1. Build few initial cities (maybe 2, 3 at most), then tech to BW, stop expanding via more settlers to build workers, mines and roads as quickly as possible then mass Axes to rush nearby cities/Civs to get the optimal 6-8 cities.
2. Aggressively expanding with building lots of settlers and research archery before BW so build archers for defense and build those same 6-8 cities yourself in locations you want.

Why is (1) so much better than (2)? I don't get it.

It's quite simple. You have a finite amount of hammers per turn. If you spend them on Axemen and take cities, you've just reaped the same benefit you would have reaped had you spent them on Settlers (i.e. more cities) but you also have a stronger military, more population, and pre-built tile improvements.

In other words, it's better to let your rivals do your early expansion for you. Not to mention that (1) cripples your opponents whereas (2) does not.

So basically, (1) gives you all the benefits of (2) plus a lot more. The only potential drawback is sub-optimal city placement. But most cities will be razed anyway, and capitals are always on great city sites.

The only time this doesn't apply is when you're isolated. If there's even one civ on your landmass, early war will nearly always be preferable to early Settlers and Archers.

It does make for pretty stale gameplay. Either you start isolated, which is quite boring, or you work to isolate yourself by eliminating all rivals on your continent. I do enjoy civ as I actively pursue sub-optimal strategies for variety's sake. But the truth is, if you go for the fastest win every time the game becomes extremely predictable.

It's quite simple. You have a finite amount of hammers per turn. If you spend them on Axemen and take cities, you've just reaped the same benefit you would have reaped had you spent them on Settlers (i.e. more cities) but you also have a stronger military, more population, and pre-built tile improvements.

In other words, it's better to let your rivals do your early expansion for you. Not to mention that (1) cripples your opponents whereas (2) does not.



Perfectly said.

Go play Fall from Heaven, then. Raging Barbs force you to be a little more careful in your early game. Ta DAH!

It's quite simple. You have a finite amount of hammers per turn. If you spend them on Axemen and take cities, you've just reaped the same benefit you would have reaped had you spent them on Settlers (i.e. more cities) but you also have a stronger military, more population, and pre-built tile improvements.

In other words, it's better to let your rivals do your early expansion for you. Not to mention that (1) cripples your opponents whereas (2) does not.

So basically, (1) gives you all the benefits of (2) plus a lot more. The only potential drawback is sub-optimal city placement. But most cities will be razed anyway, and capitals are always on great city sites.

The only time this doesn't apply is when you're isolated. If there's even one civ on your landmass, early war will nearly always be preferable to early Settlers and Archers.

This would of course depend on how close your neighbors are. If your neighbors are very close by and expanding close to your cities with their early initial cities then yes those cities are well developed and it is better to take their cities than develop your own especially as they are well developed, especially if their capital which is always well developed and is close by. In fact this is usually necessary because it means that you are boxed in and have no choice. I sometimes find myself in this situation and there is no other way out other than early war.

However if the neighbors are NOT close and those cities are excess cities built far from their capital then these tend to not be especially well developed. Those excess AI cities that were built will not be especially well developed, nor welll populated and generally have no improvements and are usually poorly placed in relation to ones own cities due to bad overlap. Nor does it especially cripple opponents because as I have pointed out if these are EXCESS cities, they are cities that the AI wouldn't have built if you had gotten to those areas first with your own settlers.

As for having a stronger military earlier, my archer army is more than enough against any early wars and I do try to hook up bronze/iron quickly as well but its just not the very first thing that I need to do as I am not trying to do an early rush (unless I absolutely need to). If I want/need to my later built metal-based armies can conquer any cities I need, no need for any early rushing.

As for archers, the main reason I research archery is because it is the only way that isn't dependent on access to military resources, esp copper or iron and is a cheap tech to research. It allows me to play a successful game regardless of access to copper/iron or not. (I don't count horses as the basic chariot is a very poor defender and more powerful horse units take a while to research, not counting UUs of course).

It's quite simple. You have a finite amount of hammers per turn. If you spend them on Axemen and take cities, you've just reaped the same benefit you would have reaped had you spent them on Settlers (i.e. more cities) but you also have a stronger military, more population, and pre-built tile improvements.

In other words, it's better to let your rivals do your early expansion for you. Not to mention that (1) cripples your opponents whereas (2) does not.

So basically, (1) gives you all the benefits of (2) plus a lot more. The only potential drawback is sub-optimal city placement. But most cities will be razed anyway, and capitals are always on great city sites.

The only time this doesn't apply is when you're isolated. If there's even one civ on your landmass, early war will nearly always be preferable to early Settlers and Archers.

It does make for pretty stale gameplay. Either you start isolated, which is quite boring, or you work to isolate yourself by eliminating all rivals on your continent. I do enjoy civ as I actively pursue sub-optimal strategies for variety's sake. But the truth is, if you go for the fastest win every time the game becomes extremely predictable.

This is worth quoting in full: brief, cogent and to the point. I agree with everything in the above post. It's pretty much what I have been trying to argue all along. Thank you, Influx: you have said it better than I could have ever done.

It's quite simple. You have a finite amount of hammers per turn. If you spend them on Axemen and take cities, you've just reaped the same benefit you would have reaped had you spent them on Settlers (i.e. more cities) but you also have a stronger military, more population, and pre-built tile improvements.

In other words, it's better to let your rivals do your early expansion for you. Not to mention that (1) cripples your opponents whereas (2) does not.

So basically, (1) gives you all the benefits of (2) plus a lot more. The only potential drawback is sub-optimal city placement. But most cities will be razed anyway, and capitals are always on great city sites.

The only time this doesn't apply is when you're isolated. If there's even one civ on your landmass, early war will nearly always be preferable to early Settlers and Archers.

It does make for pretty stale gameplay. Either you start isolated, which is quite boring, or you work to isolate yourself by eliminating all rivals on your continent. I do enjoy civ as I actively pursue sub-optimal strategies for variety's sake. But the truth is, if you go for the fastest win every time the game becomes extremely predictable.


Yeah, but 1 never lets you experience the joy of making things go BOOM with tanks! Also, 2 can actually stunt your growth by making your OWN infrastructure weak because you decided to spend it on axemen. Besides, if 1 happens, think about it. This also means that the AI has expanded and has an even better infrastructure then before.

