Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by ilteroi, Dec 26, 2019.
No its their first built settler (on Immortal AIs don't get an initial settler that I have seen)
They do not. Still, perhaps the AI should be protecting it better.
So what about just giving Archers a City-malus and buffing Palace a bit? Like -50% vs. Cities on Archers (lost with upgrade) and Palace gives +8 or +10 to City Strength instead of +5...
Regarding Warmonger penalties: you only get them when the AI know the victim.
Therefore, if you play on a map like Continents and conquer Cities in the Ancient Era you can avoid Warmonger penalties.
Also, I found that currently Warmonger penalties scale very strongly with distance: your neighbors will hate you but AI on another Continent don't seem to care as much.
That would not be my preferred way of handling things.
If you give Archers a malus against Cities they would be garbage for offensive purposes in general, not just for taking out Capitals.
Just curious- how were you tech/policy wise after the early rush? What are your prospects for religion? Would you mind playing the game out a bit to see if it becomes clear that it's fairly easy to convert the rush to a win? Not to treat you as a guinea pig or anything, but I'm lucky to play like 1 hour a night
But yeah- the simple fact that any civ can pull that off is kinda bad for the game probably. I like the idea of a malus to the archer for city attacks. I'd probably vote to apply the malus to the whole archer line personally (I find that siege can too often be neglected in favor of more archer line units) but obviously just the base archer would be useful in addressing this specific issue. The other option of buffing the palace seems nice too and would probably be the least invasive but still leaves the ability to easily sack all other pre-wall cities.
In fact I did just that
So the way to think of it is as a comparison to the pyramid rush. You pay 4 archers (240 hammers) vs 1 pyramid (205 hammers)… and that gap narrows a bit if you buy one of your archers with gold, as the gold ratio is better for units than wonders. The main differences:
1) I generally have to skip the shrine when going pyramid. With the archer rush, I feel I can squeeze it in.
2) The pyramid will get you your first settler faster, but in taking a city you have a much stronger city initially.
3) Pyramid gives some GE points, culture, and GAP. More if you take Goddess of Beauty.
4) You will have a puppet city for a long time, as opposed to an annexed city right away (both have benefits and drawbacks).
5) Archer Rush tends to generate a lot of extra barbarians (loss of AI scouting and killing of barbs). If you are going Authority this is a benefit, otherwise its a drawback.
6) Religion wise its not going to happen in most cases, as you can't build a shrine in your puppeted city right away, and this build tends to weaken your follow up expansion for a little bit. I actually managed to found because I got very lucky with a quest on a faith CS, but otherwise I wouldn't have been able to found. Knowing that I'll probably remove the shrine from the build order in favor of something else.
So in terms of benefits, I would say they are comparable....but the real strength of the archer rush is that your opponent is losing everything. You are taking a major city from your close neighbor (maybe even removing him from the game). That gives you big benefits in terms of luxuries, and follow up city placement. So I would argue that the Archer rush is probably the strongest opening you can do in a game at the moment.
Laughs in Nubian.
Consider annexing an early conquest and locking its growth.
Say the city I capture has 4 pop after capture. That's 2 unhappiness if its a puppet, which will slowly increase over time. The city governor is going to work food tiles. You can pay 2 more unhappiness to double the gold and faith of the city, roughly double its culture and science (it does increase costs of course), increase its production, and gain control of its tile choices and build order. That's important because you can lock citizens on production tiles (your governnor will work food). The governor also likes to build granaries in puppets, which gives food to a city you don't care about and costs maintenance. Instead you can build a council or a market, which will help your empire instead of draining its gold.
So you do get a lot of benefit, for the cost of 2 more unhappiness and the culture/science increase...but considering its a capital its likely worth it. Thanks for the tip.
I'm through 150 turns on standard/emperor/continents using this strat successfully after eliminating Indonesia. I founded second, but probably not a good example for I had springtime with a tobacco monopoly + Gajah's cotton / 2 plantations he spawned. I went monument/shrine/archerx4, but buying tiles with American UA helped speed up the process.
I have a ridiculous amount of land with 11 cities (still puppetting both Indo cities), several CS allies, and Shaka + Monty kept the Celts busy long enough to allow me to snag Fountain of Youth after already owning Cerro Potosi. This game is already over... If not for the fact that I just met a 7 city Tradition China who is right on par with me in score; I'd most likely still win, but it's nice to see each game's variables still leave room for competition.
