Axes Still Rule

Haha this is comedy.... now it has evolved to <insert any troop> rush.

So now we have rather a different setting than originally described.

Also, everyone can see that the initial fool-proof tactic is in fact loaded with things that need to occur, i.e. copper, immediate neighbours etc and that if any of these are incorrect, the OP would have to simply reload for favourable settings.

OP continues to resist all the arguments and continues to state illogical assumptions. Rather than replying to questions or objections, he just asks "what do you mean by this?" even when the language is straight forward and clear.

This is, it has to be said, a troll-fest! :D

Must be so boring axe-rushing that you need to come and push the stick into the ants nest a few times.

Sorry your game is boring. Mine isn't. Bye.
 
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.

I play on Huge maps on Emperor level. It is actually rather common that copper is not nearby. This is why I always have to build archers because it would otherwise have to depend on LUCK and hope that copper is nearby and I can build the city, worker, then mine, road infrastructure to build axeman.

With a huge map with enormous distances and 11+ civs all with 6+ cities of their own, there's no way you're going to conquer the world with any kind of rush. The AI has huge stacks of their own you need to counter, there's cultural defense that need to be bombarded, there sooo many cities and powerful civs to overcome. All that time you are spending spamming axes you will quickly find your army slowly worn down and other Civs start to join the fight against you. On Huge maps on Emperor level, the amount of units the AIs have is enormous. By the time you have conquered maybe 1-2 civs, other Civs already start to have longbows while you languish in the ancient era due to building only axes and not focusing on infrastructure to increase science and tech!

On smaller maps where distances and number of civs and number of cities per civ is low, then yes Axe rush probably works well. But this is but a one setting not the only setting to play in.
 
I play on Huge maps on Emperor level. It is actually rather common that copper is not nearby. This is why I always have to build archers because it would otherwise have to depend on LUCK and hope that copper is nearby and I can build the city, worker, then mine, road infrastructure to build axeman.

With a huge map with enormous distances and 11+ civs all with 6+ cities of their own, there's no way you're going to conquer the world with any kind of rush. The AI has huge stacks of their own you need to counter, there's cultural defense that need to be bombarded, there sooo many cities and powerful civs to overcome. All that time you are spending spamming axes you will quickly find your army slowly worn down and other Civs start to join the fight against you. On Huge maps on Emperor level, the amount of units the AIs have is enormous.

On smaller maps where distances and number of civs and number of cities per civ is low, then yes Axe rush probably works well. But this is but a one setting not the only setting to play in.

Same here. 18 AI's on Huge maps (would put more if I could), try axe rushing for a domination win then.

OP, you are discussing with us that Civ IV is essentially boring? Why not just quit? Easy as that.
 
I think I am starting to understand what the OP is talking about. I, too, have a similar beef with this game, but not because of the axe rush, but because of how the AI plays that makes the axe rush possible (more on that below). I think I played less than 10 warlords SP games, and around 15 vanilla, before getting bored (played on monarch, then emperor). Then switched to MP, and quite quickly realized that the best possible strategy is to kill a newb. In non-ladder MP there is always some idiot who goes for all 3 ancient religions or doesn't get bronze/archery/chariots and goes for god knows what. You take his stuff with minimal expenses, and voila, you're twice as powerful as anyone else. The optimum path from there is to build wonders in all those excess cities you have 'cause you don't need to spend production on settlers/workers (you already got cities/workers from the newb or newbs you killed). Pyramids help. SE. Pure ownage.

But back to the argument. Yes, I agree the axe rush (or w/e, any rush) is powerful. Ideally the situation is supposed to be such - either you use your resources on a war and risk losing it completely or winning but falling too far back in tech - a smart third palyer would strike at you after getting one tier of military tech's edge, which is doable if they invested in economy while you fought; OR, you invest in economy and try to do it better than others. Well, that seems balanced. BUT, the problem is, in both SP and MP there is a flaw that makes war that much easier - idiotic opponents. You easily acquire territory which means more resources, possibly wonders, workers, and such, BUT, you don't have to put nearly as much effort into the war as you should. So, there's no risk.

