling it again "wastes" only half of the resources that went into it. (assuming you can effectively use gold purchasing in your opening)

For example, one could consider building their scout to scout afar, and later selling it to purchase a their second builder or a infrastructure building. Or building an extra slinger/warrior and clearing all of the nearby barbarian encampments, and selling them to buy infrastructure once the terrain is secured they're no longer needed.

 

[Ryika]

I do that rather often when rushing an AI. Build a bunch of warriors, conquer 1-2 cities if you can, cripple the neighbor in the process and if there's no other dangerous neighbor around/once you've defended the attack of your other neighbors sell the warriors and buy settlers while preparing for a second attack with horsemen.

 

[Marvinlegend]

Ancient units like warriors and scouts cost no maintenance, which makes it a lot less interesting to sell them. On the other side they both collect XP which can be usefull through the whole game once you upgraded the units.

 

[Makavcio]

Slingers. Build slingers. They are laughably cheap, and upgrade for next to nothing to archers, and archers are insanely powerful against everything, especially the typical Firaxis's potato AI. Invade your neighbor, capture their settler, capture their workers and cities, secure lebensraum and if you're playing one of the "underpowered" civilizations like Rome (roads and monuments) or Barbarians (Lavra), you've basically won the game in turn 50.
This approach is also extremely useful with civs that have large initial combat bonus, like Murrica.
Tried other approaches but their results don't come anywhere near archer rush.

 

[Ryika]

Slingers are extremely useless if you want to assault asap. It's possible to get 3-4 Warriors and start pushing, add 3 more Warriors, take the first City -> Produce Archers, push further.
That strategy depends more on relatively open terrain, but when it works, it works incredibly well - and leaves you with a few warriors that you can then sell.

With Slingers you're just sitting around for ages, waiting, trying to get a kill for the Archery Eureka - and that's really the only "downside" of pushing with a bunch of Warriors first. You don't get the Eureka for Archery, but given that we want to progress slowly anyway that's currently more of a bonus than a downside.

 

[Marvinlegend]

Slingers are extremely useful, since you can upgrade them to archers for only 30 ducats. You can easily have 1/2 warriors and 3/4 slingers before getting archery and have then a force good enough to take a city or two.

 

[Ryika]

Archers cost 15 more production than Slingers, you can have 6-7 Warriors and then build 2 Archers + buy a third one for the same effect. The archers come a bit later, but you can use those Warriors to take cities instead of having to sit and wait. In the ideal situation - having a close neighbor that has founded their cities on flat lands and their army is on its way towards a nearby city state - you can conquer your first city before you could even finish researching archery.

 

[Cakeathon]

I prefer slingers too. I go slinger->builder->slinger->sligner

Even without eureka I usually get archery at about the time the 3rd sligner comes out, I often even purposefully delay archery because it's coming too fast for my production. Than I rush the nearest city-state with 3 archers/1 warrior while my capital just pumps archers out indefinitely. You can just keep the archer steamroller going indefinitely with upgrades until you have the whole map.

I feel like warriors wouldn't be able to just keep steamrolling indefinitely the way archers can so they would just sit there doing nothing or be disbanded. I usually just have 1 warrior per army in the back to jump in at the end to cap cities.

 

[lamaros]

If I'm building for offence i'll always go warriors, you can wipe out enemies very early.

Defence I'll build warriors first, but a slinger or two.

I feel like warriors wouldn't be able to just keep steamrolling indefinitely the way archers can. I usually just have 1 warrior per army in the back to jump in at the end to cap cities.

Warriors can attack faster and then be reinforced with archers from then on in my experience.

 

[Ryika]

I prefer slingers too. I go slinger->builder->slinger->sligner

Even without eureka I usually get archery at about the time the 3rd sligner comes out, I often even purposefully delay archery because it's coming too fast for my production. Than I rush the nearest city-state with 3 archers/1 warrior while my capital just pumps archers out indefinitely. You can just keep the archer steamroller going indefinitely with upgrades until you have the whole map.

I feel like warriors wouldn't be able to just keep steamrolling indefinitely the way archers can. I usually just have 1 warrior per army in the back to jump in at the end to cap cities.

Well, if you want to attack a city state then 3 warriors already to that job in 2 turns as well. If you have one as your neighbor and realize that immediately (before you queue the builder after the first warrior) you can literally produce 2 warriors and take out a city state by turn 20 or so.

But you're right, of course warriors can't steamroll like archers can, that's why after the first wave of warriors you start adding archers - the warriors are there to allow you to spread out, be active on the map and possibly catch a settler or two, take an early city, maybe a worker or two, or if all else fails separate some AI units and start killing them in neutral terrain.

Then, while those Warriors heal up you bring in archers and kill off the AI.

It's the difference between having a very early attack do damage and often get you a city and/or free civilians, then following it up with a big attack vs. no small attack but the big attack coming slightly earlier.

