Archery

[K.Murx]

btw if anyone wants to see a game run without strategic resources, be our guest

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=457622

scenario generated by Cam_H, you can even replay that one ;-) you're guaranteed to not get any copper/horse/iron/ivory unless lucky pop from mine

we completely crashed the AI's, but not with archers we used cats which we aimed for from T0

Was fun ride, but as we all agreed too easy for us even if this was done on Immortal.

Now, now, that's not a valid example. Removing strategic resources from the AI very much breaks the AI until rifling.
The discussion here is about the AI having resources, but the player having none.

 

[vranasm]

Now, now, that's not a valid example. Removing strategic resources from the AI very much breaks the AI until rifling.
The discussion here is about the AI having resources, but the player having none.

well you're right, but the player is in worse position too...you start with no traits, no starting techs and will be boxed in.
I don't think we showed no skill in this one ;-).

actually if i remember right the perception at start was that it's actually tough game ;-).

Ai's love going longbows and you basically have nothing to fight them if you miss the cats /trebs warfare

edit:
actually it's still good game for trying archer rush, since you're guaranteed not to meet AI's axes/horse archers etc.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

@shaka

you're mostly right. People here lately don't do comparison to playing map in "so called better strategy" and thus don't properly analyze their proposed strategy and influence on end date and overall difficulty of such approach.

One thing I wanted to mention though is Engineering bulb strategy on land map which was demonstrated by AZ in some videos when he begun streaming and in forum game made by (I think) Zx Zero which ended as 1190 AD conquest (or was it domination?) which certainly is spectacular even for cuirs rush and definitely the strategy proved to be viable (you can't do it with every leader though, you need someone without fishing) on certain map types.

I may love it like it was my own child, but sadly it is not. I don't remember who posted the game as it has been a long time, and I don't think he posts anymore. I have had similar win dates with Cuirs, but they are't as consistently as early as the Engineering stomps. Now I have had much early win dates with the doubling bulbing of MC and Machinery while Oracling Fued to tech Guilds. Those Knights are a strait up face roll when the AI doesn't have Fued or Eng.

shakabrade:

You oracled Feudalism at turn 56, if I'm reading the pictures right.

1) How many Archers would you have had at turn 56 if you'd been really working at it?
2) How many cities would the AI have had at turn 56 if you had been cranking archers from the get-go instead of sitting there letting the AI expand?

TMiT:



Sure, you can parody it with a game of strip solitaire if you want, but it isn't even remotely relevant. Nor does it count towards evidence, which would be actually doing what he says in a sample game, instead of doing things he doesn't say.

People have brought up the idea now that you're always going to have the strategic resources through trading, the idea presumably being that he's advocating an archer rush by the time you have trade routes to opposing Civs whom you have let hook up their strategic resources, which I must confess I'm not seeing in anything he's said so far, which is "when AIs are close and you don't have resources, Archer rushes work with Protective leaders."

If anybody would like to post a game that tests this statement, I'm all ears, and if it is shown to be false, I'm still all ears.

On a private but tangentially related note, I'm laughing at the idea of Engineering Bulbs. Does anybody remember how stupid that sounded even a year ago, when the "mass of high level play" proved it wasn't viable without any actual posted games to that effect?

The archer rush can not be compared to rushes that work 60:40 or 70:30, as the Archer rush you are trying to rush with a 3 strength unit versus a 3 strength unit with huge bonuses for being in a city, your 3 strength is going to be attacking into 6 or 7 strength with first strikes. So there are going to be situations where their 1 Archer eats 3-4 of yours. Now the Longbow rush can work, as you are rushing with a base 6 strength unit. Now how many Archers could he have fielded by turn 56, 14-15? How many will the AI have 18-19? Are you going to win that war? Nope you're going to lose all of your guys, while crushing your economy, what is the point of that.

 

[Manco Capac]

One thing I wanted to mention though is Engineering bulb strategy on land map which was demonstrated by AZ in some videos when he begun streaming and in forum game made by (I think) Zx Zero which ended as 1190 AD conquest (or was it domination?) which certainly is spectacular even for cuirs rush and definitely the strategy proved to be viable (you can't do it with every leader though, you need someone without fishing) on certain map types.

