Axes Still Rule

[gettingfat]

Would you deny that failure to achieve iron/bronze in this scenario, or some bad rolls, and an early military loss while trying this can lead to you losing the game in most situations?

I'd say while this strat can lead to some of the most overwhelming wins, people forget the overwhelming losses it can lead to at an earlier stage than any other strat. Problem is, folks don't play out the losses...just restart or reload.

I'd bet the actual wins to losses wouldn't be seen overpowered if folks were stuck continuing the game when the resources didn't show, or their military force didn't take the city.
.

Haha, I've just lost an axe rush yesterday because of some crazy odds. Louis was my neighbour and I hated creative leader sitting next to me, so I rushed him. Paris was built on a hill. 6 of my 7 axes lost in the first round to 2 archer defenders, with 1 archer survived. In next turn my lone injured axe could only watch Louis whipped a fresh archer. So basically my 6 x 35 hammers are gone already. The war turned into a messy war of attrition. Finally I had to sue for peace. Both Louis and me were badly hurt, and you know who, Mr. Huaya and Ms. Elizabeth were somewhere cranking out tech after tech, wonder after wonder, and I could never catch up.

Like investment, there will be time any strategy will backfire. In axe rush, if your first wave attack can't land a lethal or at least debilitating blow to the AI, at Monarch or higher levels the AIs will recover faster than you. If you adopt the "one more unit" approach, hoping to make this first wave attack a more guaranteed bet, most of the time the AI cities will gain cultural defence, the capital gets more and more archers, which make the war messier. There is only a limited window to achieve optimal axe rush, and even you time it right some bad RNG results will kill your great plan. Well, one can always reload and pretend nothing has happened.

 

[thehexgod]

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



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



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).



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).

Hmm, sounds like command and conquer might suit you better...

 

[gettingfat]

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

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

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).

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).

Hmm, sounds like command and conquer might suit you better...

According to this logic:

"No thanks, playing basketball at NBA level requires paying too much to details, and the new NBA rules make 3-pointer relatively difficult.

Dunking is not essential. Any fool can win without dunking one.

Without 3-pointer the basketball game becomes frustrating, especially if you are not interested in shooting mid-range jumpers or slashing in for layups(which, any way, are more boring than 3-pointers)

... so the most effective winning basketball strategy is 3-pointer after 3-pointer, with all other strategies relying on the defenders or the refs. My suggestion is if your first three 3-pointers don't fall, just quit the game.

 

[Phlegmak]

If you concede me that much, you have already conceded a lot to my argument. In fact, you have conceded almost everything I need to rest my case.

The conditions that make the axe rush dominant are only two, and are fairly common:

1. Availability of copper.
2. At least one close neighbor.

As everybody will agree, many types of starting locations will frequently meet (1) and (2). Therefore, in at least a large set of starting conditions, the axe rush is the one dominant strategy. This is already very bad news for the game. In any sufficiently complex game, no set of starting conditions should determine a uniquely best course of action.

(To those who say: “but nothing forces to play warmonger! You can always go for diplomacy, culture, etc.” I answer thus. Sure, one may chose for whatever reason not to purse the strategically best course of action, but this is one’s own personal choice which has nothing to do with my argument.)

What if you have no copper? Then the cat rush is nearly always the dominant strategy. Bad news again. As far as I can tell, the only cases were no form of SoD rush is a dominant strategy (e.g. you'll better refrain from attacking at all stages of the game) are certain kinds of isolated starts at monarch and above. But this is not good news either. Isolated starts generally narrow your strategic choices, they certainly don't make them broader.

Judging by your opening post and this one, you've missed 99% of the game. The game generates random maps. You don't always get your perfect starting position. Playing Civilization isn't about quitting if you don't get a perfect starting position, but rather playing with uncertainty. Judging by your gripes, you just don't like the game Civilization at all. You'd be better off playing something else.

