So I've been thinking that the javelineer rush is a bit too strong. You can easily conquer a neighbor and double your starting potential very early in the game. I've tried varient strategies and they never seem as good. I don't know how many others agree that this is a bit too strong...

Anyway, here is a proposed solution. What if javelineers simply had a minus for attacking cities. Like -30%, so that Warriors were, if anything, a bit better. Of course, javelineers could still be useful for picking off units, defending, etc.

Even a -15% would make it riskier, and if it's more of a gamble I for one am less likely to do it. Except as Iberia on Normal map, where I don't see any alternative to rushing Tartessos. :) But making a major negative really defeats what I see the midgame use of armored javelins is, which is softening up cities. Or "should" I be relying on archers for that?

How about the palace giving a +50% defense bonus? Solves any early rushes. :)

Or "should" I be relying on archers for that?
Archers are much more efficients in that purpose. More collateral damage, more targets for collateral damage and 50% retreat base. With 2 retreat promotion, they got 80% retreat, like catapults, and unlike catapult they can provide some defense (but cannot break through walls).
Horse archers are great also for softening.

Giving palace a bonus could become a problem later with walls and so on, the bonus would become enormous. Another solution could be to give walls at the creation of first city, as not to allow stacking between palace + palissade + walls + fortress. Or the -10/-20% solution for attacking cities.

I probably use javelins too much - certainly more than historically. But they're so much faster to build than spears, take out both spears and cavalry (which spears don't get any bonus against?), and even though archers have a bonus against skirmishers, they're so weak that it can still make sense to send your javelins against them.

I like the palace idea.

The only problem I see with giving palaces +50% bonus is that already the AI is a bit too reluctant to eliminate other Civs -- this would make it even harder, I suppose. I often end my game with a couple of Civs with just one city and others with very small empires. The AI should finish off the job...

Javalelineers do seem quite powerful in the game -- they still seem overall better than archers (who I still find rather weak). Perhaps giving them a -15/20/25% for attacking cities would help differentiate the Javalelineers a bit more.

-- HT

How about increasing the archer bonus vs javs so that they definitely win?

And a -15% vs cities is good too.

But wait: Javelineers are needed for city attack, as spearmen are the main defenders... I think simply increasing the city defense and increasing the archer bonus should be fine.

How about the palace giving a +50% defense bonus? Solves any early rushes. :)I like this idea, and a lot, too! As pointed out above the defense bonus will become very high later in the game, but that could mean that instead of 3-4 wiped-out civs there will be a number of City-states in the game, adding depth in terms of diplomacy and alliances not to mention vassals. :)

How about increasing the archer bonus vs javs so that they definitely win?
Tha AI does not really use archers, or at least do not stack them (as they do with catapults). It would be a solution for player, but would not solve AI defense, imo (exception : babylon with tons of archers).

How about:
1. Warriors +25% city defense
2. All Skirmishers +5 hammers
3. All Skirmishers 0 first strikes
4. Free Hunting and Javelineers on higher handicap levels, like with Archery/Archers in vanilla
5. Palace +25% defense

2 and 3 weaken Skirmishers for both the attacker and defender; more so for the defender because first strikes are better when you're the defender. But I think on balance it favors the AI for defense against Javelineer rushes, since the AI will build a limited number of defense units, whereas a human attacker will find it a little harder to build a big attack stack. I think it's worthwhile to weaken Skirmishers regardless.

That reminds me, does anyone understand what's up with the best defending unit not always being chosen? E.g. (as of a couple versions ago) I could attack a city containing unpromoted Javelineers and unpromoted Warriors with a stack of unpromoted Javelineers, and the first defender will be a Warrior. As far as I can tell this occurs only in TAM. I believe it is not due simply to different units being fortified for different amounts of time.

I've seen the same problem Jet has, and have no explanation for it.

I haven't seen the behavior baptiste and thamis expect - most AI cities seem to have more javelins and archers than spears, and the javelin/archer balance depends on the civilization, but at least in defense there are frequent archer stacks. The *only* time I've seen more spears than the other two in defending a city is against civilizations with a spear UU.

So I've been thinking that the javelineer rush is a bit too strong. You can easily conquer a neighbor and double your starting potential very early in the game. I've tried varient strategies and they never seem as good. I don't know how many others agree that this is a bit too strong...

