NintendoTogepi
Noble Pacifist
I've heard so many different eras, from trying to do a Axe rush or teching to Mechanized Infantry and wiping everything out from there.
What is the best time?
What is the best time?
What's the best time to conquer?
- Thread starter NintendoTogepi
- Start date
There's no 'rights or wrongs' I guess on this one, but my preference is the early Industrial Age, as you'll probably be well poised to at least match the more advanced level AIs, while the backwards ones are still likely to be mucking around with Longbows, Pikes and Knights. You've got your Oxford City up and running, and your infrastructure can easily support rapid expansion.
I'm not an expert, but a super early rush seems like so much better of an investment. As a Prince player, I can reliably get capitals for 70 hammers each if I get quick copper, no more than triple that if the walk is fairly long (like sending axes to Russia as a European civ on Earth). It's a slightly worse rate of return with horses unless I'm Persia or Egypt.
If theres a civ on my doorstep or an aggressive AI or holy city reasonably close I'll axe rush, other than that I'll wait till catapults. I'll usually try and get all the room I need by the Renaissance then turtle. Late game wars I find tiresome.
alex sword
Raging Barbarian
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 126
Rush is good if (and only if) your expected win/loss ratio is good. The only possible exceptions are important resources or wonders you want to capture but, in some sense, such an acquisition improve your win/loss ratio as well.
This is a reason why usually I don't bother with early axe rush (assumption - I do have enough land for REX-ing, if no, early rush is must) cause 2 axes per archer has bad return-on-investments value. Even holy city is not good enough acquisition at this age - it has no shrine built in. If you capture it immediately, you will need to invest your great person instead of academies and important tech lighbulbing. Often it makes sense to wait, develop your cities, develop your military. And capture the holy city as soon as the shrine is in place. Hopefully, by this time you will have a couple of catapults as well which will increase win/loss ratio
.
Following things increase your win/loss ratio:
1) Construction beeline (catapults are cheap but increase the ratio greatly).
2) Early UU beeline.
3) Rifling and other military technologies beeline.
4) Whippig/drafting (especially if perfomed immediately after 3) will make a wonder with your power rating. Very often I don't bother with spending cash on units upgrade, out-teched units will act as a sort of suicide catapults to be replaced by drafted/whipped modern units.
So, any age is good for warring but don't forget to perform cost & benefits analysis. Business-planning is a first step to be performed.
This is a reason why usually I don't bother with early axe rush (assumption - I do have enough land for REX-ing, if no, early rush is must) cause 2 axes per archer has bad return-on-investments value. Even holy city is not good enough acquisition at this age - it has no shrine built in. If you capture it immediately, you will need to invest your great person instead of academies and important tech lighbulbing. Often it makes sense to wait, develop your cities, develop your military. And capture the holy city as soon as the shrine is in place. Hopefully, by this time you will have a couple of catapults as well which will increase win/loss ratio
.Following things increase your win/loss ratio:
1) Construction beeline (catapults are cheap but increase the ratio greatly).
2) Early UU beeline.
3) Rifling and other military technologies beeline.
4) Whippig/drafting (especially if perfomed immediately after 3) will make a wonder with your power rating. Very often I don't bother with spending cash on units upgrade, out-teched units will act as a sort of suicide catapults to be replaced by drafted/whipped modern units.
So, any age is good for warring but don't forget to perform cost & benefits analysis. Business-planning is a first step to be performed
.
OTAKUjbski
TK421
... and when you require it.
I more-or-less agree with what you're saying, because war should be worth more than it costs.
But it sounds like you are only considering the immediate costs/benefits of destroying an enemy or capturing his city.
There are ample intangible future benefits that can make even a BAD short-term decision a GREAT long-term decision.
Destroying a civ early when it's only 3 cities prevents the need to destroy it later when it's 6 cities. Even though your victory odds may have increased by 100%, your enemy's size has also increased 100%. Thus, your net cost is still the same.
Eliminating a civ early also greatly decreases the chances of them making friends with your enemies and forcing you into a difficult diplomatic situation or a two-front war.
Breaking the back of a civ early ensures when you "get back around to it", that civ will still be backwards enough to crush them switftly.
Eliminating a civ early also greatly decreases the chances of them making friends with your enemies and forcing you into a difficult diplomatic situation or a two-front war.
Breaking the back of a civ early ensures when you "get back around to it", that civ will still be backwards enough to crush them switftly.
In summary, I agree to always do your business-planning first, but don't panic when looking at the short-term costs ... the long-term benefits are almost always worth it.
mercury529
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 180
May I also point out that earlier conquests come with another advantage. You do not have to worry about the AI capitulating/vassalizing to an enemy (pre-feudalism). There is nothing more annoying than being poised to destroy a civ, only to have the game leader vassalize it.