Yeah, but 1 never lets you experience the joy of making things go BOOM with tanks! Also, 2 can actually stunt your growth by making your OWN infrastructure weak because you decided to spend it on axemen. Besides, if 1 happens, think about it. This also means that the AI has expanded and has an even better infrastructure then before.

I would argue that the gains (in gold, land, resources, etc.) from capturing a nearby capital far outweighs the costs of building Axemen.

But come on! Taaaaaanks! You know you want to!

Er...says who???



Er, right. What exactly was the point in that post?

The point was that there are many ways to play and enjoy the game; "winning" through an axe rush and dismissing all other playing styles as boring and then complaining about the game's lack of variety is just stupid. Especially when one also dismisses wins that can't easily by gained through an axe rush as boring. Furthermore, some of us aren't even that interested in winning, or in milking the game for the maximum number of score points.

2 can actually stunt your growth by making your OWN infrastructure weak because you decided to spend it on axemen. Besides, if 1 happens, think about it. This also means that the AI has expanded and has an even better infrastructure then before.

Your infrastructure is hardly stunted. A Worker will be built early, and that's all that's needed for 2-3 cities. (Sometimes 2 Workers.)

The AI doesn't utilize its infrastructure as well as the player, so the fact that it may have a few more improvements really doesn't matter. The difference is marginal and inconsequential.

Well, I still think it's waaaaaaaay more fun to just roll over everyone with guns and tanks and stuff. That's pretty much what BTS is about, the late game. If you use an ancient strategy, then what's the point in even buying BTS?

It's quite simple. You have a finite amount of hammers per turn. If you spend them on Axemen and take cities, you've just reaped the same benefit you would have reaped had you spent them on Settlers (i.e. more cities) but you also have a stronger military, more population, and pre-built tile improvements.

In other words, it's better to let your rivals do your early expansion for you. Not to mention that (1) cripples your opponents whereas (2) does not.

So basically, (1) gives you all the benefits of (2) plus a lot more. The only potential drawback is sub-optimal city placement. But most cities will be razed anyway, and capitals are always on great city sites.

The only time this doesn't apply is when you're isolated. If there's even one civ on your landmass, early war will nearly always be preferable to early Settlers and Archers.

It does make for pretty stale gameplay. Either you start isolated, which is quite boring, or you work to isolate yourself by eliminating all rivals on your continent. I do enjoy civ as I actively pursue sub-optimal strategies for variety's sake. But the truth is, if you go for the fastest win every time the game becomes extremely predictable.

I don't think anyone disagrees that this can be effective. But I think a lot of us disagree with the idea that this is better always than all other strategies.

If there is a close enemy capital then I will definitely rush it if I can. Its too dangerous to me otherwise and getting an enemy capital gets me a good site. But apart from eliminating an enemy opponent and possibly a good city site, its not a huge win. I save the cost of a couple of settlers in exchange for the cost of the axes that I lose. I come out ahead, but not hugely so - the main advantage is the elimination of a threat - hardly gamebreaking.

Attacking a distant enemy capital is rarely worth it to me, unless I am playing by some kind of house rules where I want to try out an unusual UU or suppress and pillage multiple enemies rather than capture land. The cost of distance maintenance and having a large army in the field early on outweighs for me the benefits of peaceful expansion and locking in key resources and land.

I find a later war much more effective and important. If I attack when I have catapults, I have the potential to score a lot more land, a lot more cities and often capture wonders and developed cities. But this is exactly what has been made significantly more difficult in BTS. By the time you get catapults, its no longer a rush - its full scale war and the AI will fight back. (If they don't then go up a level - you are playing below your capabilities).

War at that point in the game carries risk as well as reward - particularly on higher levels where you have to deal with AI superpowers and blocks of allies. If rushing is your only trick, it isn't going to cut it - your warfare needs to be a lot cleverer and your strategies for peacetime and diplomatic skills are just as important.

As I see it the complaint in this thread is that you can still axerush on moderate levels if you have copper and a close opponent. Nothing about how much harder a later rush now is. So we have a strategy that is mildly useful in certain situations and thats it. You might spend slightly fewer hammers on your initial city grab and you might get a slightly better city. You might also gain some enemies and you lose a trading partner.

Sure you can do it - but it isn't really the sure-fire super strategy thats claimed.

Focusing your empire on one thing at the start of the game is a powerful strategy - rather than dividing your effort and achieving only small amounts on any given goal.

An axe rush is a classic example of this. But what about the other kinds of "rush" you can do at the start?

- With a financial civ I "rush" cottages and try and get as many riverside cottages up and running as I can for a huge early tech rate and the ability to finance a lot of expansion. I find this very powerful - more so than an axe rush for this kind of leader.

- With an industrious civ I "rush" wonders. I end up with huge cultural borders and an extremely powerful central city that finances a lot of science and production through settled great people and the accumulated effects of the wonders.

- With a philo civ and access to stone, "rushing" the pyramids can be tremendously powerful.

- With a creative civ, a land grab where you wall off a large section to settle at your leisure can be tremendously powerful.

- With an aggressive civ, an axe rush is a viable strategy, but what about farming your AI opponents? Letting them build you wonders before you savage their cities? My highest ever score resulted from a game where I pillaged early civs with Keshiks but didn't take them out until later. Eventually when I was ready I claimed the pyramids which was a huge boost to research, especially when I didn't have to build it myself.

Any of these can be at least as powerful as an early axe rush.

At 12 pages, I don't know if this thread is still worth posting in, but I am going to step up to defend the OP.

There is an objective portion and a subjective portion to his argument, and most people are criticizing the subjective part. Clearly it's just his opinion that micromanaging cities, missionaries, and the like for non-military victories is boring.

It's the objective part that people seem not to be addressing: an early axe rush is the most powerful strategy in most games. Now it's obviously true that there's nothing forcing a player to use the most effective strategy. One can certainly choose not to pursue such a strategy, and that point has been made many times over.

The fact remains that, in the back of our minds, we know that we could simply walk over our neighbors if we wanted and if we have copper relatively close to the capital. I think it's reasonable to argue that this is poor game design.

I, for one, have always felt that civ focuses too much on war, though this has been less and less true of each version. Things like culture and diplomacy have been fleshed out as the game progresses. But the underlying fact that war is the easiest and most effective path to victory has never changed.

