Axes Still Rule

[Asuka]

The problem I would have with your strategy is that while it certainly can LEAD to an early victory, it very much RELIES on an early victory. Playing on a harder difficulty level, or better yet, against human opponents, will totally derail your rush. Suppose you fail to win early on through rushing -

If you've been keeping the cities you take, now you have so many your economy is strangled, therefore your research is strangled, and you have a huge handicap going into the later game. If not, your economy might be ok, but in its place the voids on the map are likely being filled in by the opponents you're not currently beating on, making THEM bigger. In addition, your front lines are getting further and further from your civ, slowing down your war effort.

On top of that, your people are potentially pissed at you constantly being at war, and your cities are woefully underdeveloped through constant production of military units (which are also strangling your economy). You are more or less impotent against the more balanced empires who have held out against your early aggression.

Now, any competent human player will adapt to a rush play style very quickly, rendering it ineffectual. Taking care of the 'boring' aspects of the game will ensure that your early aggression is nothing but preparation for a late-game beatdown. The problem might be that the AI doesn't adapt sufficiently, in which case it's not that the axe-rush is overpowered, but that the AI has an axe-rush related flaw. I'm not entirely sure what your purpose in posting this was; I think that you are disappointed that BtS brought nothing new to axe-rushing, since by your own admission everything else is 'boring'.

As a strategy, axe-rushing undoubtedly works, but to say it is the 'best' or 'only' strategy is like saying 'Scissors is best! Rock and paper are boring.' If I knew someone was going to axe rush me in a game of civ, they would probably end up being the first to bow out of the game. It's just too narrow to beat a well rounded approach.

 

[homan1983]

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 just recently restated:

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

Doesn't sound like he's changed his thesis, he still admits regenerating for a perfect start not because he can't do it but because its too "frustrating"

 

[Underdawg]

He just recently restated:


Doesn't sound like he's changed his thesis, he still admits regenerating for a perfect start not because he can't do it but because its too "frustrating"

He also stated he won't play above Monarch because it's too tedious and requires more micromanaging to win... couldn't the same argument be used between settler and chieftain? Or in the last WOTM (where you started on an Island), isn't it the same thing as saying, no I wouldn't want to start on an Island because it would just slow down the axe rush, aka a situation not favourable to the axe rush?

I know that if I played on Noble/Prince, I would certainly be bored.

I have no arguement that the axe rush is the best way to get leverage in the early game (Monarch and up), but in Huge maps, it rarely guarantees a win, as the other civs in the other parts of the world are expanding themselves and are quite far away (and as Polypehsus said, they have their own SODs, so you have to find other ways to win after you start your own Empire, diplomacy and alliances to slow down the opposition. But he clearly stated all other venues of victory (diplomacy, cultural, time) are boring, and can't one infer that since he finds any way of victory boring, Civ 4 is boring. So I ask, "why not just quit?".

I don't think anyone is really arguing that the axe rush is not effective.

 

[homan1983]

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?

Perhaps once you get past puberty you'll realize that this IS your problem.

Your statement is "the axe rush is overpowered", simply repeating it 10 times does NOT make it true. This statement needs proof to back it up, restating the statement by the way is NOT proof!

Maybe if you made some valid arguments, or lets start small with you, just make 1 valid argument - to back up your claus then we could finally get somewhere instead of going round and round.

Did you really think you could come here and make a 1 liner saying "the axe rush is overpowered" and we'd be like: "yep he's got us there!"?

In fact the opposite has happened, as more and more people have showed you how wrong you could possible be, your statement has morphed into "SOD rushing is OP" or "Gren rushing is OP" or some different instance of the above.

 

[Amask]

He's saying that massing units and attacking is the most powerful strategy.

if that's your actual point, you have to state the settings
on non-island maps on levels up to monarch, maybe on emperor if you execute it flawlessly, attacking an opponent as soon as possible does seem to be the most powerful thing to do
so if that's your point, I agree, and I am sure many others will too if you state it like I did (or with even more detail, for the really picky)

but on other settings - be it playing against competent humans opponents, or on islands, or starting in really crappy land - there are other strategies that are clearly more powerful than others

unfortunately, I can't think of any that stand out, but that's not because they don't exist
it's because I haven't explored these settings much (don't really have that much time to play these days)
I am sure a real civ expert could tell you what works much better than anything else on emperor in each possible scenario, and what works much better than anything else on deity in each possible scenario, and so on... (I really like your definition of best strategy - best balance between reliability and speed, so my "much better than anything else" can be read as that)

there's always smth
BUT, and here's my main point, as long as there are still decisions to be made after you employ that strat, it doesn't matter
ok, on Noble you can do your axe rush
but set a different objective for yourself
not win ('cause you can obvioulsy do that with the axe rush), but win as fast as possible
so you axe rush, yes, no thinking there; but what you do afterwards is still debatable...

