Poll: Atlatlist vs Battering Ram rushes

Pangea Plus, Duel, Emperor, Standard Pace

1) Atlatlist rush with Mayans, had ample forested grassland, and went Honor. The random civ was Austria, who started building Stonehenge as soon as they could. Won in the fewest turns I ever have.

2) Battering Ram upgrade on starting warrior from popping a Ruin, pumped more warriors, easy Hun victory over America.

A lot of the focus has been on the Battering Ram, but building Atlatlists from turn 1 is also pretty crazy. I mean, a group of 6 Atlatlists by ~ turn 36? They even cost less than normal Archers. And the thing with the Atlatlists is that they can both kill units and bring down city defenses. With the Battering Ram, I need a considerable amount of warriors and/or Horse Archers to clear the way.

I know chances are this will be skewed toward the Battering Ram, but which rush would you choose? (Apologies if this poll has already been done; I haven't seen one on this yet.

Atlatlists are weaker than Bowmen though?

bhavv said:

Atlatlists are weaker than Bowmen though?

Click to expand...

They are. The trade-off is that one can build Atlatlists immediately and more cheaply, while Bowmen are tougher but take more production and require Archery.

Atlatls are more flexible, since Battering Rams can't attack units at all. That said, for a rush, I'd recommend Battering Rams, Horse Archers and some swords (if you get that far). Alternatively just a whole bunch of ranged units + rams (just like in Age of Kings!)

Atlatlists seem to serve as great meatshields so that your important units (catapults and swordsmen) don't die to AI-spammed archers backed by city defenses.