Axes Still Rule

[Lone Wolf]

How about playing a variant? Not declaring war on anybody before 1000 BC. Or playing a Huge Continents map.

 

[homan1983]

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?

Ditto

On my 2nd game I played as Dutch and went for a spacerace victory.
Close to completion I got raped by my pleased ally the Egyptians.

He came with 8 missile cruises which each had 4 missiles in them.
They proceeded to launch 4 nukes at my cities, and ~30 cruise missiles absolutely destroying the tile improvements in my country.
They also send a HUGE [and i mean HUUUGE] stack of transports and amphibiously assaulted one of my nuked cities capturing it.

They also brought subs and attack subs.
Finally, they had 3 carriers full of jet fighters which were in fact not even stationary but the smart AI has decided to put the on Intercept mission [air superiority] such that when I tried to first counterattack most of my jets were lost to the AI in a tit-for-tat air superiority war.

As soon as he lost some jets [which is about 50:50 considering I also had jets too] he would sent reinforcements onto the carriers and so on.

I got pissed and launched 3 ICBMs [yea I was pretty attached to my civ and was upset I got nuked] but all 3 got intercepted by his SDI...


Also you won't know the meaning of pain until you've experienced stealth destroyers. I was behind slightly in military tech and he had them whilst I didnt.

For those of you that don't know, stealth destroyers are completely invisible except to other stealth destroyers

 

[Radarmaker]

Well, now that Spearthrower has absolutely and completely dumped all over OP (well done, by the way), let's all go back to waiting for BTS. Thread over.

 

[bastillebaston]

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.

I actually tried something like that a while ago, with Warlords: I gave axes a city attack penalty , and made the CR promotion unavailable to them. The axe rush was just replaced by the almost equally effective cat rush. And you if you nerf the cat rush, you'll just have to wait for the treb rush, etc. I won't try that experiment again with BtS. Although in BtS cats are slightly nerfed and the prerequisites for grenadiers are different, from what I have seen so far I'm pretty sure that the rush strategy (with cats, grenadiers, what have you) remains vastly more effective than the alternatives. The problem does not lie with the axe's stats, but with the whole combat system and the AI's ineptness at defending their cities.

 

[MrWhereItsAt]

Events can mess with your invasion plans
Civilians AXE rush you

In Warlords, you rape and pillage villages. In Soviet Russia Beyond the Sword, village rapes and pillages YOU!

And On Topic again - so you have a found a tactic that you think is too powerful in the game. Ok, neat. So why not stop using it? Just for laughs - either you're happy with the tactic you've got (you seem not to be), or you should try another. Or another game, if you've done this one to the point you've got all you can out of it.

Me, I never used specialists/Caste System much until the last game. And wow was it powerful, under the circumstances of that game. I've still been discovering new things to do in Warlords up until now, and BtS will be different again, with all the additions and changes. In fact I haven't even tried the axe rush yet. My point is that other things can be great fun too, as can the game post-Axemen.

 

[bastillebaston]

It's an empire building game.

The most effective way of "building your empire" is by waging war. And even if you don't play warmonger, you'll still have to defend yourself from possible invasions. Why do I even need to state the obvious? (Admittedly, I've heard of people who have won without building a single military unit, but those are the odd exceptions, not the norm.) Let's not play with words. If you want to call it an "empire building" wargame, be my guest. But no matter what you want to call it, civ is essentially a wargame at its heart.

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.

Warfare is one of the most crucial aspects of the game, with most of the other aspects being largely instrumental to warfare. Let’s face it: stuff like is religion is a dispensable addition to the underlying wargaming mechanics.

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.

Wrong. Space race, diplomatic and time victory are much easier if you play warmonger than if you don't. The only exception is cultural victory (which by the way is a joke of victory).

The others do not require a warmonger approach whatsoever.

You are confusing favouring an approach with "requiring" it. Sure, you can win the diplomatic way without going to war, but warmongering makes it much easier and quicker.

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: 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....

No, I notice no problem there. Please drop the futile sarcasm and explain yourself.

1) Ahh yes, the "Only if you play on Pangaea" part that you are missing there IS rather crucial to your reference isnt it.

As a matter of fact I don't like Pangea at all, and have rarely played it. What exactly is your point?

2) Culture domination is boring?

Yes, it is.

Have youever tried it? Didn't think so - axes dont have culture ratings

Tried it. Have three primary cities plus 3-6 crap cities (depending on world size). Move around missionaries, build cathedrals, rise to 100% the culture slider after liberalism. Yawn.

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.