Hmm, getting carried away here.
Back to the point.
Yes, the "kill a newb" approach (which is the way I lovingly refer to the "axe rush") is the most powerful. But only against AI. In a game with intelligent ppl, especially Pitboss games, where they have time to pay attention to everything that's going on in the game and don't have to rush to move all their units in 20 seconds, and where communication is possible (no one cares to discuss alliances in fast-paced MP, at least in my experience), you will either meet resistance from the player you're rushing, or from someone else who realizes that you're vulnerable.

So I guess we are stuck playing organized MP. I for one am gonna wait till BtS gets to enough ppl, and is patched a couple times, and then will probably only play Pitboss, or maybe ladder or smth - I think it's balanced enough for those modes. But no more SP.


I can't remember everything that I wanted to say (in fact, the most important point I forgot; reread the whole thread and hope it comes back? naaah)... isn't that annoying?
 
My sentiments exactly. If you insist that Axe rush is the only tactic then I suggest the same thing that polypheus and Underdawg suggest. That should get you out of this mindset.
 
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.

No matter what the starting location is or what your civ is, the stack attack rush (with axes or cats or whatever) is the most effective strategy. Sure, you may want to challenge yourself and self-impose all sort of restrictions (like: "I'm never going to declare war"). But this doesn't remove the glaring flaw in the game design.

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.

All the strategies you have mentioned become much more effective if coupled with a SoD rush. All things being equal, SoD rush is the way to go.

Perhaps you just get horses.

Due to the occasional presence of spearmen, horses make for a lousy city raider SoD. Say you have horses, but not bronze: then use them to pillage and beeline construction for the cat rush and/or the elephant rush.

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.

Sure, one may try the religion path. BUT: especially at higher level the drawbacks of founding/adopting/spreading a religion largely outweigh the benefits. At monarch and above, using your resources to produce SoDs is vastly more effective than focusing on religion.

I've not tried the apostolic palace stuff, so I can't really comment on that. But it seems to me that this is nothing other than yet another dull micromanagement of missionaries.

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.

SE favours the SoD rush even more than CE. If you are philosophical and play SE, then you'll have more gold to spend on upgrades and upkeep. (By the way, only a micromanagement masochist could possibly enjoy playing a pure SE.) No comment on the "new workshop economy", never heard of it. Is that a joke?

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.

No. The warmonger rarely needs to regenerate the map. Nearly every type of starting location is just perfect for the SoD rush. Lack of bronze just makes things a little too frustrating for my taste. Why? Because you have to wait a little longer for the cat rush, which is pretty much the same strategy as the axe rush, but only comes later.

Perhaps you play continent and once you have 1 continent you think you won the game whereas in reality,

If you play continents at monarch or below, and you conquer a whole continent early enough, you can't possibly loose, unless you do something foolish.

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.

You should have rushed the other space racer earlier.

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.

Well, THEY are wrong, not me. (And not "every poster" thinks I am wrong: some say they agree with me.)

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.

If am "outnumbered" as you say, that's probably because some posters in this forum are hard core fans who can't swallow criticisms to their favorite game.
 
Haha this is comedy.... now it has evolved to <insert any troop> rush.

Not "any troop". Axes, cats and grenadiers, mostly. Elephants will do also.

So now we have rather a different setting than originally described.

Axe rush or cat rush, the substance of my point does not change.

Also, everyone can see that the initial fool-proof tactic is in fact loaded with things that need to occur, i.e. copper, immediate neighbours etc and that if any of these are incorrect, the OP would have to simply reload for favourable settings.

Whether I reload or not, and under what circumstances, is not the point. The Axe rush in particular, and the SoD rush more generally, have in fact very little prerequisites, and are overpowered.

OP continues to resist all the arguments

You have so far provided no argument to refute the point above.

and continues to state illogical assumptions.