there's always a mechanical element in all games that you don't have to think much about
in civ, on noble-monarch, on non-island maps, with standard number of opponents, it's the axe rush
in, say, AOM, it's advancing to classical age no later than 7 minutes and no sooner than 4... but no one complains about ABSOLUTELY HAVING to advance before 7 or after 4 min. Yes, it's necessary, and it works much better than not advancing before 7 and after 4, but the point is, there's still much more after you do that... there are still many ways to play the rest of your game

same with civ... axe rush; then build on your advantage in the best possible way; I bet there are ppl who can play the same 4000BC save as you and win 50 turns earlier. Your objective shouldn't be to beat the AI on noble-monarch, 'cause that's easy (for you), but to do it well. Perfect the execution.

If that doesn't interest you, play on emperor and explore some other overpowered strategy. Then deity. Then MP. Then a different game.

Well, that sums up my sentiments.



[aside] pssst, futurehermit, are you the same person that used to post on AOM heaven forums?

 

[MangleMeElmo]

@homan1983: I think I've started a fad.

 

[gettingfat]

Sorry to be blunt, but this is just a stupid thread pretending to be intelligent. The OP essentially made a general statement about how a specific strategy is overpowering at a specific game condition because he is hooked to this specific game condition.

Geez, give me river-side horses sitting right next to my capital on a plain hill (and if I don't get it, regenerate because it's too "frustrating"), I can win every small or standard size pangnea map game if I play Egyptian or Persian. Yeah, chariot rush is overpowering.

 

[Tinman92791]

I've seen a bunch of relevant objections to your strategy. One being: Play on a map with lots of water. If you play continents, you can't get to your opponents fast enough (tech reasons) and then axe rush them. And CIV isn't just about winning quickly, its about enjoying your time, finding new ways to win, and BUILDING AN EMPIRE! Only war doesn't make an empire. Even playing for a time victory can be fun, using a variety of units.

 

[pengoyo]

I have noticed that later on in the game once you have the highest score than anyone else, the ai kind of gives up. Which basically means they aren't willing to declare war on you anymore. It may be true that the ai realizes that a war with you is futile, however there are ways around this. The ai should actively try to make alliances and do whatever it takes to take you down somehow (like a human would do). Unless of course you have managed to somehow make every ai player pleased or friendly toward you.
It is possible I just havent noticed the computer do this or because I dont play on a very high difficulty, but this is the reason why the axe-rush is so effective. You jump off to an early lead and never look back. This is one reason why BTS sounds interesting because it is about what happens after the axe.

In one game I had the second highest scores and Isabel who had one of the losest scores declared war on me even though I had a defense pact with the highest and third highest just because i wouldn't convert.

My army was even bigger then hers.

 

[Lord_Azazel]

In one game I had the second highest scores and Isabel who had one of the losest scores declared war on me even though I had a defense pact with the highest and third highest just because i wouldn't convert.

My army was even bigger then hers.

Was it buddhism?

 

[bastillebaston]

On Huge Maps, Emperor level, I haven't found that to be the case.

Although I don't like Emperor because it requires more micromanaging than what I consider tolerable, I have played a couple of Emperor games on huge maps (and standard maps with fewer opponents, which is basically a scaled down version of huge). In those cases, I've still found the axe rush to be overpowered, and the SoD rush to be the dominant strategy.

Map size is not the crucial factor. Number of opponents and game speed are. The slower the speed the more powerful the rush. Granted: if there are more than 6-7 opponents and you are playing monarch or above, one early rush may not be enough to put you in the lead. In such a case, keep rushing with cats/trebs/grenaderies/what have you until you are in a comfortable enough position to win your chosen type of victory. Nothing beats that strategy.

You can certainly focus on killing a close neighbor but so what? That doesn't really help you a whole lot.

You are generally better off rushing your neighbors at some state than refraining from doing so.

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.

Sure, one always has to balance the expansion and the upkeep. So what? The axe rush is not: "conquer anything you can with axes until your economy crashes". Besides, axes can raze, you know.

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.

Sure, but axe-rushing your neighbors always places you in a better position to compete with the distant civs. If you don't rush the neighborhood, you'll be far worse off in comparison to the distant civs.

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!)

