Just tried BtS, monarch difficulty, fractal map, standard settings. Played a dozen games, with randomly chosen leaders. In terms of strategy, I see no substantial differences. Even with nerfed siege and "better AI", early expansion is still relatively easy. Once again, the axe rush quickly does the job, and guarantees victory. No need to bother with espionage. No need to found/spread either religions or corporations. I ignored all the new wonders (I hardly ever build any wonder, for that matter). Apostolic palace and random events turned out to be non-factors. As to the late game units, I’ve never got that far… by the time infantry comes around I’ve already won my games. I guess all the new features become relevant only if you don’t want to axe rush your neighbours (but why you wouldn’t?) or if you have no bronze/iron (too frustrating, I would just recommend quitting in such an unlikely case) or if you play scenarios/advanced starts. This is too bad… I already feel rather bored and disappointed with BtS. :(

For a start, increase the difficulty level.

(I personally don't know why you even bother playing Civ when you "hardly ever build any wonder", "recommend quitting" when you have no bronze/iron and feel like you absolutely have to axe rush. What's the point of playing a game employing just one strategy and quitting if you can't use it? But whatever floats your boat)

You *could* always try to play some other way than an axe rush. What do you do if you don't have copper nearby - quit and restart?

Just tried BtS, monarch difficulty, fractal map, standard settings. Played a dozen games, with randomly chosen leaders. In terms of strategy, I see no substantial differences. Even with nerfed siege and "better AI", early expansion is still relatively easy. Once again, the axe rush quickly does the job, and guarantees victory. No need to bother with espionage. No need to found/spread either religions or corporations. I ignored all the new wonders (I hardly ever build any wonder, for that matter). Apostolic palace and random events turned out to be non-factors. As to the late game units, I’ve never got that far… by the time infantry comes around I’ve already won my games. I guess all the new features become relevant only if you don’t want to axe rush your neighbours (but why you wouldn’t?) or if you have no bronze/iron (too frustrating, I would just recommend quitting in such an unlikely case) or if you play scenarios/advanced starts. This is too bad… I already feel rather bored and disappointed with BtS. :(

eyesofnight?

Maybe try winning on a continents (3-4) on a huge map, then axe rush and still tell me if you are going to have an easy victory.

There are more ways to play then on a pangea type map where an early axe rush is a guaranteed win.

For a start, increase the difficulty level.

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

I personally don't know why you even bother playing Civ when you "hardly ever build any wonder"

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

"recommend quitting" when you have no bronze/iron and feel like you absolutely have to axe rush.

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).

What's the point of playing a game employing just one strategy and quitting if you can't use it?

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).

Just tried BtS, monarch difficulty, fractal map, standard settings. Played a dozen gamesEh? BTS is just out, how can you possibly have played 'a dozen games'? The games only been out for a few days :rolleyes:

Maybe you should change the difficulty setting or play on a bigger map? Or start in a later age, after axes? :)

The axe-rush also works best on smaller maps where you start on a large continent with many civilization close. If you play on huge maps, you aren't likely to have copper close to your capital and the enemy cities are quite distant. If you happen to start on an island alone, then a rush isn't even possible.

If you only play in a situation where the axe-rush works, then yes of course it is powerful.

this like complaining that slam dunks are the most effective way to score baskets, but if the hoop is adjusted to prevent slam dunks he just doesnt play on that court.

I guess all the new features become relevant only if you don’t want to axe rush your neighbours (but why you wouldn’t?)

Because some people like to play and enjoy the game in a different way than you do, or, gasp, may not even give a rat's a$$ about "winning" or getting the best score.

Yeah, Tic-Tac-Toe is getting pretty boring, too. I mean, I play it all the time with my five-year-old nephew, and it's just a piece of cake. I always "volunteer" to play as "X", so I always get the center square. I swear, he plays like he's five years old or something.

:lol:

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

You mean, difficulty levels above monarch are too hard. If you don't want to be challenged with a video game go play a different game.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression you're a 'Cheat Code' kind of guy. Find the easiest way to beat a game and use it - even if it's an exploit of a small programming glitch.

What the others are suggesting is to deliberately make the game have a different texture. It may require you to play outside of your comfort level, but that was one of the main motivators for creating so many victory conditions and approaches.

There are a large number of walkthroughs presented by very patient and highly skilled players demonstrating a variety of play styles.

Go play an RTS, then.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression your a 'Cheat Code' kind of guy. Find the easiest way to beat a game and use it - even if it's an exploit of a small programming glitch.Time for a wall-hack in Civ :lol:

From my own experience thus far, i'd have to disagree. I've played 3 games thus far ( monarch continents standard ) and I found that while effective the axe rush only worked once. The other two times I faced 6-8 defending chariots...although there was a quest to build them at the time, so that may have influenced AI decision making, but that at least refutes the quests as non-factor issue.

Maybe try winning on a continents (3-4) on a huge map

The size of the map is not a factor. The number of opponents is. In general: the greater the number of opponents, the easier the victory. Many opponents means that you'll have one or more close neighbours to axe-rush, while the other AIs are limiting one another's expansion.

There are more ways to play then on a pangea type map

I find pangea the easiest map-type. I mostly played fractal.

I remember I played with similar settings back when I first started. I also used a simliar strategy (swords instead of axes). It's helpful because you can practice the 10% of the game which is early expansion, but your just kidding yourself if you think you have mastered the game.

As for higher difficulty levels requiring too much micromanaging, this sounds more like an excuse to me. Seriously, I didn't really have to start playing a good, solid game until Immortal, so you should at least try Emperor.

I find pangea the easiest map-type. I mostly played fractal.



Maybe it's time to start challenging yourself, than? It's ok to lose, really, it is.

Fractal is mosttimes just a more snaky version of Pangea, with a few straits to have early separation. ;)
In my experience this is an even easier map to go on a conquest routine, since the player usually starts on one end of the land, and just has to push a frontline until he reaches the other side of the land.

This is really a crazy argument. You're effectively saying: I use this strategy that always works on some maps on some difficulty levels and I don't like to play in other circumstances.

If you pick the circumstances in such a way that a certain tactic is effective and don't play the map if the tactic isn't effective, then you can't afterwards complain that the tactic is effective.

Some settings that would make it more difficult:
-larger maps
-standard number of civilizations for the mapsize and not more
-multiple continents
-don't regenerate the map when the starting position isn't great
-aggressive AI setting
-higher difficulty level

Try axerushing a protective civ that hits feudalism off of the oracle...and they are your only close neighbour (see Sisiutil's current ALC game in the strategy section).

You say other approaches are "boring" yet you accuse the axe-rush of being "boring". Methinks you need to expand your civ repertoire. I play many games where an axerush is not viable (no copper or no close neighbour) and it is still very fun, I can assure you.

You just need to learn more of the game than bronze-working, and what's wrong with that?

Of course if you have a close neighbour and copper then an axe-rush is a powerful strategy. But if you weren't able to successfully attack a close neighbour early then you would have no chance if you got hemmed in on the higher levels (including monarch, but especially higher than monarch).

But if you don't have copper and/or a close neighbour then you simply have to do something else...other than restart :rolleyes:

I almost never play to win (I've had one Score and one Diplo victory in all of the MANY games I've played).

Don't you think it's just fun to build an empire? Or spread religion? Or at least use mixed arms? Axerush is probably the least fun way to play, IMHO.

I have noticed that later on in the game once you have the highest score than anyone else, the ai kind of gives up. Which basically means they aren't willing to declare war on you anymore. It may be true that the ai realizes that a war with you is futile, however there are ways around this. The ai should actively try to make alliances and do whatever it takes to take you down somehow (like a human would do). Unless of course you have managed to somehow make every ai player pleased or friendly toward you.
It is possible I just havent noticed the computer do this or because I dont play on a very high difficulty, but this is the reason why the axe-rush is so effective. You jump off to an early lead and never look back. This is one reason why BTS sounds interesting because it is about what happens after the axe.

This thread is kinda pointless isn't it? The OP is a bit trollish, and all that needs to be said has been said hasn't it?

The ai should actively try to make alliances and do whatever it takes to take you down somehow (like a human would do).
In International Relation that is referred to as 'balancing' - and YES, the AI should attempt this!

Though I have had lower-score AI attack me in the mid-later game (when I was well ahead in score). Turns out, my high score is no match for their SoD!

... if you have no bronze/iron (too frustrating, I would just recommend quitting in such an unlikely case)

Try checking Balanced Resources from the custom game menu.

As to the late game units, I’ve never got that far… by the time infantry comes around I’ve already won my games.

If you go down to Prince, and always play as the Romans, I bet you can win before rifles, maybe even before muskets. Why, I bet you could've played three dozen games with the new expansion by now.

The designers have given you the tools to make the game truly monotonous and unchallenging. You just aren't taking advantage of them.

peace,
lilnev

^^:lol: :lol: :lol:
Who says that trolls don't generate great posts?

play online

I have noticed that later on in the game once you have the highest score than anyone else.My opinion is that the AI in BTS doesn't just give up (like it used to), but continues to try (and sometimes quite succesfully) :)

I would love to see this miracle "axe rush" demonstrated in detail some day, which I keep reading about. I'm still not sure how it works, or for that matter how it works if you are on a continent with only 1 neighbor and everyone else is overseas. I presume on Monarch difficulty after conquering a few neighbors early, you eventually need to start actually playing the game strategically to finish out the win?

Also... try the dog soldier if no resources are nearby and report back on another dozen games to let me know how well that works, I'm curious.

There are some AI strategies I'm occasionally disappointed the AI won't try. For example, in cases where the player looks likely to win a space race, beating two AI's who are friendly to each other but annoyed with the player. It would make strategic sense for the weaker AI to offer itself as a sacrifice: go all out war on the player even though it will lose, hoping to slow the player down enough for its friend's ship to launch.