For those of us who don't find war fun, we have to deal with this in some way. You can set up your game to not be conducive to war, or you can make a conscious decision not to pursue warfare. But can't an argument be made that no one path to victory should be easier or more effective than the others? That's clearly not the case and in my view that's bad game design.

I agree with this. There seems to be a fairly general agreement that on higher difficulty levels, you simply have to take out a neighbouring civilization early in the game to get the edge on the other competitors. There should be ways to make this a less obvious option. I think the recent addition of angry militias arising from the ruins of a razed city shows the way. Suppose conquered lands would not automatically lose their native population even if you raze every single city? Instead of automatically becoming assimilated by your culture in a few turns, the defeated tribe would keep turning up, à la barbarians, but turn up in your cities, destroying buildings, or slap in the middle of your land, destroying improvements and killing your workers. They might even become so dominant in cities you have founded on their land that they rebel, troops and all, so you'll have to fight a new war of conquest. That would be pretty accurate historically too. The Romans never conquered all of Britain because it would have been cost-prohibitive (the land in the north wasn't that valuable) and because the tribesemen kept rebelling. The Assyrians were brought down by a combination of neighbouring countries and the peoples they had conquered. The English never managed to assimilate the Irish. The Chinese conquered Vietnam on one occasion but were thrown out after a couple of generations.

So I think that, particularly early in the game, a mass rush on a neighbouring civilization should entail a very real possibility of serious and destructive consequences which would make you think twice before deciding that it was the only option you had. Where you might, in some cases, reluctantly decide that you had no choice but to attack, but where you at least as often would decide that leaving your neighbour alone (or only fighting limited wars for limited gains) would be better.

Of course, this is not to say that OP is right from a wider perspective; by his own admission, he will only play the game under conditions that fulfill his demands (nearby copper, not too high a difficulty level, the "right" kind of map, and so on), and he despises culture and diplomacy so he refuses to engage in them. Of course he gets bored! Of course he longs for a real wargame, one where war isn't one of several tools to promote your civilization. So I wonder why he bothered with Civ in the first place.

I can't really see where you can say that advancing a stack of Swordsmen and Catapults and Spearmen is going to qualify as a "rush" in any sense of the word. Catas require Construction and getting there fast enough to be relevant is going to require some modicum of building capability.

Technically, Axe Rushing is also not the best option for every leader in the game, as InvisibleStalke explains. In fact, in the UNREAL and IMPOSSIBLE walkthrough threads, obsolete demonstrates an option for winning the game in about 4 hours! Even when you Axe Rush, you don't win. You just become more dominant.

In terms of real time, cultural and diplomatic wins are often the fastest wins because they don't require the same kind of micromanagement as wartime management does. Clicking on build queues is faster than arranging an SoD and moving it across the continent.

So war is important in Civ. So what? I rather think that that was rather intentional, since war seems to also be important in RW history, though I might be mistaken on that. Some people think that WWII was not really that significant an event.

Agree with Öjevind Lång
devs should add some penalties for taking enemy capitols, making it less desirable early fex 20-30 gold per turn upkeep, would scare most away from doing it early, or large chance of flipping.
Theres many options, tho next would prolly be ppl raze em and settle spot themselfes o_0

You posted you request... how long ago... 12 hours ago? And you label me a "troll" because you have to wait for a reply for more than 12 hours? Learn to be patient, man. Besides nothing compels me not to ignore your requests. However, I shall be kind enough to answer your two questions. I hope you will equally kind, and apologize for your rudeness and lack of faith.



The short answer to that is that improving civ is simply not my business, it's Firaxis business. This is what they are paid for. I am not paid to find solutions to their problems.
The longer answer is this: my personal opinion is that the current version of the game is radically broken, and that there seems to be no way of fixing the combat system. At any rate, I've tried various mods, but none of them adequately fixed it. The whole thing has to be redesigned from scratch. If you are looking for suggestions I have no new suggestion to offer other than the obvious ones: a decent AI, some sort of supply lines, less reliance on military units spam and more strategic choices, especially in warfare.



Again, giving examples of other computer games is besides the point. Despite its deep flaws, civ is the best of its genre. Europa Universalis is in may ways worse than civ. And I don't really like the Total War series. But perhaps a combat system more like Medieval II total war (without the RTS) might be better than the current system? I have no strong opinion on that. Having said that, I do however strongly believe that the SoD rush is overpowered and that civ is broken for that reason. Whether other computer games are any better or worse is irrelevant to the point.



So, according to you, whoever criticises (and makes you wait for an answer) is a troll.

No, a troll is someone who comes into a forum. Disregards others, flames others or insults whatever the forum has been set up for and then ignores or does not give alternative suggestions. Opinions are fine as long as the person also has the balls to put their own suggestions on the firing line. You have so far just been critical and offered NO alternative suggestions. Also you replied to several posts after mine so it was logical to assume you were ignoring it.

As for MTWII?? I think it's exactly the same. Build lots of units and outnumber them two or three to one? And you'll crush the AI.

I especially like the idea of Total War battle system without an RTS element.... a fine suggestion.... *snicker*

Reductionism is rife, but no logical thought seems to precede it. Actually, that's the only reason I've continued to post in this thread, to counter the awful, fallacious arguments made by the OP.

I'm going to have to agree with you Moonlit Knight... initially I thought the thread was just plain silly.... but the OP is clearly intelligent and writes well (even with no grasp of constant logical fallacies), then I thought it was a joke because you can't state something so totally obvious and not be joking - non-sequitur's tend to be humourous as a punch-line. Then, I saw that none of the pages of objections were being countered or considered, and the OP's original argument slowly wandered around until it became somewhat different, yet still utterly obtuse. I can only surmise that this whole thread was to get a rise, get people posting crap replies to deflect the OP' boredom from having used the WB one too many times and become bored with civ. It succeeded - 14 pages of funny posts, good objections, interesting points and a great thread to link to if you ever want examples of fallacious statements.

I am genuinely pleased to see so many people post up about how they enjoy playing in a variety of styles - it certainly breaks the typical teenie stereotype you see on CFC where people are focused on pwning the AI as quickly as possible and then bragging about it. Variety and fun for fun's sake seems to be the actual norm, just less people seem to post up about it.

I have every intention of making a mod in this man's honour. It will feature only pangaea, only small maps, only axemen will be buildable, only resource will be copper and the only victory condition will be to take any opponents capital.

