THE My most freequent occurence of.... THREAD

Looking it up a Bowman seems to basically be an archer and axeman combined... poor little warriors sent to their graves. I get the logic behind "if I throw enough of them at it with <0.01%, eventually one will kill it!" but I've found except for seige this doesn't work very well...

Even in the worst circumstances, I can't help but think an archer rush might've been better. At least then there wouldn't be that 50% melee bonus. Not that I've ever seen an archer rush pulled off successfully, but it could happen. Sorry if I came off as rude though, just seems like a sad fate for those poor warriors. Note that the enemy having a first strike chance increases the odds of them taking no damage.


But regardless of the rush itself, he said he had issues with being offensive before the modern era. So there's an underlying flaw somewhere in the strategy... probably seige?

Not rude at all, Josh; no worries. And I haven't been over to the Nobles Club to see what the game is, but I've been in that situation where you're trapped on a resourceless low-hammer penninsula and the only thing to do is cross your fingers and Zerg Rush, and I wouldn't be surprised if that ended up being the situation.

Problems with early warfare usually come down to either having Builder Tendencies or being adverse to losses (and early units are highly death prone). I used to have both, so I know of what I speak. :cool:
 
Not to get off topic... but even attacking at 0.01% odds, it would be pretty unusual to fail each time and not do any damage at all to the defending Bowman. It's rare for my units to suffer no damage in combat, even if attacking at >99%.

Unless it's those damn first strikes. :mad:
 
Not to get off topic... but even attacking at 0.01% odds, it would be pretty unusual to fail each time and not do any damage at all to the defending Bowman. It's rare for my units to suffer no damage in combat, even if attacking at >99%.

Unless it's those damn first strikes. :mad:

Strength wise an Archer doesn't have that much more juice over a Warrior to where 14 shouldn't have knocked him down. The first strikes would seem to be the culprit. Drill promotions, perhaps?
 
Looking it up a Bowman seems to basically be an archer and axeman combined... poor little warriors sent to their graves. I get the logic behind "if I throw enough of them at it with <0.01%, eventually one will kill it!" but I've found except for seige this doesn't work very well...

Even in the worst circumstances, I can't help but think an archer rush might've been better. At least then there wouldn't be that 50% melee bonus. Not that I've ever seen an archer rush pulled off successfully, but it could happen. Sorry if I came off as rude though, just seems like a sad fate for those poor warriors. Note that the enemy having a first strike chance increases the odds of them taking no damage.


But regardless of the rush itself, he said he had issues with being offensive before the modern era. So there's an underlying flaw somewhere in the strategy... probably seige?
Actually, I had tried an axe rush earlier and failed at that too. I tried that two times. By the time I had copper and enough phalanxes (sp?), Hammy had copper and horses, and enough units to counter my rush. I did manage to take his capital with heavy losses. So I reloaded and tried the earlier rush with just warriors and failed at that, too.
As for being offensive before the modern era, I guess I should explain my self a bit better. When I attack, I seem to take very heavy losses in combat unless I seriously outgun my opponent. I can usually keep from getting DoWed throughout a game because I usually keep a large defensive force, and I seem to be able to run a good enough economy to afford it. (My game has improved! :)) The thing is, by the time I can usually pull off a successful invasion and take over the world, I have run out of time to do it.
I'm learning what units to build, and I'm learning how to use them. I still need to learn how to promote them and take advantage of terrain and things like that. I also have a distinct disadvantage compared to most of you guys: no testosterone. I am intelligent (and cute, too :p), and I can logically think through most of the strategy of the game without too much trouble, but I am simply not aggressive enough to war effectively. So far, anyway.
It's improving, but it's a slow process.
 
cross your fingers and Zerg Rush, and I wouldn't be surprised if that ended up being the situation.
Ok, ok, I am going to show both my age, and the fact that I am slightly out of touch with the on-line world here:
What exactly is a Zerg Rush?
(She said expecting much poking of fun by the other members of CFC.)
 
I have three words for how to capture tons of cities with almost no losses: city raider cannons. They're amazing.

1. Have five accuracy cannons deplete defenses.
2. Have a City Raider II or III cannon attack the defender. They have a great survival rate and will weaken up all the other defenders.
3. Have all your cannons attack, from strongest to weakest. If you aren't unlucky you shouldn't have any casualties, maybe one or two cannons max. (including your accuracy cannons, you're going to want at least a dozen cannons in your stack, with reinforcements on the way to replace losses)
4. Mop up the defenders with your grenades/rifles/cruisarriers/cavalry. Rest one or two turns with your Medic III unit to heal up and go kill another city.

The only men you'll lose are the ones you have to leave behind to garrison cities. It's certainly my favorite era of warfare because with a few strategic beelines you can easily catch medieval civs with their pants down. And unlike the major flaw of a modern war which you pointed out, the renaissance comes early enough for you to enjoy the benefits and continue to domination.

Also I have no idea what a zerg rush is either. >_>
 
Zerg comes from Starcraft and a Zerg Rush or zerging refers to using numbers instead of strength to try to overwhelm an opponent or enemy.
 
@Joshua368:
Good advice! Thanks. I'm going to try that today.

@schtick:
Thanks for the clarification. I've never played Starcraft. No wonder I didn't know. ;)
 
@Joshua368:
Good advice! Thanks. I'm going to try that today.

@schtick:
Thanks for the clarification. I've never played Starcraft. No wonder I didn't know. ;)

I never played it, either, but it's a phrase that seems to have entered into general use. I probably picked it up from the same kid that didn't know who Leonard Nimoy was. :old:
 
I've never played Starcraft either :). Bestbrian's right though, it's become a general term in gaming outside of starcraft.
 
Top Bottom