My statement, "the axe rush is overpowered", is coherent.
Objection: "but sometimes you don't have bronze/close targets."
Reply: "Then use the cat/grenadier/whatever rush, which is also overpowered."

Rather than replying to questions or objections, he just asks "what do you mean by this?" even when the language is straight forward and clear.

I am not at all sure that your replies are "clear and straightforward". On the contrary, you seems to be rather confused on the topic of this thread.

Sorry your game is boring. Mine isn't. Bye.

Well, goodbye then. Your fine argumentative skills will be sorely missed.
 
@ 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...

Your example is irrelevant. It merely shows that it is possible to win without axes. It doesn't show that the axe rush isn't overpowered.
 
Bastille - I think you will find that later war is significantly harder with BTS. Catapults are nerfed and the AI is much better at war. Axe rushes remain effective on lower levels as they get hit before they have built much defense.

So you can gain a few cities early with an axe rush - so what? You could probably settle the same number of cities normally. Its not exactly game breaking - useful perhaps.

Of course if you play on a low enough level that you can plough through several opponents with an axe rush then it will be game breaking - but there are dozens of game breaking ways to exploit low level AIs.

If you play on a hard enough level that by the time you have digested an initial opponent with an axe rush (or whatever) and gained Code of laws and currency you face longbows, then I think you are going to have to use more strategy than just a rush. In fact you will often face situations where a rush is suicide due to the diplomatic allies that can be brought against you or the military lead the AI have.

Culture and Diplo are not boring wins on the higher levels. On Emperor plus they take a lot of skill and strategy to survive and pull off. My latest Emperor game with Isabella saw me defending with riflemen and cavalry against tanks and mech infantry for a culture win. It was nerve racking and very exciting to pull off. Another Emperor win saw me rise from an isolated start and no tech trading to pull off a diplomatic win in the 1600s with the AIs close to launching their spaceship. Much much more exciting than a simple axe rush.

I am not saying that war isn't useful - it is. But it is not the dominant strategy you claim. In fact I would rate diplomacy and diplomatic skills as even more valuable.

Anyway, even if it is effective, so what? You will enjoy the game a lot more by roleplaying the game. Try playing as Ghandi and playing peacefully, never declaring war. And do this on a lakes map with 6 aggressive opponents. Thats a fun game!
 
Dude, there's this one guy's sig, I forgot who, who has insane variants in his sig. May I point out NO MILITARY WIN??? To find the guy, just go to the CIV Vanilla forums and go to the last page, he's posted a bit there.
 
guys, the point is not that axe rush is the only strat; it's not
sure, there are other ways to enjoy (or win) the game, some of them work even on higher levels

but in most cases, killing a weak opponent early (AI is the definition of a weak opponent, more so early than later in the game) gives you the edge that no other strat can

sure you can talk about islands maps...
competitive games are usually played on one landmass type maps
pangaea, fractal, w/e
even if it's continents, it's basically two pangaeas
you gain an edge on one continent, it doesn't matter what the other continent is doing

as the OP said many times, no copper? ok, wait for cats... same difference, as they say

you will know this is you ever played MP
ever got raped by grenadiers when you had longbows or muskets?
saw the replay?
saw that guy kill his closest neighbor in like 30 turns?
had that scenario repeated many times with virtually no difference?
been on the giving end of that?

if you get anything out of what I wrote (which I hope makes sense), get this
the point is NOT that the axe rush is the only strat
it's that in many many cases, probably more than the designers intended (go ask them), it's the best choice because it QUICKLY puts you in a position to do anything that you could've done originally much better, and you will compensate for what you spent on the war before you know it

(of course, this is only true with stupid AI... I hope I am right in this statement)
 
bastille you really are an idiot I understand now.
I notice you have 20 posts, is this some new nick you made to troll this board?

You break down every post and make 1 liner remarks to each point saying: "but that coulda been better done with a SOD attack".