I've only played vanilla, but I agree with the sentiment of the OP. I switched to advanced starts when I realized that, 95% of the time (on any difficulty, any map type) an axe rush was the way to go. If not axes, then swords, cats, or chariots.
Unfortunately, advanced starts don't help a lot either. You just end up with maceman rushes, or rifleman rushes, or whatever.
There's other ways of playing besides the axe rush that are more fun. I just wish that they were balanced in effectiveness.

It appears as though some dislike a good game of chess.

I assume that you (and the OP) are using "rush" to mean an offensive war.

I think that the OP and those agreeing with him use "rush" to mean: taking advantage of a window of opportunity and maximizing production of a newly acquired offensive unit to launch a concentrated attack in overwhelming numbers. I’ve found the "rush" to be the most effective kind of offensive war.

He is a troll. He is here to flame and cause disruption.

I've read most of the thread now, and I don't think that the OP is a troll. Some posters jumped at the guy because he said that is he "bored and disappointed" with BtS, but he's also a made a valid point, one I entirely agree with. Let's face it, at moderate and high difficulty levels the best way to gain an edge over the competitors is to take over one or more nearby civs with axemen or catapults early in the game. To do that the warmonger does not have to engage in sophisticated strategic thinking, the AI just is incapable of handling human players launching concentrated attacks in overwhelming numbers. Though I enjoy doing it, to me it almost feels like an exploit when I take on a barely protected capital city with a bunch of axemen. I have to admit that early warfare is pretty much a no-brainer and one of the least challenging parts the game. Late wars are much more challenging but not as decisive as the early ones.

I think that the OP and those agreeing with him use "rush" to mean: taking advantage of a window of opportunity and maximizing production of a newly acquired offensive unit to launch a concentrated attack in overwhelming numbers. I’ve found the "rush" to be the most effective kind of offensive war.

OK, that accounts for some of my misunderstanding, anyway. To me, a rush is a style of play where you optimize your economy/build, usually at the expense of all else, in order to produce an offensive force before a more balanced play style can produce an adequate defense (i.e. a 4 or 5 pool Zergling rush in Starcraft). So, for example, beelining Cavalry isn't a rush, as I usually use the term, because other players have hundreds of turns in which to build and react. Under your definition, I really have no idea what we're all arguing about. Using superior units in overwhelming numbers is the most effective way to wage war? Really??? ;)

To the OP:

Yes the axerush is the best strategy a good amount of the time, but hardly always (unless you do something odd like always choosing boudica on pangea).

Playing epic monarch last night I started as Ghandi very close to sitting bull in a game last night. I knew trying to axe rush his cities as Ghandi was going to bog me down.

I looked at the terrain, and realized that I could block him off and trap him in a narrow peninsula. I used that strategy and now he only has three cities and is the lowest in score, while I have the highest score on continent.

I think in this situation the axerush strategy would have lead to an inferior result than the one I accomplished without that strategy. So there you go, axes didn't rule in this game.

The only time this doesn't apply is when you're isolated. If there's even one civ on your landmass, early war will nearly always be preferable to early Settlers and Archers.



I would simply argue that another time this is the case is when a crucial resource upon which the strategy depends is missing. With no early copper/iron resource, the argument and the strategy fall apart. Dependence on the random generation of said resource had the OP saying he'll simply quit and restart without it, which is why many posted to say this nullifies the claim.


What if you have no copper? Then the cat rush is nearly always the dominant strategy. Bad news again.

From the OP. Thank you for at least finally addressing this, even if it goes counter to your original claim that you'd simply restart in said scenario. As far as the Cat Rush goes, they altered Siege weapons in this expansion, so that they are unable to kill off a defender entirely on their own. While cat rush may still be a viable option, I don't think you or anyone has shown this yet with the changes made in the xpac.

Maybe I can address two complaints in one. Namely, supremacy of rushing and weakness of espionage.

Perhaps leaving someone else alive with a manageable size empire, therefore better research, would also increase the power of espionage? If you're either conquering - therefore expanding and slowing research - or razing - thereby destroying - a serious portion of your accessible neighbors, then of course espionage looks bad. If you prioritize an early neighbor for espionage, then you can have the advantages of tech sharing without the icky sharing part. Espionage will thereby give benefits you would not get through axe-rushing. You'd be wise to limit their future power - perhaps by being Creative - but you could farm them as a long term resource rather than slash and burn them.

Using superior units in overwhelming numbers is the most effective way to wage war? Really??? ;)

Let me step into the debate as a "pro-axe nerf." The problem is that with copper and one or two decent production sites, it’s not hard in the early game to outnumber the AI’s city garrisons in a ratio of two or three to one. So I propose the following simple solution to the OP's problem: what about increasing the production cost of early axemen from 35 to 50 hammers until the discovery of iron working?

I think that the OP and those agreeing with him use "rush" to mean: taking advantage of a window of opportunity and maximizing production of a newly acquired offensive unit to launch a concentrated attack in overwhelming numbers. I’ve found the "rush" to be the most effective kind of offensive war.



I've read most of the thread now, and I don't think that the OP is a troll. Some posters jumped at the guy because he said that is he "bored and disappointed" with BtS, but he's also a made a valid point, one I entirely agree with. Let's face it, at moderate and high difficulty levels the best way to gain an edge over the competitors is to take over one or more nearby civs with axemen or catapults early in the game. To do that the warmonger does not have to engage in sophisticated strategic thinking, the AI just is incapable of handling human players launching concentrated attacks in overwhelming numbers. Though I enjoy doing it, to me it almost feels like an exploit when I take on a barely protected capital city with a bunch of axemen. I have to admit that early warfare is pretty much a no-brainer and one of the least challenging parts the game. Late wars are much more challenging but not as decisive as the early ones.

Decisive. Good point to touch on. As much as I've posted against the OP, I will be the first to agree that the early rush technique is indeed one of the most decisive moves available in the game. Just stands to reason. Less troops, less cities, each win is far more decisive than waiting until the game has expanded across time.

However...

Decisive does not equate to dominant.

What I mean by this is the following:

When an expert in a field has described something as dominant, they'll generally provide data. Like saying, "In 200 trials, we've found X to result in over 101 cases...thus it is the dominant result"

The problem I have with the early rush is while it can decisively put you ahead of your rivals, it has an equal chance to decisively put you far, far behind.

