Whats your standard Barracks to Stables ratio?

[Rambo919]

I simply exploit the AI which almost never build stables, so I build slightly more stables than barracks and conquer cities with encampments for extra barracks.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

0:0 I guess
An encampment is enough for eureka(military training), a barrack/stable worth nothing

If the game lasts long maybe a barrack since it is cheaper than stable( the goal is to gain the military engineer eureka and nobody really care about barrack or stable)

The problem is that barrack/stable provide nothing useful. If free exp or 25% prod bonus then it's worthwhile. But who cares about +25% experience gain speed, especially when there's a cap on experience gain.

 

[Art Morte]

I agree that the faster experience bonus is underwhelming for the cost of building an encampment + its buildings. I usually only build an encampment or two if I have nothing better to do.

 

[Halcyan2]

Mainly Barracks but only because it is cheaper. I really only need 1 or 2 Stables. If the two cost the same, I would split it 50/50. If Stables was cheaper, then most of my buildings would be Stables.

 

[Socrates99]

More stables if I'm being offensive, more barracks if I'm not. I've found I build more encampments since the Ind district nerf. Generally after you get the policy that reduces their cost. It's quick and easy to pop them out.

 

[ZubieMaster]

I think this is an example of a thread that should contain a qualifying statement of which kind of players you want to answer. Like the "Civ4 lovers/Civ5 haters, thoughts on Civ6?" thread has great feedback because it specified particular respondents, then of course everyone was free to join the discussion, but it was a clear perspective to start the dialogue. Here, you should probably state what kind of game you are playing and the type of playstyle you want to hear back from... peaceful? domination?

With no qualifier, you get a range of responses from the SimCiv builder crowd (about half of the population on the forum in my experience) that will tell you they never build any encampments, maybe one or two multi-players that have their own specific needs that might not apply to 95% of the single players, and a few warmongers that are still around (that didn't quit after Civ4)... But without context of how someone plays, it's hard to put their feedback to use.

For example, I can tell you I build an encampment in every city, and I don't track stable v. barracks but probably more barracks since cheaper. But the only reason I build encampments is I'm a weirdo with my own self-imposed rule set -- I never build holy sites or theaters, and I max encampment improvements before building units. However, If this was not my rule set, I would probably not build them because they seem rather useless, and besides the horrid AI cannot engage in war so XP is useless. Promotions are just a fun side show, not necessary to walk over the pushover AI. But I like great generals so enjoy the points, and I like the small production from the additional buildings (altho the min/max crowd will break it down to armory never worth its cost), and I like placing it to act as a second city center for ranged defense.

And the real reason that I don't track stable v. barracks is simply because my old eyes cannot tell if a city has a barracks or a stable. (Cue someone telling me I'm stupid for not hovering my mouse somewhere or not being able to clearly see it and it's not the fault of the Civ6 UI...) Without any way to easily tell if the unit I'm about to build is in a barracks or stable city, and because the xp doesn't matter, why should I care which? My build rule is if that city has horses nearby (hey even I can see that on the UI!), I will build a stable in that city, so maybe later I will build a horsey there if I can see the horsies. If this wasn't true I guess I'd build a lot more stables because knights are overpowered -- but again who cares since you can pound on the useless AI with a slinger, warrior and a ball of string.

 

[liv]

We could guess how the different groups chose
To me it looked like
Warmongerers who play to win as fast as possible: built encampments to get great generals but no building; It is important not to build encampments in every city to take advantage of the ability to build units with one resource for upgrade.
Sim players: All over the board obviously but somewhat divided between no encampments and barracks for unknown reasons or they could not tell the difference due to poor eyesight and built either
multiplayers: Not sure anyone responded but I would assume encampments would be a high priority district and buildings as well to get defense and faster built better units especially if one could ally with a military state.

 

[Socrates99]

I think this is an example of a thread that should contain a qualifying statement of which kind of players you want to answer. Like the "Civ4 lovers/Civ5 haters, thoughts on Civ6?" thread has great feedback because it specified particular respondents, then of course everyone was free to join the discussion, but it was a clear perspective to start the dialogue. Here, you should probably state what kind of game you are playing and the type of playstyle you want to hear back from... peaceful? domination?

With no qualifier, you get a range of responses from the SimCiv builder crowd (about half of the population on the forum in my experience) that will tell you they never build any encampments, maybe one or two multi-players that have their own specific needs that might not apply to 95% of the single players, and a few warmongers that are still around (that didn't quit after Civ4)... But without context of how someone plays, it's hard to put their feedback to use.

For example, I can tell you I build an encampment in every city, and I don't track stable v. barracks but probably more barracks since cheaper. But the only reason I build encampments is I'm a weirdo with my own self-imposed rule set -- I never build holy sites or theaters, and I max encampment improvements before building units. However, If this was not my rule set, I would probably not build them because they seem rather useless, and besides the horrid AI cannot engage in war so XP is useless. Promotions are just a fun side show, not necessary to walk over the pushover AI. But I like great generals so enjoy the points, and I like the small production from the additional buildings (altho the min/max crowd will break it down to armory never worth its cost), and I like placing it to act as a second city center for ranged defense.