Anyway, here is a proposed solution. What if javelineers simply had a minus for attacking cities. Like -30%, so that Warriors were, if anything, a bit better. Of course, javelineers could still be useful for picking off units, defending, etc.

there is already a counter for javelin rush which is archers. You won't take easily a city defended by archers with javs, unless you have at least twice the attackers than the defenders, but in that case what can you say, you're superior you should win.

onedreamer, that makes archery a must-develop technology, and it comes *after* javelins. especially for civs that start with hunting, there's a large window of opportunity for javelin rushes against capitals before anybody has archers out. Archers are more expensive than javelins, to boot, and even with all their defense bonuses they start at strength 2 and so are not certain to win in practice.

If I intend to do a javelin rush, then maximizing hammers and pumping out 4 javelins is the core of my early strategy. If you're afraid of one of your neighbors doing a javelin rush, studying archery and getting two archers in your city is a huge constraint to your early expansion that is probably wasted effort. And good luck trying to get the AI to do that at the "right times".

In vanilla Civ4, tribal warriors have a +25% city defense bonus, which helps stop warrior-vs-warrior rushes, but if we gave them that they'd make archers much less sought-after as defenders.

Kidinnu I don't agree with you. Here are my reasons:

1) an archer defending a city vs a javelineer has huge chances to win, currently. +50% strength, +25% city defense, possibly +25% fortification defense, without considering there could be a hill. That makes strength 4 vs strength 3 in most cases, if not more. Moreover 1-3 first strikes vs 0-1 and 50% chances to retreat vs 30%. In case you decide to counter attack it will be strength 3 vs 3 without terrain modifiers, but more first strikes, more chances to retreat and collateral damage...
2) if you play Monarch +, the AI will start with archers. I think 2 archers at Monarch ?
3) archery is way fast to research, but maybe archers should cost less to make, currently they cost 5 hammers more than javs.
4) the AI will never be successful at this tactic, nor would it even try it because first it will be busy exploring and expanding. E.G. Arminius' AI doesn't know where is Rome at turn 1, it's the player who knows it. If you want to use this tactic well go ahead, it's your enjoyment. It's not much different from entering the world builder and placing 4 berserks next to Rome the first turn. Try this tactic on a random map, where you don't know where is your opponent, and who it is ? If there's Hammurabi, Minos or even J.Caesar and Taharqa good luck with the jav. rush !
5) in the pre-set maps civs starting with hunting don't really have super start spots compared to those who don't...

What I would do however is to move the +15% defense bonus in forests from Javelineer to Archer, not because of balance reasons, but because it makes sense :)


PS: the AI on Monarch+ diff. levels in Vanilla starts with archery already. I'm not sure with TAM, but it might be. So you don't really need to convince it to research it fast, and besides it seems to me that it's exactly what it does, assuming it doesn't get it for free.

One-dreamer:

Consider the Nubians on the huge map. I explored without using my knowledge of the map, then found the Egyptians fairly quickly (I didn't go walking in the desert, but I was exploring intelligently). I saw (on Immortal) that they only had warriors defending. I built two Javelineers and brought my initial warrior in and took out Egypt with just those three units. I don't think there is anything cheating or world-builder-ish about this. I also think it is a problem.

The idea is to do a very quick rush before they get archers and, ideally, before they get javelineers themself. Obviously, if they good defenses, this isn't a good strategy. But that it sometimes works and is quite effective, is, I think, too powerful.

-- HT

1) that problem is due to the fact that Egypt has a crappy start with little production...
2) Kidinnu presented the problem as from the AI persepective, not from the human perspective. As I already said I don't think it's a problem, if you think it is, just DO NOT do the rush. Egypt was out there exploring fairly I guess. And "I explored without using my knowledge of the map"; well... how can you say that ? You temporarily deleted your memory ? Sorry but I don't buy that ;)

This situation isn't limited to the Nile. It happens with Tartesians in Iberia, etc. I've taken out the Phonecians as the Egyptians this way on the Normal map. It isn't about production -- it is about the huge difference between warriors and javalineers and the fact that you can rush with javalineers and quickly elimiate a Civ and double your production base. If my opponent has a lot more production than me but not javalineers, I'm fairly confident I can take them out.

In Vanilla Civ I will often handicap myself in various ways -- can I win on immortal with just 6 cities, etc. Part of what I really like about TAM is that I don't have to do this -- I can do whatever it takes to win. This is an important thing for me. Once I start avoiding legitimate strategies because they are too easy, the game loses something important for me. So I think better to tweak the game. Giving the capital walls or warriors a defensive bonus wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway...

