[GS] Will encampments' resource advantage become more useful?

[Arent11]

Right now, building an encampment to be able to create a unit with only one strategic resource is only seldomly useful.

However, since we now change to a system that building units requires a certain amount of strategic resources, encampments' resource advantage would have to be changed somehow. The only possibility I can think of is to make units build in cities with encampments require fewer resources.

That could be quite an important advantage. In addition, there is also the question of upgrades of units, which would potentially also need strategic resources.

 

[UWHabs]

Yes, I really don't know how encampments will play with resources. Will they still let you built units with only half the resources? Presumably (hopefully?) you will also have to pay the resource cost when you upgrade to a unit that needs a resource, too. Will those be cheaper done in an encampment?

 

[bbbt]

Well they could go full RTS and require encampments/encampment buildings to even build units above warrior/slinger. But that seems pretty unlikely.

Discount to building seems likely. Maybe also maintenance discount per encampment or if in a city with an encampment or something like that, though that seems less likely (and more likely just a policy card of some sort).

 

[Arent11]

Well they could go full RTS and require encampments/encampment buildings to even build units above warrior/slinger. But that seems pretty unlikely.

Discount to building seems likely. Maybe also maintenance discount per encampment or if in a city with an encampment or something like that, though that seems less likely (and more likely just a policy card of some sort).

I would actually like some buildings like a stable/barracks/archery range as requirement to build swordsmen, horsemen or archers. Of course there should always be some cheap basic unit available in every era that you can build without infrastructure.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think they may provide a boost to the city, since the Resources are now tile-based again in a way, so if you have an Iron deposit that provides you +2 Iron per turn, then a Barracks could be like +50% resource yields per turn giving you a +3.

 

[Jkchart]

I would actually like some buildings like a stable/barracks/archery range as requirement to build swordsmen, horsemen or archers. Of course there should always be some cheap basic unit available in every era that you can build without infrastructure.

I like this idea too, have a "militia" line that is no resource required, and it is pretty good at defending your home territory (not amazing, about as standard as basic infantry), but that line gets less XP, no boost from buildings, penalties outside home territory, etc. to reflect their role.

 

[bite]

You would think that they would have to have an update with the new Strategic Resource mechanic, which is good because I might mean I would actually build them for a change

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You would think that they would have to have an update with the new Strategic Resource mechanic, which is good because I might mean I would actually build them for a change

I think there are other things that have to change in the game depending on how restrictive they make the Encampment-Strategic Resource requirements. If you absolutely cannot build certain units without Resources AND certain District/Building combos, then access to those Resources is going to have to improve in the game. I've lost track of the number of times in a game Iron is revealed and the nearest deposit turns out to be 10+ tiles away from my nearest city border, requiring me to hustle a settler out there or focus completely on Non-Iron units for the near future. To me that means for this to work the trading of Strategic Resources has to easier - perhaps by opening up better trading options with City States early on. That actually would tie into more Emphasis on Diplomacy...

Likewise, if Encampments are required to make use of Strategic Resources, then everyone is practically forced into building at least one Encampment, even if they have no desire to play any kind of Domination game. I suspect, therefore, Encampments, like now, will simply allow you to make more efficient use of Resources - if you were building Encampments anyway, it gives you more reason to concentrate on them, but doesn't force you to.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I guess the new Emcampment will be much more useful, allowing you to build more army with limited resources, as well as providing GG to enhance the strength of your army (since their numbers are limited the GG bonus suddenly becomes much more useful)

 

[acluewithout]

At most, I can see Encampments maybe reducing the amount of resource required to build a unit, a bit like Equestrian Orders. But I think it’s possible Encampments may no longer have any resource advantage.