EXTREMELY early garbage rush theory.

[TheMeInTeam]

When CivCorpse did some looking into the warrior ----> settler first strategy for civs/leaders that start out with techs that don't allow improvements, I was inspired a bit to realize that the canned openings aren't the only possibility to the very early game, even on higher difficulties.

I think many players are aware of the warrior rush, but maybe not. On levels below monarch where the AI does not start with archers and archery etc, you can just use about 4-5 warriors to take the capitol before they tech any kind of defense. Seriously, the opening build with a close AI spawn would be warrior warrior warrior warrior worker. If you get a starting warrior instead of a scout try to keep him for this purpose. If you're aggressive even better.

What does a sub-monarch AI have pre-3000 BC to defend against 5 warriors? 2 warriors in the capitol with 20% defense, typically. This situation strongly favors the player...there's nothing the AI will have by then that can help more (it won't have bronzeworking that early on prince to whip out defenders). Sometimes they only have a lone defender. The cost of these warriors is far less than a settler, and if you research bronze while making the warriors you have the ability to whip pop off those bad tiles once you complete the rush. It's pretty impossible to have a very strong 2nd city around 3000-2800 BC and units/a worker any other way I can think of.

So, something like this is impossible on higher difficulties, right? Well...it depends. Straight up units to rush ignoring all else is a bit more situational/difficult, but you can.

As usual, open with a warrior while scouting. In order for this to have a chance of working, other than a speed slower than normal you need basically 2 things:

- Run into the AI relatively quickly (yeah, you're not going to be rushing someone like this when their capitol is 20 tiles away, it's not worth it and in such a scenario you'd have plenty of room to expand peacefully). By quickly, I mean by the time your first warrior is finished building, you'd have best met the target and have a general idea of their capitol's location. Otherwise this strategy becomes too committal and risky.
- The AI near you can't be protective or on a hill, or it becomes significantly more dicey. Not impossible, but then there's a good chance that you will be re-starting if you try it .

If those 2 requirements are met, it's not much of a gambit. Any AI about 9-15 tiles from your capitol is a worthy target.

Opening: Tech straight for archery (!). Do your best to settle on a plains hill, other 2+ hammer tile, or otherwise try to settle so that you can do ok production-wise without improvements. Make warriors until you get archery, then make archers. Immediately after archery you tech bronze working, for pop rush power and later to chop.

The idea is to produce then whip about 3-5 warriors and then 3-4 archers (depending on starting techs). If you settle a plains hill it's possible to get these out and near your enemy before 2600 BC easily.

Occasionally the AI will have a lone archer defending the capitol, but it's more likely it will have 2. You want to get there ASAP, so that they can't go pop rushing more archers or making friends. Generally speaking, 4 warriors and 4 archers will beat 2 archers with 20% defense and will probably win even if the AI has a holy city (generally speaking, if it went for a religion it didn't rush to BW, so it won't have slavery).

Timing-wise, I'd recommend going somewhere in the area of 2900BC to 2650 BC. Right around this time the AI has sent or will send a settler with archers escorting it on emperor from my experience so far. This is an excellent time to vulture a capitol. If you time it just right you may even wipe them out before they settle the new city .

Now, the real question: Is this worth the hammers and inefficiency?

If you are lucky enough to steal a worker on DoW while marching on the capitol, it is absolutely worth it. You have a 2nd city in a strong location, pop to whip, and a worker by 2500 BC. If you aren't lucky enough to snipe a worker, then it's a bit debatable. I would generally say, however, that even if it's less efficient than settling peacefully wiping out an AI and opening up the ability to REX further with less worry of being boxed in is worth it.

I've been practicing doing this on both emperor and immortal. Vs a non-protective opponent I'm finding that I can succeed with a fair bit of consistency with it, though I need a lot more runs before I get it down to a science.

Ah yes, of course being protective or aggressive helps. Also, if you are playing as Inca, you don't need to read this . Make warriors and attack.

[tycoonist]

no doubt it is worth it if successful but i have my doubts about the level of consistency this can be achieved with. it relies heavily upon a high-hammer unimproved capital, an enemy not on a hill and a non-protective enemy. normally one can find either copper, horses or iron all of which are easier to rush with.

i would be more convinced if you could post a demo on immortal level.

[DaveMcW]

The choke is a very powerful strategy on Monarch+

Don't attack the city, just fortify on a forest next to it. The AI will play OCC until your catapults roll in.

