Axes Still Rule

[Carolingian]

Does everyone beeline Bronzeworking? Is it really that importnta a tech

I do. Bronze working is the single most valuable tech in the game imho. Starting with mining is a welcome boon.

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?

Protective is a pain in the butt, but it's not invincible, it merely slows your down. It depends on how good your production is. If I have no bronze nearby I usually beeline iron working or construction. Definitely construction, if I have elephants.

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 usually play the same settings as you do (no "balanced resources"), and very often (roughly two in three starts) I do get close copper and a close enough target. In those conditions, it's very tempting to rush the enemy capital and gain the all-important early advantage. If the potential target is aggressive you absolutely have to rush it before it grows too strong.

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.

From my own personal experience, I have to agree with the OP: axe rushing is definitely the best way to gain the crucial early advantage over the AI. I can think of no other better way. Game starts with copper and close targets get definitely easier in the long run.

 

[Roxlimn]

Carolingian:

Personally, I think that Agriculture is the most important tech in the game, but I do SE, so that rather colors my thinking.

Protective is a pain in the butt, but it's not invincible, it merely slows your down. It depends on how good your production is. If I have no bronze nearby I usually beeline iron working or construction. Definitely construction, if I have elephants.

The question isn't whether Protective is invincible. The question is, with a Protective neighbors some ways away from you, would an Axe Rush still be the optimum choice? I would say not.

I usually play the same settings as you do (no "balanced resources"), and very often (roughly two in three starts) I do get close copper and a close enough target. In those conditions, it's very tempting to rush the enemy capital and gain the all-important early advantage. If the potential target is aggressive you absolutely have to rush it before it grows too strong.

I have the opposite experience. In 2 out of 3 starts, I'll have Iron OR Copper in close proximity, but only in about 1 of 3 or less would that actually be Copper, and in only a fraction of those does it make sense to rush the enemy capital, given the rather large gamble you're making by NOT teching to useful things like Priesthood and Masonry.

What would you say to obsolete's so-called walkthroughs?

As for frequency, as I said, you could always conduct a series trial to settle it.

 

[EscapedGoat]

It all depends on things that are exogenous to the game itself: the players goals and motivation for playing the game.

To the OP, winning as fast as possible with as high score as possible is the goal. The most optimal way of reaching this goal is to do some sort of early rush. He is disappointed that for reaching this goal, one type of strategy seems to be too attractive.

However, it is important to realize that most players do NOT share this goal at all. The goals of other people might lie more in exploring different paths to take in the game, developing their cities, being the tech leader, etc, spreading religion. And very importantly, these motivation of these people is not to reach a goal in the most optimal way, but to reach it in their own way! (not neccessarily the most optimal one)

In games that people play in their spare time to have fun, nobody has to pick the most efficient strategy to reach one extremely narrow set of goals, and it is NOT irrational not to do so.

 

[phoulishwan]

Hard to believe I read this whole thread.

Warrior rush is the most overpowered strat, imo. It ain't a rush once you tech past warriors! lol. Seriously cat rush? Grenadiers rush? That's hardly a rush that's more like exploiting a military tech advantage during a brief window of opportunity while your units overpower anything your opponent can field. What's overpowered is our ability to outplay AI's and be able time and plan things to our advantage. Any nub can bring an SoD of 20 cats to a siege, but knowing you can get by with 6 at the right time is where the AI falls on it's face. We can exploit these advantages by setting up and preparing for these windows of opportunity so the AI isn't capable of countering us effcetively. If you miss the window that doesn't mean build another 14 so you can brute you're way through, it should mean a switch to plan c or d, but those 6 cats will still be handy for plan q in 80 or so turns, micro those sages to merchants to make sure you can afford the upgrade when the time comes ;p It's a vast game, I don't see how you can't get bored when you refuse to try the other options.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

From what I understand the whole premise is that if I have more units than an opponent I will likely defeat them. That's brilliant, really.

The flaw then is not in the game mechanics (anyone can tell you that multiplayer is more or less balanced) but in the AI which is, sadly, limited at this time by technology. NO strategy game has AI that can hope to match a reasonably intelligent human. Its not Firaxis fault that they do not possess future AI technology.

There are only two humanly possible solutions to your problem.
1. give the inferior intelligence bonuses to compensate
2. restrict the amount of units that can be built through the game mechanics

1 has been done but you refuse to use it, 2 could be tried and I'd like to see a model in which military size were more limted be it through economy, or some other mechanic. Simply increasing all unit hammer costs would be a start.

For the time being, try incorporating other aspects of the game to maximize your strategies. Spies, for example, are fantastic for warfare, a well timed revolt can help you crack big cities faster, causing unhappiness or poison can hinder production cities, etc.