Proposal for strategy of early aggression

Eklektikos · Aug 31, 2002

Although this might seem slightly premature, given the fact that our new world has not even come into existence yet, I would like to propose that we use the following strategy at the start of the new game:

Build a warrior to scout out the terrain
Build a second warrior to garrison the capital
Build a settler
Build a barracks in the capital
Build up a force of 5 or 6 archers backed up with at least 1 spearman, using the archers to further scout out the surrounding land.
Once our nearest rival has been located, send the archer/spearman force to attack - preferably taking their capital but making sure not to wipe them out.
After taking the enemy capital, or a significant proportion of their other cities, give peace for as much as we can squeeze out of them.
Whilst the assault is carried out, continue founding more cities and begin preparation for the next phase of aggression.
[/list=1]

I envisage the "next phase of aggression" as being either a horse or sword rush as described in the Strategic Advisory Committee thread, but this will be discussed and polled on later, should this proposal be accepted.

Since this obviously does not come solely under the umbrella of the Military, I hope that the other departments will see fit to offer both their support and their input.

~Eklektikos
Fanatikan War Minister

Stuck_as_a_Mac · Aug 31, 2002

as acting head of science, i agree with this as long as the science department is not neglected. we need to get the great library so that we can stay current with out weapons, until the mid of the middle ages. if we play our cards right, we may be able to get to calvary by the time others get education.

Chieftess · Aug 31, 2002

In the early run, maybe 2 scouting, build a settler. It also depends on where we start. If it's a desert, it might call for 1 strategy (maybe looking for more suitable land). If it's lush grasslands, forest/hills with lots of food, then we have a powerhouse.

Stuck_as_a_Mac · Aug 31, 2002

yes, expansion will be our friend. It will give us more money and more unit support. And, it will increase science. If we land ourself in a grassland, then we could depart from the text and get bigger.

Cyc · Aug 31, 2002

Sounds like a plan, Eklektikos. The barracks might be a little "iffy", but they are certainly a good idea.

Eklektikos · Aug 31, 2002

I generally like to build a barracks when using an archer rush, since it means the units only need one promotion before being capable of producing a great leader. I'll admit that I'm not certain it gives any other advantage, since in the time it takes to build, the enemy can build up their defences a bit more - probably countering our units' increased HP. That increased chance of getting a really early great leader makes me think it just might be a worthwhile investment, though. Just think of the damage we could do with an army of swordsmen so early on...

Octavian X · Aug 31, 2002

Archers starting off with veteran status would be a great advantage over the reqular spearmen we'll likely see. I'd recommend using 2 or more spearmen escorts for the archers, so if we get a great leader, it will have an escort to attempt to make it home.

Overall, however, I would want to wait until we have at least 3 cities before sending out a huge stack of archers, so we can pay for them. It would be even better if we know were we're attacking, so the drain on the treasury will be minimal.

Eklektikos · Aug 31, 2002

I've found that 2 cities is usually enough to support an assault force of this size, and the longer we wait the lower our chances of success become. Sending in 2 spearmen is a good idea, since one could provide either an escort for a great leader or a garrison for a newly captured city in addition to protecting the archers. I think we could safely start the attack with just the one, though - the 2nd can catch up later.

interjectiv · Aug 31, 2002

I like it Eklektikos, gets my thumbs up.

donsig · Sep 1, 2002

I agree the barracks is iffy. Depends on how productive our capital is. I'm all for being aggressive this game but I still don't like rushing units under despotism.

chiefpaco · Sep 1, 2002

Great plan, Eklektikos. I think a barracks will serve us well since they are on at half price. It should work, especially if we are surrounded quickly.

I'm only concerned if we have a lot of room to expand. Can this strategy work if our archers have to travel a long way to the nearest enemy city? Meanwhile would we leave open land that could be settled?

We could use that 2nd warrior to explore as well. This would require us another unit to garrison the capital. But in the meantime we can use the entertainment slider to keep the 2nd citizen working.

Alternatives to archer rushes are the chariot->horsemen upgrade rush and the warrior->swordsmen rush (like has been done before). These require resources, money, and more time. So maybe the archer rush is best. I'm all in favour for an early strike.

Phoenix · Sep 1, 2002

SAAM - A military strategy should increse science funding as we need to get advanced troops.

However I'm against building any warriors while we can build spearmen as these can be upgraded. Why shouldn't we destroy the enemy though (they will hate us if we let them live).

Almightyjosh · Sep 1, 2002

Cos you get a big reputation hit and EVERYBODY hates you instead!! Plus I think they can re-start (can't remember if we've got this enabled or not)

Almightyjosh · Sep 1, 2002

HEY! Phoenix, you stole my quote!! Stalin was my sig before Asphinxia... took me days to think of that quote.
Oh well.

Eklektikos · Sep 1, 2002

Originally posted by Phoenix
However I'm against building any warriors while we can build spearmen as these can be upgraded. Why shouldn't we destroy the enemy though (they will hate us if we let them live).

Building spearmen takes twice as long as building warriors, and the effectiveness of an early archer strike is reduced with every turn that passes.

I don't want to eradicate any civs too early on, as it makes no sense to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. We can go back later and beat on them some more to gain further techs, money and contacts. :mwaha:

Octavian X · Sep 1, 2002

Remember, if they're reduced to rubble in the first place, they can't do much more for us.

I would want to wait before preparing an attacking force, again, until we know the location of our future strike. I've said it before, it's possible for us to be stuck by ourselves on a small island.

Chieftess · Sep 1, 2002

If a civ DOES close very close to us, we could get lucky if they "go exploring" and leave the city undefended.

BCLG100 · Sep 1, 2002

but if you destroy a civ and no-one else knows it you get away with it

Shaitan · Sep 1, 2002

If we concern ourselves with worrying what the world at large thinks of us this will be a very short game. Strong, early agression and very rapid expansion is a necessity. Has anybody won Emperor without hard, early wars? I sure haven't and as a builder I've tried many a time. It just doesn't work.

Hit hard. Hit fast. Hit often.

Stuck_as_a_Mac · Sep 1, 2002

check the sci queue. i put iron first. monarchy soon follows after lit.

Proposal for strategy of early aggression

Eponymous

Aptenodytes forsteri

Moderator

Aptenodytes forsteri

Looking for the door...

Eponymous

is not a pipe.

Eponymous

SAC Member

Low level intermediary

Emperor

Creating Scenarios

Governor in Waiting

Governor in Waiting

Eponymous

is not a pipe.

Moderator

Music Master

der Besucher

Aptenodytes forsteri

Similar threads