Whoever said that you must defeat all the opponents? The axe rush is not the same as going for conquest victory. Rushing 1 to 4 AIs (depending on difficulty level, and no. of opponents) will be usually enough, as it generally puts you in the lead, or close enough to the lead.

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

AI's SoDs are best counteracted by other SoDs, which only reinforces my point. Besides, any AI that has been rushed in the early days will be unable to build decent SoDs.

I highly doubt you can conquer the world in a large map with an axe rush on any huge map consistently in Emperor level.

Again you are confusing axe-rushing with going for conquest victory. The axe rush puts in the strongest possible position to win any sort of victory, not just conquest (with cultural possibly being an exception).

 

[Truronian]

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.

So what you're basically saying is warfare is a surefire way to win?

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.

My point is there are many things you can do in the early game that will give you a fairly easy victory. Conquering India is just one of them...

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

I disagree, but then I am a builder.

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.

Its not the unit rush tactic thats overpowered, its the human mind. That's why the AI needs freebies.

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

"the SoD rush" to give it another name is warfare, and I disagree that warfare is dominant. Its just quicker.

 

[Bhruic]

On the one hand, it's easy to think up specific examples that disprove the OPs claims in totality. On the other, it's much easier to think of examples that prove his claims in general. Assuming that you have neighbours, "rushing" them is almost always going to be advantageous in the long term. Again, I could think of examples where it wouldn't be, but they aren't going to occur frequently.

I'm willing to concede, therefore, that in general, the "rush" is the best strategy for winning the game. With that being said, however, I'm not sure of the relevance. I could easily make a superior argument that the actual best strategy to winning the game is firing up the world builder, and modifying the settings. Certainly, that's outside of the core game "rules", but it's also an ability that's built into the game.

With that being said, I think my point is that there is no obligation on the player to play to win in the most optimum fashion (or even to play to win). The advice that "if you find that strategy too easy, don't use it" is fairly cogent. If you are able to, set artificial limits on yourself beyond what the game does. Play in such a way that you aren't simply looking for the "best" strategy and using it every time.

Bh

 

[bastillebaston]

I've seen a bunch of relevant objections to your strategy. One being: Play on a map with lots of water. If you play continents, you can't get to your opponents fast enough (tech reasons) and then axe rush them.

Once you have tech parity, load the axes/cats/bersekers whatever on boats and rush somebody. Nothing beats that.

If you start isolated on a crappy spot and you don't ever reach tech parity, you're only alternatives are cultural or diplomatic... yawn.

 

[Underdawg]

If you start isolated on a crappy spot and you don't ever reach tech parity, you're only alternatives are cultural or diplomatic... yawn.

What else is there to discuss?

BastilleBaston:
Warfare/Axe Rush: Yawn
Cultural: Yawn
Diplomatic: Yawn
Emperor+: Yawn

Would I be wrong to infer that Civ IV is boring to you? Thus, I think the only logical option for you is to simply quit. Why play something you find boring? Are you merely discussing this to rile up some CivFanatics?

I really don't understand... unless this is an alt/troll account which seems to be ever so popular these days.

But hey, Freedom of speech. Whatever floats your boat.

It's just that this phenomenon of people supposedly sick of the game perpetually posting and posting, and with such frequency, I've seen in many video-game oriented forums.

 

[Grotius]

If you start isolated on a crappy spot and you don't ever reach tech parity, you're only alternatives are cultural or diplomatic... yawn.

Me, I prefer seeking a cultural and diplomatic win, and I like the challenge of a tough starting position. I almost never "rush", not because it's ineffective, but because it's less fun for me. And, as you seem to acknowledge, sometimes a rush isn't possible anyway.

I don't mind fighting wars in Civ, but I rarely start them. I've got dozens of wargames on my hard disk; if I really want to play a wargame, I'll fire up War in the Pacific or AGEOD's American Civil War. For me, the appeal of Civ is that it lets me do other things than make war.

That's the beauty of Civ: there are a number of different ways to play.

 

[Moonlit Knight]

Did you fail to notice that the game allows you to build military units and wage war?

It's NOT a war game. It's a game that allows you to wage war if you choose. It is entirely possible to win a game without ever having a single war.

I suggest that CivIV isn't the game for you. If you want war, action etc then I'd play RTS games.

 

[bastillebaston]

On the one hand, it's easy to think up specific examples that disprove the OPs claims in totality. On the other, it's much easier to think of examples that prove his claims in general.

Most of the examples I've seen so far are not relevant counter-examples at all. They are along the lines: "but you need to balance the expansion" or "in some circumstances and at some stages of the game, diplomacy is as important as warfare." Yes, but so what? So far I've not seen nobody describing an effective strategy which is generally stronger and has a wider range of applicability than the stack attack rush.