So you've cleared your forests, sacrificing the late game for the early benefit, bee-lined toward Axeman, but have no iron/bronze...scenario over. You've wasted time and resources and future strength for a strategy that is now moot. What does the OP, or many who employ this do in this case? They restart the game. It's early, not much time invested, makes sense to restart. But what they forget is, they basically lost the game by pushing to be overly decisive.

Let's say you get copper/iron. Let's say you outnumber your opponent 3 to 1 with axeman, and roll toward the capital for the win. What happens if even with 3 to 1 odds, a few bad rolls has you NOT capturing the city, or winning this war you've set up. Again, inc restart...or even a reload where you change the attack order (or if you dont check the option to maintain outcomes, just try the battle again). I seriously doubt those that try this strategy and are not successful actually play out the game, now at war with their neighbor, devoid of forests, have no defenders, and their capital could probably be taken by a roaming bear.

So yes, early war is indeed more decisive, but until I see empirical data to say otherwise, I still don't believe, dominant.

The risk-reward of this strategy is massive. When it works, yes, it is strong...maybe the strongest approach. But when it fails, it fails massively, and the game is often lost that early, or at such a disadvantage, it isn't worth continuing.

But since it's so early, many put out of their mind the number of times they've restarted to get the needed resources, or reloaded to avoid a massive military loss.

If you were to count these failed excursions into the data along with all the overwhelming wins achieved, I'd be willing to bet more people would find this early rush massively risky, decisive, to-be-sure, but not always dominant in terms of pure wins/losses per trial.

It's early, not much time invested, makes sense to restart. But what they forget is, they basically lost the game by pushing to be overly decisive.

Well said!

If they counted all those ignominious failures instead of skewing the data in their favour, this 1 trick pony would suddenly look a lot less feasible.

Instead of rebalancing axes around these people, I suggest they rework the hall of fame to include *every* single quit game, or un-finished game.... that would give us much more meaningful data to work from! ;)

Let me step into the debate as a "pro-axe nerf." The problem is that with copper and one or two decent production sites, it’s not hard in the early game to outnumber the AI’s city garrisons in a ratio of two or three to one. So I propose the following simple solution to the OP's problem: what about increasing the production cost of early axemen from 35 to 50 hammers until the discovery of iron working?

I've always thought that the only real nerf axes need is to make them dependent on some tech other than the one that grants both early game methods for rushing builds. It would create another decision point for the player and it would make it harder to get that big axe stack up and running quickly.

Yes restarting and reloading seems to be something some do

You may as well go into the world builder and give yourself loads of mobile infantry :lol:

Though i myself have finally got out of the habit of checking the world map in world builder to see if its a fun shape to play, more fun just playing with what you get given.

If your stuck next to load of jungles with no copper and iron or on a tiny island with lots desert, deal with it. Its the challenge :cowboy:

I think a lot of us disagree with the idea that this is better always than all other strategies.

Nobody said it's "always better". In fact, those supporting the OP's argument have repeatedly stated that having another civ on your continent and having copper relatively close to your capital are prerequisites. These two conditions are met in a solid majority of my games. I don't know about you.

So we have a strategy that is mildly useful in certain situations and thats it.

More like a strategy that essentially wins the game for you in most situations. Can it be won in other ways? Of course. But you can't deny that having 2 capitals in the Ancient Era propels you far ahead of the AIs, who never pursue such a strategy.

More like a strategy that essentially wins the game for you in most situations. Can it be won in other ways? Of course. But you can't deny that having 2 capitals in the Ancient Era propels you far ahead of the AIs, who never pursue such a strategy.

Would you deny that failure to achieve iron/bronze in this scenario, or some bad rolls, and an early military loss while trying this can lead to you losing the game in most situations?

I'd say while this strat can lead to some of the most overwhelming wins, people forget the overwhelming losses it can lead to at an earlier stage than any other strat. Problem is, folks don't play out the losses...just restart or reload.

I'd bet the actual wins to losses wouldn't be seen overpowered if folks were stuck continuing the game when the resources didn't show, or their military force didn't take the city.

The AI, as someone not programmed to reset when it fails, could be viewed as too smart to take the risk, and play the safer odds of winning across time, than trying and failing utterly, as can happen with this strat.

Would you deny that failure to achieve iron/bronze in this scenario, or some bad rolls, and an early military loss while trying this can lead to you losing the game in most situations?

I'd say while this strat can lead to some of the most overwhelming wins, people forget the overwhelming losses it can lead to at an earlier stage than any other strat. Problem is, folks don't play out the losses...just restart or reload.

I'd bet the actual wins to losses wouldn't be seen overpowered if folks were stuck continuing the game when the resources didn't show, or their military force didn't take the city.
.

Haha, I've just lost an axe rush yesterday because of some crazy odds. Louis was my neighbour and I hated creative leader sitting next to me, so I rushed him. Paris was built on a hill. 6 of my 7 axes lost in the first round to 2 archer defenders, with 1 archer survived. In next turn my lone injured axe could only watch Louis whipped a fresh archer. So basically my 6 x 35 hammers are gone already. The war turned into a messy war of attrition. Finally I had to sue for peace. Both Louis and me were badly hurt, and you know who, Mr. Huaya and Ms. Elizabeth were somewhere cranking out tech after tech, wonder after wonder, and I could never catch up.

Like investment, there will be time any strategy will backfire. In axe rush, if your first wave attack can't land a lethal or at least debilitating blow to the AI, at Monarch or higher levels the AIs will recover faster than you. If you adopt the "one more unit" approach, hoping to make this first wave attack a more guaranteed bet, most of the time the AI cities will gain cultural defence, the capital gets more and more archers, which make the war messier. There is only a limited window to achieve optimal axe rush, and even you time it right some bad RNG results will kill your great plan. Well, one can always reload and pretend nothing has happened.

No thanks. Difficulty levels above monarch require too micromanaging for my taste, and the "better AI" just spams too many units.



Wonders are not essential. Any fool can win without ever building one.



Withouth axes the game just becomes frustrating, especially if you are not interested in either diplomatic or cultural victories (which, anyway, are even more boring than the axe rush).



The game itself limits the choice of effective strategies. As things stand, the most effective strategy is the axe rush, with all the other strategies being too iffy or micromanagy. Hence, my suggestion to quit if either bronze or iron are lacking (or, I should add, if one starts isolated).

