The Infamous Warrior Rush:

I've only done this twice, and one time I only earned 1 city with it. The other I only got 2 workers which is good, but not what I understand the warrior rush is about.

How many people out there will do the warrior rush? Why? Is the warrior rush a necessity when playing Rome on Earth 18 map?

I always seem to fail the Earth 18 map as Rome which i thought would be IMPOSSIBLE to do! I mean, after all, Rome is pretty much the game's stock bad ass for early warring. It may be that I'm not eliminating rivals fast enough?

Rarely.

Depends on the map, or if I'm the Incas.

I usually wait for Axemen.

Er...on normal maps it's impossible on monarch+ (or just too costly).

On scenario maps like earth 18 civ and games prince or lower it works. (the AI starts with archers on monarch and above normally).

I don't equate warrior rushing with stealing workers. The rush is with intent of capturing the AI capitol very, very early.

On any game prince or below, or earth 18 civs, just build 5 warriors before anything else and attack. Some people call this cheap but it really isn't compared to many other things humans can do.

You don't HAVE to do it of course. If playing in europe it can be very handy as you'll get 1-2 enemy capitols very quickly. It also helps to be close to the enemy capitol so they don't have archers on you or cost you tons of $$ in maintenance very early on.

Note that if you do capture the AI capitol, it is far more efficient than building even a worker first, as 5 warriors cost way less hammers than a settler. Even better if you get a worker en route but that's rare.

Sadly at emperor I can't do it anymore. It's axes or chariots all the way then, or just peaceful expansion ----> attack in renaissance with something like cuirassers, cavalry, rifles, or cannons.

I've done it twice and have been very successful. It opened up a LOT of territory for expansion, and gave me a second capital city site that turned out to be a huge advantage. Both times my capital was almost surrounded by forests and I had little to build except warriors while researching toward bronze working. Both times I eliminated my neighbors (once Isabella, the other Sitting Bull) before 3000 bc.

Both times were prince difficulty, it's almost impossible on Monarch because the AI starts with archery. (as Themeinteam mentioned.)

I won't exclude the possibility of doing it but I play on huge maps and so far haven't had a foe close enough to me to make it wothwhile (except once on an archipelago map when the Khmer and I were sharing a small island).

I have been trying since I moved up to Noble, but I keep messing up. I was going to try with Praets or Axemen in my latest game (as Rome), but I wound up with a continent all to myself. Now I wait for modern units. Oh well, maybe next time...

I always play a more crowded map as Rome just to make sure that I have a good amount of rivals to boot stomp with my Praets. I never like seeing such an OP unit go to waste.

Almost never because it's rarely practical on Monarch+. I do make use of Quechuas, but that feels borderline abusive to me (the unit is fine, AI reactions aren't... the stupid sods should defend with warriors instead of archers if they aren't protective)

On Earth18, Rome might try to snag a city and a worker with warriors, but I'd probably wait until Praetorians.
All European civs have a chance of overrunning their home continent, but IMO France and Germany can do so quicker and more easily - France with chariots, Germany with Axemen.

I started up the 18 civs Earth map as Rome to see what a Warrior rush and Praetorean rush looked like. Even there, a Warrior rush isn't guaranteed - you need to do a little planning and have some luck, but with a few reloads to find out what I was doing, I managed to get Germany, France, and Spain with just Warriors. Had a couple low-odds softening-up battles turn out well, one guy got 5 XP off it, and lemme tell you, 2 City Raider promos on a Warrior is a good thing!

Bee-lined IW and got Praets online, upgraded everyone, and wiped out several more neighbors, most of which had 2 cities and Archers now. I probably could have marched clear across Asia, but after having most of my closest neighbors brought to heel, I was afraid I'd get killed by maintenance, so I let the Arabs and those east live.

Built up the economy, and as soon as I got Maces, Arabs asked for vassalization and Persians wouldn't bow, so I walked over them pretty quick. Indians bowed to that. Japan expressed interest, except they were too far away, and now they hate me and I still don't border them. Trying to get Knights or better and get my economy stronger before finishing off Asia, then Astronomy to finish everyone off for my first Conquest. (I usually get Dom, but this time, there's so much worthless land in Asia, and no one really wants to claim it, so Conq seems the fastest way to win.)

