Axes Still Rule

[MangleMeElmo]

Culture is not a joke victory. Imagine if one country had a culture vastly superior than any other nation. They could probably control the world market with it.

 

[afa2000]

He is not wrong at all. When some player or AI becomes too strong, other AIs should look at him as a threat, so they should form alliances in order to protect each other. I mean true alliances, like apostolic palace lets brothers in faith do ( voting resolutions for war or peace ). So, if he starts to axe rush, other AIs could, together, try to stop him, so he wouldnt become so powerfull. Take a look at real life. Can you imagine some civ conquering every civ at map and other civs just watching it ? Thats how game works.

 

[DisruptiveIdiot]

He is not wrong at all. When some player or AI becomes too strong, other AIs should look at him as a threat, so they should form alliances in order to protect each other. I mean true alliances, like apostolic palace lets brothers in faith do ( voting resolutions for war or peace ). So, if he starts to axe rush, other AIs could, together, try to stop him, so he wouldnt become so powerfull. Take a look at real life. Can you imagine some civ conquering every civ at map and other civs just watching it ? Thats how game works.

That's actually how it worked in most cases. The persians under Cyrus and Darius, the mongols under the khans, the romans under the republic, etc. It's only approximately since the napoleonic wars that alliances have become prominent in warfare.

 

[bastillebaston]

You claim that the only way to play (in your opinion) the game is boring.... other people point out the variety of playing the game in other ways.... you say that those ways are boring. Don't you see where people are coming from? There are many ways to play this game and people enjoy playing it in many different ways.

My point has absolutely got nothing to do with how people enjoy playing the game – for all I know, you could enjoy building Chichen Itza. My point is that one can easily win the game using nearly always the same strategy, which makes the game's strategy one-dimensional.

Your personal take on it is very narrow, yet you espouse it as if it is undeniably factual. You dont even recognise the continual bombardment of valid objections.

There's been no valid objection so far refuting the fact that the axe rush is an unreasonably effective strategy. There may be other strategies, sure, but none of the are as effective as the axe rush. Find an objection to that and drop the rhetoric.

Let's draw analogies, shall we? If I said.... I hate strawberry icecream, you'd say "try a different flavour"... If you think my above analogy is stupid and pointless then I may well have got through to you!

Your analogy is indeed pointless, and has got absolutely nothing to do with the problem I am raising.

The point you are making is convoluted and self-redundant.

"Convoluted" and "self-redundant". Nice words. But where is your argument?

 

[afa2000]

In defence of the original poster (who is being personally attacked by some posters), it is a little disappointing that there is a single, fool-proof way of wining the game that nearly always works--when CIV is supposed to have a "multiple ways of winning" idea. This multiple ways of winning really only translates to how a player wants to play, and does not really translate into a "If Plan A fails, adjust to Plan B" kind of gameplay. No matter what the conditions, Axe-rush is the way to go whether you have to load them onto triremes or not. And it's disappointing if Beyond the Sword has not really altered this.

Another question is: "In an MP game, could someone aiming for a cultural victory deal with and beat a player who is focussing on an axe-rush strategy" I think not, as these passive types of victory (diplomatic, cultural, time, spaceship) do not disrupt other players' plans, but someone with a warmonger strategy trumps other people's plans and forces them to change their game. It just seems to me that there is a built-in superiority to going for the warmonger strategy--and it's hard not to resist playing the game to win each time.



I remember in the original game, even on Emperor, the way to win was to build tons of chariots, focus on forests for production and to keep your cities small (no revolts). this Early unit was better than a fortified phalanx which was the default defensive unit for centuries. Send them all over the place...hopefully before city walls get built, but if then, build diplomats.

You are right. Everybody said: "try a MP game". Actually its even worse at MP. Every MP game I tried I see lots of "montezumas". Everyone axe rushs everyone. If you go for cultural or space race, you are dead. Wars should be a very risky strategy, like it is in real life. But its much better at BTS, once war weariness now kills warmonger's production in a few turns.

 

[afa2000]

That's actually how it worked in most cases. The persians under Cyrus and Darius, the mongols under the khans, the romans under the republic, etc. It's only approximately since the napoleonic wars that alliances have become prominent in warfare.