Assuming that you have neighbours, "rushing" them is almost always going to be advantageous in the long term. Again, I could think of examples where it wouldn't be, but they aren't going to occur frequently.

We agree, then.

I'm willing to concede, therefore, that in general, the "rush" is the best strategy for winning the game.

Agreed.

With that being said, however, I'm not sure of the relevance.

Here we strongly disagree.

I could easily make a superior argument that the actual best strategy to winning the game is firing up the world builder, and modifying the settings.

I'm sorry, but this is a rubbish argument. Sure, one can you use the world builder if one wishes to do so. But so what? Using the world builder is not a game strategy. The game is not meant to be played in the world builder.

Certainly, that's outside of the core game "rules", but it's also an ability that's built into the game.

I can quit to desktop. It's an “ability built into the game”. So what?

With that being said, I think my point is that there is no obligation on the player to play to win in the most optimum fashion (or even to play to win).

Sure, there is no obligation to play to win, or to play at all for that matter. But that's entirely beside the point. The point is about a flawed game mechanics, not about the player's desires or obligations.

The advice that "if you find that strategy too easy, don't use it" is fairly cogent.

No, your advice is entirely irrelevant to my point. Even if you deliberately choose to ignore an overpowered and unbalanced strategy, the game remains broken.

 

[bastillebaston]

It's NOT a war game. It's a game that allows you to wage war if you choose.

Going to war is not entirely up to you. You may be attacked, and be forced to play a wargame even if you didn't want to.

It is entirely possible to win a game without ever having a single war.

Sure, one can play the "always peace" thing. Even so, civ is largely a wargame. Just look at the number of military unit types you can build. One might argue: "civ is not *merely* a wargame", with which I am prepared to agree to some extent. But claiming that warfare is not a key aspect of the game is frankly bollocks.

 

[Moonlit Knight]

Once you have tech parity, load the axes/cats/bersekers whatever on boats and rush somebody. Nothing beats that.

If you start isolated on a crappy spot and you don't ever reach tech parity, you're only alternatives are cultural or diplomatic... yawn.

So you don't have the patience threshold to play any other style of CivIV game than war mongering. It is not a fault with the game, nor is it a fault with you. You just don't find the game that playable or challenging.

What I personally like doing with Civ is roleplaying. I play on Prince level, because I don't like to have a preformed strategy before the game starts. I have no set tech route that I follow, after Hunting. Whilst CivIV is not realistic, I try and make it so that my Civ does follow a realistic tech path. E.g. I will almost always learn Hunting first (personally I think all civs should start with it) but then it depends on what is in my capital city fat cross. After I have researched those I will then research The Wheel to hook up to those resources etc etc I like playing as Churchill so Archery is normally high up on my list too but in 4000BC did the English know the tech route to get to Rifleman? Of course they didn't so I refuse to play games to a tech route strategy.

Due to this I can often be behind, or penned in, the AI early and then it's a real challenge BUT I don't wage war for the sake of it. I roleplay what I need to do. Sometimes, especially if I have founded a religion, I will wage war over religion. My aim for that game isn't to win any normal Civ means, but to ensure that the religion my people follow becomes the dominant one and that I destroy or convert everyone else. Sometimes I will go to war for resources, or if an opponent is holding me to ransom over a resource I need.

Even my warfare technique can be different. In realistic terms it was rare past the Classical days for conquerers to make huge land grabs of already settled and civilised land. The English and the French warred for years but on a geographical scale not much land was ever fought over. When I go to war I go to pillage, I siege and then I'll take. Sometimes I will go hellbent to destroy another civilisation, especially if its been aggressive towards me through the ages, but usually taking one or two cities is enough. Why?? Because once again I roleplay. I don't see pixels disappearing in front of me, I imagine these are real people being killed.

I also roleplay civics. Some people keep Slavery until the end, I get rid of it as soon as I can. I like my civilisations to become superpowers, but be civilised and slavery is a barbaric tool. Religion is also something I will roleplay. I will NOT adopt a religion until I have researched the relevant tech. E.g. if Hinduism has spread throughout my land but I have not yet researched Polythesiem I will not adopt it.

There are many ways to play Civ, and depending on the sort of person you are and the games you like to play there are more ways to win than those in the manual.

If I wanted to play it purely as a computer game, I would play at higher levels, play to a strategy that the AI is known not to be able to cope with, and probably play the style you do. But there is so much more to the game than that....