Axes Still Rule

[Moonlit Knight]

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.



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.

I did not say that War wasn't a key aspect. There are many key aspects, but War is not THE key aspect and that is proven by being able to win the game through mainly peaceful means and via diplomacy.

 

[bastillebaston]

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

It’s a game mechanics problem, which should be sorted out by the game designers.

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!

That the "axe rush is overpowered" can be easily empirically proven. I'll give you some homework to make you learn how. Let's begin with a weaker and more definite statement to make your task easier:

STATEMENT: "if you have copper and close neighbors, you'll nearly always be better off if you axe-rush than you if don't".​

Now play a number of random games and draw a statistics of won and lost games, noting the strategy you used in each. Unless you are a noob who doesn't know how to do a proper rush, you'll find that whenever the axe-rush is an available option, it dominates over all the alternatives. In general, you win more comfortably and more frequently if you axe-rush than if you don't.

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, I am not claiming anything new. The designers themselves knew that SoDs were overpowered in previous incarnations of the game, and some have already pointed out that Civ IV has failed to address the issue. I am merely noting that BtS leaves the problem unsolved.

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.

If you read more carefully what I have said, you'll see that I've been making three statements:

(1) Axe rush is overpowered.
(2) SoD rush nearly always works.
(3) SoD rush is the dominant strategy.

So far I have only seen weak objections to (2), and (1) and (3) have not even been decently addressed.


.

 

[Moonlit Knight]

If you read more carefully what I have said, you'll see that I've been making three statements:

(1) Axe rush is overpowered.
(2) SoD rush nearly always works.
(3) SoD rush is the dominant strategy.

With all due respect this is realistic. In the past countries made huge gains two ways. Either because they were technologically well ahead of the opposition (including tactically, e.g. Romans) or because they had a sheer weight of numbers behind them.

What they should try and get the AI to do is adapt. If you have three civs on a continent and you Axe rush one of them, then the remaining Civ should "learn" from this and build Chariots and Axemen of their own.

 

[bastillebaston]

I did not say that War wasn't a key aspect.

If warfare is a key aspect of the game, then there is nothing improper in calling civ a sort of "wargame", e.g. a game that simulates wars. Why do you even need to argue with that? What is your point?

 

[ace94d]

If you read more carefully what I have said, you'll see that I've been making three statements:

(1) Axe rush is overpowered.
(2) SoD rush nearly always works.
(3) SoD rush is the dominant strategy.

So far I have only seen weak objections to (2), and (1) and (3) have not even been decently addressed.

(1) - I have had many instances where an Axe Rush has proven to me to be much less advantagous to downright not working. Case in point: I was playing a Fractal map as Toku. I teched to Bronze Working fast and bronze was right in my Capital's BFC. So I decided to Axe Rush. I got about 15 Axes and already had my second city up. I had also found my foe, Huanya. I declares war on him after getting my units in place. Even with all my Axes upgrading nicely with CR and such, I ended up getting beat back due to him having too large of defence in all cities. I retreated when I had about 4 Axes left with no cities taken. I then managed to make piece if Haunya. However, the whole game I had trouble getting back to tech parity and in the end I lost that game being conquered by Isabella.

(2) - SoD rush has failed me many, many times. From Cats to Grendairs to Infantry to Tanks to Modern Armour, I've all had multipile instances where they failed.

(3) - No disagrement, it IS dominant. However, it is not overpowering in it's dominace. It's more Falco-SSBM dominant: Not unbeatable, but favorable over a many others.

 

[bastillebaston]

If you read more carefully what I have said, you'll see that I've been making three statements:

(1) Axe rush is overpowered.
(2) SoD rush nearly always works.
(3) SoD rush is the dominant strategy.

With all due respect this is realistic. In the past countries made huge gains two ways. Either because they were technologically well ahead of the opposition (including tactically, e.g. Romans) or because they had a sheer weight of numbers behind them.

I don't think it is realistic at all. In loose game terms: despite their "praetorian rush", an historically realistic Roman Empire would not be in a good position to win anything, for it would be crushed by barbarians. The problem with realism is that the standard game (unlike, say, Rhye’s) is not dynamic: once you have rushed enough opponents and you have consolidated your lead, there’s almost nothing that can threaten to break your monolithic empire.

Anyway, realism was not the point. It's a issue of game mechanics.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Didn't bother to read the whole thread, but I've got an answer to bastillebaston's problem.

You say that axe rush is overpowered. If you don't get axes, you use catapult rush, which you say is overpowered. Then you say that grenadier rush is overpowered.

See any link between these?

Of course you can conquer other nations if you have way more troops than they! It's simple mathematics, 2 attacking grenadiers are better than 1 defending grenadier. 2 attacking axemen are better than 1 defending axeman/spearman/archer/whatever. If you have something technologically equal but way more of it, your chances to win are way much better.

 

[Moonlit Knight]

If warfare is a key aspect of the game, then there is nothing improper in calling civ a sort of "wargame", e.g. a game that simulates wars. Why do you even need to argue with that? What is your point?

I can see there is no point in discussing this with you as you have already made up your mind and the point is not up for discussion as far as you are concerned.

