I think I agree with Carnide, though. You can get 2 warriors for one phalanx. It's a question of what you need them for. A warrior will provide martial law as well as a phalanx. Or 2 warriors can explore more territory than a phalanx. And 2 warriors can defend against one offensive unit better (it has to attack twice).

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

Since we are definitely not talking OCC, we are talking either ICS or 'xxx'. The 'xxx' would refer to Perfectionist Expansionist Theory, or PET. Maybe?

Anyway, I go warrior first. Then settler. Then, depending on circumstances, I will choose between warrior, phalanx, and settler. The circumstances are nearness of opposing civs, barbs in the area, and food output of the city.

But an interesting question has been raised in my mind by this thread. Should I wait and build archers instead of phalanx?

------------------
Frodo lives!

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 09-18-2000 02:30 PM I can't remember the last time I built an archer in MP or SP. They just don't seem worth the production.

This was what I thought (a long time ago, when animals could speak ) until I played deity/raging hordes/no reload .
What I need is a good early military unit, strong enough to deal with the early barbs, until I get monarchy.
Warrior code is for me the good compromise between cheap-to-build, one research step technology and strong-enough unit to avoid the loss of early cities.

A phalanx will NOT survive 2 horsemen barbs: my early phalanx are not veteran, so on the first barb, she will be an almost dead [veteran] phalanx, on the second, she will be a dead veteran.
An archer will, with a little bit of luck, survive: he attacks the first horseman. After that, if veteran: he will survive the second horseman attack, if not, well there is still a chance...

A non vet phalanx has NO chance against a chariot.
A lucky warrior will have the possibility to attack the chariot if it is on an adjacent hex, or even at 2/3 if its is one hex away along a river or road.

With the ability of being offensive, archers are also easier to veteranise. Not a small advantage for the future.

I have seen horsemen, archers and chariots as early barbs, legions comes a little bit later. And even a legion can be killed by an archer, mostly not by a horsemen.

quote: A phalanx will NOT survive 2 horsemen barbs

Here is why I don't build archers anymore.

For me, until I get monarchy, I don't want to take any science off the path that will delay the discovery of Monarchy. As we all know, minus any sciences from huts or other civs or free from the start, you usually have to take one science not on the path. Given that choice, I will always take bronze over warrior code. Bronze allows me to build a defensive unit, and start building a wonder. (which I can change to a different wonder later as better wonders become available) No other science on the direct path to Monarchy provides a wonder. Warrior code doesn't allow for building a wonder either.
Once I have Monarchy, production isn't that much of an issue anymore, and I can crank out both defensive and offensive units as needed. Plus, I usually go for writing next... and then, who needs to build archers when you can out and bribe attacking units with diplos

quote: Originally posted by Dry on 09-19-2000 12:27 PM And even a legion can be killed by an archer, mostly not by a horsemen.

In my experience, on open terrain a Horsemen almost always kills a Barbarian Legion. Barb Legions have a defense of 1, AFAIK.

For instance, odds of taking out a barb legion with a non vet horse are slim, much easier to take out that archer.

Barb archers will maul non vet warriors.
Legions take out anything pretty much on anything.

My theory is warriors early on then mix in some better units. I rarely build certain units, but i tend to have one of each at least somewhere in my empire

Ming: you are right, there's a lot of if's, but my point was: archer have a chance (even if small), phalanxes have no... well, I exagerated, of course they have, but smaller.
You are also right for the WOW, but I usually don't build wonders so early... depends on play style... after monarchy WOWs are only one tech away.

I hear you all about phalanxes surviving horsemen, and I noticed it also (even warriors have survived very first barbarian archer !!!) but my experience is just that since I changed my strategy from phalanxes to archers, I lost only one city (I'm talking here about very early cities: one of the 4 or 6 firsts) every 4 or 5 games, while in the past, by building phalanxes I lost at least one city per game.
An early city is something I do not like to lose... not to say that if the city is not destroyed but taken, this is a direction in which it is much more difficult to expand: you need to wait for diplos ... or go and try to retake/destroy the barbarian city with... guess what... with... (no, not with phalanxes ), with... archers!!!... well yes, maybe also with horsemen, you are right .

Maybe it has something to do with game version, but i think that when I changed my strategy I played already with 2.42 version. Today I have the 2.62 (I wanted to try the scenarii). Maybe I should try again the phalanxes...

I will usually go warrior(to wander) warrior settler then a second settler or phalanx. I have not lost a city to barbs in a real long time. And playing raging, after 3000 I like sending settlers out with a phalanx. I hate moving a settler and exposing a barb. Losing a settler early in MP can really hurt. And since we play on small worlds, the chance of running into another civs horse or non-archer is a higher probability. Other players will usually attack a settler/unless it's on a mountain, with a horse. If the phalanx is along, they won't risk a non-horse.

One last note. I have surprised many a player early when they discover a 1pop city early and attack and see a fortified phalanx defending. I love taking out other players non-units.

I think I've built about 3 archers in my entire civ career. My thinking is, for 25 more bucks/or one or two turns more, I can build another city.

The wonder issues is also important.

Having said all this, In SP I don't worry about it much, and will use just warriors until about 2000.

quote: Originally posted by geofelt on 09-19-2000 04:08 PM Does anybody build a barracks first? In some games, I have built a barracks early in a high shield city, and used it to build vet phalanx for every other city. As I recall, this worked very well.

I usually don't build barracks until after Mobile Warfare. Vet status through warfare is good enough for me and I hate to have to rebuild the barracks after they've been sold. But I do love to capture an enemy city with a barracks intact. Quick healing of the troops is always good.

And after I do build barracks, I spit out vet armor units as fast as I can. Stack a couple of them on a mountain in a fortress for defense and they'll save you a lot of grief from attacking enemy units.

------------------
Frodo lives!

My preference is now warrior, chariot, pikeman...

It now seems evident that 2 archers are not as valuable as 2 pikemen. In fact, nothing until 2 knights is worth a chariot and a pikeman.

------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

Second try:
Research bronze; build phalanx in Veies (size 2).
Knock-knock, who's there: 2 archers.
Oops, neither phalanx nor warrior can move.
First archer kills phalanx (city is size 1), second kills warrior; city is destroyed. Only 3 cities left... and 2 barb archers (ok-ok, one of them is almost dead) still in the nearby...

I basically agree with everything Ming said. I build a phalanx for the 2nd OR 3rd unit in some cities.