CivMcNut
Having Fun At It
I think that early game rush is super-beneficial. Granted, there's a lot of good wonders to build then, but taking control of something early, you can go on and improve the cities to your liking and have them grow to be powerhouse places in your own empire. A late game city spends so much time climbing out of the hole from when you conquered it.
VirusMonster
Quechua General
I agree with Alex_Sword on win/loss ratio. Preferably, wait for the AIs to build some wonders first.
Construction for Catapults also becomes important, because usually in the BC era, your economy can barely support spy city revolt missions. Catapults seem more cost effective. Upgrade city raider on everything.
Construction for Catapults also becomes important, because usually in the BC era, your economy can barely support spy city revolt missions. Catapults seem more cost effective. Upgrade city raider on everything.
johnny_rico
one more turn addict
Not to mention you've cleared yourself a large chunk of real estate to be future developed as you choose versus going through the debate of raze vs keep when taking cities. You will no be able to push your borders much further and back fill towards your capital. Additionally, filling in space for new cities will probably result in new cities being able to work improved tiles from the start; this makes a big difference in getting them up and going.
As far as late game cities climbing out of the hole; I'm not certain it is relevant. Any late game cities I keep are usually a push for domination. I'm not concered with population, merely border pops to 100 culture. If population is the issue and not land percentage for domination, I am more than willing to start nuking cities with high population to increase my population percentage over the globe. Nukes ftw.
If one is taking cities in the late game and trying to develop them for economic improvement, then thes war should not have been started in the first place.
johnny_rico
one more turn addict
Absolutely! That is one of the best possible starts in a game. Research writing, open borders, and see if that holy city has 'henge or the oracle. Prep for the early rush as usual. One can still march on the holy city by 1000BC or close to it. Just wait for the shrine to be built.
I find when I do an early rush my economy suffers and I don't get to build the wonders I'd like to. Because of this I usually settle a few cities and wait until cuirassers to start attacking, I mass the cuirassers and upgrade them to cavalry, then head to infantry, and lastly to tanks. If you have a strong economy built by the time you focus on military techs you can stay one unit ahead of the competition. My last game I won a domination victory with bismarck on a large, normal speed, 12 civs. BTW this is all on monarch.
I generally try to have 3 real conquering phases. The first is when I get Iron and swordsmen or the equivalent. If I'm behind on the Iron working race I'll delay that until I can get war elephants or Knights. After that its a big push on Rifling and one on assembly line. so its looks something like this Swords->riflemen->infantry. If you don't have enough territory to win the game by that point then you need to rush to tanks for a 4th phase.
In between those phases you work all out on your economy. If you are wonder happy then have 1 city set aside for your wonder spam.
In between those phases you work all out on your economy. If you are wonder happy then have 1 city set aside for your wonder spam.
When to conquer? When the good open land runs out.
And on late-game cities: If you're playing for domination, late acquisitions can make a positive war contribution rather quickly if you have the right corporations (Mining and either Sushi or Cereal). All you really need is a courthouse, forge, factory, coal plant, and one or more of barracks/airport/drydocks, and you can start cranking units.
peace,
lilnev
And on late-game cities: If you're playing for domination, late acquisitions can make a positive war contribution rather quickly if you have the right corporations (Mining and either Sushi or Cereal). All you really need is a courthouse, forge, factory, coal plant, and one or more of barracks/airport/drydocks, and you can start cranking units.
peace,
lilnev
NintendoTogepi
Noble Pacifist
Let's say I'm trying to win a OCC Conquest Victory, is an early rush still the best choice? (that's what I'm trying to win btw)
alex sword
Raging Barbarian
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 126
Nintendo: I do not play OCC, so can't be sure. However, taking into account that REX-ing is not possible in OCC, I can imagine there is just nothing left but rushing. And your improvements should be provided with certain defense.
OTAKUjbski:
I know only one early rush which profittable almost always - quecha-rush. But this one is for Incan only. Let's assume we play some average civilization, weve copper and we are about to start axeman-rushing against neighbor AI.
Benefits:
1. You will have a lot of space for future REX-ing.
2. Chances are you will capture valuable resource.
3. You will capture a couple of workers (i.e. no need to invest hummers in workers).
4. You will capture a couple of cities (i.e. no need to invest hummers in settlers).
5. This civilization won't attack you in future.
Disadvantages:
1. Early axe-rush means that the cities you've (<= 3) will produce almost no research for a long time due to heavy pop-rush.