True. But I believe it happened because lack of communication among nations. At game you can contact every civ anytime. I guess early alliances would bring more fun to game.

 

[bastillebaston]

You can't wage war without workers, scientists and diplomacy... warfare is just one aspect of Civ4. Your 'most effective' label is baseless.

You are missing the point. Of course you need other stuff (workers, techs, etc.) beyond axes. So what? The axe rush is still an almost foolproof way to victory.

You can with without going to war...

Irrelevant to the point I am making. If you can axe rush, you'll almost certainly win.

Conquest victory is easier if you invest in culture, science and diplomacy. Also, why is cultural 'a joke of a victory'?

Cultural victory is a joke because it's a dull accumulation of culture points. There is no challenge in doing that. At least the axe rush requires some decent planning. Culture victory requires next to none.

Not really... conquest creates major maintainance problems.

Number one: axe rush. Number two: courthouses. Game won.

Not on a map with lots of space... Conquest just creates a burden on your economy.

Axe rush doesn't mean "keep every conquered city". Raze what you can't keep while you beeline currency and code of laws. After market and corthouses, you'll no longer need to raze.

There have been several.

Not at all. So far I've only seen irrelevance and sarcasm. Still waiting to hear a relevant objection.

That's probably why some people abandonned the 'standard game' a long time ago.

We agree then. The standard game is broken: better abandon it and play a variant or a mod.

 

[polypheus]

I don't doubt that the Axe Rush is effective. However, I believe it is really only effective when using certain maps under certain optimum situations. If it is only effective when using certain maps under certain optimum conditions, then hardly can one say the "Axes rule".

 

[bastillebaston]

bastillebaston Listen to people's argument and think about them before dismissing them as simply "irrelevant". I would repeat the arguments here again, but there's no point as they've already been posted a dozen time and you've ignored it every time.

Your objection was: "If you are bored of axe-rushing then play with settings that don't favour it." This is irrelevant, not really worth replying to. But, since you insist, here's the reply: That the axe rush is boring is NOT the point. How the player chooses/likes to play is NOT the point. The point is that the axe rush (or cat rush, or grenadier rush or what have you) is overpowered.

VinceV has summarised the point quite well. He said:

it is a little disappointing that there is a single, fool-proof way of wining the game that nearly always works--when CIV is supposed to have a "multiple ways of winning" idea. This multiple ways of winning really only translates to how a player wants to play, and does not really translate into a "If Plan A fails, adjust to Plan B" kind

That is the problem. Object to that, and you'll have produced a relevant objection.

 

[manu-fan]

You just don't get it, do you.

Axe rushes obviously work well in situations that favor them - close copper and close neighbors for example.

All people are doing is agreeing that this is the case, but asking you to broaden your horizens by playing more random games where this isn't always the case.

Cheers.

 

[thecommonnate]

Okay bastillebaston.

If you really are getting bored of this game, don't you have better things to do then fight over the internet?

 

[hgthechinese]

The miracle axe rush means you regenerate the map over and over again until you have a perfect starting location, then press crtl+w for world builder and see if there is copper nearby/within city radius/very close. If iron is nearby forget it, its too much hassle and you're too "good" a player to bother.

Make sure you have the best starting location with a close copper source and be able to build 2-3 great cities also close by.

Make sure that the map is pangea or something very similar so you can destroy everyone with your great start location/resources.
Whatever you do DONT even think about wonders, diplomacy, culture, espionage, technology, trade, religion - remember you just wanna win quick using any means possible so you can brag.

Remember don't play any map with continents, if you axe rush in these games and you expand too much, then maintenance will force you you drop science slider bigtime and since no one is left in the island you won't be able to techtrade so in both ways the other continent will be far ahead of you and win the game: YOU MUST PLAY A MAP THAT PERFECTLY MATCHES YOUR CHOSEN STYLE OF PLAY ON YOUR CHOSEN PERFECT START LOCATION, it doesnt matter if 1 big continent is realistic or not...

Once you do that, then goto your cities, alt+click on axemen so that the city continuously builds axes [remember city management is boring, we are axe rushers] and just keep spamming the globe with your axes and crush all.