(It could even be "player agnostic" -- if you were friends with a weak AI, and a stronger AI looked like winning imminently, the weak AI could offer to crash-tackle the stronger AI for you...)

Why feed a troll?

^^:lol: :lol: :lol:
Who says that trolls don't generate great posts?

It's cuz Lilnev is hilarious :goodjob:

I absolutely detest axe-rushing. I really hope that it is not still the dominant early 'strategy' in BtS. :(

There are some AI strategies I'm occasionally disappointed the AI won't try. For example, in cases where the player looks likely to win a space race, beating two AI's who are friendly to each other but annoyed with the player. It would make strategic sense for the weaker AI to offer itself as a sacrifice: go all out war on the player even though it will lose, hoping to slow the player down enough for its friend's ship to launch.

(It could even be "player agnostic" -- if you were friends with a weak AI, and a stronger AI looked like winning imminently, the weak AI could offer to crash-tackle the stronger AI for you...)


Well that would be a nice addition, but I would prefer the ai's to play like people, self-centered and not willing to sacrifice themself for the "better good".

I absolutely detest axe-rushing. I really hope that it is not still the dominant early 'strategy' in BtS. :(

Me either, but it's still the best way to gather advantage, specially if you play with 18 civs in a small map, like I do. AI always expand much faster than you do at higher levels, like monarch or above, so early wars are essential.

I detect some faulty circular logic here. What you're saying is:

1) You always play on settings that favour axe-rushing

2) So axe-rushing is the best tactic

3) So you play on settings that reinforce that even more


Its not the game that broken, its the way you play it. If you are bored of axe-rushing then play with settings that don't favour it. The whole point of Civ4 is its immense replayability - if you always try to play it in the same way then you're only playing a tiny fraction of that game.

Axe-rushing hasn't worked in multiplayer since Warlords, that is for certain.

I would love to see this miracle "axe rush" demonstrated in detail some day, which I keep reading about.
The miracle axe rush means you regenerate the map over and over again until you have a perfect starting location, then press crtl+w for world builder and see if there is copper nearby/within city radius/very close. If iron is nearby forget it, its too much hassle and you're too "good" a player to bother.

Make sure you have the best starting location with a close copper source and be able to build 2-3 great cities also close by.

Make sure that the map is pangea or something very similar so you can destroy everyone with your great start location/resources.
Whatever you do DONT even think about wonders, diplomacy, culture, espionage, technology, trade, religion - remember you just wanna win quick using any means possible so you can brag.

Remember don't play any map with continents, if you axe rush in these games and you expand too much, then maintenance will force you you drop science slider bigtime and since no one is left in the island you won't be able to techtrade so in both ways the other continent will be far ahead of you and win the game: YOU MUST PLAY A MAP THAT PERFECTLY MATCHES YOUR CHOSEN STYLE OF PLAY ON YOUR CHOSEN PERFECT START LOCATION, it doesnt matter if 1 big continent is realistic or not...

Once you do that, then goto your cities, alt+click on axemen so that the city continuously builds axes [remember city management is boring, we are axe rushers] and just keep spamming the globe with your axes and crush all.

Most importantly, once you do all these come to civfanatics:BTS section and make a new thread about how boring the new expansion is and how nothing matters except for axe rush.

Careful, lilnev... he's gunning for your job.

play online

I second that!

But I bet Bastillebaston would find multiplayer likewise "boring", because human opponents make the game too difficult, there would be too much micromanaging for his taste and the other players are just spamming too many units and out-tech him.

why not just make a mod called axerush, and put only axemen and copper, and grass hills with iron in the map, with nothing else

Maybe it's time to start challenging yourself, than? It's ok to lose, really, it is.

Seriously, this guy said it best.

TRY SOMETHING NEW

why not just make a mod called axerush, and put only axemen and copper, and grass hills with iron in the map, with nothing else
HA - someone would seriously do this! Sounds very therapeutic, just slaughtering endless enemies with a permanent axerush!

all u seem to care about is winning the game, i dont actually see civ as a game taht u have to win, i dont play it to win, i play it to build a civilization starting from ancient times to modern times, all u think about is winning, civ isnt about winning its about building a civilization to stand the test of time!!!!
Sure wars will be declared but its not about getting a bunch of axeman and pwning everything, no wonder u dont have fun, u actually quit if u dont have bronze or iron near you, u just get axeman and run around killing everything, u dont even acknowledge the 100 other aspects of the game. You dont get what civ is about, go play something else because if all u want to do is win in that manner then civ isnt your game.

Sounds to me like the threadcreator here would much more enjoy playing Counter-Strike, you should try it. Why are we even discussing in this thread?

If you gear the game towards instantly conquering everything with axes and focus solely on that... then you really are limiting your enjoyment experience and it's hardly surprising that you are winning. If that's where you get your kicks then fine... but funny how it can both be too easy and that you quit if it isnt like you want. Seems like you set yourself up to win and then complain that there's no more to it. Personally, I play to build big empires and only cross swords if forced to it or need to expand there. Not saying thats the right way, but it gives me endless hours of amusement and I get to see all the new strategies too.

Personally, I vote for you to go and play against humans and see how far your solitary tactic gets you.... I expect you'd probably quit once you lost all your axes though! ;)

all u seem to care about is winning the game, i dont actually see civ as a game taht u have to win, i dont play it to win, i play it to build a civilization starting from ancient times to modern times, all u think about is winning, civ isnt about winning its about building a civilization to stand the test of time!!!!
Sure wars will be declared but its not about getting a bunch of axeman and pwning everything, no wonder u dont have fun, u actually quit if u dont have bronze or iron near you, u just get axeman and run around killing everything, u dont even acknowledge the 100 other aspects of the game. You dont get what civ is about, go play something else because if all u want to do is win in that manner then civ isnt your game.

Couldn't have said it any better myself

why not just make a mod called axerush, and put only axemen and copper, and grass hills with iron in the map, with nothing else

roflcopter!!!! ahahahaha

but seriously bastillebaston, challenge yourself
if you think smth's not right, think of ways to make it right
idk, put restrictions on things you allow yourself to do
try not to be so narrow-minded

I used to be bent on axe-rushing, but then my game expanded tremendously - axe rushing followed by cat rushing.

It's amusing to consider why someone whose favored tactic to the exclusion of all others would purchase an expansion whose main two themes are a) non-military gameplay and b) post-Medieval/Renaissance era gameplay.

I have to agree with the OP, I've been playing with Boudica on settler level (chieftain is far too much micromanagement) with one other civ on a tiny pangaea with no barbarians, and so far I've won four hundred and thirty-seven games in a row, all before the end of the classical age. Axerushing has won me the game every time (though I confess I sometimes have to open worldbuilder and put a couple of copper and gold resources in my capital radius). It really is starting to become almost tedious. I'm very disappointed in this expansion, it clearly was not designed with flexible strategic geniuses like myself in mind.

I'm hoping thats a joke^^^

Originally Posted by bastillebaston
Just tried BtS, monarch difficulty, fractal map, standard settings. Played a dozen games, with randomly chosen leaders. In terms of strategy, I see no substantial differences. Even with nerfed siege and "better AI", early expansion is still relatively easy. Once again, the axe rush quickly does the job, and guarantees victory. No need to bother with espionage. No need to found/spread either religions or corporations. I ignored all the new wonders (I hardly ever build any wonder, for that matter). Apostolic palace and random events turned out to be non-factors. As to the late game units, I’ve never got that far… by the time infantry comes around I’ve already won my games. I guess all the new features become relevant only if you don’t want to axe rush your neighbours (but why you wouldn’t?) or if you have no bronze/iron (too frustrating, I would just recommend quitting in such an unlikely case) or if you play scenarios/advanced starts. This is too bad… I already feel rather bored and disappointed with BtS.

I cannot see how you played a dozen games in just a few days. It took me 10hours to finish my first BTS game and that was on Prince level.
Do you finish your games or quit happy after you've taken a few cities with axe rush?

You say you don't like to micromanage???? You win confortably on Monarch without micromanaging your cities?

I guess all these were domination wins ...a dozen in a couple of days!! Yet you are bored of this game!

I have to agree with the OP, I've been playing with Boudica on settler level (chieftain is far too much micromanagement) with one other civ on a tiny pangaea with no barbarians, and so far I've won four hundred and thirty-seven games in a row, all before the end of the classical age. Axerushing has won me the game every time (though I confess I sometimes have to open worldbuilder and put a couple of copper and gold resources in my capital radius). It really is starting to become almost tedious. I'm very disappointed in this expansion, it clearly was not designed with flexible strategic geniuses like myself in mind.

:sarcasm:

LOLLERCOPTERS! Greatest post ever.:goodjob:

kekekekeke axe rush gg

The answer to this topic is so obvious - play with humans, not with AI! If you want a real challenge, a wise opponent that is unpredictable - you have to play online with othe human players!
The only problem is that people like you will rather quit than play when something goes wrong. So the answer to this problem is to join some internet club of multi players.

There are a large number of walkthroughs presented by very patient and highly skilled players demonstrating a variety of play styles.

There are basically two play styles: Warmonger and Builder. Most of the victory conditions favors the warmonger style. No surprises here, this is a war game after all. Question: what is by far the best warmongering strategy? Answer: The axe rush. Therefore, most of the victory conditions favors the axe rush.


Conquest & Domination: If you are aiming at either of those you’d be a fool not to axe rush whatever is within range (and yes, I’ve seen Sulla’s walkthrough for a domination victory achieved purely through culture… yawn)
Space race: you need to grab land, or you’ll be soon out of the race. Best bet: play warmonger first, build later. If you don’t axe-rush, your space victory will be delayed.
Diplomatic: this is either a version of conquest or a dull calculation of diplo modifiers.
Cultural victory: yawn. Micromanaging missionaries? No, thanks.
Time victory: no comment.