Who ever talked about "absolute requisites"? A bigger empire means more productive land which means a quicker and easier space race. That's a fact. The axe rush puts you into a strong position for winning any sort of victory. The strongest possible position, in fact.

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.

There is no need to tweak the initial conditions. Unless you start isolated or without bronze (which are comparatively uncommon occurrences), the axe rush rules.

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!!

I didn't say that the axe rush is the only strategy. What I said is that the "Axe Rush" is the most effective strategy, by far more effective than any of the alternatives. I have yet to see a valid objection to this.

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.

What are you trying to say here?

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!!

Are you trying to be funny or what?

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.

How is this stuff relevant to the axe rush being an unreasonably effective strategy?

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"?

The main point is that the most effective strategy in the standard game is repetitive and nearly always successful. But I have to admit that "the standard game is boring" pretty much summarizes it.

Great, so time to find something else to play

I play Rhye's mod, which is how civ is meant to be played. Rhye's is the only reason why BtS may be worth buying.

 

[seelk]

Just tried BtS, monarch difficulty, fractal map, standard settings. Played a dozen games, with randomly chosen leaders. In terms of strategy, I see no substantial differences. Even with nerfed siege and "better AI", early expansion is still relatively easy. Once again, the axe rush quickly does the job, and guarantees victory. No need to bother with espionage. No need to found/spread either religions or corporations. I ignored all the new wonders (I hardly ever build any wonder, for that matter). Apostolic palace and random events turned out to be non-factors. As to the late game units, I’ve never got that far… by the time infantry comes around I’ve already won my games. 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) or if you play scenarios/advanced starts. This is too bad… I already feel rather bored and disappointed with BtS.

Another example of the user boring himself and not the game boring the user. Good job!!!

 

[jedimogg]

bastillebaston seems to be saying that its lame that the axe rush still works, but that he also dislikes all the other paths to victory, so if the axe rush didn't work, he would just be complaining about that.

 

[Spearthrower]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

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. 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.

Let's draw analogies, shall we?

If I said.... I hate strawberry icecream, you'd say "try a different flavour". If I then said.... nah, all the other flavours are crap... then you would rightfully say to me - "Well then, you clearly don't like icecream!"..... a fair comment.

My lack of appreciation for icecream also puts me into a position where I am far from able to comment on the positive elements of each flavour. What would I know about raspberry cheesecake flavour when I refuse to eat it?

That however is not the problem....

It's the next step you take that's annoying people.... it would be the same, to extend my analogy, as me saying any other flavour than strawberry is pointless..... i.e. you are telling everyone that the thing that they like is worthless..... nice attitude! What's even more mind boggling is that you say that the very existence of strawberry flavour makes all other icecream worthless and in fact that strawberry itself is not worth eating.

If you think my above analogy is stupid and pointless then I may well have got through to you! The point you are making is convoluted and self-redundant.

Really, all you have said is that you don't like civ.... thanks so much for informing us bastillebaston!

Btw, I love icecream.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

I play Rhye's mod, which is how civ is meant to be played. Rhye's is the only reason why BtS may be worth buying.

And axe rush isn't effective in this?

The biggest question in this is: What forces you to use axe rush? You can use different strategies, not only the axe rush. I myself like playing Civ, and have never used axe rush.

 

[BuFu]

Ditto

On my 2nd game I played as Dutch and went for a spacerace victory.
Close to completion I got raped by my pleased ally the Egyptians.

He came with 8 missile cruises which each had 4 missiles in them.
They proceeded to launch 4 nukes at my cities, and ~30 cruise missiles absolutely destroying the tile improvements in my country.
They also send a HUGE [and i mean HUUUGE] stack of transports and amphibiously assaulted one of my nuked cities capturing it.

They also brought subs and attack subs.
Finally, they had 3 carriers full of jet fighters which were in fact not even stationary but the smart AI has decided to put the on Intercept mission [air superiority] such that when I tried to first counterattack most of my jets were lost to the AI in a tit-for-tat air superiority war.

As soon as he lost some jets [which is about 50:50 considering I also had jets too] he would sent reinforcements onto the carriers and so on.

I got pissed and launched 3 ICBMs [yea I was pretty attached to my civ and was upset I got nuked] but all 3 got intercepted by his SDI...


Also you won't know the meaning of pain until you've experienced stealth destroyers. I was behind slightly in military tech and he had them whilst I didnt.

For those of you that don't know, stealth destroyers are completely invisible except to other stealth destroyers

ouch?
still, we cant really know whether the AI attacks in this way to prevent the player from achieving victory, or simply cause the AI is more aggresive now...