 

[Moonlit Knight]

I don't think it is realistic at all. In loose game terms: despite their "praetorian rush", an historically realistic Roman Empire would not be in a good position to win anything, for it would be crushed by barbarians. The problem with realism is that the standard game (unlike, say, Rhye’s) is not dynamic: once you have rushed enough opponents and you have consolidated your lead, there’s almost nothing that can threaten to break your monolithic empire.

Anyway, realism was not the point. It's a issue of game mechanics.

Forget the Romans then. What about Egypt?

But I noticed you ignored my longer post. CivIV is clearly not the game for you. You play it as a computer game, which is fine, and if you look at it that way then of course you can "cheat" the AI. There isn't a strategy game ever developed, specifically for the computer, that can't be exploited.

 

[Spearthrower]

Yes, the other 200 posters disagreeing are all wrong, irrelevant or boring!

Silliest thread I've seen here in many years.... and that's saying something

 

[bastillebaston]

Didn't bother to read the whole thread, but I've got an answer to bastillebaston's problem. ...
Of course you can conquer other nations if you have way more troops than they! It's simple mathematics, 2 attacking grenadiers are better than 1 defending grenadier. 2 attacking axemen are better than 1 defending axeman/spearman/archer/whatever. If you have something technologically equal but way more of it, your chances to win are way much better.

You are wholly missing the point. Whoever said that outnumbering armies shouldn’t be more likely to win? The point is that building sufficiently many city-busting units and stacking them is the dominant strategy in the standard game. This is bad because:

1. The game is not meant to have a unique dominant strategy;
2. The dominant strategy does not even deserve the name "strategy", because it boils down to an almost mindless spamming of axes/cats/etc.

 

[bastillebaston]

Yes, the other 200 posters disagreeing are all wrong, irrelevant or boring!

I never said that the other posters in this thread are boring. But, with few exceptions, most of the objections so far raised are indeed missing the point.

 

[Spearthrower]

The "boring" part was a joke.... guessed you missed the fun in that too!

All objections raised have pertained exactly to the point, you've just misunderstood the entire nature of your own thread. Don't worry, you'll be remembered forever as the maker of this thread..... infamy is yours!

 

[bastillebaston]

I can see there is no point in discussing this with you as you have already made up your mind and the point is not up for discussion as far as you are concerned.

I don’t see what your problem is here. We agree that warfare is a key aspect of the game. Let's stipulate the following, entirely proper, definition: "a wargame is a game having warfare as one of its key aspects." Unless you disagree with the definition (and I don't see why you should), we agree that civ is a wargame.

 

[Spearthrower]

Civ therefore is an empire building game.

One of the ways you can choose to build your empire is by warfare, just as one way is by choosing culture.... you cant choose to do warfare by building, nor can you choose to do warfare by culture... therefore, it is not a warfare game.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

You are wholly missing the point. Whoever said that outnumbering armies shouldn’t be more likely to win? The point is that building sufficiently many city-busting units and stacking them is the dominant strategy in the standard game. This is bad because:

1. The game is not meant to have a unique dominant strategy;
2. The dominant strategy does not even deserve the name "strategy", because it boils down to an almost mindless spamming of axes/cats/etc.

But you were saying that axe rush is overpowered. No it isn't. You just outnumber your enemy with your axes so greatly that winning them in war is easy. Same thing with catapults and grenadiers. Actually it's the same thing with any unit, build enough of them and you are almost guaranteed to win the war. So axes aren't overpowered, outnumbering enemies isn't overpowered.

 

[Spearthrower]

Hitti-Litti.... apparently, winning is overpowered!


I don't normally like to talk about logical fallacies, but the OP just keeps churning them out.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Well that's a commonly known fault in this game...

 

[Spearthrower]

I demand that winning be nerfed! Winning is so civ vanilla.

 

[bastillebaston]

(1) - I have had many instances where an Axe Rush has proven to me to be much less advantagous to downright not working.

I think that in those cases you have probably underestimated your opponent's defenses. If you get the numbers about right (usually the ration should be at least 2:1 if the opponent is not protective), the axe rush is overpowered.

Case in point: I was playing a Fractal map as Toku. I teched to Bronze Working fast and bronze was right in my Capital's BFC. So I decided to Axe Rush. I got about 15 Axes and already had my second city up. I had also found my foe, Huanya. I declares war on him after getting my units in place. Even with all my Axes upgrading nicely with CR and such, I ended up getting beat back due to him having too large of defence in all cities. I retreated when I had about 4 Axes left with no cities taken. I then managed to make piece if Haunya. However, the whole game I had trouble getting back to tech parity and in the end I lost that game being conquered by Isabella.

You just didn't build a large enough stack.

(2) - SoD rush has failed me many, many times. From Cats to Grendairs to Infantry to Tanks to Modern Armour, I've all had multipile instances where they failed.

See above.

(3) - No disagrement, it IS dominant.

Then we agree on the crucial point. I can happily concede that the SoD rush may occasionally be unfeasible or fail. But people who deny the strategic dominance of SoDs are only deluding themselves.

However, it is not overpowering in it's dominace. It's more Falco-SSBM dominant: Not unbeatable, but favorable over a many others.

The game is not supposed to have only one dominant strategy. On the contrary, the intention of the designers was that the game should equally favor many varied approaches. Clearly, this is not the case. Hence, the standard game is broken.