I didn't have copper or iron so I went for a warrior rush. thinking that if I have 3-1 or 4-1 ratio I will be ok. I thought that 2 warriors, maybe even 3 will die at 1 archer, but will weaken him so much, that the 3rd or 4th warrior will have no problem killing an almost dead archer.

here's what i thought:
warrior #1 vs archer (2.00 vs 3.00) archer wins
warrior #2 vs archer (2.00 vs 2.00) archer wins
warrior #3 vs archer (2.00 vs 1.00) could go either way
warrior #4 vs archer (2.00 vs 0.50) warrior wins easily

here is what happened:
warrior #1 vs archer (2.00 vs 3.00) archer wins
warrior #2 vs archer (2.00 vs 2.70) archer wins
warrior #3 vs archer (2.00 vs 2.30) archer wins
warrior #4 vs archer (2.00 vs 1.70) archer wins

I used 11 warriors against 2 archers and got them down to around 1.5 health. is this bad luck or is this how it's supposed to work. decide the outcome based on individual units/battles instead of collective strength.

i though with 10 warriors (strength=20) I should easily take down 2 archer (strength=6(maybe around 9 or 10 with bonuses)).

This leads me to the conclusion that it is very important what individual units are, and therefore a swordsman is actually ALOT better then an axemen.

thats not how a warrior rush works, the way i do it is i build to warriors in adition to the one i start with so i have about 3 warriors and go to the neareast capital and voila you just took out an enemy, but it has to be done really early in the game. it works on noble.

Warriors are really only useful for scouting, fogbusting, and city police.

One reason your calculations for a warrior rush may have been off is that archers have an inherent first strike as well as a city defense bonus (and if they are protective...aaaah!!!!!!!! even worse!) that raises their strenth to 4-5 (or maybe even up to seven with several city garrison promotions).

A 2 strength warrior just cannot match up to them.

The first strikes killed you. Its likely that a couple of your warriors totally failed to damage the archers at all. So there is no "whittling down" effect.

Its the first strikes, in the Fall from Heaven Mod it took 62 Str 6 Lawbringers to bring down 3 Str 8 CG III Drill I-III Hilled Longbowmen +60% Culture. Final calculation was 6 Vs 33 Str so 7 Laws > 1 Longbow, C21 Lawbringers to win, but because of first strikes many of them dont do any damadge, and that accounted for another 41 Lawbringers nessisary to win. (Thankfully I took 99)
The way the battles are calculated first strikes are much more effective when the Str of the striking unit is greater than the str of the opponent, so a warrior with a base of 50% less str and probably 1/2 or 1/3rd the strengh after bonuses will take terrible damadge from first strikes. Axmen not so much, swordsman a little less. Swordsmen are usually about 12-15% beter on averedge for city seige, unless the AI has axes, so they are beter, but not a lot beter.

why waste your time working that many warriors? make a worker, research required techs for chariots, make another worker, start working chariots, research bronzeworking. use slavery and chopping to make chariots, kill first enemy, kill second enemy, sometimes kill third enemy. then you have a playground! all done by 1ad!

Its the first strikes, in the Fall from Heaven Mod it took 62 Str 6 Lawbringers to bring down 3 Str 8 CG III Drill I-III Hilled Longbowmen +60% Culture. Final calculation was 6 Vs 33 Str so 7 Laws > 1 Longbow, C21 Lawbringers to win, but because of first strikes many of them dont do any damadge, and that accounted for another 41 Lawbringers nessisary to win. (Thankfully I took 99)
The way the battles are calculated first strikes are much more effective when the Str of the striking unit is greater than the str of the opponent, so a warrior with a base of 50% less str and probably 1/2 or 1/3rd the strengh after bonuses will take terrible damadge from first strikes. Axmen not so much, swordsman a little less. Swordsmen are usually about 12-15% beter on averedge for city seige, unless the AI has axes, so they are beter, but not a lot beter.

Wouldn't it have been easier to bring a catapult or two?

Country:
The warrior experiment is a good idea, its always good to try new plans even if they don't work out. His plan makes a lot of sense when you dont know all the details of how this very complex game works. Chariot\Horsemen\Axemen are all very wothrwhile investmenst.

Balbanes:
I didnt go any further downt the building tech tree than sanitation, and my summon army upkeep was putting me to -200GPT at 0% Teching to catapoults would have taken longer than it took me to achive world domination. I was playing Sheim though and had 33 conjurers to keep a steady supply of lawbringers, the loss of 62 was negligable.

Warrior rushes are useless, Quecha rushes on the other hand.....

I have found that warrior rushes typically work only if the two cities in questiom are very close together and it is very early in the game. Other than that, don't expect those kinds of results from that kind of fight!:crazyeye:

Warrior rushes are useless, Quecha rushes on the other hand.....

that's what i thought!

quecha rushes used to be my favorite. i used to think it was the best special unit. but now i don't think so. unfortunately the single movement is just too slow for me. using early special units has to be fast. they are really effective for wiping out one close civ, and sometimes two tops, but with immortals or war chariots, or even normal chariots you just sweep in on someone and wipe out so many civs, so fast. and they are immune to axeman which the computer prefers over spearmen. to me, the biggest drawback (which is related to speed) is that it gives the ai extra time to use slavery and make one or two extra archers. if they are on a hill too, quecha rushes are almost as dumb as warrior rushes.

i really don't understand how anybody who plays noble or above could think of a warrior rush and think it would work though. silly.

that's what i thought!

quecha rushes used to be my favorite. i used to think it was the best special unit. but now i don't think so. unfortunately the single movement is just too slow for me. using early special units has to be fast. they are really effective for wiping out one close civ, and sometimes two tops, but with immortals or war chariots, or even normal chariots you just sweep in on someone and wipe out so many civs, so fast. and they are immune to axeman which the computer prefers over spearmen. to me, the biggest drawback (which is related to speed) is that it gives the ai extra time to use slavery and make one or two extra archers. if they are on a hill too, quecha rushes are almost as dumb as warrior rushes.

i really don't understand how anybody who plays noble or above could think of a warrior rush and think it would work though. silly.

it works for me , but the capitals have to be close and you have to build warriors before anything else.