First, it was hr_oskar who has created a thread about 1190 AD deity conquest.

Second, I remembered I didn't clarify (or corrected myself...out of laziness I guess) who promoted Engineering Rush. IIRC, you were not happy I didn't give correctly credits and I excuse myself about it now as I realize now I missed that first landsknecht video by AbsoluteZero that was uploaded 7 months before hr_Oskar's thread.

I'm surprised I missed that video...probably I was too focused on HoF cheese.

 

[bhavv]

Actually your rushing with a 3.75 str unit vs a 3 str unit if you read what I have written, but don't worry, feel free to carry on displaying such laughable levels of bad reading comprehension.

Your analysis makes as much sense as saying 'Quechas are bad to rush against archers with as they only have 2 strength'.

Everyone that says they've tried Archer rushes and kept of failing obviously missed the parts about Protective, barracks and the much required cover promotion.

It works more than 50% of the time for me, making it worth the gamble if I have an AI right next to my capitals borders and don't reveal any copper with BW.

Pro archer rush does work at higher than 50% success odds. If I can do it I don't see why others struggle so much.

I've also never mentioned not starting with Iron as Vranasm suggested, I've only mentioned copper and horses. I get more starts where I have iron but no copper or horses anywhere nearby unless I settle so far from my capital that I would be crippled with maintenence. IW takes a long time to teck, its not a valid early rush method before the AI can also connect its metals. You can easily pull of cover promoted archer rush vs regular archers on Immortal difficulty, but the window for opportunity is narrow. You do need to tech BW anyway, so you can see if an opponent has any copper and stop it from being connected with your archers.

 

[Manco Capac]

You do need to tech BW anyway, so you can see if an opponent has any copper and stop it from being connected with your archers.

In fact, no. There is a sly way to know beforehand their sources of copper, horses and iron.
Under condition they know the required tech to unlock those resources, you could see weird output on some tiles. Like a desert providing a hammer in their lands is mighty suspicious. Or same for grass tile without forest.

But BW for chopping archers, yes it might be needed.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Actually your rushing with a 3.75 str unit vs a 3 str unit if you read what I have written, but don't worry, feel free to carry on displaying such laughable levels of bad reading comprehension.

Your analysis makes as much sense as saying 'Quechas are bad to rush against archers with as they only have 2 strength'.

Everyone that says they've tried Archer rushes and kept of failing obviously missed the parts about Protective, barracks and the much required cover promotion.

It works more than 50% of the time for me, making it worth the gamble if I have an AI right next to my capitals borders and don't reveal any copper with BW.

Pro archer rush does work at higher than 50% success odds. If I can do it I don't see why others struggle so much.

Ok that 3.75 Strength unit has such a higher win chance against their unit with all their bonuses. Now you're going to have lots of fun out producing IMM or Deity AI.

How can you ever compare a 4.4 base versus archers to an archer?

 

[vranasm]

First, it was hr_oskar who has created a thread about 1190 AD deity conquest.

Second, I remembered I didn't clarify (or corrected myself...out of laziness I guess) who promoted Engineering Rush. IIRC, you were not happy I didn't give correctly credits and I excuse myself about it now as I realize now I missed that first landsknecht video by AbsoluteZero that was uploaded 7 months before hr_Oskar's thread.

I'm surprised I missed that video...probably I was too focused on HoF cheese.

I hoped I wrote it in a way I wasn't sure who promoted the strategy on forum with posted game, you're absolutely correct with hr_oskar, I just didn't remember correctly, let's call it my age fault.

 

[plasmacannon]

...
Your analysis makes as much sense as saying 'Quechas are bad to rush against archers with as they only have 2 strength'.
...

Don't forget that Quechas start with Free Combat 1 and are +100% vs Archers, before their barracks promotion, which can be Cover.
So, a Quecha can be a 2.2 +125% vs Archers. That is a huge advantage for such a cheap unit that is available on turn 0.
So much so, that in some games they are banned. In some mods, they are weakened to permit their use.
I only play on Monarch level, but I have won with a Quecha rush on every level except deity (I didn't bother to keep trying to see if I could. I proved their cheesiness to myself). So, if I can do this, they will definitely be unbalanced in the hands of an expert with them.