Hmm, sounds like command and conquer might suit you better...

No thanks. Difficulty levels above monarch require too micromanaging for my taste, and the "better AI" just spams too many units.

Wonders are not essential. Any fool can win without ever building one.

Withouth axes the game just becomes frustrating, especially if you are not interested in either diplomatic or cultural victories (which, anyway, are even more boring than the axe rush).

The game itself limits the choice of effective strategies. As things stand, the most effective strategy is the axe rush, with all the other strategies being too iffy or micromanagy. Hence, my suggestion to quit if either bronze or iron are lacking (or, I should add, if one starts isolated).

Hmm, sounds like command and conquer might suit you better...

According to this logic:

"No thanks, playing basketball at NBA level requires paying too much to details, and the new NBA rules make 3-pointer relatively difficult.

Dunking is not essential. Any fool can win without dunking one.

Without 3-pointer the basketball game becomes frustrating, especially if you are not interested in shooting mid-range jumpers or slashing in for layups(which, any way, are more boring than 3-pointers)

... so the most effective winning basketball strategy is 3-pointer after 3-pointer, with all other strategies relying on the defenders or the refs. My suggestion is if your first three 3-pointers don't fall, just quit the game.

If you concede me that much, you have already conceded a lot to my argument. In fact, you have conceded almost everything I need to rest my case.

The conditions that make the axe rush dominant are only two, and are fairly common:
Availability of copper.
At least one close neighbor.
As everybody will agree, many types of starting locations will frequently meet (1) and (2). Therefore, in at least a large set of starting conditions, the axe rush is the one dominant strategy. This is already very bad news for the game. In any sufficiently complex game, no set of starting conditions should determine a uniquely best course of action.

(To those who say: “but nothing forces to play warmonger! You can always go for diplomacy, culture, etc.” I answer thus. Sure, one may chose for whatever reason not to purse the strategically best course of action, but this is one’s own personal choice which has nothing to do with my argument.)

What if you have no copper? Then the cat rush is nearly always the dominant strategy. Bad news again. As far as I can tell, the only cases were no form of SoD rush is a dominant strategy (e.g. you'll better refrain from attacking at all stages of the game) are certain kinds of isolated starts at monarch and above. But this is not good news either. Isolated starts generally narrow your strategic choices, they certainly don't make them broader.
Judging by your opening post and this one, you've missed 99% of the game. The game generates random maps. You don't always get your perfect starting position. Playing Civilization isn't about quitting if you don't get a perfect starting position, but rather playing with uncertainty. Judging by your gripes, you just don't like the game Civilization at all. You'd be better off playing something else.

Like investment, there will be time any strategy will backfire. In axe rush, if your first wave attack can't land a lethal or at least debilitating blow to the AI, at Monarch or higher levels the AIs will recover faster than you. If you adopt the "one more unit" approach, hoping to make this first wave attack a more guaranteed bet, most of the time the AI cities will gain cultural defence, the capital gets more and more archers, which make the war messier. There is only a limited window to achieve optimal axe rush, and even you time it right some bad RNG results will kill your great plan. Well, one can always reload and pretend nothing has happened.

This is why I think rapid early expansion, archery first w/building lots of archers and then going to bronze working (for whipping foremost for both settlers and archers as needed) is the much more "dominant" strategy as it works in nearly all situations. You do want to hook up copper and/or iron quickly (simply for defense as you can't rely on archers exclusively for TOO long) but you're not in a hurry to do it to try to crank out tons of axemen during the optimum "window" of opportunity.

Sure there are cases where you get lucky and copper is right at the capital city boundary and a neighboring Civ (both of which are not that common in huge maps which I mostly play). But even in those cases, you're not going to be doing really noticeably worse doing it my way than doing it the Axe rush way.

And in the many cases where the Axe rush fails or can't be implemented, I can continue playing whereas the "Axe-rush is the best way" folks resign in frustration.

The game generates random maps. You don't always get your perfect starting position.

Axe rushing doesn't require a perfect starting position. You just need to find some copper... and a target.

Nobody said it's "always better". In fact, those supporting the OP's argument have repeatedly stated that having another civ on your continent and having copper relatively close to your capital are prerequisites. These two conditions are met in a solid majority of my games. I don't know about you.



More like a strategy that essentially wins the game for you in most situations. Can it be won in other ways? Of course. But you can't deny that having 2 capitals in the Ancient Era propels you far ahead of the AIs, who never pursue such a strategy.

Having another civ CLOSE enough that I feel a need to rush them - ie within 12 tiles or so is relatively rare for me - maybe one game in five.

Of course you can do a long distance axe rush on moderate levels, but I will usually choose not to. Not because I can't but because it is usually an inferior strategy compared to the other options available.

There are lots of other early rushes - cottage rushes, wonder rushes, great people rushes, land grabbing etc that should be considered too. Depending on my leader choice, starting terrain, distance to other civs and who the other civs actually are, any of these may be a more effective long term strategy than just going for an axe rush.

Having two capitals doesn't propel you far ahead of the AI compared to what else you could instead have:

- Pyramids + Great Library + Great Wall + Parthenon + Stonehenge + Oracle (easily achievable on Monarch with an industrious wonder rush).

- 12 riverside cottages with a financial civ - 4 cities self built on rivers will give you enormous early research.

- Landgrabbing a choke point with a creative civ where you can comfortably settle 10-12 good cities.

- Scoring a dominant early religion and an early shrine and the Apostolic Palace - I've seen religions absolutely explode with a shrine in this game - getting +30 gold isn't hard to acheive if you get the first shrine going.

Certainly you can get a dominant early position versus the AI by focussing on something and really going for it. Where you and the OP are mistaken is thinking that there is just one such strategy. There are dozens and the best strategy for each and every game will be different. Yes sometimes it will be an axe rush, but if you think an axe rush is the best 90% of the time then you are simply wrong.

The OP has expanded the discussion into SOD rushes or cat rushes. I think by the time you are getting into later techs, then (1) the AI and seige nerfing has toned this down a lot and (2) its not a rush anymore - it takes a lot of skill to get into the position of a tech and production lead in the first place. If you acheive it consistently and easily then perhaps you should up the difficultly level.

For a start, increase the difficulty level.

That's not a good piece of advice to give to somebody who says that axe rushing is boring. At higher difficulty levels it's next to impossible to keep up with the AI withouth an early rush.