People in this thread really lack the heart of the brute.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Slingers are extremely useless if you want to assault asap. It's possible to get 3-4 Warriors and start pushing, add 3 more Warriors, take the first City -> Produce Archers, push further.
That strategy depends more on relatively open terrain, but when it works, it works incredibly well - and leaves you with a few warriors that you can then sell.

With Slingers you're just sitting around for ages, waiting, trying to get a kill for the Archery Eureka - and that's really the only "downside" of pushing with a bunch of Warriors first. You don't get the Eureka for Archery, but given that we want to progress slowly anyway that's currently more of a bonus than a downside.

Really? I think warrior rushes on Deity would be quite difficult (at least for non-Aztecs). You've got 6 or 7 AI warriors, at least, to plow through, even before you get to the city itself. Do that with warriors and your units are going to get killed or at least hurt. Seems very slow. You can take a city-state with warriors, sure. But in ordinary circumstances I like to go straight for an AI, and see if I can take them out before they get annoying things like walls or horsemen. City-states can wait.

As for the Archery Eureka, I often don't bother. If it falls into my lap, great, but early Archery is so powerful I'm often willing to pay full price for it as my second or third tech. It's not like I need to be super efficient about maximizing science if I have Archers.

 

[lamaros]

Really? I think warrior rushes on Deity would be quite difficult (at least for non-Aztecs). You've got 6 or 7 AI warriors, at least, to plow through, even before you get to the city itself. Do that with warriors and your units are going to get killed or at least hurt. Seems very slow. You can take a city-state with warriors, sure. But in ordinary circumstances I like to go straight for an AI, and see if I can take them out before they get annoying things like walls or horsemen. City-states can wait.

As for the Archery Eureka, I often don't bother. If it falls into my lap, great, but early Archery is so powerful I'm often willing to pay full price for it as my second or third tech. It's not like I need to be super efficient about maximizing science if I have Archers.

Not really. The AI does fight others (they love going after city states) or simply leaves their city unguarded. A surprise attack will take out a city or two quickly, and then you'll be getting archers online and can heal in home territory before wiping them.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Not really. The AI does fight others (they love going after city states) or simply leaves their city unguarded. A surprise attack will take out a city or two quickly, and then you'll be getting archers online and can heal in home territory before wiping them.

Hmm I guess it would probably work if the AI's army is busy elsewhere. Seems a bit risky compared to Archers still, but I'll give it a go. I guess the Warriors are maintenance-free.

 

[Cakeathon]

Warriors can attack faster and then be reinforced with archers from then on in my experience.

Is it really faster ? warriors are 40 production while slingers are 35 so 3archers/1warrior is faster than 4 warriors, how easy is it to take a city on diety with 3 warriors ? Let's say 4 since I guess you could almost rush buy one with the upgrade money.

I just tried it real quick and even playing as teddy my 3 warriors couldn't do much against a 24 strength city with a warrior in it on turn 15 ish, I eventually took it as more kept pouring in but at that point it would have been better to go slinger->archer.

 

[Cakeathon]

Well, if you want to attack a city state then 3 warriors already to that job in 2 turns as well. If you have one as your neighbor and realize that immediately (before you queue the builder after the first warrior) you can literally produce 2 warriors and take out a city state by turn 20 or so.

But you're right, of course warriors can't steamroll like archers can, that's why after the first wave of warriors you start adding archers - the warriors are there to allow you to spread out, be active on the map and possibly catch a settler or two, take an early city, maybe a worker or two, or if all else fails separate some AI units and start killing them in neutral terrain.

Then, while those Warriors heal up you bring in archers and kill off the AI.

It's the difference between having a very early attack do damage and often get you a city and/or free civilians, then following it up with a big attack vs. no small attack but the big attack coming slightly earlier.

People in this thread really lack the heart of the brute.

Haven't been successful with the 3 warrior rush thing but your explanation makes sense.

 

[ansa]

My experience so far on Diety:

Tech:
Animal Husbandry -> Archery
Build:
Slinger->Slinger->Slinger->Builder

Open fog with warrior and slingers, get some barb camp for eureka, try to kill 3 barbs for bronze working.
Look for any close city states priority Nr. 1
Upgrade slingers and rush as many city states as you can eat.

Why? Because when you capture AI city, you get 1-2 pop piece of junk unhappy city with no growth for up to 40 (FORTY) turns = They are complete TRASH to capture in early game, unless AI cedes them as peace agreement.
If you cannot find nearby city states it is literally better to settle your own cities than to capture AI city, even capital, early game - your settled city will grow more and faster.

City states give you full fledged city, often with monument and granary, and their Builder to boot.
+ Religious city states always have temple district, right from start (be mindful, that you need to research astrology to repair them if they got wrecked)
City-states mean that basically you get ready-to-go 3-pop cities without the need to build settlers and reduce your pops and waste your production.