And the real reason that I don't track stable v. barracks is simply because my old eyes cannot tell if a city has a barracks or a stable. (Cue someone telling me I'm stupid for not hovering my mouse somewhere or not being able to clearly see it and it's not the fault of the Civ6 UI...) Without any way to easily tell if the unit I'm about to build is in a barracks or stable city, and because the xp doesn't matter, why should I care which? My build rule is if that city has horses nearby (hey even I can see that on the UI!), I will build a stable in that city, so maybe later I will build a horsey there if I can see the horsies. If this wasn't true I guess I'd build a lot more stables because knights are overpowered -- but again who cares since you can pound on the useless AI with a slinger, warrior and a ball of string.

I have the same problem with not being able to see stables v barracks at a glance (colorblindness can make small details muddy esp on the red district) and I have the exact same solution. Build stables in cities with horses.

I find encampments to be pretty solid since they do net you a little housing and production but more than that they give you great generals. Unless you've modded troop movements they're a huge boon with civ VI's nerfed movement.

 

[acluewithout]

Barracks. They’re cheaper and I really like melee. Maybe one stable in my cap or one other strong city.

I like encampments but never want too many.

The production is too weak - they probably need a boost just like the IZ and it’s buildings do. Probably not a flat boost, but instead a boost tied to a Military Policy Card (which would also then make Military Card Slots more valuable).

Instead, what I like is (1) they’re cheap with the half price card, therefore giving you a cheap district to benefit from Meritocracy and other district based policy cards, (2) housing which is always handy, and (3) great specialist slots - one extra culture is quite handy.

 

[Jaybe]

And the real reason that I don't track stable v. barracks is simply because my old eyes cannot tell if a city has a barracks or a stable

I might build an occasional stable (1 or 2), but if I do then I’ll dedicate the encampment to building only cavalry types. To make it easy to identify I will place a pin (“stable”) on or adjacent to the encampment.

 

[bite]

If I build the encampment it is almost 100% Barracks

 

[Slip de Garcon]

I'm surprised - I build a lot of encampments!

I usually build almost all barracks as I don't use cavalry much.

Tend to build one stables then rename that city as a reminder.

 

[Atwork]

Generally depends on the city's location.

I usually build barracks in front-line cities. Stables in cities farther from a contested front.

In my current game the ratio is 6 barracks: 2 stables: 13 cities.

 

[sixty4half]

I usually build 2 or 3 stables if I have a Cav UU. Rarely do I build barracks, since normally I'm rarely building melee by the point I can build barracks. Almost all melee is pre-built and upgraded from warriors/swordsmen from there on. I'll build them if it's a UB(arracks) though. And that's from a warmonger's perspective.

Other than that the only time I build an encampment is if I need a Walled Border city to defend against a particularly pesky neighbor that I'm not planning on wiping out. Walls, Encampment and a single archer can hold out against a lot, especially if they're placed well or have good environment.

I have yet to understand the math of I-build-barracks-for-+1-Production people when even a basic IZ should get you +3.

 

[Socrates99]

I usually build 2 or 3 stables if I have a Cav UU. Rarely do I build barracks, since normally I'm rarely building melee by the point I can build barracks. Almost all melee is pre-built and upgraded from warriors/swordsmen from there on. I'll build them if it's a UB(arracks) though. And that's from a warmonger's perspective.

Other than that the only time I build an encampment is if I need a Walled Border city to defend against a particularly pesky neighbor that I'm not planning on wiping out. Walls, Encampment and a single archer can hold out against a lot, especially if they're placed well or have good environment.

I have yet to understand the math of I-build-barracks-for-+1-Production people when even a basic IZ should get you +3.

I don't think anyone builds them strictly for production. They're one of those kinda good at a few things but not great at anything type districts. They're dirt cheap to build and decent for filling a slot in those cities that don't need an aoe district. I've got 11 cities in my current game and may wind up building 4 encs at most.

 

[Leathaface]

So far i've gone all barracks, unless i'm playing as Scythia or Russia. However i've seen streamers play Civ VI on YouTube/Twitch and I can see how powerful horses can be, so if I start next to a horse resource I might consider getting a stable.

 

[Xunin]

I'm in the 0:0 camp as well. I find the hammers put into encampment buildings are better spent into other things (i.e. more units). The district itself isn't bad though.

 

[Atwork]

"I don't think anyone builds them strictly for production."

I frequently build them strictly for production. It just depends on the city. In the late game, when I hopefully have plenty of gold (since I tend to emphasize gold big time), I'll build the district and simply buy up all the buildings in one go. This is great for far flung isthmus or island cities far from home. Additional protection and production to propel a late city's development.

 

[Socrates99]

"I don't think anyone builds them strictly for production."

I frequently build them strictly for production. It just depends on the city. In the late game, when I hopefully have plenty of gold (since I tend to emphasize gold big time), I'll build the district and simply buy up all the buildings in one go. This is great for far flung isthmus or island cities far from home. Additional protection and production to propel a late city's development.

Ok I admit I have done that to get the ship parts bonus in an SV. Touche.

 

[DeepSoul]

0:0. Military buildings is a waste of time.