 

[bhavv]

Now you're going to have lots of fun out producing IMM or Deity AI.

I had lots of fun succeeding many times with Protective archer rushing on IMM level.

Don't forget that Quechas start with Free Combat 1 and are +100% vs Archers, before their barracks promotion, which can be Cover.
So, a Quecha can be a 2.2 +125% vs Archers. That is a huge advantage for such a cheap unit that is available on turn 0.
So much so, that in some games they are banned. In some mods, they are weakened to permit their use.
I only play on Monarch level, but I have won with a Quecha rush on every level except deity (I didn't bother to keep trying to see if I could. I proved their cheesiness to myself). So, if I can do this, they will definitely be unbalanced in the hands of an expert with them.

They are only overpowered in single player because the AI is dumb and wont build simple Warriors to defend against Quechas. All it takes to stomp a Quecha rush is Warriors for defense, just like all it takes to stop HAs is Spearmen, but again the AI will rarely build those. The units themselves are fine and not overpowered, they just allow the player to abuse flaws in the AI that give these units such a strong advantage.

If Quechas are banned from such games due to the AI's incompetence to defend against them, I think that HAs should also be banned because they are simply another cheesy tactic of further abusing AI incompetence.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually your rushing with a 3.75 str unit vs a 3 str unit if you read what I have written, but don't worry, feel free to carry on displaying such laughable levels of bad reading comprehension

Actually, combat doesn't work that way and you'll be attacking at 3 strength. If they have fortification + 40% culture, they'll be at just under 6 str if you have cover and you only advantage with barely over half their strength is an extra strike chance. But don't worry, feel free to carry on displaying those pristine argumentative skills and arguing the game mechanics .

Everyone that says they've tried Archer rushes and kept of failing obviously missed the parts about Protective, barracks and the much required cover promotion.

Using such terms as "everyone" only makes such argumentative positions look really, really bad.

Building the barracks (especially if you're not toku to reduce its cost) also serves to slow the rush further, and even a tiny thing going wrong means the rush fails. The odds are terrible if you're playing a reasonable speed for the map size, unless you're playing on lower difficulties.

Pro archer rush does work at higher than 50% success odds. If I can do it I don't see why others struggle so much.

Because others probably aren't playing on small/epic and rushing someone 5 tiles away.

How can you ever compare a 4.4 base versus archers to an archer?

By saying it's a lot better .

 

[Um the Muse]

Maybe I need to watch Bhavv's video again, but from what I remember, it looked like it was really effective because:

1. Bhavv stole that worker from the second city (actually, there were two of them, but I assume that the second was just good luck)
2. He left the warrior and the workers right in between the two cities, along the road to connect them
3. Because he did 1 and 2, the AI capital was basically defenseless
4. The archer rush came before the AI had switched to slavery
5. It looked like he had good luck with the RNG, but he had plenty of back-up
6. He didn't press the war past the first city

Sure, there is indeed a big gamble in doing the above, but it's also a gamble to do an axe-rush. Now, I never rush, but if that's something that you're going to do anyway, it looks like this archer rush is at least somewhat effective when combined with some decent tactics.

It seems to me that the advantage lies in superior number of troops and from not overreaching.

Note that this is all speculation on my part, based on a single video. But it looks like it has some merit.

 

[Manco Capac]

Me too, I've seen 80% of the video (at least the crispy moments).
But I can't say no luck were working for him.

Normally, once worker stealing, the AI starts producing archers en masse.
The very fact an archer ran away letting the min number of archers in the capital left me doubtful.
Possibly, the AI used his archers to escort another settler (not surprising from an IMP civ going haywire with REX), but bhavv didn't know it would happen.
Yes, he had plenty of backup, but once the number of archers hit 3, the rush has ended, while axes can pick on roaming archers and can be promoted to woodsman II to snatch workers in the meantime. Archers are limited to guerrilla II.

Also, that warrior on a hill was greatly lucky to survive from an archer . I bet there was 34% odd of winning. And using the workers as bait would already increase the chances of win...but IIRC he didn't.