 

[polypheus]

Like investment, there will be time any strategy will backfire. In axe rush, if your first wave attack can't land a lethal or at least debilitating blow to the AI, at Monarch or higher levels the AIs will recover faster than you. If you adopt the "one more unit" approach, hoping to make this first wave attack a more guaranteed bet, most of the time the AI cities will gain cultural defence, the capital gets more and more archers, which make the war messier. There is only a limited window to achieve optimal axe rush, and even you time it right some bad RNG results will kill your great plan. Well, one can always reload and pretend nothing has happened.

This is why I think rapid early expansion, archery first w/building lots of archers and then going to bronze working (for whipping foremost for both settlers and archers as needed) is the much more "dominant" strategy as it works in nearly all situations. You do want to hook up copper and/or iron quickly (simply for defense as you can't rely on archers exclusively for TOO long) but you're not in a hurry to do it to try to crank out tons of axemen during the optimum "window" of opportunity.

Sure there are cases where you get lucky and copper is right at the capital city boundary and a neighboring Civ (both of which are not that common in huge maps which I mostly play). But even in those cases, you're not going to be doing really noticeably worse doing it my way than doing it the Axe rush way.

And in the many cases where the Axe rush fails or can't be implemented, I can continue playing whereas the "Axe-rush is the best way" folks resign in frustration.

 

[Carolingian]

The game generates random maps. You don't always get your perfect starting position.

Axe rushing doesn't require a perfect starting position. You just need to find some copper... and a target.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Nobody said it's "always better". In fact, those supporting the OP's argument have repeatedly stated that having another civ on your continent and having copper relatively close to your capital are prerequisites. These two conditions are met in a solid majority of my games. I don't know about you.



More like a strategy that essentially wins the game for you in most situations. Can it be won in other ways? Of course. But you can't deny that having 2 capitals in the Ancient Era propels you far ahead of the AIs, who never pursue such a strategy.

Having another civ CLOSE enough that I feel a need to rush them - ie within 12 tiles or so is relatively rare for me - maybe one game in five.

Of course you can do a long distance axe rush on moderate levels, but I will usually choose not to. Not because I can't but because it is usually an inferior strategy compared to the other options available.

There are lots of other early rushes - cottage rushes, wonder rushes, great people rushes, land grabbing etc that should be considered too. Depending on my leader choice, starting terrain, distance to other civs and who the other civs actually are, any of these may be a more effective long term strategy than just going for an axe rush.

Having two capitals doesn't propel you far ahead of the AI compared to what else you could instead have:

- Pyramids + Great Library + Great Wall + Parthenon + Stonehenge + Oracle (easily achievable on Monarch with an industrious wonder rush).

- 12 riverside cottages with a financial civ - 4 cities self built on rivers will give you enormous early research.

- Landgrabbing a choke point with a creative civ where you can comfortably settle 10-12 good cities.

- Scoring a dominant early religion and an early shrine and the Apostolic Palace - I've seen religions absolutely explode with a shrine in this game - getting +30 gold isn't hard to acheive if you get the first shrine going.

Certainly you can get a dominant early position versus the AI by focussing on something and really going for it. Where you and the OP are mistaken is thinking that there is just one such strategy. There are dozens and the best strategy for each and every game will be different. Yes sometimes it will be an axe rush, but if you think an axe rush is the best 90% of the time then you are simply wrong.

The OP has expanded the discussion into SOD rushes or cat rushes. I think by the time you are getting into later techs, then (1) the AI and seige nerfing has toned this down a lot and (2) its not a rush anymore - it takes a lot of skill to get into the position of a tech and production lead in the first place. If you acheive it consistently and easily then perhaps you should up the difficultly level.

 

[Meggafoxy]

For a start, increase the difficulty level.

That's not a good piece of advice to give to somebody who says that axe rushing is boring. At higher difficulty levels it's next to impossible to keep up with the AI withouth an early rush.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

That's not a good piece of advice to give to somebody who says that axe rushing is boring. At higher difficulty levels it's next to impossible to keep up with the AI withouth an early rush.

