Axes Still Rule

[bastillebaston]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression...

Yes, you are wrong.

 

[frob2900]

I can 't resist the temptation to put my oar in. I am not like you demigods who play on Monarch or Immortal. I like to play on Noble and try various settings and go for various wins. I often abandon a game after having had a thoroughly good time. Now go ahead and despise me; I couldn't care less.

Monarch << Immortal. I wouldn't say Monarch is difficult in any way, and it certainly is more fun due to the lack of resistance that the Noble AI gives. This might have improved in BtS though, I don't know (my order arrived at the post office today, so I'm getting it later )

 

[Öjevind Lång]

You are missing the point. I am talking about the unreasonable effectiveness of the axe rush, not about the distribution of bronze on the map.

Here's a sugestion: Try to win without ever being the one who starts a war. Confine yourself to trying to annoy your neighbours so they attack you. That might offer you some excitement and difficulties. Especially if you set the game to "Aggressive AI".

frob 2900: You clearly did not understand what I was saying at all. I am not primarily interested in "beating the game". I am interested in playing the game with different settings and using different civs. I know that an early axe rush is generally the best way to win on higher difficulty settings. I find that dreary, so I stay away from it. There are different ways to enjoy the game.

 

[bastillebaston]

From my own experience thus far, i'd have to disagree. I've played 3 games thus far ( monarch continents standard ) and I found that while effective the axe rush only worked once. The other two times I faced 6-8 defending chariots...although there was a quest to build them at the time, so that may have influenced AI decision making, but that at least refutes the quests as non-factor issue.

Sign open borders. Scout their land. Do they have horses? Then bring a couple of spearmen (a good ratio is 1 spearman: 4 chariots). It nearly always works.

Axe-rush non-protective opponents first. If your target is protective, no serious problem, you'll only be slowed down: the ratio just needs to be higher, 3:1 at least. It's just a matter of numbers, not strategy.

 

[magicalsushi]

Most of the victory conditions favors the warmonger style. No surprises here, this is a war game after all.

Er...says who???

I can 't resist the temptation to put my oar in. I am not like you demigods who play on Monarch or Immortal. I like to play on Noble and try various settings and go for various wins. I often abandon a game after having had a thoroughly good time. Now go ahead and despise me; I couldn't care less.

Er, right. What exactly was the point in that post?

 

[bastillebaston]

Originally Posted by bastillebaston
this is a war game after all.

Er...says who???

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

 

[Ralgar]

It is not a "war game", it is a strategy game. I like about Civ the analyzing, that you can say "Damn, that doesn't look good, im screwed!" and then come up with a plan. Like "Ok, I am to weak, but if I bribe Alexander to war against xyz, maybe&#8230; etc"
Seriously, try to play a different setting. Either play a difficulty above monarch or try another layout. Like Archipelago or a Continents Map. And don't quit if your start looks suboptimal.

And if you really find the AI lackluster, play online! Its a whole other level, and I had extremely exciting and fun and unpredictable games.

 

[snarko]

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

So you're saying it's an espionage game, events game, technology game, religion game, grassland game, culture game, war game, market (as in the building) game and hundreds of more * game just because it's in the game?

 

[Charou]

this is a war game after all.

.... bold statement ...

Dogpilling units on one tile to attack one-tile cities, that´s not even close to what a war demands in terms of on-field tactics.
In Civ you only take care of the global military strat and logistic.
But you don´t have any close up action on the battlefield. This can´t be a wargame.

Sorry pal, but I think you bought the wrong game.
Go back to the store and get a repay.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Bastillebaston is correct that an early rush is an effective approach, certainly far superior now till waiting till the enemy have longbows. The issue is the ai doesn't build up a sufficiently large counter stack to wipe out invaders when the opportunity arises e.g as soon as they take a city or enter terrain without a defense bonus.

If the AI could have the programming to put together counter-stacks, then it'd be very hard to beat the AI militarily at higher difficulty levels.

As soon as the AI gets two move units that aren't easily countered - it used to be cavalry could be a problem - then things get abit more tricky.


Has anyone else noticed the AI likes to keep far less units in cities as garrisons now?

 

[bastillebaston]

Dogpilling units on one tile to attack one-tile cities, that´s not even close to what a war demands in terms of on-field tactics.