I can 't resist the temptation to put my oar in. I am not like you demigods who play on Monarch or Immortal. I like to play on Noble and try various settings and go for various wins. I often abandon a game after having had a thoroughly good time. Now go ahead and despise me; I couldn't care less.

Try checking Balanced Resources from the custom game menu.

You are missing the point. I am talking about the unreasonable effectiveness of the axe rush, not about the distribution of bronze on the map.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression...

Yes, you are wrong.

I can 't resist the temptation to put my oar in. I am not like you demigods who play on Monarch or Immortal. I like to play on Noble and try various settings and go for various wins. I often abandon a game after having had a thoroughly good time. Now go ahead and despise me; I couldn't care less.

Monarch << Immortal. I wouldn't say Monarch is difficult in any way, and it certainly is more fun due to the lack of resistance that the Noble AI gives. This might have improved in BtS though, I don't know (my order arrived at the post office today, so I'm getting it later :))

You are missing the point. I am talking about the unreasonable effectiveness of the axe rush, not about the distribution of bronze on the map.

Here's a sugestion: Try to win without ever being the one who starts a war. Confine yourself to trying to annoy your neighbours so they attack you. That might offer you some excitement and difficulties. Especially if you set the game to "Aggressive AI".

frob 2900: You clearly did not understand what I was saying at all. I am not primarily interested in "beating the game". I am interested in playing the game with different settings and using different civs. I know that an early axe rush is generally the best way to win on higher difficulty settings. I find that dreary, so I stay away from it. There are different ways to enjoy the game.

From my own experience thus far, i'd have to disagree. I've played 3 games thus far ( monarch continents standard ) and I found that while effective the axe rush only worked once. The other two times I faced 6-8 defending chariots...although there was a quest to build them at the time, so that may have influenced AI decision making, but that at least refutes the quests as non-factor issue.

Sign open borders. Scout their land. Do they have horses? Then bring a couple of spearmen (a good ratio is 1 spearman: 4 chariots). It nearly always works.

Axe-rush non-protective opponents first. If your target is protective, no serious problem, you'll only be slowed down: the ratio just needs to be higher, 3:1 at least. It's just a matter of numbers, not strategy.

Most of the victory conditions favors the warmonger style. No surprises here, this is a war game after all.

Er...says who???

I can 't resist the temptation to put my oar in. I am not like you demigods who play on Monarch or Immortal. I like to play on Noble and try various settings and go for various wins. I often abandon a game after having had a thoroughly good time. Now go ahead and despise me; I couldn't care less.

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

Originally Posted by bastillebaston
this is a war game after all.
Er...says who???

Did you fail to notice that the game allows you to build military units and wage war?

It is not a "war game", it is a strategy game. I like about Civ the analyzing, that you can say "Damn, that doesn't look good, im screwed!" and then come up with a plan. Like "Ok, I am to weak, but if I bribe Alexander to war against xyz, maybe… etc"
Seriously, try to play a different setting. Either play a difficulty above monarch or try another layout. Like Archipelago or a Continents Map. And don't quit if your start looks suboptimal.

And if you really find the AI lackluster, play online! Its a whole other level, and I had extremely exciting and fun and unpredictable games.

Did you fail to notice that the game allows you to build military units and wage war?
So you're saying it's an espionage game, events game, technology game, religion game, grassland game, culture game, war game, market (as in the building) game and hundreds of more * game just because it's in the game?

this is a war game after all.


.... bold statement ...

Dogpilling units on one tile to attack one-tile cities, that´s not even close to what a war demands in terms of on-field tactics.
In Civ you only take care of the global military strat and logistic.
But you don´t have any close up action on the battlefield. This can´t be a wargame.

Sorry pal, but I think you bought the wrong game.
Go back to the store and get a repay.

Bastillebaston is correct that an early rush is an effective approach, certainly far superior now till waiting till the enemy have longbows. The issue is the ai doesn't build up a sufficiently large counter stack to wipe out invaders when the opportunity arises e.g as soon as they take a city or enter terrain without a defense bonus.

If the AI could have the programming to put together counter-stacks, then it'd be very hard to beat the AI militarily at higher difficulty levels.

As soon as the AI gets two move units that aren't easily countered - it used to be cavalry could be a problem - then things get abit more tricky.


Has anyone else noticed the AI likes to keep far less units in cities as garrisons now?

Dogpilling units on one tile to attack one-tile cities, that´s not even close to what a war demands in terms of on-field tactics.

There are good wargames and bad wargames. I agree that civ simulates wars poorly... so, yes, it can't the best wargame on the market.

In Civ you only take care of the global military strat and logistic.
But you don´t have any close up action on the battlefield. This can´t be a wargame.

Wargame = "a game that simulates military operations (either at the tactical or at the strategic level)". Civ simulates military operations. Therefore, civ is a wargame.

At the absolutely intentional risk of sounding pejorative: OP, go back to playing Starcraft.

Then, once you've tired of using the same strategy over and over and over to win, you can start playing Civ again.

Your argument is completely inane. You're bored because you only ever use one strategy on one difficulty level? Go figure.

In addition to this you seem to think that the best strategy is the one that enables you to win the fastest and get the most points. I have no idea what the "best" strategy is, and I'm also someone who is modest enough to know that my particular bend on the issues probably isn't going to be the best for everybody.

You, on the other hand, not only know your strategy is the best, but in addition to that, and refusing to play any other way, you have the audacity to tell everyone else that their way of playing is either too hard or no fun.

It would almost be hilarious that a few axe rush wins made you think that you're actually Augustus Caesar if it wasn't for the fact that you seem to believe there is some defect in the game because you've managed to do so.

Yes, we know about the axe rush. Yes, we know it can *sometimes* be effective. This doesn't make you a god, and it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the game. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Two thoughts about this post :

It surely is a troll (french ?) or bastillebaston is just another STR player came on civ to try they build and rush style and he is posting in the forum to say how "good" he is to play in a loosy difficulty ;)

Personnaly i love peon, grunt and euh my beautiful zigurats :p

Seriously man my advice to you : play without copper .. try the worker rush; it could be quite difficult . (You can alternate with scout too).

So you're saying it's an espionage game, events game, technology game, religion game, grassland game, culture game, war game, market (as in the building) game and hundreds of more * game just because it's in the game?

Thank God for Civ. It's been a long, tedious search for a good grassland game.

Has anyone else noticed the AI likes to keep far less units in cities as garrisons now?

True. But they do a lot whip when war is on.
The first game I played. I could only go for one/two city each war. The AI brought good reenforcements.

Interestingly with 3 only cities captured, and an earlier agressive settler rush, I got 2 vassals out 3 other AI on my continent :
Nappy without PAris was out. -> capitulation
Mansa impressed by my land and my army -> peaceful vassalization.
Crushing the last AI was a walk in the park.

It´s fun to see that war can be leveraged without needing to be full-scale invasion.
Wasn´t the case in my Warlords game.

You are missing the point. I am talking about the unreasonable effectiveness of the axe rush, not about the distribution of bronze on the map.

I guess all the new features become relevant only if you don’t want to axe rush your neighbours (but why you wouldn’t?) or if you have no bronze/iron (too frustrating, I would just recommend quitting in such an unlikely case)

:confused: Most have given you more than enough suggestions on how the Axe Rush will only get you so far and if you don't have Copper in your first two cities, it won't get you anywhere. It is what you do after that realization.

Events can mess with your invasion plans
Civilians AXE rush you :lol:

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/8463/militianu5.jpg

There are some AI strategies I'm occasionally disappointed the AI won't try. For example, in cases where the player looks likely to win a space race, beating two AI's who are friendly to each other but annoyed with the player. It would make strategic sense for the weaker AI to offer itself as a sacrifice: go all out war on the player even though it will lose, hoping to slow the player down enough for its friend's ship to launch.

(It could even be "player agnostic" -- if you were friends with a weak AI, and a stronger AI looked like winning imminently, the weak AI could offer to crash-tackle the stronger AI for you...)

this may sound crazy, but on my first BTS game, i was close to completing my spaceship, when suddenly, suryavaman II, who was 'pleased' with me, declared war. he was very powerful, so i switched to millitary units production, and after 10~ turns, he won a cultural victory. is there a chance an AI has decided to attack in an attempt to cripple my approaching spacerace voctory?:dubious:

I can't resist a bit of commentary here either.

This does sound a bit like a troll post to me. Yes, axes are effective. Yes, you can exploit them to good use in most games. But no one is forcing you to use that strategy. There are other alternatives, but it sounds like you don't like them either. So you complain that your favorite strat is too easy, and you don't like any of the other multitude of options.

So, how about this - take axemen in your .xml file and change them to 4 strength, with only a 25% bonus vs. melee. Should solve the problem, as suddenly axemen won't be the dominating unit of their era.

But it sounds like you won't like this alternative either. Unless Firaxis were to implement it themselves, you'd likely consider this to be unfair nerfing of axemen.

Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too, but you also want someone to take your cake away. I know people who see good therapists for this kind of problem... hmmmmm.....

There are basically two play styles: Warmonger and Builder. Most of the victory conditions favors the warmonger style. No surprises here, this is a war game after all.

It's an empire building game. War games involve the real life soldiers of nations running around and doing their thing. Even if this were a computer war game, why can you build economic and religious buildings? Methinks you have somewhat missed the idea. There is a warfare aspect, but just because you choose to ignore other aspects doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow suit.

I think you'd find that at the very best.... less than half of the Victory conditions favour the warmonger approach.... 2 to be specific. The others do not require a warmonger approach whatsoever.