After initial rush to get everything close (depends on map size), I consolidate, while building encampment and barracks in capital.
Then I produce more units in addition to initial warrior and 3 archers, split them in 2 armies (roughly 2 warrior+4 archers each) and wreck everything outwards.

Only civs spamming heavy chariots can be annoying, everyone else folds like paper - they cannot even get close to you, and level 4 archer (not even crossbow) with double-shot deletes 1 heavy chariot per turn.

 

[DeincepsGaleam]

I've been experimenting with double scout opener and no-scout opener. In the process, I found that both work reliably to take down a near-by civ in deity, regardless of your Civ.

Germany, deity, standard, 6-man, pangea.

Double Scout Build
1. scout
2. scout
3. builder, punch a barb scout with initial warrior
4. slinger
5. slinger
6. tech half of archery, rush to horseback
7. while defending a barb rush, upgrade sligners to archers,
8. settler (preferably to horse location)
9. whatever that you need now
(10. encampment)
11. infinite horsemen.

As far as culture is concerned, you want Military Tradition, which gives 100% production bonus to horsemen.

No Scout Build
1. slinger
2. builder
3. slinger
4. slinger
5. similar to above

You will most likely be attacked by enemy AI before you can declare a war. This is roughly when you start building your horsemen. Defend with archers, rivers and great positioning.

Fighting a war is pretty easy because horsemen are OP and AIs are so bad at war. They even stomp Greek Hoplites, which were supposed to counter them. (Well, mostly because AI doesn't know about the Hoplite ability.) When you siege, kill enemy units before moving in range of the city, since most of the times AI will have wall built. Use promotion and pillaging well, switch low health ones out and use new units to surround the city (city stops healing if it is surrounded). By Turn 60, I took the Greek capital and was easily holding off Scythia on the other side trying to attack my Capital.

Scythia though, is another ball game that is outrageously OP. Give it a try.

 

[elitetroops]

Why? Because when you capture AI city, you get 1-2 pop piece of junk unhappy city with no growth for up to 40 (FORTY) turns = They are complete TRASH to capture in early game, unless AI cedes them as peace agreement.
If you cannot find nearby city states it is literally better to settle your own cities than to capture AI city, even capital, early game - your settled city will grow more and faster.

Why would you be at war 40 turns without the AI ceding the cities to you? The first AI you target should be dead much faster than that. Cities start growing normally immediately when the original owner is dead. If you don't have enough army to take out the AI completely with the initial strike, you can take a 10 turn peace treaty and the AI seems to mostly be very willing to cede captured cities. In case of a 4 city AI, I found it also works pretty well to take the first 2, have the AI cede both and give you a 3rd city in a peace treaty, then heal up and position your units to immediately declare and take out the last city when 10 turns have passed.

As for buildings and districts, I don't think city states in general will have more of those than the AI. On deity all AI seem to start by building monuments, city states start by building warriors. Most AI spam holy sites very early, some might put up other districts as well. They also build granaries and often watermills, feels like I always get the Eureka for Construction by taking an AI city. Same goes for State Workforce inspiration and a lot of the improvement related eurekas/inspirations. Since the AI starts with builders, they should have a lot more improvements than city states early on as well.

 

[ansa]

Why would you be at war 40 turns without the AI ceding the cities to you? The first AI you target should be dead much faster than that. Cities start growing normally immediately when the original owner is dead. If you don't have enough army to take out the AI completely with the initial strike, you can take a 10 turn peace treaty and the AI seems to mostly be very willing to cede captured cities. In case of a 4 city AI, I found it also works pretty well to take the first 2, have the AI cede both and give you a 3rd city in a peace treaty, then heal up and position your units to immediately declare and take out the last city when 10 turns have passed.

As for buildings and districts, I don't think city states in general will have more of those than the AI. On deity all AI seem to start by building monuments, city states start by building warriors. Most AI spam holy sites very early, some might put up other districts as well. They also build granaries and often watermills, feels like I always get the Eureka for Construction by taking an AI city. Same goes for State Workforce inspiration and a lot of the improvement related eurekas/inspirations. Since the AI starts with builders, they should have a lot more improvements than city states early on as well.

Man it really depends on map and terrain.
Any sort of bad terrain and weird city placements can easily result in your army getting stuck and dragged somewhere, then AI builds walls and cities take twice as long to get and so on and on.
Relying on perfect blitz is nice, but in reality it rarely works that perfect.

 

[Sogno di Volare]

Man it really depends on map and terrain.
Any sort of bad terrain and weird city placements can easily result in your army getting stuck and dragged somewhere, then AI builds walls and cities take twice as long to get and so on and on.
Relying on perfect blitz is nice, but in reality it rarely works that perfect.

That's my experience. Particularly with terrain. I've gotten bogged down with far more than 3 warriors