2. Early AI cities are undeveloped and after you capture them, maintenance wont be compensated immediately.
3. Due to 1 & 2, research is going to be a problem.
4. You won't be able to trade with eliminated neigbor. Factor is important if there are no other partners for trading in nearest future.
In the same time, if youve enough space for REX-ing, instead of axe-rush, you've alternate approach:
1. Perform rex-ing.
2. Start war and steal workers from that AI by your warrior or axeman (level-dependent).
Workers stealing will move AI into archer rush (instead REX-ing and thus you will have a lot of space for expansion) but your fortified Woodsman I-II axeman will handle them without problems.
This approach will provide you with benefits 1, 3 and 5 but without disadvantages 1-2-3. I think this approach is more effective. After you've catapults, you may revisit AI cities with better unis than Woodsman promoted terrorists.
Assumption which make this approach sensible - you've enough space for early REX-ing - you're able to establish at least 6-9 cities (if less, space and thus early rush is priority, you've no choice).
OTAKUjbski:
I know only one early rush which profittable almost always - quecha-rush. But this one is for Incan only. Let's assume we play some average civilization, weve copper and we are about to start axeman-rushing against neighbor AI.
Benefits:
1. You will have a lot of space for future REX-ing.
2. Chances are you will capture valuable resource.
3. You will capture a couple of workers (i.e. no need to invest hummers in workers).
4. You will capture a couple of cities (i.e. no need to invest hummers in settlers).
5. This civilization won't attack you in future.
Disadvantages:
1. Early axe-rush means that the cities you've (<= 3) will produce almost no research for a long time due to heavy pop-rush.
2. Early AI cities are undeveloped and after you capture them, maintenance wont be compensated immediately.
3. Due to 1 & 2, research is going to be a problem.
4. You won't be able to trade with eliminated neigbor. Factor is important if there are no other partners for trading in nearest future.
In the same time, if youve enough space for REX-ing, instead of axe-rush, you've alternate approach:
1. Perform rex-ing.
2. Start war and steal workers from that AI by your warrior or axeman (level-dependent).
Workers stealing will move AI into archer rush (instead REX-ing and thus you will have a lot of space for expansion) but your fortified Woodsman I-II axeman will handle them without problems.
This approach will provide you with benefits 1, 3 and 5 but without disadvantages 1-2-3. I think this approach is more effective. After you've catapults, you may revisit AI cities with better unis than Woodsman promoted terrorists.
Assumption which make this approach sensible - you've enough space for early REX-ing - you're able to establish at least 6-9 cities (if less, space and thus early rush is priority, you've no choice).
As always it depends.
On what?
- victory seeked.
If you're looking for conquest victory, there is no point in waiting.
The earlier the better.
If you're looking for a space win, you may need some trading partners, to make the tech rate faster = no war at all, or very late ones.
- the opportunities.
If you have an early UU, early is often good. If you have a medieval UU, it may be better to focus on getting it as early as possible and rampage with it.
In the same category, if you have no metals, it's not always beneficial to go to war with archers only...
- the targets :
if you see an industrious leader next to you, let him build a few wonders
.
If you see Rome next to you, take him out before he gets iron.
On what?
- victory seeked.
If you're looking for conquest victory, there is no point in waiting.
The earlier the better.
If you're looking for a space win, you may need some trading partners, to make the tech rate faster = no war at all, or very late ones.
- the opportunities.
If you have an early UU, early is often good. If you have a medieval UU, it may be better to focus on getting it as early as possible and rampage with it.
In the same category, if you have no metals, it's not always beneficial to go to war with archers only...
- the targets :
if you see an industrious leader next to you, let him build a few wonders
.If you see Rome next to you, take him out before he gets iron.
alex sword
Raging Barbarian
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 126
Cabert - I almost always target on domination but I still prefer to wait for win/loss ratio improvements before elimination of nearest neigbor. My early UU is one possible factor, wonders/shrine built by AI - another one, lack of space for REX-ing - third etc etc. For 90% of *average* starts with random leader, early REX-ing option if available is almost always better option than axe rush.
I don't know if it matters, but usually I play Emperor/Fractal/Large or Huge. Fractal / Huge combination means that in ancient/classis age I usually don't know how many continents the world has / how many trade partners is available before Astronomy and this uncertainty is a little but important factor against early axe-rush.
I don't know if it matters, but usually I play Emperor/Fractal/Large or Huge. Fractal / Huge combination means that in ancient/classis age I usually don't know how many continents the world has / how many trade partners is available before Astronomy and this uncertainty is a little but important factor against early axe-rush.
Similar threads