So, now you have made a statement that is entirely false and therefore the rest of your argument is based upon a very shaky proposition, let's continue to enjoy the depths of your wisdom:

Question: what is by far the best warmongering strategy? Answer: The axe rush. Therefore, most of the victory conditions favors the axe rush.

The Grand Axe Rush of 1000BC..... oh bugger, this is an island.... axe rush ends here.... apparently, your knowledge of the game ends here too.

Set your entire game up to Axe rush and then, strike a light, you win by axe rushing. You'd think you might have noticed the problem there.... :rolleyes:

Conquest & Domination: If you are aiming at either of those you’d be a fool not to axe rush whatever is within range (and yes, I’ve seen Sulla’s walkthrough for a domination victory achieved purely through culture… yawn)

1) Ahh yes, the "Only if you play on Pangaea" part that you are missing there IS rather crucial to your reference isnt it. What about if you play as Japan and dont have Copper.... do you still turn off the game because you clearly cant possibly win a domination victory without the Axe Rush (tm) :crazyeye:

2) Culture domination is boring? Have you ever tried it? Didn't think so - axes dont have culture ratings.

Space race: you need to grab land, or you’ll be soon out of the race. Best bet: play warmonger first, build later. If you don’t axe-rush, your space victory will be delayed.

Again, you are showing that you are a 1 trick pony. There's simply no truth to there being an absolute requisite for lots of land to achieve a space victory, small empires do just fine here - lower running costs, higher investment into techs etc etc.

Diplomatic: this is either a version of conquest or a dull calculation of diplo modifiers.

As in.... a diplo win is more dull than building one single unit and throwing it en masse against every other civ on your pre determined single continent with all favourable conditions pre-sorted? The mind truly boggles.

You and I (and many others) are just going to have to disagree here because having "Axe Rush" as the sole strategy to every game is the boring thing that you are complaining about.... in fact, the very reason why you posted this thread in the first place!! :p

Cultural victory: yawn. Micromanaging missionaries? No, thanks.

See last point - I enjoy this.... others enjoy it.... you dont.... doesnt make it boring or ineffective. A win is a win is a win.

Time victory: no comment.


Ahhh I really see what you are getting at now - this narrow minded view of the game is espoused by some players after all..... generally by the ones who claim to be living Civ gods. It's really tiresome when everyone has such a giant e-penis.

All pay homage to the Axe Rush God with the giant e-peen!! :bowdown:

:lol:

For the record, I play to play..... the idea of "playing" is that you do something that is not serious, that is separate from the normal stresses and worries of real life, to relax and to take a break from reality. I don't have any need to prove myself in Single Player..... I dont have to beat the game by 500 B.C. to consider it a victory. There have been challenging and interesting games where I have had fun right up to the last moment, where winning by Time was never actually guaranteed! I'm sorry that you have never experienced this extremely valuable and interesting element to the game.




To summarise your problem here:

You have stated that:

a) Axe Rushing is so effective that its now boring.
b) Everything else in Civ is boring...

Can I summarise therefore that your main point is "Civ is boring"?

Great, so time to find something else to play ;)




What actually drives people to post such dross on a fan site? It's not just here - you see this same post on EVERY fan site. Ok, some of the words change.... and fair dues to the OP - at least he can use sentences.... but the message is the same..... "I WANT ATTENTION" :bounce:

How about playing a variant? Not declaring war on anybody before 1000 BC. Or playing a Huge Continents map.

this may sound crazy, but on my first BTS game, i was close to completing my spaceship, when suddenly, suryavaman II, who was 'pleased' with me, declared war. he was very powerful, so i switched to millitary units production, and after 10~ turns, he won a cultural victory. is there a chance an AI has decided to attack in an attempt to cripple my approaching spacerace voctory?:dubious:


Ditto

On my 2nd game I played as Dutch and went for a spacerace victory.
Close to completion I got raped by my pleased ally the Egyptians.

He came with 8 missile cruises which each had 4 missiles in them.
They proceeded to launch 4 nukes at my cities, and ~30 cruise missiles absolutely destroying the tile improvements in my country.
They also send a HUGE [and i mean HUUUGE] stack of transports and amphibiously assaulted one of my nuked cities capturing it.

They also brought subs and attack subs.
Finally, they had 3 carriers full of jet fighters which were in fact not even stationary but the smart AI has decided to put the on Intercept mission [air superiority] such that when I tried to first counterattack most of my jets were lost to the AI in a tit-for-tat air superiority war.

As soon as he lost some jets [which is about 50:50 considering I also had jets too] he would sent reinforcements onto the carriers and so on.

I got pissed and launched 3 ICBMs [yea I was pretty attached to my civ and was upset I got nuked] but all 3 got intercepted by his SDI...


Also you won't know the meaning of pain until you've experienced stealth destroyers. I was behind slightly in military tech and he had them whilst I didnt.

For those of you that don't know, stealth destroyers are completely invisible except to other stealth destroyers :mad: :mad: :crazyeye: :crazyeye:

Well, now that Spearthrower has absolutely and completely dumped all over OP (well done, by the way), let's all go back to waiting for BTS. Thread over. :lol:

So, how about this - take axemen in your .xml file and change them to 4 strength, with only a 25% bonus vs. melee. Should solve the problem, as suddenly axemen won't be the dominating unit of their era.

I actually tried something like that a while ago, with Warlords: I gave axes a city attack penalty , and made the CR promotion unavailable to them. The axe rush was just replaced by the almost equally effective cat rush. And you if you nerf the cat rush, you'll just have to wait for the treb rush, etc. I won't try that experiment again with BtS. Although in BtS cats are slightly nerfed and the prerequisites for grenadiers are different, from what I have seen so far I'm pretty sure that the rush strategy (with cats, grenadiers, what have you) remains vastly more effective than the alternatives. The problem does not lie with the axe's stats, but with the whole combat system and the AI's ineptness at defending their cities.

Events can mess with your invasion plans
Civilians AXE rush you :lol:

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/8463/militianu5.jpg

:lol: In Warlords, you rape and pillage villages. In Soviet Russia Beyond the Sword, village rapes and pillages YOU!

And On Topic again - so you have a found a tactic that you think is too powerful in the game. Ok, neat. So why not stop using it? Just for laughs - either you're happy with the tactic you've got (you seem not to be), or you should try another. Or another game, if you've done this one to the point you've got all you can out of it.

Me, I never used specialists/Caste System much until the last game. And wow was it powerful, under the circumstances of that game. I've still been discovering new things to do in Warlords up until now, and BtS will be different again, with all the additions and changes. In fact I haven't even tried the axe rush yet. My point is that other things can be great fun too, as can the game post-Axemen.

It's an empire building game.

The most effective way of "building your empire" is by waging war. And even if you don't play warmonger, you'll still have to defend yourself from possible invasions. Why do I even need to state the obvious? (Admittedly, I've heard of people who have won without building a single military unit, but those are the odd exceptions, not the norm.) Let's not play with words. If you want to call it an "empire building" wargame, be my guest. But no matter what you want to call it, civ is essentially a wargame at its heart.

War games involve the real life soldiers of nations running around and doing their thing. Even if this were a computer war game, why can you build economic and religious buildings? Methinks you have somewhat missed the idea. There is a warfare aspect, but just because you choose to ignore other aspects doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow suit.

Warfare is one of the most crucial aspects of the game, with most of the other aspects being largely instrumental to warfare. Let’s face it: stuff like is religion is a dispensable addition to the underlying wargaming mechanics.

I think you'd find that at the very best.... less than half of the Victory conditions favour the warmonger approach.... 2 to be specific.

Wrong. Space race, diplomatic and time victory are much easier if you play warmonger than if you don't. The only exception is cultural victory (which by the way is a joke of victory).

The others do not require a warmonger approach whatsoever.

You are confusing favouring an approach with "requiring" it. Sure, you can win the diplomatic way without going to war, but warmongering makes it much easier and quicker.

So, now you have made a statement that is entirely false and therefore the rest of your argument is based upon a very shaky proposition, let's continue to enjoy the depths of your wisdom: The Grand Axe Rush of 1000BC..... oh bugger, this is an island.... axe rush ends here.... apparently, your knowledge of the game ends here too.
Set your entire game up to Axe rush and then, strike a light, you win by axe rushing. You'd think you might have noticed the problem there.... :rolleyes:

No, I notice no problem there. Please drop the futile sarcasm and explain yourself.


1) Ahh yes, the "Only if you play on Pangaea" part that you are missing there IS rather crucial to your reference isnt it.

As a matter of fact I don't like Pangea at all, and have rarely played it. What exactly is your point?

2) Culture domination is boring?

Yes, it is.

Have youever tried it? Didn't think so - axes dont have culture ratings

Tried it. Have three primary cities plus 3-6 crap cities (depending on world size). Move around missionaries, build cathedrals, rise to 100% the culture slider after liberalism. Yawn.

Again, you are showing that you are a 1 trick pony. There's simply no truth to there being an absolute requisite for lots of land to achieve a space victory, small empires do just fine here - lower running costs, higher investment into techs etc etc.

Who ever talked about "absolute requisites"? A bigger empire means more productive land which means a quicker and easier space race. That's a fact. The axe rush puts you into a strong position for winning any sort of victory. The strongest possible position, in fact.

As in.... a diplo win is more dull than building one single unit and throwing it en masse against every other civ on your pre determined single continent with all favourable conditions pre-sorted? The mind truly boggles.

There is no need to tweak the initial conditions. Unless you start isolated or without bronze (which are comparatively uncommon occurrences), the axe rush rules.