I've tried a Warrior rush one other time when I popped 3 Warriors with my exploring Warrior, and found Zulu nearby. Managed to grab a worker and stunt his growth long enough to get Axes and Swords, but it was too late for the Warriors to attack when they got there. It just never seems to be a good time to try one, and I'm never geared up for it.

I did it once just for laughs. If I was really going to rush with a resourceless non-UU unit, I'd use archers. Pick a civ that starts with hunting, tech archery, train like 6 or more and send 'em off.

You forgot one option in the poll

"my enemies have archers starting from 4000BC"

Impractical unless I happen to draw the Incas as a civ. At the levels I play at the AI start with archers, and the odds of beating those with any sensible number of warriors are just too low.

Can still often steal a worker or two, but you don't need many warriors for that.

EweezE said:

I did it once just for laughs. If I was really going to rush with a resourceless non-UU unit, I'd use archers. Pick a civ that starts with hunting, tech archery, train like 6 or more and send 'em off.

Click to expand...

I think the whole point is that you can rush off 4 or 5 warriors before the AI has any archers so you can take their capital and any workers quickly and easily. The rush come so early that the meager difference in hammers from warriors to archers causes a large disparity in turns.

More importantly, I'd much rather not choose a civ based on an early archer rush. Also, I'd rather be researching BW, AH, or some other much more beneficial tech than Archery.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

I think the whole point is that you can rush off 4 or 5 warriors before the AI has any archers so you can take their capital and any workers quickly and easily. The rush come so early that the meager difference in hammers from warriors to archers causes a large disparity in turns.

More importantly, I'd much rather not choose a civ based on an early archer rush. Also, I'd rather be researching BW, AH, or some other much more beneficial tech than Archery.

Click to expand...

They still won't have Archery by the time your archers show up if you do it right. They haven't for me whenever I did an archer rush. Try it with HRE. They are Protective and start with Hunting. By researching Archery before training the stack you are only sacrificing 1 unit. If you add up the points the archer rush is stronger. You can stick to your warrior rush and I'll stick with my archer rush. They both work when applied correctly.. It is only a consideration for me if I start with Hunting and am like <15 squares from a rival's capital. If I'm not a hunting civ then I would only rush with axes, swords, or a resourceless UU.

6 warriors * 2 combat points = 12
5 archers * 3 combat points = 15

Strength is a moot point this early in the game. I only need 4 or 5 warriors, and once again, sacrificing the BW rush ain't worth it not to mention the extra hammers that archers require isn't something to sniff at when you're only pulling 3 - 5 hammers total (and that's being generous). Of course we'll stick to our own play styles, but you can bet that after warrior rushing, i'll be pushing out axeman shortly, and they won't have much trouble against archers.

Are you guys joking? On Prince and lower, Warrior Rushes are brilliant. In my Story in the Stories and Tales forum, I warrior rushed Saladin......
In one game the one I made a thread about here a while back, I Warrior Rushed Khmer and Carthage by 2880. And I was only Ottoman...
Warrior Rushing is highly effective on Prince and lower.

I never tried warriors rush !
They earliest rush I ever tried was Chariots rush and I was very successful in that eliminating 2 of my neighbors.
For difficulties higher than Monarch I think Chariots rush would be the earliest possible rush.

IMO Horse Archers rush is the most feasible early rush (faster than Swordsman rush) and it can be done in Emperor+ Difficulties.

no warrior rush as AI has archers...

gotcha. I shoulda specified for levels Prince and below. I just started an Earth 18 map as Rome. I think you kinda have to do a warrior rush (or ax rush at the very least) in order to have a really strong game. You could always go to war with Spain / France / Germany later, but that's a lot of warring once the AI has axeman/archers/chariots. The warrior rush lets you claim a capital or two VERY early opening up a lot of breathing room. England falls next to Praet rush followed by Germany as long as I didn't already rush him with warriors!

Always on prince and below, often on monarch, rarely on emperor, never on immortal and always on deity (with quechas) but well ive played deity only twice (and i got slaughtered).