Honestly I don't think it's a "legitimate" tactic. Anything is legitimate... but is it in the "spirit" of the game ? No I don't think so. Because you know that north of the Nile there are Egyptians and that you can take them over. But you shouldn't know it, actually. Have you tested it with a random map ?

I've used it before I knew the map. My first game with Iberia on the normal map, I didn't know about Tartessos, but they were close enough that it was easy to rush them.

Now, it's not always easy; I've tried to execute a javelin rush as Egypt, and unless I get hunting first (losing out on the early religions), either Nubia or Phoenecia or both typically gets a javelin built and fortified before I get my stack to their territory. But it's a lot easier for the civs that start with the technology.

I'm with hypnotoad on this, onedreamer: this is a failure in game design, not a failure in player willingness to limit themselves. A small flaw, one Thamis may decide not to do anything about, but a flaw.

Ok I've tested a bit.
On random maps, difficulty Monarch+, civs that have Hunting start with a Javelineer, civs that don't start with an Archer. All start with Archery and a huge production bonus for producing the second unit fast. With difficulty Prince they just get the production bonus and no tech (which means warrior instead of archer as first unit).
On scenario maps, difficulty Monarch+, civs don't get any bonus tech but a worker (in most cases useless). Since they are scenarios, I suggest to add to the AI one/two archers and Archery at start.

Or otherwise change the order of appearance of Warrior, Javelineer and Archer. One more thing, speaking of Hunting, I think it should be a requirement for Pastoralism.

As long as the AI keeps them in garrison, adding 1 or 2 archers to a monarch+ start sounds like a simple and effective solution.

How about:
1. Warriors +25% city defense
2. All Skirmishers +5 hammers
3. All Skirmishers 0 first strikes
4. Free Hunting and Javelineers on higher handicap levels, like with Archery/Archers in vanilla
5. Palace +25% defense

2 and 3 weaken Skirmishers for both the attacker and defender; more so for the defender because first strikes are better when you're the defender. But I think on balance it favors the AI for defense against Javelineer rushes, since the AI will build a limited number of defense units, whereas a human attacker will find it a little harder to build a big attack stack. I think it's worthwhile to weaken Skirmishers regardless.

He gets my vote.

Noticed that Archers still only get +25% city defense, should raise to 50%, but then give Javelineers back their 1 free strike.

nah I don't agree.
Javs shouldn't loose first strikes and AI should get Archery and Archers on higher handicap levels. Warriors +25% might be ok but not Palace +25%. With +25% city defense warriors already reach the same strength of Javs.

I think palace defence bonus makes perfect sense. The elite troops are always stationed in there and it will make the javelineer rush more difficult.

Why not just give archers a bonus vs skirmishers? Theoretically the bow would have a longer range than a javilen or spear. Give them a 25% bonus vs skirmshers and that should enable them to win more battles.

Although, if you rush enough troops you can overwhelm anyone. I typically send ten to twelve cavalry against several spearmen that have been fortified on a hil for a while. The first few have like 0.8% to win, but after a while they wear them down and win.

To me that seems realistic. Whomever spends more on building an army should be able to win by sheer numbers. If you outnumber them five to one you should win even if you aren't equal in strength one on one. Since Civ only allows 1x1 combat, I think that the "rush" is a fair tactic. If all of the troops fought at once, the smaller force could be overwhelmed; especially when there are no guns or vehicles involved.

I think the new version (1.97) is a fair amount better on this. You can't get Javalineers as a first tech. And archers now have a substantial bonus against skirmishers, making them almost worthwhile :)

I agree that outnumbering your opponent should be a viable strategy. The problem is taking out a civ with a single unit that you rush at your opponent quite early in the game.

In my opinion, is a bad thing taking out a civ quite early in the game. Yes, it's the aim of every warmonger :) ,but it isn't my goal. I like initial development for all civs.
What about introducing defensive units (palace guard? - power 4/5 - movement 0) in each AI capital, like in Civ3-Conquests ROC mod?

I prefer decreasing the javelineers' city attack, because this makes the best sense historically without messing up game-play. In ancient warfare, troops (as opposed to machines) could do two useful things against a city: 1) lob missiles over the walls or at defenders on the walls and 2) storm the walls and or breaches in the defences. For 1), archers are very good. For 2), you want heavily armed and armoured troops. Javelineers are second best at filling either of these roles. Maybe they could be given a slight boost on the battlefield (where they really shone historically) to compensate for their reduced role in city attack.