Legion vs Horse Rush

[jigglylizard]

Which do you prefer and why?

Both are pretty quick to get. Horses can be researched first and have 2 movement, but cost twice as much a legions for the same attack.

[steeemer]

I assume from your question that you are specifically inquiring about an early game rush.

In my limited experience with this tactic, the key elements are:

1) Locating the enemy as quickly as possible.
2) Getting to and attacking the enemy before they get archers. Most AI's get archers around 2500 BC, sometimes sooner and sometime later. You can of course still take down a city with archers, but it is vastly easier if you get there before they have them.

In my opinion, horsemen are the way to go unless an enemy starts very close to you which rarely happens.

FYI - Zulu is a popular Civ because their warriors move at the same speed as a horseman without the extra production time.

[GGrayson]

Horsemen are nice for rushing in the first 20 turns. They are fast, hit hard for that early, but are expensive.

Legions typically are not used for rushing so early. They are really cheap, and hit just as hard as the horsmen, but the lower movement makes them less effective for fast rushing.

I typically will use legions to counter attack, they work great for this because they are so cheap, but can still help you take out catapults, horsemen, and knights.

Some civs, like the romans, arabs, and indians can really rush well with legions. The romans can build a lot of legions in their mass amount of early cities, and then just send them down roads to attack cities, but you're probably going to want at least 3-5 legion armies for a nice rush.

The Arabs and Indians can hit hard because they both have fundmentalism early in the game, so they are cheap way to run over you enemies.

[jigglylizard]

I was referring to non-zulu civs cuz the Zulu's bonus makes them unique early-game.»

Fundamentalist with horsemen must be fun however. Early, fast, hard-hitting troops...

I've done typically better with horsemen, but I wanted to know other opinions to see if I'm missing out on anything. Counter-attacking with legions makes sense to me. I've been using horses bu tthat's just stupid (I realize now)

[ericball]

Originally Posted by jigglylizard

Counter-attacking with legions makes sense to me. I've been using horses bu tthat's just stupid (I realize now)

Actually, I prefer to use mounted units for counter attack so I can move the unit back into the city defenses after the attack, whereas a Legion army gets itself stuck outside the city and has a high chance of being wiped out by enemy attackers.

Naturally catapults and cannons don't have this problem - but they are slow to move so can't race to help defend when an unexpected front opens. Mounted units can also provide escort service for GPs and settlers. (Not real defense, but more of a sacrificial unit.)

[jigglylizard]

Attacking uses up only one movement for the horses, leaving one to move back into the city?

If you're able to wipe out all the attackers (none others are close), then I guess it doesn't matter. If there are attackers left and you're attacking units remain in the city, then it shouldn't matter also I believe.

[GGrayson]

Originally Posted by ericball

Actually, I prefer to use mounted units for counter attack so I can move the unit back into the city defenses after the attack, whereas a Legion army gets itself stuck outside the city and has a high chance of being wiped out by enemy attackers.

Naturally catapults and cannons don't have this problem - but they are slow to move so can't race to help defend when an unexpected front opens. Mounted units can also provide escort service for GPs and settlers. (Not real defense, but more of a sacrificial unit.)

This is incorrect.

Horsemen do not get another move after they attack, even if they move only one square to attack. To get an extra move after attack, you need either the Blitz upgrade, or to overrun the unit you are attacking.

Keep horseme inside of a city is a waste of hammers, they are at their best when they are roaming the map, the extra movement that they get is why you they cost more than legions.

Catapults, Canons, Defensive units, and Artillary all stay inside the city if they attack a unit that is 1 square away from that city.

Catapults are really good for early counter attack, and they cost just as much as horsemen, so that's another reason not to use horsemen for counter attacking.

I like legions for counter attacking because they are so cheap, and you can spam a lot of them in such a short period of time. If they die, so what? It didn't cost much to make them. It hurts a lot more to lose a horseman army.

[jigglylizard]

Originally Posted by GGrayson

This is incorrect.

Horsemen do not get another move after they attack, even if they move only one square to attack. To get an extra move after attack, you need either the Blitz upgrade, or to overrun the unit you are attacking.

Keep horseme inside of a city is a waste of hammers, they are at their best when they are roaming the map, the extra movement that they get is why you they cost more than legions.

Catapults, Canons, Defensive units, and Artillary all stay inside the city if they attack a unit that is 1 square away from that city.

Catapults are really good for early counter attack, and they cost just as much as horsemen, so that's another reason not to use horsemen for counter attacking.

I like legions for counter attacking because they are so cheap, and you can spam a lot of them in such a short period of time. If they die, so what? It didn't cost much to make them. It hurts a lot more to lose a horseman army.

That was my reasoning as well. If there's no one else around I can move out my archers to protect my catapults or legions...