 

[VinceV]

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.

 

[Truronian]

No thanks. Difficulty levels above monarch require too micromanaging for my taste, and the "better AI" just spams too many units.

You mean the AI axe rushes you?

Wonders are not essential. Any fool can win without ever building one.

Ditto axe rush.

Withouth axes the game just becomes frustrating, especially if you are not interested in either diplomatic or cultural victories (which, anyway, are even more boring than the axe rush).

I disagree. This is not an issue with the game its an issue with your playstyle.

The game itself limits the choice of effective strategies. As things stand, the most effective strategy is the axe rush, with all the other strategies being too iffy or micromanagy. Hence, my suggestion to quit if either bronze or iron are lacking (or, I should add, if one starts isolated).

Its the most effective strategy on the settings you play. Try axe rushing on an Archhipelago map or when you don't have any metal.

 

[Swiss Pauli]

That the axe rush is highly effective is beyond doubt, but to only play on when you have copper and a near neighbour to rush seems churlish; unless the game is easy, you won't play, yet complain of boredom when you do. Do you also quit when you find the AI's cities to be on hills/too well defended for the rush to succeed?

 

[Rusty Edge]

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.

Triremes can carry axmen?

 

[Truronian]

Try something different... an elephant rush!

 

[TheRealCzar]

Subject buys a game called "Beyond the Sword", an expansion which professes the goal of adding depth to the later game.

Subject disappointed to find that the expansion pack offers little before the sword.

Suspect claims axe rush the best strategy, concludes "best" means only strategy. All other strategies being boring.

Subject creates a nonsense thread and talks unmitigated bollox at length.

Conclusion: Subject is troll.

 

[lilnev]

Like many of the posters here, I was initially skeptical of the OP's claims. I've always found civ to be enjoyable and challenging, forcing me to adapt my plans as the game develops. Had he really found a way to make winning automatic, easy, even boring?

As much as I doubted it, I hate to rule anything out without trying it myself. So I did: I dropped two levels to make sure I could win easily before modern units, even without "micromanaging" my cities, and I pursued an axe rush strategy every time (restarting if I didn't have Copper or Iron, of course).

And you know what, it worked. Games were fast, predictable, and not much fun. I still don't think that this is a good strategy for all occasions. But now, when I'm in the mood for an easy victory that I don't actually have to enjoy, I can use this plan. One more arrow in the quiver.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Truronian]

The most effective way of "building your empire" is by waging war. And even if you don't play warmonger, you'll still have to defend yourself from possible invasions. Why do I even need to state the obvious? (Admittedly, I've heard of people who have won without building a single military unit, but those are the odd exceptions, not the norm.) Let's not play with words. If you want to call it an "empire building" wargame, be my guest. But no matter what you want to call it, civ is essentially a wargame at its heart.

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

Warfare is one of the most crucial aspects of the game, with most of the other aspects being largely instrumental to warfare. Let’s face it: stuff like is religion is a dispensable addition to the underlying wargaming mechanics.

You can with without going to war...

Wrong. Space race, diplomatic and time victory are much easier if you play warmonger than if you don't. The only exception is cultural victory (which by the way is a joke of victory).

Conquest victory is easier if you invest in culture, science and diplomacy. Also, why is cultural 'a joke of a victory'? Because you can't axe rush culture?

You are confusing favouring an approach with "requiring" it. Sure, you can win the diplomatic way without going to war, but warmongering makes it much easier and quicker.

Not really... conquest creates major maintainance problems.

Who ever talked about "absolute requisites"? A bigger empire means more productive land which means a quicker and easier space race. That's a fact. The axe rush puts you into a strong position for winning any sort of victory. The strongest possible position, in fact.

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

I didn't say that the axe rush is the only strategy. What I said is that the "Axe Rush" is the most effective strategy, by far more effective than any of the alternatives. I have yet to see a valid objection to this.

There have been several.

The main point is that the most effective strategy in the standard game is repetitive and nearly always successful. But I have to admit that "the standard game is boring" pretty much summarizes it.

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

 

[Littlelisa]

Subject buys a game called "Beyond the Sword", an expansion which professes the goal of adding depth to the later game.

Subject disappointed to find that the expansion pack offers little before the sword.

Suspect claims axe rush the best strategy, concludes "best" means only strategy. All other strategies being boring.

Subject creates a nonsense thread and talks unmitigated bollox at length.

Conclusion: Subject is troll.

If subject is on island, doesnt have bronze or has an enemy thats not right next to them, they quit instead of trying to play and win another way