Most importantly, once you do all these come to civfanatics:BTS section and make a new thread about how boring the new expansion is and how nothing matters except for axe rush.

Give the poor guy a break, he is right. the game is boring when I play it...cuz this is what I do (as he may nod his head at the familarity of this):
1. start game
2. enter world building to get your SoD of axe, perferrably one stack per city.
3. axe rush!
4 game over...high score....now we got the right to bucher the game!

 

[Truronian]

You are missing the point. Of course you need other stuff (workers, techs, etc.) beyond axes. So what? The axe rush is still an almost foolproof way to victory.

No... As has been said many times, its an almost foolproof way to victory on the settings you use. On Settler you could probably win with a warrior rush...

Irrelevant to the point I am making. If you can axe rush, you'll almost certainly win.

Meh. If you can plant a few good cities you can almost definitely win at spacerace.

Cultural victory is a joke because it's a dull accumulation of culture points. There is no challenge in doing that. At least the axe rush requires some decent planning. Culture victory requires next to none.

Axe rushing is the antipode of planning, but this is all personal taste.

Number one: axe rush. Number two: courthouses. Game won.


Axe rush doesn't mean "keep every conquered city". Raze what you can't keep while you beeline currency and code of laws. After market and corthouses, you'll no longer need to raze.

Well then, crank up the difficulty.

Not at all. So far I've only seen irrelevance and sarcasm. Still waiting to hear a relevant objection.

Perhaps the lack of in-your-eyes-relevant objection is due to the lack of a cohesive argument in the first place?

We agree then. The standard game is broken: better abandon it and play a variant or a mod.

No, we don't (or at least not by your definition of standard). The game isn't broken, it's just you don't seem to enjoy it without a mod. Meh.

 

[bastillebaston]

Suspect claims axe rush the best strategy, concludes "best" means only strategy.

Who ever said that the axe rush is the only strategy? Of course there are many strategies, some good, some bad - the axe rush being the best one.

Who ever said that "best" means "only"? In fact, "Best" is a comparative term: calling the axe rush the "best" implies that there other strategies which are not as good as it.

If you want a definition of what "best" means here, here's one:

Best strategy = the strategy that achieves the optimal balance of speed and success likelihood.​

Some strategies are very likely to succeed, but slow. Others could lead to a quicker success, but are unreliable. Especially in the early game, speed and success likelihood tend to be competing factors: they generally work against one another. So you want an optimal trade-off. The axe rush gives you precisely that: it is the fastest strategy that is most likely to succeed. In fact, whenever you can pull it off, you will nearly always succeed. No other strategy is comparable to that in terms of effectiveness. Therefore, the axe rush is the best strategy. This reveals a flaw in the game mechanics. In a truly varied and complex game, there should be no uniquely best strategy, but several equally good routes to victory.

 

[bastillebaston]

You just don't get it, do you. Axe rushes obviously work well in situations that favor them - close copper and close neighbors for example.

Sorry, but it's you who still doesn't get the point. No copper nearby? No close neighbor? Then go for the cat rush. Or the elephant rush. Or the grenadier rush, or whatever. (And, by the way, no copper is a rare occurrence, not a standard one.). Nearly all situations favor the stack attack rush.

All people are doing is agreeing that this is the case, but asking you to broaden your horizens by playing more random games where this isn't always the case. Cheers.

Most random SP game I've played - and I've played lots of different settings - were decided by a stack attack rush of some sort (usually, axes).

 

[homan1983]

Ok mate here's my final attempt to try convince you:

The reality is that victory conditions, and even the path to progress (not outright victory) are based on the conditions of your civ, your location, your resources and your desire/plan.

As such, if you start in an island then its probably best to go cottage economy and try to get caravels asap.
Perhaps deciding to go for a cultural victory (if you can get that golden 9 cities) or maybe try to get a spaceship victory.
Maybe you want to become an economic powerhouse using corporations so that even if you have only 8 cities you still get 500+gold per turn even running 100% science.

Then again mabe you are on a big continent, and have copper. And there are nearby opponents without much space for early expansion - then you *try* to use war to expand employing your beloved axerush.