I'm not discrediting the whole idea because it has merit in certain situations, but in general, it doesn't work.

For instance, once, I chariot rushed roman empire (deity, normal speed) and succeeded to eradicate the said civ. Would I say it is awesome strategy; nope!
All the stars were aligned in that game.
I stole a worker improving iron just in time and it happened to be its only metal resource.
Then his lands were really bad and jungled. He was stunted by building the GLH for me. He was stuck to 3 non-hilly cities.
In the end, unbeknownst to me, the start was cooked!

I'm here at 06:11 AM lol. What am I then? having trouble sleeping and been playing Civ all night long?

No, I no longer stay awake to play all night. The aftermath is too much for me.
I thought pitching myself to the forums once I wake up was enough obsessive, but I forgot some are worse (or better depending of point of view).

 

[Bandobras Took]

Laugh all you want, but it is for real and extreamly useful. Go to the current immortal university tread (Mao-china) and see what Lerner_Game is doing.

That's exactly what I'm laughing about. A year ago the high-level players would have lynched you for claiming that, because all the high-level players knew that Engineering was useless and that there were better things to bulb.

 

[Htadus]

That's exactly what I'm laughing about. A year ago the high-level players would have lynched you for claiming that, because all the high-level players knew that Engineering was useless and that there were better things to bulb.

Opps, thanks for correcting. Btw, may be those players weren't truly high level after all.

But with all due honesty there are maps where it is a poor choice. Map and neighbors determine which is better. The extream case would be the isolated starts.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Good luck defending against barbs with warriors (Hint, ideal situation for Pro archers - you have no copper or horses and can't rely on warriors until you get to iron.

People have no idea because they never think outside of the box, they can't use their own common sense / brain, and just copy paste what everyone else on this forum believes (ignorance is bliss?).

Then when people like me attemt to play the game game differently because we are fed up of doing the exact same thing over hundreds and hundreds of games, oh noes, its the end of the world on Civ Fanatics forum, how dare anyone even attempt something as bad as teching archery or religions first even if they are successful with doing so? BURN THE HEATHENS!

Quite often there's a bout of provocation from the advocate of the 'new idea' before it turns into "burn the heathens."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am somewhat amused by this nonsense about being unable to defeat barbs with warriors...when it's routinely done on a lot of maps even on deity.

Does the forum recall when people still believed warriors were consistently not enough on deity ? It was code got danf that told us about the 2 tile rule, and that led to a few of us finding rather abusive applications of it .

 

[plasmacannon]

I think, in general, the warriors are sufficient to fogbust and defend much of the area you want lit up, for their cost.
Yes, archers with their higher base strength typically win more battles than the warriors, but they cost more prod too.
So, one can have more warriors, or fewer archers, or some combination of the two.
I've played a PRO leaders and still built warriors.
Usually, we still have cities that are deep enough in our empires that a warrior is adequte enough to eliminate the city's complaint of not having a defender.
Which is usually, the main thing I need it for.
Chariots or axemen near the outer city's boundaries can intercept incomming barbs for xp.
I usually have either copper or horse somewhat close, but Iron is typically accessable. So, having archers as the best means to defend is a rare situation indeed.

 

[Duckweed]

Quite often there's a bout of provocation from the advocate of the 'new idea' before it turns into "burn the heathens."

It's unfortunate that some players are quite intolerant to out-of-box ideas, which is one of the reason lowering the quality of this forum.

In more than 50% of deity games, archery is absolutely necessary to survive, for defense against barbarians and AIs' DOW as well.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are you sure it's really 50%? That's not consistent with my experience at all.

Well, maybe if you combine the two, such that you need archery for barbs OR AI. On a lot of those pangaea type maps the land is scarce quickly and 2-3 warriors block the barbs from spawning properly; but archery still matters because without it there's a good chance you die to that 2000 bc to 1500 bc hit with a handful of units from the AI itself, and dying that way just sucks lol.

If I had to guess I'd say that it's actually needed vs the AI more often than vs barbs, unless you play on a larger map, lower sea level, land-only maps, etc which change the equation or get a lucky land draw (or unlucky tundra ).