[JBossch]

Originally Posted by DaveMcW

The choke is a very powerful strategy on Monarch+

Don't attack the city, just fortify on a forest next to it. The AI will play OCC until your catapults roll in.

I always get screwed when I try this on immortal. Maybe I am not doing it right but the AI always sneaks settlers out in another direction. Are you using multiple warriors or archers or what?

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by JBossch

I always get screwed when I try this on immortal. Maybe I am not doing it right but the AI always sneaks settlers out in another direction. Are you using multiple warriors or archers or what?

When he did his inca thing with 8 cities in obsolete's Inca WE/SSE thread (the one responding to Ibian) he kept reinforcing with more quechas - that was on immortal. I'd imagine archers would be equally effective in most scenarios. Choking is problematic when there's multiple AI's nearby though because while one won't expand the others will do so and with great pleasure. I don't like monster AIs on my hands .

As for actually wiping AI's out with archers or warriors, it's incredibly easy to do it consistently below monarch (actually my friend is vulnerable to the 4 warrior smack too ). Monarch+ it's just like tycoonist says - not a strategy that works consistently unless you do some silly stuff like small pangaea 10 civs and reroll for a plains hill start (in order to test it, I tried things like this). HOWEVER, it's a good thing to keep in mind for those times one actually gets a hammer decent start, that's near AIs. The only commitment you have to make before you find the AI is building one warrior. That's hardly going to set you back badly if there are no nearby AIs, especially because in such a case you'll have plenty of time to expand anyway.

What you DON'T want to do is see a protective civ or hills start and still do it. You also don't want to intentionally settle a bad capitol by moving onto a plains hill just for the purpose of spamming out a couple extra warriors early . This idea is highly situational but within a range of starts it DOES seem viable in some.

[DanF5771]

Choking with 2 Warriors on forested hills works fine when you have a Scout that can dance Disco-Fox with excessive AI Archers.

[Kesshi]

Originally Posted by TheMeInTeam

reroll for a plains hill start (in order to test it, I tried things like this).

TheMeInTeam,

I find rerolling for a Stone Plains Hill in your city's BFC is more useful. With your first Worker (stolen or otherwise) mine the Stone Plains Hill. This nets you a nice amount of production without sacrificing A) one turn, and B) possible food resources. My first Deity win was where I found a Coastal Rivered start with a Rivered Plains Stone Hill one space away from my Settler's initial starting location!

Also, a variation on the Plains Hill first city settlement is to settle on a Plains Elephants. You get a two hammer city, won't need to waste time building a camp (but you lose out on the commerce bonus) and possibly won't need to settle on the 2nd turn. In early game rushes, 1 turn matters a whole lot.

[Geoffroy]

I just did a warrior rush on Prince. With Ragnar on Pangaea. Lisbon was close enough.

Result: In 3100BC, the Portuguese civ has been destroyed, I have 2 cities @ pop2, 4 warriors (only one died in the attack) and a (captured) worker.

Great!

[Mesix]

Don't forget the dreaded Quecha rush. On higher difficulties, Quescha are better than warriors for an early rush. Why? They are a warrior that gets +100% vs. archers. That's right, the Inca warrior replacement is effectively a strength 4 warrior on Monarch and above. There is a reason why HOF entrys have limited the use of the Inca civ. I have personally won a conquest with the Incas in under 5 minutes on a Duel sized Monarch map (one opponenet). Diety will take 10-15 minutes since they start with two cities. Obviously, Duel sized conquest victories in a few inutes might not be the most fun, but the strategy is solid to take out one or two AI capitols very early on any map size to give the human player an early leg up on the AI.

[comatosedragon]

TheMeInTeam:

I played a game like this not too long ago as Stalin. I popped A warrior from a hut with my scout, and built 3 warriors. I marched into Paris, but was not given the opportunity to keep the city, it was razed automaticaly. Any idea why? I have had this happen on more than one occasion, but usualy with barb cities.

[JBossch]

Originally Posted by comatosedragon

TheMeInTeam:

I played a game like this not too long ago as Stalin. I popped A warrior from a hut with my scout, and built 3 warriors. I marched into Paris, but was not given the opportunity to keep the city, it was razed automaticaly. Any idea why? I have had this happen on more than one occasion, but usualy with barb cities.

It has to be at least pop 2 to keep it.

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by JBossch

It has to be at least pop 2 to keep it.