After Prince the AI gets free starting archres so you cant warrior rush even, Below that though its a good idea if you can get three warriors in before they get archery, generally about the time culture expands to teir 3. I usualy only attempt it if I can see over a lake to their capital to keep tabs on their units.
I love rushing religion founders, they have both the best and easiest to take cities.

here's what i thought:
warrior #1 vs archer (2.00 vs 3.00) archer wins
warrior #2 vs archer (2.00 vs 2.00) archer wins
warrior #3 vs archer (2.00 vs 1.00) could go either way
warrior #4 vs archer (2.00 vs 0.50) warrior wins easily

here is what happened:
warrior #1 vs archer (2.00 vs 3.00) archer wins
warrior #2 vs archer (2.00 vs 2.70) archer wins
warrior #3 vs archer (2.00 vs 2.30) archer wins
warrior #4 vs archer (2.00 vs 1.70) archer wins


You're forgetting that Archers get a 50% city defence bonus plus another 50% for being fortified. So it would have been more like:

warrior #1 vs archer (2.00 vs 6.00) archer wins

So this one:

warrior #4 vs archer (2.00 vs 1.70) archer wins

Would actually have been:

warrior #4 vs archer (2.00 vs 3.40) archer wins

PS: Actually it would have been even higher since by the time you attacked with your Warriors your opponent's cultural boundaries would have expanded at least once, adding another 20% to the Archer's defence. So that initial attack would have been:

warrior #1 vs archer (2.00 vs 6.60) archer wins

Not good odds by any means.

that's what i thought!
i really don't understand how anybody who plays noble or above could think of a warrior rush and think it would work though. silly.

I've done a Warrior rush on Noble a number of times, it's not impossible. I usually go in with at least 12 of them and hope that the enemy doesn't build an Archer in the meantime.

If the enemy doesent have archers why do you need 12? Dont you wind up with a lot of extras?
Of course I build 8 for warrior rush in Fall from Heaven, but the mechanics are different. In BTS I usually go for 3 or 5 depening on what type of AI I'm against.

If the enemy doesent have archers why do you need 12?

Because I can't always be sure he/she doesn't have Archers by the time I've assembled all of my troops. So I bring along enough to win against at least 1 Archer. Plus they may have built their city on a Hill, making it a bit tougher still. Even a couple of Warriors on a Hill can wreak havoc with my attackers. Sometimes I'll be down to my last couple of men before I can take them out. A Warrior rush is a very risky thing to do, the odds overall aren't in your favour. So it's good to be prepared.

why waste your time working that many warriors? make a worker, research required techs for chariots, make another worker, start working chariots, research bronzeworking. use slavery and chopping to make chariots, kill first enemy, kill second enemy, sometimes kill third enemy. then you have a playground! all done by 1ad!

He might not have access to horses...

Thats true Will, I guess I didnt think about that because I only warrior rush when I can see from a hill or over a lake and know exacly what they have.

He might not have access to horses...

true, but still, why waste value hammers sending your warriors into suicide missions? it'd be hammers better spent to build defending archers, and wait til later in the game to attack when you have catapults and maybe access to iron.

He didnt know it was a suicide mission at the time, know he knows. Where is he anyway, I would like to know waht the original poster thinks.

Honestly I'm surprised by this. I would have thought that 10 warriors would be enough. Were the archers promoted/on a hill? Also, what was their cultural defense?

Oh, and next time, use archers if you don't have any resources.

If you don't have copper or horses you need to beeline iron if you want to go to war. By the time you have researched Animal Husbandry and Bronze Working, your enemies are guaranteed to have enough defenses to fend off a warrior rush. Even with Quechuas you need to hit them earlier than that.

If you don't have iron either, then turtle until you research Construction and Machinery. Crossbowmen make good attackers if you can softed up the defenders with siege weapons first.

If you dont have Copper or Iron you dont have Crossbows either. Hopefully if your in that bad a boat you at least get Elephents, which are AWESOME rush units if you get to them fast enogh.

You're forgetting that Archers get a 50% city defence bonus plus another 50% for being fortified.

It's 25% for fortification, and 25% hill bonus too. I agree with the others, the first strike is the killer--I've had CR1 axeman not damage an archer at times.

If anyone is unsure how combat works, read this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137615). Though first strikes will probably always retain some of their "mystique".

If you dont have Copper or Iron you dont have Crossbows either. Hopefully if your in that bad a boat you at least get Elephents, which are AWESOME rush units if you get to them fast enogh.

True, but you should be able to trade for iron by then. The AI is pretty nasty about not trading iron and oil, but you CAN get them.

Fair enough.

Warrior rushes work against Warriors. 3 to 1 is a good ratio.

If the AI has Archers, don't even bother. I've lost plenty of CR I Axemen to cities with fortified Archers, so Warriors and Archers have no chance at all, unless in really prohibitive numbers.

true, but still, why waste value hammers sending your warriors into suicide missions? it'd be hammers better spent to build defending archers, and wait til later in the game to attack when you have catapults and maybe access to iron.

To that, I say: :goodjob:

You missed an important detail .................Tile Defenses , city defenses , hill defenses