You and I (and many others) are just going to have to disagree here because having "Axe Rush" as the sole strategy to every game is the boring thing that you are complaining about.... in fact, the very reason why you posted this thread in the first place!! :p

I didn't say that the axe rush is the only strategy. What I said is that the "Axe Rush" is the most effective strategy, by far more effective than any of the alternatives. I have yet to see a valid objection to this.

See last point - I enjoy this.... others enjoy it.... you dont.... doesnt make it boring or ineffective. A win is a win is a win.

What are you trying to say here?

Ahhh I really see what you are getting at now - this narrow minded view of the game is espoused by some players after all..... generally by the ones who claim to be living Civ gods. It's really tiresome when everyone has such a giant e-penis. All pay homage to the Axe Rush God with the giant e-peen!! :bowdown: :lol:

Are you trying to be funny or what?

For the record, I play to play..... the idea of "playing" is that you do something that is not serious, that is separate from the normal stresses and worries of real life, to relax and to take a break from reality. I don't have any need to prove myself in Single Player..... I dont have to beat the game by 500 B.C. to consider it a victory. There have been challenging and interesting games where I have had fun right up to the last moment, where winning by Time was never actually guaranteed! I'm sorry that you have never experienced this extremely valuable and interesting element to the game.

How is this stuff relevant to the axe rush being an unreasonably effective strategy?


To summarise your problem here:
You have stated that:
a) Axe Rushing is so effective that its now boring.
b) Everything else in Civ is boring...
Can I summarise therefore that your main point is "Civ is boring"?

The main point is that the most effective strategy in the standard game is repetitive and nearly always successful. But I have to admit that "the standard game is boring" pretty much summarizes it.

Great, so time to find something else to play ;)

I play Rhye's mod, which is how civ is meant to be played. Rhye's is the only reason why BtS may be worth buying.

Just tried BtS, monarch difficulty, fractal map, standard settings. Played a dozen games, with randomly chosen leaders. In terms of strategy, I see no substantial differences. Even with nerfed siege and "better AI", early expansion is still relatively easy. Once again, the axe rush quickly does the job, and guarantees victory. No need to bother with espionage. No need to found/spread either religions or corporations. I ignored all the new wonders (I hardly ever build any wonder, for that matter). Apostolic palace and random events turned out to be non-factors. As to the late game units, I’ve never got that far… by the time infantry comes around I’ve already won my games. I guess all the new features become relevant only if you don’t want to axe rush your neighbours (but why you wouldn’t?) or if you have no bronze/iron (too frustrating, I would just recommend quitting in such an unlikely case) or if you play scenarios/advanced starts. This is too bad… I already feel rather bored and disappointed with BtS. :(

Another example of the user boring himself and not the game boring the user. Good job!!!

bastillebaston seems to be saying that its lame that the axe rush still works, but that he also dislikes all the other paths to victory, so if the axe rush didn't work, he would just be complaining about that.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

You claim that the only way to play (in your opinion) the game is boring.... other people point out the variety of playing the game in other ways.... you say that those ways are boring. Don't you see where people are coming from? There are many ways to play this game and people enjoy playing it in many different ways. Your personal take on it is very narrow, yet you espouse it as if it is undeniably factual. You dont even recognise the continual bombardment of valid objections.

Let's draw analogies, shall we?

If I said.... I hate strawberry icecream, you'd say "try a different flavour". If I then said.... nah, all the other flavours are crap... then you would rightfully say to me - "Well then, you clearly don't like icecream!"..... a fair comment.

My lack of appreciation for icecream also puts me into a position where I am far from able to comment on the positive elements of each flavour. What would I know about raspberry cheesecake flavour when I refuse to eat it?

That however is not the problem....

It's the next step you take that's annoying people.... it would be the same, to extend my analogy, as me saying any other flavour than strawberry is pointless..... i.e. you are telling everyone that the thing that they like is worthless..... nice attitude! What's even more mind boggling is that you say that the very existence of strawberry flavour makes all other icecream worthless and in fact that strawberry itself is not worth eating.

If you think my above analogy is stupid and pointless then I may well have got through to you! :D The point you are making is convoluted and self-redundant.

Really, all you have said is that you don't like civ.... thanks so much for informing us bastillebaston!

Btw, I love icecream.

I play Rhye's mod, which is how civ is meant to be played. Rhye's is the only reason why BtS may be worth buying.

And axe rush isn't effective in this? :crazyeye:

The biggest question in this is: What forces you to use axe rush? You can use different strategies, not only the axe rush. I myself like playing Civ, and have never used axe rush.

Ditto

On my 2nd game I played as Dutch and went for a spacerace victory.
Close to completion I got raped by my pleased ally the Egyptians.

He came with 8 missile cruises which each had 4 missiles in them.
They proceeded to launch 4 nukes at my cities, and ~30 cruise missiles absolutely destroying the tile improvements in my country.
They also send a HUGE [and i mean HUUUGE] stack of transports and amphibiously assaulted one of my nuked cities capturing it.

They also brought subs and attack subs.
Finally, they had 3 carriers full of jet fighters which were in fact not even stationary but the smart AI has decided to put the on Intercept mission [air superiority] such that when I tried to first counterattack most of my jets were lost to the AI in a tit-for-tat air superiority war.

As soon as he lost some jets [which is about 50:50 considering I also had jets too] he would sent reinforcements onto the carriers and so on.

I got pissed and launched 3 ICBMs [yea I was pretty attached to my civ and was upset I got nuked] but all 3 got intercepted by his SDI...


Also you won't know the meaning of pain until you've experienced stealth destroyers. I was behind slightly in military tech and he had them whilst I didnt.

For those of you that don't know, stealth destroyers are completely invisible except to other stealth destroyers :mad: :mad: :crazyeye: :crazyeye:

ouch?
still, we cant really know whether the AI attacks in this way to prevent the player from achieving victory, or simply cause the AI is more aggresive now...

In defence of the original poster (who is being personally attacked by some posters), it is a little disappointing that there is a single, fool-proof way of wining the game that nearly always works--when CIV is supposed to have a "multiple ways of winning" idea. This multiple ways of winning really only translates to how a player wants to play, and does not really translate into a "If Plan A fails, adjust to Plan B" kind of gameplay. No matter what the conditions, Axe-rush is the way to go whether you have to load them onto triremes or not. And it's disappointing if Beyond the Sword has not really altered this.

Another question is: "In an MP game, could someone aiming for a cultural victory deal with and beat a player who is focussing on an axe-rush strategy" I think not, as these passive types of victory (diplomatic, cultural, time, spaceship) do not disrupt other players' plans, but someone with a warmonger strategy trumps other people's plans and forces them to change their game. It just seems to me that there is a built-in superiority to going for the warmonger strategy--and it's hard not to resist playing the game to win each time.



I remember in the original game, even on Emperor, the way to win was to build tons of chariots, focus on forests for production and to keep your cities small (no revolts). this Early unit was better than a fortified phalanx which was the default defensive unit for centuries. Send them all over the place...hopefully before city walls get built, but if then, build diplomats.

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

You mean the AI axe rushes you? ;)

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

Ditto axe rush.

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).

I disagree. This is not an issue with the game its an issue with your playstyle.

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).

Its the most effective strategy on the settings you play. Try axe rushing on an Archhipelago map or when you don't have any metal. ;)

That the axe rush is highly effective is beyond doubt, but to only play on when you have copper and a near neighbour to rush seems churlish; unless the game is easy, you won't play, yet complain of boredom when you do. Do you also quit when you find the AI's cities to be on hills/too well defended for the rush to succeed?

No matter what the conditions, Axe-rush is the way to go whether you have to load them onto triremes or not. And it's disappointing if Beyond the Sword has not really altered this.

Triremes can carry axmen?:confused:

Try something different... an elephant rush!

Subject buys a game called "Beyond the Sword", an expansion which professes the goal of adding depth to the later game.

Subject disappointed to find that the expansion pack offers little before the sword.

Suspect claims axe rush the best strategy, concludes "best" means only strategy. All other strategies being boring.

Subject creates a nonsense thread and talks unmitigated bollox at length.

Conclusion: Subject is troll.

Like many of the posters here, I was initially skeptical of the OP's claims. I've always found civ to be enjoyable and challenging, forcing me to adapt my plans as the game develops. Had he really found a way to make winning automatic, easy, even boring?

As much as I doubted it, I hate to rule anything out without trying it myself. So I did: I dropped two levels to make sure I could win easily before modern units, even without "micromanaging" my cities, and I pursued an axe rush strategy every time (restarting if I didn't have Copper or Iron, of course).

And you know what, it worked. Games were fast, predictable, and not much fun. I still don't think that this is a good strategy for all occasions. But now, when I'm in the mood for an easy victory that I don't actually have to enjoy, I can use this plan. One more arrow in the quiver.

peace,
lilnev

The most effective way of "building your empire" is by waging war. And even if you don't play warmonger, you'll still have to defend yourself from possible invasions. Why do I even need to state the obvious? (Admittedly, I've heard of people who have won without building a single military unit, but those are the odd exceptions, not the norm.) Let's not play with words. If you want to call it an "empire building" wargame, be my guest. But no matter what you want to call it, civ is essentially a wargame at its heart.

You can't wage war without workers, scientists and diplomacy... warfare is just one aspect of Civ4. Your 'most effective' label is baseless.

Warfare is one of the most crucial aspects of the game, with most of the other aspects being largely instrumental to warfare. Let’s face it: stuff like is religion is a dispensable addition to the underlying wargaming mechanics.

You can with without going to war...

Wrong. Space race, diplomatic and time victory are much easier if you play warmonger than if you don't. The only exception is cultural victory (which by the way is a joke of victory).

Conquest victory is easier if you invest in culture, science and diplomacy. Also, why is cultural 'a joke of a victory'? Because you can't axe rush culture?