That's not a good piece of advice to give to somebody who says that axe rushing is boring. At higher difficulty levels it's next to impossible to keep up with the AI withouth an early rush.

Possibly his problem is that he isn't skilled enough to pull off other kinds of strategies. In which case you are right - going up a level isn't going to help.

^^^^^^^

It's not really a matter of skill, it's a matter of preference. Some like to axe rush, some like the cultural approach, etc.

Would you deny that failure to achieve iron/bronze in this scenario, or some bad rolls, and an early military loss while trying this can lead to you losing the game in most situations?

I'd say while this strat can lead to some of the most overwhelming wins, people forget the overwhelming losses it can lead to at an earlier stage than any other strat. Problem is, folks don't play out the losses...just restart or reload.

I'd bet the actual wins to losses wouldn't be seen overpowered if folks were stuck continuing the game when the resources didn't show, or their military force didn't take the city.

The AI, as someone not programmed to reset when it fails, could be viewed as too smart to take the risk, and play the safer odds of winning across time, than trying and failing utterly, as can happen with this strat.

You conveniently left out my first paragraph where I stated copper was a prerequisite.

Anyway, if you pursue an axe rush strategy but don't have bronze, you're not behind. At all. This is because Bronze Working is such a valuable tech. You plan an axe rush, you research BW, you don't have bronze? Oh well. You can still chop and whip. You haven't lost anything.

I think the insane value of Bronze Working as a tech is the root of the problem, and I'm disappointed this wasn't addressed in BtS. Is there any other tech in the tree that confers so many powerful abilities?

Robotics... I mean COME ON! It gives you access to the strongest unit in the game! AND gives you shiny new planes!

Fishing - without it, you can't work a significant proportion of tiles in the game! :D

Always found it funny to claim that 1 tech was more important than the others.... what about the pre-requisite for BW.... surely then that is equally important as you wouldnt be able to get BW without it? :D

^^^^^^^

It's not really a matter of skill, it's a matter of preference. Some like to axe rush, some like the cultural approach, etc.

Obviously he doesn't like to axe rush - since he finds it boring. I have no qualms with someone who enjoys a good axe rush - but to pick one strategy, get good at it, then argue that no other strategies are useful and by the way you are bored of the one strategy you play over and over again is silly.

Axe rushes are fun. But they aren't the sum total of good strategy in the game and are often less optimal than other approaches. And if they aren't fun anymore try something else. I try to never play the same way twice. It means I am not as good as the best players on the forums, but I have a lot of fun and still manage to be challenged by the game.

Ok, you "got me". Bronze Working isn't any more valuable than any other tech. /eyeroll

Axe rushes are fun. But they aren't the sum total of good strategy in the game

Good thing you knocked that one down. Now all the people who were arguing that an axe rush is "the sum total of good strategy in the game" can be quiet. Oh wait, nobody ever said that.

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

Obviously he doesn't like to axe rush - since he finds it boring. I have no qualms with someone who enjoys a good axe rush - but to pick one strategy, get good at it, then argue that no other strategies are useful and by the way you are bored of the one strategy you play over and over again is silly.

Axe rushes are fun. But they aren't the sum total of good strategy in the game and are often less optimal than other approaches. And if they aren't fun anymore try something else. I try to never play the same way twice. It means I am not as good as the best players on the forums, but I have a lot of fun and still manage to be challenged by the game.

Youre right. I, much like the OP, am a lifelong warmonger and a big fan of the axe rush as a solid strategy. However, I sometimes get tired of Domination all the time and will occasionally.....*gasp* switch strategies and do a cultural victory! It actually makes me feel just as satisfied, knowing that my civilization's culture is far superior to all others.

Youre right. I, much like the OP, am a lifelong warmonger and a big fan of the axe rush as a solid strategy. However, I sometimes get tired of Domination all the time and will occasionally.....*gasp* switch strategies and do a cultural victory! It actually makes me feel just as satisfied, knowing that my civilization's culture is far superior to all others.


Pursuing a cultural victory has brought about some of my hardest fought battles too - playing for a culture victory on Emperor will see you defending against mechanised infantry with rifles, cannons and cavalry.

Now all the people who were arguing that an axe rush is "the sum total of good strategy in the game" can be quiet. Oh wait, nobody ever said that.

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

I think you'll find that that is *exactly* what the point of this entire thread was.... and while others have made decent points to augment the initial poor concept, people also never argued that axe-rushing *wasn't* effective... just that it wasn't the be all and end all guaranteed way to win the game... i.e. they were countering the initial post's statement, not your later-stated opinions.

This thread never had a useful lifetime, but it's funny that it's dragged on so long. It's wandered all over the place in a drunken stupor with very little said on either side.

Pursuing a cultural victory has brought about some of my hardest fought battles too - playing for a culture victory on Emperor will see you defending against mechanised infantry with rifles, cannons and cavalry.

Yeah, that happens but I think you have to be a really shrewd politician to avoid being steamrolled when going cultural. A strategy I like to use for cultural is to bee-line Military Tradition and sign Defensive Pacts with all my friends. It works more than 90% of the time to deter rivals from attacking me. Whoever said cultural victories don't need planning has obviously never tried to accomplish one on a higher difficulty level.

Does everyone beeline Bronzeworking? Is it really that important a tech? Would or should you quit if you find that you have a Protective neighbor (in which case an axe rush for the capital could be prohibitive) or have no bronze nearby?


I've played ALL of my starts to decision, whether by loss or by win. Even if I seem to be losing, I at least play it to the modern era until I'm quite sure I can't leverage a Diplomacy win against an AI's Space Race win. Most of my starts don't involve a copper resource within an 8 tile radius of my capital, and the number of starts in which I have a close neighbor AND a close Copper, without that Copper belonging to my neighbor is rather small.

Indeed, it seems rather obvious that this would be the case. Not only does the "win" condition require a close Copper AND a close enemy capital, it ALSO requires that the Copper be closer to you or at least not so close to the enemy that he doesn't claim it before you can. It's a pretty small subset of scenarios, IMO, playing mostly Continents or Fractal at Normal Speed and size.

I've played any number of games where I didn't have Copper (but discovered Iron or Copper some while after) nearby or didn't have an enemy capital nearby or worse, had a nearby capital that was closer to the Copper than I was (and in two cases, this was Alexander!!!).