Perhaps you just get horses - then you can either:

- use horsemen to pillage the hell out of the enemies ghengis style and eventually move in for the kill with flanking promoted horse archers [which get a free military speclist +2xp from stable] instead of heavily city-raider upgraded axes or collateral.

- use horsemen to pester and keep the enemy weak whilst you get catapults.


Maybe you founded a religion, in this case your aim may be to spread it as much a possible, create a religion bloc and get the apostalic palace - from here you can aim to vin directly from a diplomatic victory or indirectly use the apostalic palace to alter the world to your liking.

Perhaps if you're philosophical you want a SE eco, maybe if you're not you prefer a CE, or maybe use the new workshop economy even perhaps go for a corporation economy - the possibilities are endless.

-------------------------

The problem is that you artificially create the conditions of an axe rush EVERY TIME by regenerating till you get copper, ensuring you have that "just perfect" starting location and that the map is just right, so that with an axe rush you can kill the whole world.

Perhaps you play continent and once you have 1 continent you think you won the game whereas in reality, the fact that you can only run like 0-10% science means that had you played it till the end, the opponents on the other side with 90% science AND tech trading would absolutely crush you by getting a MUCH faster spaceship.

I have been in a few games where I thought I had easily won but sometimes lost or just barely won due to a spaceship launch.

If you can't see the error in your ways and are so arrogant that you won't listen to anyone [practically everyone actually] then why do you bothr posting here? This is a discussion forum after all.

I do admire the fact that you still stand up for yourself, in the face of every poster telling you you're wrong. Although unless you're telling us that the world is round and we're insisting its flat then I suggest the fact that you are outnumbered significantly in your view should at least be somewhat of an indication.

 

[jpboia]

Hmmm... ok... maybe Axe rush rules in pangaea, and there are many other exploitative strategies that also rule in other map types... In fact, there are potentially infinite exploitative strategies because we all are human beings and we have the intelligence to create them. Actually, this is an exercise of intelligence (how can I break this game?).

It's a matter of specialization and training, practice practice practice

But... those easy strategies are usually so repetitive and boring... I really don't like those strategies at all, it's a matter of taste and you are free to use the strategy you like most. Even that particular strategy

I can imagine your games today:

1st: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
2nd: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
3rd: Damn, no copper, quit and start a new game
4th: (now with copper) Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
5th: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
6th: Damn, archipelago, quit and start a game in pangaea
7th: (now in pangaea) Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
8th: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
9th: Axe rush... yuhuuuuu I won!!!
... boring

 

[bastillebaston]

No... As has been said many times, its an almost foolproof way to victory on the settings you use. On Settler you could probably win with a warrior rush...

Most game settings favor the Axe rush, and ALL game settings favor some sort of SoD rush. Regardless of chosen settings, difficulty level, choice of leader, etc., the SoD rush is the most effective route to victory.

If you can plant a few good cities you can almost definitely win at spacerace.

What is the point of that remark? By the way, enemy capitals are usually good cities, because they are usually well placed. Conquer them with axes, and you win a ticket for the space race.

Axe rushing is the antipode of planning, but this is all personal taste.

Axe rush does require *some* sort of planning (but not much, I agree). Cultural victory requires even less.

Well then, crank up the difficulty.

Number one: the SoD rush is the most effective strategy at all difficulty levels (even more so at the higher levels).

Number two: the point is not that the axe rush is too easy (though it is), but that it's overpowered. And giving the AI a bunch of freebies does not make up for the flaw.

Perhaps the lack of in-your-eyes-relevant objection is due to the lack of a cohesive argument in the first place?

My argument is coherent and crystal clear. Reread what I said more carefully.

No, we don't (or at least not by your definition of standard). The game isn't broken, it's just you don't seem to enjoy it without a mod. Meh.

The standard game is broken because it has a unique dominant strategy: the SoD rush.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Axe rush does require *some* sort of planning (but not much, I agree). Cultural victory requires even less.

 

[futurehermit]

@ the OP: Why don't you check out Obsolete's game threads in the strategy section. He doesn't build 1 axe and only builds 1 city in addition to his capital prior to the renaissance era. Yet he is able to win space victories on emperor.

Kind of refutes your theory...