As in their turn 0 Settler? If that's the case, the AI should be protecting it better.
No its their first built settler (on Immortal AIs don't get an initial settler that I have seen)
As in their turn 0 Settler? If that's the case, the AI should be protecting it better.
No its their first built settler (on Immortal AIs don't get an initial settler that I have seen)
I tried a few rounds with the focus on the 4 archer rush. In general, this rush is very strong. I am pretty much guaranteed to take out one capital, and often I can snag their initial settler if I'm close enough, resulting in their removal. I was also wrong in my assessment on happiness, while you do get some strong spikes of unhappiness it corrects pretty quick (as long as your puppeting which you should be doing, annexing this early is problematic with courthouses so far away)
What's interesting is that I can often go much further. In my last run I took out a capital (killed the Ottoman), took out Polands second city, and then snag a CS all before walls were operational. That said, I'm not sure if going this deep is worth it in most cases (barring heavy warring bonuses from civs or religion). Once you go this deep, the world pretty much declares on you, and I find their our barbs everywhere because the AI sweepers never got to sweep. So you are pretty much warring for a long time, and its very hard to get any kind of infrastructure up.
So my general thoughts if that the multicity hit is balanced by the commitment you have to do, but the quick capital kill is pretty darn easy and ultimately very valuable. Killing your immediate neighbor gives you a big amount of land to choose from, you don't have to worry about that neighbors settling, and you now have 2 capitals worth of choice land. All for the price of 4 archers (and I generally build 1 archer anyway to hunt barbs, so its really 3 extra archers). I also generally find that my initial pathfinder is enough for the city taking, so I don't even need a warrior.
So I would say some kind of adjustment is needed.
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
Consider annexing an early conquest and locking its growth.4) You will have a puppet city for a long time, as opposed to an annexed city right away (both have benefits and drawbacks).
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.
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.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?
Say the city I capture has 4 pop after capture. That's 2 unhappiness if its a puppet, which will slowly increase over time.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.