Possibly his problem is that he isn't skilled enough to pull off other kinds of strategies. In which case you are right - going up a level isn't going to help.

 

[Meggafoxy]

^^^^^^^

It's not really a matter of skill, it's a matter of preference. Some like to axe rush, some like the cultural approach, etc.

 

[InFlux5]

Would you deny that failure to achieve iron/bronze in this scenario, or some bad rolls, and an early military loss while trying this can lead to you losing the game in most situations?

I'd say while this strat can lead to some of the most overwhelming wins, people forget the overwhelming losses it can lead to at an earlier stage than any other strat. Problem is, folks don't play out the losses...just restart or reload.

I'd bet the actual wins to losses wouldn't be seen overpowered if folks were stuck continuing the game when the resources didn't show, or their military force didn't take the city.

The AI, as someone not programmed to reset when it fails, could be viewed as too smart to take the risk, and play the safer odds of winning across time, than trying and failing utterly, as can happen with this strat.

You conveniently left out my first paragraph where I stated copper was a prerequisite.

Anyway, if you pursue an axe rush strategy but don't have bronze, you're not behind. At all. This is because Bronze Working is such a valuable tech. You plan an axe rush, you research BW, you don't have bronze? Oh well. You can still chop and whip. You haven't lost anything.

I think the insane value of Bronze Working as a tech is the root of the problem, and I'm disappointed this wasn't addressed in BtS. Is there any other tech in the tree that confers so many powerful abilities?

 

[mythmonster2]

Robotics... I mean COME ON! It gives you access to the strongest unit in the game! AND gives you shiny new planes!

 

[Spearthrower]

Fishing - without it, you can't work a significant proportion of tiles in the game!

Always found it funny to claim that 1 tech was more important than the others.... what about the pre-requisite for BW.... surely then that is equally important as you wouldnt be able to get BW without it?

 

[InvisibleStalke]

^^^^^^^

It's not really a matter of skill, it's a matter of preference. Some like to axe rush, some like the cultural approach, etc.

Obviously he doesn't like to axe rush - since he finds it boring. I have no qualms with someone who enjoys a good axe rush - but to pick one strategy, get good at it, then argue that no other strategies are useful and by the way you are bored of the one strategy you play over and over again is silly.

Axe rushes are fun. But they aren't the sum total of good strategy in the game and are often less optimal than other approaches. And if they aren't fun anymore try something else. I try to never play the same way twice. It means I am not as good as the best players on the forums, but I have a lot of fun and still manage to be challenged by the game.

 

[InFlux5]

Ok, you "got me". Bronze Working isn't any more valuable than any other tech. /eyeroll

Axe rushes are fun. But they aren't the sum total of good strategy in the game

Good thing you knocked that one down. Now all the people who were arguing that an axe rush is "the sum total of good strategy in the game" can be quiet. Oh wait, nobody ever said that.

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Obviously he doesn't like to axe rush - since he finds it boring. I have no qualms with someone who enjoys a good axe rush - but to pick one strategy, get good at it, then argue that no other strategies are useful and by the way you are bored of the one strategy you play over and over again is silly.

Axe rushes are fun. But they aren't the sum total of good strategy in the game and are often less optimal than other approaches. And if they aren't fun anymore try something else. I try to never play the same way twice. It means I am not as good as the best players on the forums, but I have a lot of fun and still manage to be challenged by the game.

Youre right. I, much like the OP, am a lifelong warmonger and a big fan of the axe rush as a solid strategy. However, I sometimes get tired of Domination all the time and will occasionally.....*gasp* switch strategies and do a cultural victory! It actually makes me feel just as satisfied, knowing that my civilization's culture is far superior to all others.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Youre right. I, much like the OP, am a lifelong warmonger and a big fan of the axe rush as a solid strategy. However, I sometimes get tired of Domination all the time and will occasionally.....*gasp* switch strategies and do a cultural victory! It actually makes me feel just as satisfied, knowing that my civilization's culture is far superior to all others.