To clarify, it has to have made pop 2 at least once. If a city grows then is whipped down and you take it, you still get the option to keep it. However, if it never grew, it auto-razes . I don't like that feature but them's the breaks.

That's why I suggest 4 warriors...it seems the timing is just right for the enemy city to grow a pop .

[goldenhero]

Originally Posted by TheMeInTeam

To clarify, it has to have made pop 2 at least once. If a city grows then is whipped down and you take it, you still get the option to keep it. However, if it never grew, it auto-razes . I don't like that feature but them's the breaks.

That's why I suggest 4 warriors...it seems the timing is just right for the enemy city to grow a pop .

I especially don't like when it auto-razes, and then you get the partisan unit event from it. Thats gotta be the most irritating part of the game

[Mike Feury]

There is an option in Custom Game called sth like "No City Razing".

[goldenhero]

Originally Posted by Mike Feury

There is an option in Custom Game called sth like "No City Razing".

Also irritating, because you eventually end up keeping cities that have almost nothing but tundra in the BFC..

[sylvanllewelyn]

I'm not sure if 4 warriors can beat 2 garrisoned warriors, considering the 25% fortify, 20% cultural and 25% city defense bonus. If you really want to break the AI that way, best to use dog soldiers.

DaveMcW: I can choke the AI on Vanilla and Warlords, but BTS AI always break the choke with archers very quickly, so I just gave up. I can't even choke very well with quechuas now.

[SharpMango]

Originally Posted by sylvanllewelyn

I'm not sure if 4 warriors can beat 2 garrisoned warriors, considering the 25% fortify, 20% cultural and 25% city defense bonus. If you really want to break the AI that way, best to use dog soldiers.

DaveMcW: I can choke the AI on Vanilla and Warlords, but BTS AI always break the choke with archers very quickly, so I just gave up. I can't even choke very well with quechuas now.

yep i agree..
warriors make poor attackers. I'd go for a 3 attacker to one defender and still not expect to be confident of a victory.
In one multiplayer game, i had someone stockpile 6 warriors before attacking me...unfortunately for him i had an archer. and i was tokugawa..(i also had a warrior fortified).he quit the game shortly after committing the earliest mass suicide in history.. His warriors jsut bounced right off.
conclusion: if you cant reload the game, if you play with whatever the breaks give you, i wouldnt go for this strategy. Ur capital city will be poor in resource production and unless you succsfully capture city2, you will have already lost the game.
edit: i've also noticed that AI's always seem to beeline for archery unlike human players, one can never quite tell when theyre going to get it, but it happens pretty quick.

[Mesix]

It isn't so much the AI getting Archery as it is the deadly combo of Archery and Bronze Working. In a recent game on Noble, I took out one nearby AI with a stack of 6 warriors. I then moved the four promoted survivors (meeting up with two more fresh recruits on the way) to a second nearby AI. I showed up and he had one warrior in his capitol. The dreaded combination of early techs allowed him to whip an archer before my warriors could attack. Needless to say, the attack did not go so well. I lost all six and he lost the warrior. The archer had less than 1 hp, but after killing 4 warriors was sure to have some nice promotions, so no chance of a quick retry from my two cities.

The Quecha rush is still flawless on Monarch and above though!

[PaulusIII]

Originally Posted by sylvanllewelyn

I'm not sure if 4 warriors can beat 2 garrisoned warriors, considering the 25% fortify, 20% cultural and 25% city defense bonus. If you really want to break the AI that way, best to use dog soldiers.

DaveMcW: I can choke the AI on Vanilla and Warlords, but BTS AI always break the choke with archers very quickly, so I just gave up. I can't even choke very well with quechuas now.

That is also an interesting idea - using resourceless UU's for an early rush. Both for the Native Americans and the Maya, although in such a case you should go straight for BW (and Hunting for the Maya) and whip the UU after the warriors rather than going for archery and archers.

It all depends, though. Would having 3 holkans or dog soldiers have a better chance at succeeding than 4 archers? Holkans would definitely do better because they also get a bonus against archers. Or rather, they nullify a bonus of the archers.

[jason77024]

One other option in BtS. The combo doesn't occur "naturally," but by mixing leaders and civs you can get a Protective leader from a civ that starts with Hunting. So then you build Warrior -> Warrior -> Archer, and the Archer starts with Drill I. Tokugawa of the Germans, anyone?