There are good wargames and bad wargames. I agree that civ simulates wars poorly... so, yes, it can't the best wargame on the market.

In Civ you only take care of the global military strat and logistic.
But you don´t have any close up action on the battlefield. This can´t be a wargame.

Wargame = "a game that simulates military operations (either at the tactical or at the strategic level)". Civ simulates military operations. Therefore, civ is a wargame.

 

[Radarmaker]

At the absolutely intentional risk of sounding pejorative: OP, go back to playing Starcraft.

Then, once you've tired of using the same strategy over and over and over to win, you can start playing Civ again.

Your argument is completely inane. You're bored because you only ever use one strategy on one difficulty level? Go figure.

In addition to this you seem to think that the best strategy is the one that enables you to win the fastest and get the most points. I have no idea what the "best" strategy is, and I'm also someone who is modest enough to know that my particular bend on the issues probably isn't going to be the best for everybody.

You, on the other hand, not only know your strategy is the best, but in addition to that, and refusing to play any other way, you have the audacity to tell everyone else that their way of playing is either too hard or no fun.

It would almost be hilarious that a few axe rush wins made you think that you're actually Augustus Caesar if it wasn't for the fact that you seem to believe there is some defect in the game because you've managed to do so.

Yes, we know about the axe rush. Yes, we know it can *sometimes* be effective. This doesn't make you a god, and it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the game. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Lt_Kain]

Two thoughts about this post :

It surely is a troll (french ?) or bastillebaston is just another STR player came on civ to try they build and rush style and he is posting in the forum to say how "good" he is to play in a loosy difficulty

Personnaly i love peon, grunt and euh my beautiful zigurats

Seriously man my advice to you : play without copper .. try the worker rush; it could be quite difficult . (You can alternate with scout too).

 

[Innawerkz]

So you're saying it's an espionage game, events game, technology game, religion game, grassland game, culture game, war game, market (as in the building) game and hundreds of more * game just because it's in the game?

Thank God for Civ. It's been a long, tedious search for a good grassland game.

 

[Charou]

Has anyone else noticed the AI likes to keep far less units in cities as garrisons now?

True. But they do a lot whip when war is on.
The first game I played. I could only go for one/two city each war. The AI brought good reenforcements.

Interestingly with 3 only cities captured, and an earlier agressive settler rush, I got 2 vassals out 3 other AI on my continent :
Nappy without PAris was out. -> capitulation
Mansa impressed by my land and my army -> peaceful vassalization.
Crushing the last AI was a walk in the park.

It´s fun to see that war can be leveraged without needing to be full-scale invasion.
Wasn´t the case in my Warlords game.

 

[Innawerkz]

You are missing the point. I am talking about the unreasonable effectiveness of the axe rush, not about the distribution of bronze on the map.

I guess all the new features become relevant only if you don’t want to axe rush your neighbours (but why you wouldn’t?) or if you have no bronze/iron (too frustrating, I would just recommend quitting in such an unlikely case)

Most have given you more than enough suggestions on how the Axe Rush will only get you so far and if you don't have Copper in your first two cities, it won't get you anywhere. It is what you do after that realization.

 

[Littlelisa]

Events can mess with your invasion plans
Civilians AXE rush you

 

[BuFu]

There are some AI strategies I'm occasionally disappointed the AI won't try. For example, in cases where the player looks likely to win a space race, beating two AI's who are friendly to each other but annoyed with the player. It would make strategic sense for the weaker AI to offer itself as a sacrifice: go all out war on the player even though it will lose, hoping to slow the player down enough for its friend's ship to launch.

(It could even be "player agnostic" -- if you were friends with a weak AI, and a stronger AI looked like winning imminently, the weak AI could offer to crash-tackle the stronger AI for you...)

this may sound crazy, but on my first BTS game, i was close to completing my spaceship, when suddenly, suryavaman II, who was 'pleased' with me, declared war. he was very powerful, so i switched to millitary units production, and after 10~ turns, he won a cultural victory. is there a chance an AI has decided to attack in an attempt to cripple my approaching spacerace voctory?

 

[ERLoft]

I can't resist a bit of commentary here either.

This does sound a bit like a troll post to me. Yes, axes are effective. Yes, you can exploit them to good use in most games. But no one is forcing you to use that strategy. There are other alternatives, but it sounds like you don't like them either. So you complain that your favorite strat is too easy, and you don't like any of the other multitude of options.