Pursuing a cultural victory has brought about some of my hardest fought battles too - playing for a culture victory on Emperor will see you defending against mechanised infantry with rifles, cannons and cavalry.

 

[Spearthrower]

Now all the people who were arguing that an axe rush is "the sum total of good strategy in the game" can be quiet. Oh wait, nobody ever said that.

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

I think you'll find that that is *exactly* what the point of this entire thread was.... and while others have made decent points to augment the initial poor concept, people also never argued that axe-rushing *wasn't* effective... just that it wasn't the be all and end all guaranteed way to win the game... i.e. they were countering the initial post's statement, not your later-stated opinions.

This thread never had a useful lifetime, but it's funny that it's dragged on so long. It's wandered all over the place in a drunken stupor with very little said on either side.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Pursuing a cultural victory has brought about some of my hardest fought battles too - playing for a culture victory on Emperor will see you defending against mechanised infantry with rifles, cannons and cavalry.

Yeah, that happens but I think you have to be a really shrewd politician to avoid being steamrolled when going cultural. A strategy I like to use for cultural is to bee-line Military Tradition and sign Defensive Pacts with all my friends. It works more than 90% of the time to deter rivals from attacking me. Whoever said cultural victories don't need planning has obviously never tried to accomplish one on a higher difficulty level.

 

[Roxlimn]

Does everyone beeline Bronzeworking? Is it really that important a tech? Would or should you quit if you find that you have a Protective neighbor (in which case an axe rush for the capital could be prohibitive) or have no bronze nearby?


I've played ALL of my starts to decision, whether by loss or by win. Even if I seem to be losing, I at least play it to the modern era until I'm quite sure I can't leverage a Diplomacy win against an AI's Space Race win. Most of my starts don't involve a copper resource within an 8 tile radius of my capital, and the number of starts in which I have a close neighbor AND a close Copper, without that Copper belonging to my neighbor is rather small.

Indeed, it seems rather obvious that this would be the case. Not only does the "win" condition require a close Copper AND a close enemy capital, it ALSO requires that the Copper be closer to you or at least not so close to the enemy that he doesn't claim it before you can. It's a pretty small subset of scenarios, IMO, playing mostly Continents or Fractal at Normal Speed and size.

I've played any number of games where I didn't have Copper (but discovered Iron or Copper some while after) nearby or didn't have an enemy capital nearby or worse, had a nearby capital that was closer to the Copper than I was (and in two cases, this was Alexander!!!).

Those worst-case scenario games were NOT easy games, as you might tell, and they could not be won by Axe Rush. In fact, I was often "rushed" myself, at worst with Phalanxes from the Greeks. As Rameses!

If the case is in doubt, then a simple series of start tests would suffice! Simply start a series of games, and count the instances in which an Axe Rush would be the best method for winning.

Having played almost all of my starts, my experience is that the Axe Rush is not something that's all that advisable for a majority of games, though it is useful for quite a few. If you keep quitting games where Axe Rushes are not possible, then this will skew your experience. It's just like the "Red Light" phenomenon. Red Lights aren't more likely than Green Lights. You just notice the Red Lights more because you have to stop under them for at least a few minutes each, whereas you breeze by Green Lights in seconds, and they are promptly forgotten.

No games are "lost" until you quit! Or when you actually lose, but below Monarch, I can usually hold out until 1000 AD, even with the lousiest of starts. I've won games starting in Tundra, games that started in jungle, and even games that had absolutely no production heavy tiles in my capital (jungles instead of forests, no hills, all Spices and Wheat). They were harder because I had to explore options I hadn't considered before, but they were the more interesting games because, well, I had to explore options I hadn't considered before!