You are confusing favouring an approach with "requiring" it. Sure, you can win the diplomatic way without going to war, but warmongering makes it much easier and quicker.

Not really... conquest creates major maintainance problems.

Who ever talked about "absolute requisites"? A bigger empire means more productive land which means a quicker and easier space race. That's a fact. The axe rush puts you into a strong position for winning any sort of victory. The strongest possible position, in fact.


Not on a map with lots of space... Conquest just creates a burden on your economy.

I didn't say that the axe rush is the only strategy. What I said is that the "Axe Rush" is the most effective strategy, by far more effective than any of the alternatives. I have yet to see a valid objection to this.

There have been several.

The main point is that the most effective strategy in the standard game is repetitive and nearly always successful. But I have to admit that "the standard game is boring" pretty much summarizes it.

That's probably why some people abandonned the 'standard game' a long time ago.

Subject buys a game called "Beyond the Sword", an expansion which professes the goal of adding depth to the later game.

Subject disappointed to find that the expansion pack offers little before the sword.

Suspect claims axe rush the best strategy, concludes "best" means only strategy. All other strategies being boring.

Subject creates a nonsense thread and talks unmitigated bollox at length.

Conclusion: Subject is troll.

If subject is on island, doesnt have bronze or has an enemy thats not right next to them, they quit instead of trying to play and win another way :crazyeye:

Culture is not a joke victory. Imagine if one country had a culture vastly superior than any other nation. They could probably control the world market with it.

He is not wrong at all. When some player or AI becomes too strong, other AIs should look at him as a threat, so they should form alliances in order to protect each other. I mean true alliances, like apostolic palace lets brothers in faith do ( voting resolutions for war or peace ). So, if he starts to axe rush, other AIs could, together, try to stop him, so he wouldnt become so powerfull. Take a look at real life. Can you imagine some civ conquering every civ at map and other civs just watching it ? Thats how game works.

He is not wrong at all. When some player or AI becomes too strong, other AIs should look at him as a threat, so they should form alliances in order to protect each other. I mean true alliances, like apostolic palace lets brothers in faith do ( voting resolutions for war or peace ). So, if he starts to axe rush, other AIs could, together, try to stop him, so he wouldnt become so powerfull. Take a look at real life. Can you imagine some civ conquering every civ at map and other civs just watching it ? Thats how game works.


That's actually how it worked in most cases. The persians under Cyrus and Darius, the mongols under the khans, the romans under the republic, etc. It's only approximately since the napoleonic wars that alliances have become prominent in warfare.

You claim that the only way to play (in your opinion) the game is boring.... other people point out the variety of playing the game in other ways.... you say that those ways are boring. Don't you see where people are coming from? There are many ways to play this game and people enjoy playing it in many different ways.

My point has absolutely got nothing to do with how people enjoy playing the game – for all I know, you could enjoy building Chichen Itza. My point is that one can easily win the game using nearly always the same strategy, which makes the game's strategy one-dimensional.

Your personal take on it is very narrow, yet you espouse it as if it is undeniably factual. You dont even recognise the continual bombardment of valid objections.

There's been no valid objection so far refuting the fact that the axe rush is an unreasonably effective strategy. There may be other strategies, sure, but none of the are as effective as the axe rush. Find an objection to that and drop the rhetoric.

Let's draw analogies, shall we? If I said.... I hate strawberry icecream, you'd say "try a different flavour"... If you think my above analogy is stupid and pointless then I may well have got through to you!

Your analogy is indeed pointless, and has got absolutely nothing to do with the problem I am raising.

The point you are making is convoluted and self-redundant.

"Convoluted" and "self-redundant". Nice words. But where is your argument?

In defence of the original poster (who is being personally attacked by some posters), it is a little disappointing that there is a single, fool-proof way of wining the game that nearly always works--when CIV is supposed to have a "multiple ways of winning" idea. This multiple ways of winning really only translates to how a player wants to play, and does not really translate into a "If Plan A fails, adjust to Plan B" kind of gameplay. No matter what the conditions, Axe-rush is the way to go whether you have to load them onto triremes or not. And it's disappointing if Beyond the Sword has not really altered this.

Another question is: "In an MP game, could someone aiming for a cultural victory deal with and beat a player who is focussing on an axe-rush strategy" I think not, as these passive types of victory (diplomatic, cultural, time, spaceship) do not disrupt other players' plans, but someone with a warmonger strategy trumps other people's plans and forces them to change their game. It just seems to me that there is a built-in superiority to going for the warmonger strategy--and it's hard not to resist playing the game to win each time.



I remember in the original game, even on Emperor, the way to win was to build tons of chariots, focus on forests for production and to keep your cities small (no revolts). this Early unit was better than a fortified phalanx which was the default defensive unit for centuries. Send them all over the place...hopefully before city walls get built, but if then, build diplomats.

You are right. Everybody said: "try a MP game". Actually its even worse at MP. Every MP game I tried I see lots of "montezumas". Everyone axe rushs everyone. If you go for cultural or space race, you are dead. Wars should be a very risky strategy, like it is in real life. But its much better at BTS, once war weariness now kills warmonger's production in a few turns.

That's actually how it worked in most cases. The persians under Cyrus and Darius, the mongols under the khans, the romans under the republic, etc. It's only approximately since the napoleonic wars that alliances have become prominent in warfare.

True. But I believe it happened because lack of communication among nations. At game you can contact every civ anytime. I guess early alliances would bring more fun to game.

You can't wage war without workers, scientists and diplomacy... warfare is just one aspect of Civ4. Your 'most effective' label is baseless.

You are missing the point. Of course you need other stuff (workers, techs, etc.) beyond axes. So what? The axe rush is still an almost foolproof way to victory.

You can with without going to war...

Irrelevant to the point I am making. If you can axe rush, you'll almost certainly win.

Conquest victory is easier if you invest in culture, science and diplomacy. Also, why is cultural 'a joke of a victory'?

Cultural victory is a joke because it's a dull accumulation of culture points. There is no challenge in doing that. At least the axe rush requires some decent planning. Culture victory requires next to none.

Not really... conquest creates major maintainance problems.

Number one: axe rush. Number two: courthouses. Game won.

Not on a map with lots of space... Conquest just creates a burden on your economy.

Axe rush doesn't mean "keep every conquered city". Raze what you can't keep while you beeline currency and code of laws. After market and corthouses, you'll no longer need to raze.

There have been several.

Not at all. So far I've only seen irrelevance and sarcasm. Still waiting to hear a relevant objection.

That's probably why some people abandonned the 'standard game' a long time ago.

We agree then. The standard game is broken: better abandon it and play a variant or a mod.

I don't doubt that the Axe Rush is effective. However, I believe it is really only effective when using certain maps under certain optimum situations. If it is only effective when using certain maps under certain optimum conditions, then hardly can one say the "Axes rule".

bastillebaston

Listen to people's argument and think about them before dismissing them as simply "irrelevant". I would repeat the arguments here again, but there's no point as they've already been posted a dozen time and you've ignored it every time.

bastillebaston Listen to people's argument and think about them before dismissing them as simply "irrelevant". I would repeat the arguments here again, but there's no point as they've already been posted a dozen time and you've ignored it every time.

Your objection was: "If you are bored of axe-rushing then play with settings that don't favour it." This is irrelevant, not really worth replying to. But, since you insist, here's the reply: That the axe rush is boring is NOT the point. How the player chooses/likes to play is NOT the point. The point is that the axe rush (or cat rush, or grenadier rush or what have you) is overpowered.

VinceV has summarised the point quite well. He said:

it is a little disappointing that there is a single, fool-proof way of wining the game that nearly always works--when CIV is supposed to have a "multiple ways of winning" idea. This multiple ways of winning really only translates to how a player wants to play, and does not really translate into a "If Plan A fails, adjust to Plan B" kind

That is the problem. Object to that, and you'll have produced a relevant objection.

You just don't get it, do you.

Axe rushes obviously work well in situations that favor them - close copper and close neighbors for example.

All people are doing is agreeing that this is the case, but asking you to broaden your horizens by playing more random games where this isn't always the case.

Cheers.

Okay bastillebaston.

If you really are getting bored of this game, don't you have better things to do then fight over the internet?

The miracle axe rush means you regenerate the map over and over again until you have a perfect starting location, then press crtl+w for world builder and see if there is copper nearby/within city radius/very close. If iron is nearby forget it, its too much hassle and you're too "good" a player to bother.

Make sure you have the best starting location with a close copper source and be able to build 2-3 great cities also close by.

Make sure that the map is pangea or something very similar so you can destroy everyone with your great start location/resources.
Whatever you do DONT even think about wonders, diplomacy, culture, espionage, technology, trade, religion - remember you just wanna win quick using any means possible so you can brag.

Remember don't play any map with continents, if you axe rush in these games and you expand too much, then maintenance will force you you drop science slider bigtime and since no one is left in the island you won't be able to techtrade so in both ways the other continent will be far ahead of you and win the game: YOU MUST PLAY A MAP THAT PERFECTLY MATCHES YOUR CHOSEN STYLE OF PLAY ON YOUR CHOSEN PERFECT START LOCATION, it doesnt matter if 1 big continent is realistic or not...

Once you do that, then goto your cities, alt+click on axemen so that the city continuously builds axes [remember city management is boring, we are axe rushers] and just keep spamming the globe with your axes and crush all.

Most importantly, once you do all these come to civfanatics:BTS section and make a new thread about how boring the new expansion is and how nothing matters except for axe rush.

:lol: Give the poor guy a break, he is right. the game is boring when I play it...cuz this is what I do (as he may nod his head at the familarity of this):
1. start game
2. enter world building to get your SoD of axe, perferrably one stack per city.
3. axe rush!
4 game over...high score....now we got the right to bucher the game!