Actually, that would be 0 Unhappiness if you made the City a Puppet.
On the current patch you get 1 Unhappiness for every 5 Population a Puppet City has (rounded down).
QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 15633898, member: 77751"]So I would say some kind of adjustment is needed.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever seen the AI doing this? I think no.
Unless the AI starts to do this and uses its bonuses to cripple the human start as much as a human attack at that stage of the game would, there is in my eyes no real action necessary.
Its the same thing as stealing a worker or sniping settler with a blocking unit. Either you do it, and know it's imbalanced, or you simply set your own rule and simply don't do it.
If it's really necessary, there would be 2 easy solutions:
- increase defence strength and HP from palace, so it costs a lot of units and time to bring the enemy capital down, making the strategy more expensive and time consuming
- palace gives the city an attack range of 2, effectively removing the ability to attack with archers without retaliation
Wow, you guys both founded anyway. I wouldn't have predicted that lol.
I'd vote for some sort of nerf to address it, personally. I already think ranged units do too much damage to cities as it is (stepping on siege's toes somewhat) so giving archers or the whole archer line a city damage malus would be my suggestion.
I think it's better for gameplay to address things that are OP and not just rely on players to police themselves. Even worker stealing got nerfed when doing it to CSs I believe.
For the record just to test how "efficient" and "long term repercussions" of early archer rush i started a standard speed standard size terra map *nine civs instead of eight* on emperor as Rome, i went monument, shrine then 4X archer ..... i took Morocco's capital and snagged their settler at t30~35, then took Shaka's capital and his second city while also snagging their settler before T50 basically eliminating my very close neighbors ..... fast forward to T100 i have 7 cities including 3 capitals, the largest army and 2 CS alliances + trade routes.
Managed to survive a combined attack of both The Huns and Denmark right after taking Zulu's cities.
In terms of science i'm 3 techs behind the leader, Ethiopia which is just south of me.
In terms of policies i have finished my progress tree and probably going to go fealty.
In terms of religion i did not found as i chose the wrong pantheon Forests pantheon instead of plantations but i'll try to take Ethiopia's capital later.
In terms of wonder i managed to build Temple of artemis myself, lost the race for roman forum by 1 tur
50 Turns later i took 3 of Ethiopia's 5 cities not including the capital They got a castle built in the capital, The great wall and 2 Tiles of forests surrounding the capital and the second city making it extremely hard to take but the ended up capitulating to me.
T150 i'm the scoreboard leader, with 25 units one or two techs behind the Maya, annexed the original capitals and the 2nd Zulu city, pretty much game over once Ethiopia's capital goes down.
There is some truth to this, there are certain cheesy tactics people avoid for a good gameplay experience. That said, we did make some adjustments to worker stealing (adding the prisoner of war penalty to workers, and I don't think AIs get a free worker anymore to avoid the very quick steal). Now the tactic is still possible, but its at least a bit weaker than it was before. You could probably do the same for the archer rush.
I'll also note that on Immortal most of the time I only really need 3 archers to snipe a capital most of the time. On occasion the AI has gotten tricky and the 4th one helped me finish the job, but I think realistically if I'm just going for a single capital snipe 3 is all you need.
So I tried this out in a quick run through. What happened was that the unhappiness from annexation put me at 33% (that's with 1 war weariness on Immortal, Diety I assume would be a greater penalty). So right now I can't settle my 1st or 2nd settler until I can get a worker out to luxury up. I'm also now getting hounded with archer barbs at my capital because of the rebellions. So it might be better to puppet for the first handful of turns and then annex it after you have settled a little bit.
Could this not also be a way to make this whole tactic less worth it? Disallow puppeting capitals in general. That, combined with a greater City Strength and maybe HP boost from Palace should make this tactic at the very least less attractive.
Interesting idea. If the unhappiness hit really cripples you that much till you have atleast a second city or some luxuries online, that mechanic could work to deny in most times an archer rush.
I think @Gazebo should read this suggestion and simply add it to the next version and we can test the result. If its not working, undoing this change and simply adding some defence to the palance shouldnt be that difficult to do for him.
So what I found was that if I took a 2nd smaller city, and puppeted that, the happiness overwrote the unhappiness and got me into a decent standing (not at 50%, but no longer barbs out the gate). So the answer was...more conquest
Separate names with a comma.