And you saying that getting a continent means auto-win is just SO wrong, but you'd never know since you don't actually play. Try running at -20:gold: with 100% taxes and then come back.

I made my best attempt but its hard to penetrate your skull so I guess I'd just like to say:
stop-posting.gif
 
I play on Huge maps on Emperor level. It is actually rather common that copper is not nearby.

Answer: if you survive without copper, go for the cat rush. No strategy beats that. SoDs rule.

By the time you have conquered maybe 1-2 civs, other Civs already start to have longbows while you languish in the ancient era due to building only axes and not focusing on infrastructure to increase science and tech!

Who ever said that one should build axes only? The axe rush does not amount to: "build nothing but axes, then fall behind in tech."

On smaller maps where distances and number of civs and number of cities per civ is low, then yes Axe rush probably works well. But this is but a one setting not the only setting to play in.

The axe rush doesn't just work on small maps. The axe rush is the dominant strategy whenever you have bronze/iron and a close enough neighbor. The SoD rush is the dominant strategy on all settings.
 
Your example is irrelevant. It merely shows that it is possible to win without axes. It doesn't show that the axe rush isn't overpowered.

It's not irrelevant at all. You stated numerous occasions that if you don't have copper you should quit the game. I provided counter-example games where without an axerush you can win a satisfying, and enjoyable game. How is that not relevant?

Of course some people just refuse to be convinced and in that case we should probably just stop talking to you. But here I go again... :lol:
 
perhaps the OP should restate his "thesis" again
it seems to have evolved a bit into smth more meaningful, but some posters keep coming back to the "I restart the game" part from the first post... forget that man
 
He's saying that massing units and attacking is the most powerful strategy.

In some cases I agree with that, but myself and others are pointing out that it isn't the best strategy in every situation on every setting; and that if the op only plays on settings (small maps, etc.) where axe rush is the most viable strategy then of course he is bored. But applying that to the whole of civ4 which has an incredible diversity of settings is unfair.

And so I try to bring his attention to completely opposite games by Obsolete who uses only 2 cities for 1/2 the game with no warfare until the renaissance age and wins quite enjoyably on emperor level.

...

And then he says that my post is irrelevant.

Go figure.
 
The axe rush doesn't just work on small maps. The axe rush is the dominant strategy whenever you have bronze/iron and a close enough neighbor. The SoD rush is the dominant strategy on all settings.

On Huge Maps, Emperor level, I haven't found that to be the case. You can certainly focus on killing a close neighbor but so what? That doesn't really help you a whole lot. Generally extra cities are a drag until you can build them up. In fact I generally avoid having more than, say 6-8 cities until I've build up enough economy to support more cities. I have had maps where I had empty small continents and could build FREE (i.e. without war) extra cities but don't do it cause it would just drag my economy down.

And there's still 10+ other powerful Civs standing by that are NOT close by and that are busy building up in wealth and tech while you focused mostly on conquest. Nor is it feasible to defeat and conquer 10+ other Civs with a practical size of your SoDs in a short amount of time just due to distance alone. (Remember you cannot use enemy roads and such so have to really plod along one space at at time so in huge maps the distances are really enormous!) The AIs have their own SoDs you know, large enough to wear down your SoDs especially if multiple ones are attacking you at the same time.

I highly doubt you can conquer the world in a large map with an axe rush on any huge map consistently in Emperor level.
 
It's not irrelevant at all. You stated numerous occasions that if you don't have copper you should quit the game.

I once said in a parenthetical claim that I would recommend quitting if you don't have copper, which is wholly inessential to this thread's topic. The thesis is not: "People should quit if they don't have copper". The thesis is: "the axe rush is overpowered". Why do I have to repeat that once again? Have you read my posts at all?

I provided counter-example games where without an axerush you can win a satisfying, and enjoyable game.

Who ever said that you can't possibly win without axes? You provided a counter-example to something I never claimed.
 
Back
Top Bottom