You are missing the point. Of course you need other stuff (workers, techs, etc.) beyond axes. So what? The axe rush is still an almost foolproof way to victory.

No... As has been said many times, its an almost foolproof way to victory on the settings you use. On Settler you could probably win with a warrior rush...

Irrelevant to the point I am making. If you can axe rush, you'll almost certainly win.

Meh. If you can plant a few good cities you can almost definitely win at spacerace.

Cultural victory is a joke because it's a dull accumulation of culture points. There is no challenge in doing that. At least the axe rush requires some decent planning. Culture victory requires next to none.

:dubious: Axe rushing is the antipode of planning, but this is all personal taste.

Number one: axe rush. Number two: courthouses. Game won.


Axe rush doesn't mean "keep every conquered city". Raze what you can't keep while you beeline currency and code of laws. After market and corthouses, you'll no longer need to raze.

Well then, crank up the difficulty.

Not at all. So far I've only seen irrelevance and sarcasm. Still waiting to hear a relevant objection.

Perhaps the lack of in-your-eyes-relevant objection is due to the lack of a cohesive argument in the first place?

We agree then. The standard game is broken: better abandon it and play a variant or a mod.

No, we don't (or at least not by your definition of standard). The game isn't broken, it's just you don't seem to enjoy it without a mod. Meh.

Suspect claims axe rush the best strategy, concludes "best" means only strategy.

Who ever said that the axe rush is the only strategy? Of course there are many strategies, some good, some bad - the axe rush being the best one.

Who ever said that "best" means "only"? In fact, "Best" is a comparative term: calling the axe rush the "best" implies that there other strategies which are not as good as it.

If you want a definition of what "best" means here, here's one:

Best strategy = the strategy that achieves the optimal balance of speed and success likelihood.

Some strategies are very likely to succeed, but slow. Others could lead to a quicker success, but are unreliable. Especially in the early game, speed and success likelihood tend to be competing factors: they generally work against one another. So you want an optimal trade-off. The axe rush gives you precisely that: it is the fastest strategy that is most likely to succeed. In fact, whenever you can pull it off, you will nearly always succeed. No other strategy is comparable to that in terms of effectiveness. Therefore, the axe rush is the best strategy. This reveals a flaw in the game mechanics. In a truly varied and complex game, there should be no uniquely best strategy, but several equally good routes to victory.

You just don't get it, do you. Axe rushes obviously work well in situations that favor them - close copper and close neighbors for example.

Sorry, but it's you who still doesn't get the point. No copper nearby? No close neighbor? Then go for the cat rush. Or the elephant rush. Or the grenadier rush, or whatever. (And, by the way, no copper is a rare occurrence, not a standard one.). Nearly all situations favor the stack attack rush.

All people are doing is agreeing that this is the case, but asking you to broaden your horizens by playing more random games where this isn't always the case. Cheers.

Most random SP game I've played - and I've played lots of different settings - were decided by a stack attack rush of some sort (usually, axes).

Ok mate here's my final attempt to try convince you:

The reality is that victory conditions, and even the path to progress (not outright victory) are based on the conditions of your civ, your location, your resources and your desire/plan.

As such, if you start in an island then its probably best to go cottage economy and try to get caravels asap.
Perhaps deciding to go for a cultural victory (if you can get that golden 9 cities) or maybe try to get a spaceship victory.
Maybe you want to become an economic powerhouse using corporations so that even if you have only 8 cities you still get 500+gold per turn even running 100% science.

Then again mabe you are on a big continent, and have copper. And there are nearby opponents without much space for early expansion - then you *try* to use war to expand employing your beloved axerush.

Perhaps you just get horses - then you can either:

- use horsemen to pillage the hell out of the enemies ghengis style and eventually move in for the kill with flanking promoted horse archers [which get a free military speclist +2xp from stable] instead of heavily city-raider upgraded axes or collateral.

- use horsemen to pester and keep the enemy weak whilst you get catapults.


Maybe you founded a religion, in this case your aim may be to spread it as much a possible, create a religion bloc and get the apostalic palace - from here you can aim to vin directly from a diplomatic victory or indirectly use the apostalic palace to alter the world to your liking.

Perhaps if you're philosophical you want a SE eco, maybe if you're not you prefer a CE, or maybe use the new workshop economy even perhaps go for a corporation economy - the possibilities are endless.

-------------------------

The problem is that you artificially create the conditions of an axe rush EVERY TIME by regenerating till you get copper, ensuring you have that "just perfect" starting location and that the map is just right, so that with an axe rush you can kill the whole world.

Perhaps you play continent and once you have 1 continent you think you won the game whereas in reality, the fact that you can only run like 0-10% science means that had you played it till the end, the opponents on the other side with 90% science AND tech trading would absolutely crush you by getting a MUCH faster spaceship.

I have been in a few games where I thought I had easily won but sometimes lost or just barely won due to a spaceship launch.

If you can't see the error in your ways and are so arrogant that you won't listen to anyone [practically everyone actually] then why do you bothr posting here? This is a discussion forum after all.

I do admire the fact that you still stand up for yourself, in the face of every poster telling you you're wrong. Although unless you're telling us that the world is round and we're insisting its flat then I suggest the fact that you are outnumbered significantly in your view should at least be somewhat of an indication.

Hmmm... ok... maybe Axe rush rules in pangaea, and there are many other exploitative strategies that also rule in other map types... In fact, there are potentially infinite exploitative strategies because we all are human beings and we have the intelligence to create them. Actually, this is an exercise of intelligence (how can I break this game?).

It's a matter of specialization and training, practice practice practice :)

But... those easy strategies are usually so repetitive and boring... I really don't like those strategies at all, it's a matter of taste and you are free to use the strategy you like most. Even that particular strategy :rolleyes:

I can imagine your games today:

1st: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
2nd: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
3rd: Damn, no copper, quit and start a new game
4th: (now with copper) Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
5th: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
6th: Damn, archipelago, quit and start a game in pangaea
7th: (now in pangaea) Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
8th: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
9th: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
... boring :lol:

No... As has been said many times, its an almost foolproof way to victory on the settings you use. On Settler you could probably win with a warrior rush...

Most game settings favor the Axe rush, and ALL game settings favor some sort of SoD rush. Regardless of chosen settings, difficulty level, choice of leader, etc., the SoD rush is the most effective route to victory.

If you can plant a few good cities you can almost definitely win at spacerace.

What is the point of that remark? By the way, enemy capitals are usually good cities, because they are usually well placed. Conquer them with axes, and you win a ticket for the space race.

:dubious: Axe rushing is the antipode of planning, but this is all personal taste.

Axe rush does require *some* sort of planning (but not much, I agree). Cultural victory requires even less.

Well then, crank up the difficulty.

Number one: the SoD rush is the most effective strategy at all difficulty levels (even more so at the higher levels).

Number two: the point is not that the axe rush is too easy (though it is), but that it's overpowered. And giving the AI a bunch of freebies does not make up for the flaw.

Perhaps the lack of in-your-eyes-relevant objection is due to the lack of a cohesive argument in the first place?

My argument is coherent and crystal clear. Reread what I said more carefully.

No, we don't (or at least not by your definition of standard). The game isn't broken, it's just you don't seem to enjoy it without a mod. Meh.

The standard game is broken because it has a unique dominant strategy: the SoD rush.

Axe rush does require *some* sort of planning (but not much, I agree). Cultural victory requires even less.

http://www.flishfun.com/photos/albums/userpics/10001/stop-posting.gif

@ the OP: Why don't you check out Obsolete's game threads in the strategy section. He doesn't build 1 axe and only builds 1 city in addition to his capital prior to the renaissance era. Yet he is able to win space victories on emperor.

Kind of refutes your theory...

Haha this is comedy.... now it has evolved to <insert any troop> rush.

So now we have rather a different setting than originally described.

Also, everyone can see that the initial fool-proof tactic is in fact loaded with things that need to occur, i.e. copper, immediate neighbours etc and that if any of these are incorrect, the OP would have to simply reload for favourable settings.

OP continues to resist all the arguments and continues to state illogical assumptions. Rather than replying to questions or objections, he just asks "what do you mean by this?" even when the language is straight forward and clear.

This is, it has to be said, a troll-fest! :D

Must be so boring axe-rushing that you need to come and push the stick into the ants nest a few times.

Sorry your game is boring. Mine isn't. Bye.

Sorry, but it's you who still doesn't get the point. No copper nearby? No close neighbor? Then go for the cat rush. Or the elephant rush. Or the grenadier rush, or whatever. (And, by the way, no copper is a rare occurrence, not a standard one.). Nearly all situations favor the stack attack rush.

I play on Huge maps on Emperor level. It is actually rather common that copper is not nearby. This is why I always have to build archers because it would otherwise have to depend on LUCK and hope that copper is nearby and I can build the city, worker, then mine, road infrastructure to build axeman.

With a huge map with enormous distances and 11+ civs all with 6+ cities of their own, there's no way you're going to conquer the world with any kind of rush. The AI has huge stacks of their own you need to counter, there's cultural defense that need to be bombarded, there sooo many cities and powerful civs to overcome. All that time you are spending spamming axes you will quickly find your army slowly worn down and other Civs start to join the fight against you. On Huge maps on Emperor level, the amount of units the AIs have is enormous. By the time you have conquered maybe 1-2 civs, other Civs already start to have longbows while you languish in the ancient era due to building only axes and not focusing on infrastructure to increase science and tech!

On smaller maps where distances and number of civs and number of cities per civ is low, then yes Axe rush probably works well. But this is but a one setting not the only setting to play in.