So, how about this - take axemen in your .xml file and change them to 4 strength, with only a 25% bonus vs. melee. Should solve the problem, as suddenly axemen won't be the dominating unit of their era.

But it sounds like you won't like this alternative either. Unless Firaxis were to implement it themselves, you'd likely consider this to be unfair nerfing of axemen.

Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too, but you also want someone to take your cake away. I know people who see good therapists for this kind of problem... hmmmmm.....

 

[Spearthrower]

There are basically two play styles: Warmonger and Builder. Most of the victory conditions favors the warmonger style. No surprises here, this is a war game after all.

It's an empire building game. War games involve the real life soldiers of nations running around and doing their thing. Even if this were a computer war game, why can you build economic and religious buildings? Methinks you have somewhat missed the idea. There is a warfare aspect, but just because you choose to ignore other aspects doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow suit.

I think you'd find that at the very best.... less than half of the Victory conditions favour the warmonger approach.... 2 to be specific. The others do not require a warmonger approach whatsoever.

So, now you have made a statement that is entirely false and therefore the rest of your argument is based upon a very shaky proposition, let's continue to enjoy the depths of your wisdom:

Question: what is by far the best warmongering strategy? Answer: The axe rush. Therefore, most of the victory conditions favors the axe rush.

The Grand Axe Rush of 1000BC..... oh bugger, this is an island.... axe rush ends here.... apparently, your knowledge of the game ends here too.

Set your entire game up to Axe rush and then, strike a light, you win by axe rushing. You'd think you might have noticed the problem there....

Conquest & Domination: If you are aiming at either of those you’d be a fool not to axe rush whatever is within range (and yes, I’ve seen Sulla’s walkthrough for a domination victory achieved purely through culture… yawn)

1) Ahh yes, the "Only if you play on Pangaea" part that you are missing there IS rather crucial to your reference isnt it. What about if you play as Japan and dont have Copper.... do you still turn off the game because you clearly cant possibly win a domination victory without the Axe Rush (tm)

2) Culture domination is boring? Have you ever tried it? Didn't think so - axes dont have culture ratings.

Space race: you need to grab land, or you’ll be soon out of the race. Best bet: play warmonger first, build later. If you don’t axe-rush, your space victory will be delayed.

Again, you are showing that you are a 1 trick pony. There's simply no truth to there being an absolute requisite for lots of land to achieve a space victory, small empires do just fine here - lower running costs, higher investment into techs etc etc.

Diplomatic: this is either a version of conquest or a dull calculation of diplo modifiers.

As in.... a diplo win is more dull than building one single unit and throwing it en masse against every other civ on your pre determined single continent with all favourable conditions pre-sorted? The mind truly boggles.

You and I (and many others) are just going to have to disagree here because having "Axe Rush" as the sole strategy to every game is the boring thing that you are complaining about.... in fact, the very reason why you posted this thread in the first place!!

Cultural victory: yawn. Micromanaging missionaries? No, thanks.

See last point - I enjoy this.... others enjoy it.... you dont.... doesnt make it boring or ineffective. A win is a win is a win.

Time victory: no comment.

Ahhh I really see what you are getting at now - this narrow minded view of the game is espoused by some players after all..... generally by the ones who claim to be living Civ gods. It's really tiresome when everyone has such a giant e-penis.

All pay homage to the Axe Rush God with the giant e-peen!!



For the record, I play to play..... the idea of "playing" is that you do something that is not serious, that is separate from the normal stresses and worries of real life, to relax and to take a break from reality. I don't have any need to prove myself in Single Player..... I dont have to beat the game by 500 B.C. to consider it a victory. There have been challenging and interesting games where I have had fun right up to the last moment, where winning by Time was never actually guaranteed! I'm sorry that you have never experienced this extremely valuable and interesting element to the game.




To summarise your problem here:

You have stated that:

a) Axe Rushing is so effective that its now boring.
b) Everything else in Civ is boring...

Can I summarise therefore that your main point is "Civ is boring"?

Great, so time to find something else to play




What actually drives people to post such dross on a fan site? It's not just here - you see this same post on EVERY fan site. Ok, some of the words change.... and fair dues to the OP - at least he can use sentences.... but the message is the same..... "I WANT ATTENTION"