Those worst-case scenario games were NOT easy games, as you might tell, and they could not be won by Axe Rush. In fact, I was often "rushed" myself, at worst with Phalanxes from the Greeks. As Rameses!

If the case is in doubt, then a simple series of start tests would suffice! Simply start a series of games, and count the instances in which an Axe Rush would be the best method for winning.

Having played almost all of my starts, my experience is that the Axe Rush is not something that's all that advisable for a majority of games, though it is useful for quite a few. If you keep quitting games where Axe Rushes are not possible, then this will skew your experience. It's just like the "Red Light" phenomenon. Red Lights aren't more likely than Green Lights. You just notice the Red Lights more because you have to stop under them for at least a few minutes each, whereas you breeze by Green Lights in seconds, and they are promptly forgotten.

No games are "lost" until you quit! Or when you actually lose, but below Monarch, I can usually hold out until 1000 AD, even with the lousiest of starts. I've won games starting in Tundra, games that started in jungle, and even games that had absolutely no production heavy tiles in my capital (jungles instead of forests, no hills, all Spices and Wheat). They were harder because I had to explore options I hadn't considered before, but they were the more interesting games because, well, I had to explore options I hadn't considered before!

Does everyone beeline Bronzeworking? Is it really that importnta a tech

I do. Bronze working is the single most valuable tech in the game imho. Starting with mining is a welcome boon.

Would or should you quit if you find that you have a Protective neighbor (in which case an axe rush for the capital could be prohibitive) or have no bronze nearby?

Protective is a pain in the butt, but it's not invincible, it merely slows your down. It depends on how good your production is. If I have no bronze nearby I usually beeline iron working or construction. Definitely construction, if I have elephants.

Indeed, it seems rather obvious that this would be the case. Not only does the "win" condition require a close Copper AND a close enemy capital, it ALSO requires that the Copper be closer to you or at least not so close to the enemy that he doesn't claim it before you can. It's a pretty small subset of scenarios, IMO, playing mostly Continents or Fractal at Normal Speed and size.

I usually play the same settings as you do (no "balanced resources"), and very often (roughly two in three starts) I do get close copper and a close enough target. In those conditions, it's very tempting to rush the enemy capital and gain the all-important early advantage. If the potential target is aggressive you absolutely have to rush it before it grows too strong.

If the case is in doubt, then a simple series of start tests would suffice! Simply start a series of games, and count the instances in which an Axe Rush would be the best method for winning.

From my own personal experience, I have to agree with the OP: axe rushing is definitely the best way to gain the crucial early advantage over the AI. I can think of no other better way. Game starts with copper and close targets get definitely easier in the long run.

Carolingian:

Personally, I think that Agriculture is the most important tech in the game, but I do SE, so that rather colors my thinking.


Protective is a pain in the butt, but it's not invincible, it merely slows your down. It depends on how good your production is. If I have no bronze nearby I usually beeline iron working or construction. Definitely construction, if I have elephants.


The question isn't whether Protective is invincible. The question is, with a Protective neighbors some ways away from you, would an Axe Rush still be the optimum choice? I would say not.


I usually play the same settings as you do (no "balanced resources"), and very often (roughly two in three starts) I do get close copper and a close enough target. In those conditions, it's very tempting to rush the enemy capital and gain the all-important early advantage. If the potential target is aggressive you absolutely have to rush it before it grows too strong.


I have the opposite experience. In 2 out of 3 starts, I'll have Iron OR Copper in close proximity, but only in about 1 of 3 or less would that actually be Copper, and in only a fraction of those does it make sense to rush the enemy capital, given the rather large gamble you're making by NOT teching to useful things like Priesthood and Masonry.

What would you say to obsolete's so-called walkthroughs?

As for frequency, as I said, you could always conduct a series trial to settle it.

It all depends on things that are exogenous to the game itself: the players goals and motivation for playing the game.

To the OP, winning as fast as possible with as high score as possible is the goal. The most optimal way of reaching this goal is to do some sort of early rush. He is disappointed that for reaching this goal, one type of strategy seems to be too attractive.

However, it is important to realize that most players do NOT share this goal at all. The goals of other people might lie more in exploring different paths to take in the game, developing their cities, being the tech leader, etc, spreading religion. And very importantly, these motivation of these people is not to reach a goal in the most optimal way, but to reach it in their own way! (not neccessarily the most optimal one)

In games that people play in their spare time to have fun, nobody has to pick the most efficient strategy to reach one extremely narrow set of goals, and it is NOT irrational not to do so.

Hard to believe I read this whole thread.

Warrior rush is the most overpowered strat, imo. It ain't a rush once you tech past warriors! lol. Seriously cat rush? Grenadiers rush? That's hardly a rush that's more like exploiting a military tech advantage during a brief window of opportunity while your units overpower anything your opponent can field. What's overpowered is our ability to outplay AI's and be able time and plan things to our advantage. Any nub can bring an SoD of 20 cats to a siege, but knowing you can get by with 6 at the right time is where the AI falls on it's face. We can exploit these advantages by setting up and preparing for these windows of opportunity so the AI isn't capable of countering us effcetively. If you miss the window that doesn't mean build another 14 so you can brute you're way through, it should mean a switch to plan c or d, but those 6 cats will still be handy for plan q in 80 or so turns, micro those sages to merchants to make sure you can afford the upgrade when the time comes ;p It's a vast game, I don't see how you can't get bored when you refuse to try the other options.

From what I understand the whole premise is that if I have more units than an opponent I will likely defeat them. That's brilliant, really.

The flaw then is not in the game mechanics (anyone can tell you that multiplayer is more or less balanced) but in the AI which is, sadly, limited at this time by technology. NO strategy game has AI that can hope to match a reasonably intelligent human. Its not Firaxis fault that they do not possess future AI technology.

There are only two humanly possible solutions to your problem.
1. give the inferior intelligence bonuses to compensate
2. restrict the amount of units that can be built through the game mechanics

1 has been done but you refuse to use it, 2 could be tried and I'd like to see a model in which military size were more limted be it through economy, or some other mechanic. Simply increasing all unit hammer costs would be a start.

For the time being, try incorporating other aspects of the game to maximize your strategies. Spies, for example, are fantastic for warfare, a well timed revolt can help you crack big cities faster, causing unhappiness or poison can hinder production cities, etc.