I play on Huge maps on Emperor level. It is actually rather common that copper is not nearby. This is why I always have to build archers because it would otherwise have to depend on LUCK and hope that copper is nearby and I can build the city, worker, then mine, road infrastructure to build axeman.

With a huge map with enormous distances and 11+ civs all with 6+ cities of their own, there's no way you're going to conquer the world with any kind of rush. The AI has huge stacks of their own you need to counter, there's cultural defense that need to be bombarded, there sooo many cities and powerful civs to overcome. All that time you are spending spamming axes you will quickly find your army slowly worn down and other Civs start to join the fight against you. On Huge maps on Emperor level, the amount of units the AIs have is enormous.

On smaller maps where distances and number of civs and number of cities per civ is low, then yes Axe rush probably works well. But this is but a one setting not the only setting to play in.

Same here. 18 AI's on Huge maps (would put more if I could), try axe rushing for a domination win then.

OP, you are discussing with us that Civ IV is essentially boring? Why not just quit? Easy as that.

Double Post

I think I am starting to understand what the OP is talking about. I, too, have a similar beef with this game, but not because of the axe rush, but because of how the AI plays that makes the axe rush possible (more on that below). I think I played less than 10 warlords SP games, and around 15 vanilla, before getting bored (played on monarch, then emperor). Then switched to MP, and quite quickly realized that the best possible strategy is to kill a newb. In non-ladder MP there is always some idiot who goes for all 3 ancient religions or doesn't get bronze/archery/chariots and goes for god knows what. You take his stuff with minimal expenses, and voila, you're twice as powerful as anyone else. The optimum path from there is to build wonders in all those excess cities you have 'cause you don't need to spend production on settlers/workers (you already got cities/workers from the newb or newbs you killed). Pyramids help. SE. Pure ownage.

But back to the argument. Yes, I agree the axe rush (or w/e, any rush) is powerful. Ideally the situation is supposed to be such - either you use your resources on a war and risk losing it completely or winning but falling too far back in tech - a smart third palyer would strike at you after getting one tier of military tech's edge, which is doable if they invested in economy while you fought; OR, you invest in economy and try to do it better than others. Well, that seems balanced. BUT, the problem is, in both SP and MP there is a flaw that makes war that much easier - idiotic opponents. You easily acquire territory which means more resources, possibly wonders, workers, and such, BUT, you don't have to put nearly as much effort into the war as you should. So, there's no risk.

Hmm, getting carried away here.
Back to the point.
Yes, the "kill a newb" approach (which is the way I lovingly refer to the "axe rush") is the most powerful. But only against AI. In a game with intelligent ppl, especially Pitboss games, where they have time to pay attention to everything that's going on in the game and don't have to rush to move all their units in 20 seconds, and where communication is possible (no one cares to discuss alliances in fast-paced MP, at least in my experience), you will either meet resistance from the player you're rushing, or from someone else who realizes that you're vulnerable.

So I guess we are stuck playing organized MP. I for one am gonna wait till BtS gets to enough ppl, and is patched a couple times, and then will probably only play Pitboss, or maybe ladder or smth - I think it's balanced enough for those modes. But no more SP.


I can't remember everything that I wanted to say (in fact, the most important point I forgot; reread the whole thread and hope it comes back? naaah)... isn't that annoying?

My sentiments exactly. If you insist that Axe rush is the only tactic then I suggest the same thing that polypheus and Underdawg suggest. That should get you out of this mindset.

The reality is that victory conditions, and even the path to progress (not outright victory) are based on the conditions of your civ, your location, your resources and your desire/plan.

No matter what the starting location is or what your civ is, the stack attack rush (with axes or cats or whatever) is the most effective strategy. Sure, you may want to challenge yourself and self-impose all sort of restrictions (like: "I'm never going to declare war"). But this doesn't remove the glaring flaw in the game design.

As such, if you start in an island then its probably best to go cottage economy and try to get caravels asap.
Perhaps deciding to go for a cultural victory (if you can get that golden 9 cities) or maybe try to get a spaceship victory.
Maybe you want to become an economic powerhouse using corporations so that even if you have only 8 cities you still get 500+gold per turn even running 100% science.
Then again mabe you are on a big continent, and have copper. And there are nearby opponents without much space for early expansion - then you *try* to use war to expand employing your beloved axerush.

All the strategies you have mentioned become much more effective if coupled with a SoD rush. All things being equal, SoD rush is the way to go.

Perhaps you just get horses.

Due to the occasional presence of spearmen, horses make for a lousy city raider SoD. Say you have horses, but not bronze: then use them to pillage and beeline construction for the cat rush and/or the elephant rush.

Maybe you founded a religion, in this case your aim may be to spread it as much a possible create a religion bloc and get the apostalic palace - from here you can aim to vin directly from a diplomatic victory or indirectly use the apostalic palace to alter the world to your liking.

Sure, one may try the religion path. BUT: especially at higher level the drawbacks of founding/adopting/spreading a religion largely outweigh the benefits. At monarch and above, using your resources to produce SoDs is vastly more effective than focusing on religion.

I've not tried the apostolic palace stuff, so I can't really comment on that. But it seems to me that this is nothing other than yet another dull micromanagement of missionaries.

Perhaps if you're philosophical you want a SE eco, maybe if you're not you prefer a CE, or maybe use the new workshop economy even perhaps go for a corporation economy - the possibilities are endless.

SE favours the SoD rush even more than CE. If you are philosophical and play SE, then you'll have more gold to spend on upgrades and upkeep. (By the way, only a micromanagement masochist could possibly enjoy playing a pure SE.) No comment on the "new workshop economy", never heard of it. Is that a joke?

The problem is that you artificially create the conditions of an axe rush EVERY TIME by regenerating till you get copper, ensuring you have that "just perfect" starting location and that the map is just right, so that with an axe rush you can kill the whole world.

No. The warmonger rarely needs to regenerate the map. Nearly every type of starting location is just perfect for the SoD rush. Lack of bronze just makes things a little too frustrating for my taste. Why? Because you have to wait a little longer for the cat rush, which is pretty much the same strategy as the axe rush, but only comes later.

Perhaps you play continent and once you have 1 continent you think you won the game whereas in reality,

If you play continents at monarch or below, and you conquer a whole continent early enough, you can't possibly loose, unless you do something foolish.

I have been in a few games where I thought I had easily won but sometimes lost or just barely won due to a spaceship launch.

You should have rushed the other space racer earlier.

If you can't see the error in your ways and are so arrogant that you won't listen to anyone [practically everyone actually] then why do you bothr posting here? This is a discussion forum after all. I do admire the fact that you still stand up for yourself, in the face of every poster telling you you're wrong.

Well, THEY are wrong, not me. (And not "every poster" thinks I am wrong: some say they agree with me.)

Although unless you're telling us that the world is round and we're insisting its flat then I suggest the fact that you are outnumbered significantly in your view should at least be somewhat of an indication.

If am "outnumbered" as you say, that's probably because some posters in this forum are hard core fans who can't swallow criticisms to their favorite game.

Haha this is comedy.... now it has evolved to <insert any troop> rush.

Not "any troop". Axes, cats and grenadiers, mostly. Elephants will do also.

So now we have rather a different setting than originally described.

Axe rush or cat rush, the substance of my point does not change.

Also, everyone can see that the initial fool-proof tactic is in fact loaded with things that need to occur, i.e. copper, immediate neighbours etc and that if any of these are incorrect, the OP would have to simply reload for favourable settings.

Whether I reload or not, and under what circumstances, is not the point. The Axe rush in particular, and the SoD rush more generally, have in fact very little prerequisites, and are overpowered.

OP continues to resist all the arguments

You have so far provided no argument to refute the point above.

and continues to state illogical assumptions.

My statement, "the axe rush is overpowered", is coherent.
Objection: "but sometimes you don't have bronze/close targets."
Reply: "Then use the cat/grenadier/whatever rush, which is also overpowered."

Rather than replying to questions or objections, he just asks "what do you mean by this?" even when the language is straight forward and clear.

I am not at all sure that your replies are "clear and straightforward". On the contrary, you seems to be rather confused on the topic of this thread.

Sorry your game is boring. Mine isn't. Bye.

Well, goodbye then. Your fine argumentative skills will be sorely missed.

@ the OP: Why don't you check out Obsolete's game threads in the strategy section. He doesn't build 1 axe and only builds 1 city in addition to his capital prior to the renaissance era. Yet he is able to win space victories on emperor. Kind of refutes your theory...

Your example is irrelevant. It merely shows that it is possible to win without axes. It doesn't show that the axe rush isn't overpowered.

Bastille - I think you will find that later war is significantly harder with BTS. Catapults are nerfed and the AI is much better at war. Axe rushes remain effective on lower levels as they get hit before they have built much defense.

So you can gain a few cities early with an axe rush - so what? You could probably settle the same number of cities normally. Its not exactly game breaking - useful perhaps.

Of course if you play on a low enough level that you can plough through several opponents with an axe rush then it will be game breaking - but there are dozens of game breaking ways to exploit low level AIs.

If you play on a hard enough level that by the time you have digested an initial opponent with an axe rush (or whatever) and gained Code of laws and currency you face longbows, then I think you are going to have to use more strategy than just a rush. In fact you will often face situations where a rush is suicide due to the diplomatic allies that can be brought against you or the military lead the AI have.

Culture and Diplo are not boring wins on the higher levels. On Emperor plus they take a lot of skill and strategy to survive and pull off. My latest Emperor game with Isabella saw me defending with riflemen and cavalry against tanks and mech infantry for a culture win. It was nerve racking and very exciting to pull off. Another Emperor win saw me rise from an isolated start and no tech trading to pull off a diplomatic win in the 1600s with the AIs close to launching their spaceship. Much much more exciting than a simple axe rush.