Best trait for rushing

[Elandal]

Assuming rush means early attack with numerous troops based on early strategic resource (copper -> axe, horse -> chariot), then all that matters is that you have as effective (axe/chariot) as possible, as numerous as possible troops as early as possible taking out the nearest enemy capitol.

If you're concerned about long term goals, it's different of course. But for the rush itself, seems that expansive (cheap worker, but granary even at half price is worth one axe), imperialistic (cheap settler to settle that required resource), aggressive (for cheap barracks & free promo to axes) are the only ones that really matter.
Charismatic promotions don't really enter the equation in the rush, as most units attack just once or twice during it, depending on if you have one or more secondary cities to clean up.

Economic traits are economic traits. They're irrelevant in the rush. Overall I still think only aggressive is really a rushing trait as it has immediate direct benefit in an axe rush, while exp/imp are both more of rexing traits.


Other concerns far outweigh the traits. Copper in capitol instead of needing to settle second city for copper (and to get that online) is easy one. UU and resource for it in capitol another easy one - mainly for persia and egypt (I consider war chariots the best rushing unit). Suitable rush target (preferably one that has extra benefits like holy cities or wonders to give) is required. Only once you have opportunity to rush do traits matter, and then it comes down to agg giving slight edge.

 

[mariogreymist]

This thread has brought up an interesting question: What is a rush?

I think of a rush as an early application of total war theory. So long as I remain at war, or am deploying troops in preparation of an invasion, and as long as the majority of my manufacturing output is going into axes, chariots, immortals, praetorians etc, (or the minimal city improvements to keep them going - eg courthouses) the rush is on. I think a lot of people see rushes as limited applications of this, specifically taking out one troublesome, nearby neighbor. (for such cases, I'd choose AGG too)

 

[Silu]

This thread has brought up an interesting question: What is a rush?

I think of a rush as an early application of total war theory. So long as I remain at war, or am deploying troops in preparation of an invasion, and as long as the majority of my manufacturing output is going into axes, chariots, immortals, praetorians etc, (or the minimal city improvements to keep them going - eg courthouses) the rush is on. I think a lot of people see rushes as limited applications of this, specifically taking out one troublesome, nearby neighbor. (for such cases, I'd choose AGG too)

The difficulty of rushing more than 1 opponent rises exponentially with speeds faster than Marathon, btw. Never been able to do it (or at least never thought about it as the optimal choice) on Normal myself.

And something like JC/Marathon I consider cheese, not a rush

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The difficulty of rushing more than 1 opponent rises exponentially with speeds faster than Marathon, btw. Never been able to do it (or at least never thought about it as the optimal choice) on Normal myself.

And something like JC/Marathon I consider cheese, not a rush

I've done it on immortal/normal with stock chariots, due to capitol BFC horse revealed because I researched AH for food livestock .

 

[Elandal]

If early rush continues into extended period of war, it changes status. It's no longer rush but a continuous war started early on.

An early military victory requires not just military but also economic planning. You can't just whip/chop/spam military without regards to other issues but have to move from simple unit spam into a wartime economy of some kind - be that pillaging, specialists, cottages, or whatever.

 

[azzaman333]

Creative saves you the hammers and turns for the border pop to potentially get copper/horses, making that rush much faster without having to build crap cities to get the resources.

 

[Negator_UK]

The best trait for rushing is easy access to the resource.

So the best trait for Axerush is start-with-mining. Chariot rush has more openings.

But from the list offered I chose Agg

 

[§L¥ Gµ¥]

I voted charismatic. Barracks are relatively cheap across the board, and the combat 1 is only good if you're going for axes, or swords.
Furthermore, charismatic allows you to gain experience and promos more quickly, which has a double edged benefit in the early rush. #1, more experienced troops to put forward and #2, promos more often mean large chunks of health are given back to units. I've found that very useful, especially in the very early game before decent medics are available to use.

However, if you're concerned about holding your land, or staying relevant in tech after over expanding due to the rush, organized and creative are best.

 

[bestsss]

...And something like JC/Marathon I consider cheese, not a rush

I'd take Darius/Marathon every day. No matter what the opening is, you have a very strong game.
Outside: Ind/Fin and Fin/Org, I like Stalin. After the rush a few wonders coming in and a slow/relaxing game.

 

[lymond]

I guess the question now is what is the best leaders/Civs?

Interesting point about the traits not meaning to much unless you have the starting techs to get access to the right resources quickly.

 

[jmas]

The difficulty of rushing more than 1 opponent rises exponentially with speeds faster than Marathon, btw. Never been able to do it (or at least never thought about it as the optimal choice) on Normal myself.

I'm curious if others also feel that it is much more difficult to rush more than one opponent.

I was already feeling good about pulling off my first successful rush in my current game. This is on Prince, Normal speed, with BetterAI. I've played about 15-20 games before this one, and attempted a rush in a few of them, and always failed to take the enemy capital without bringing in siege (which to me meant it was no longer really much of a "rush"), due to various issues, the most common one probably being AIs having cities on hills when I was attempting rushes. This time, I drew Zara (randomly, though I played several games with him previously) and a good starting position (including sheep and Horses in the BFC), and happened to find Gandhi nearby. Managed to chariot-rush him. Of course, he is the AI with the single lowest probability of making units, and he only had 2 warriors in the capital (it was on a hill though). Well, Hammy was nearby, and I had enough troops that I thought I'd see what else I could do. I also went for HBR so I could continue fighting with Horse Archers if necesary. I managed to capture Hammy's two cities also, before even getting HAs online (though, Hammy had a Bowman somewhere near his capital that I didn't see, which killed one of my recovering chariots and probably would have retaken the city if I hadn't gotten his last city first).

So I'm happy about getting my first TWO successful rushes, in just one game! I don't know whether it's reasonable to expect to pull that off again. I know TMIT has said elsewhere that he has been able to conquer a whole continent with HAs. Unfortunately, now that I have some HAs, I'm not sure I'll be able to put them to use against the 2 remaining AIs. They are quite far from my capital, and the closer of the two has spears and Ivory and possibly Construction already for War Elephants. With Zara, I'm thinking it's probably safer to go the reliable Gunpowder-->Oromo Warrior (and siege) madness route.

So, do others find it very difficult to rush more than one opponent?

 

[Slvynn]

I'm curious if others also feel that it is much more difficult to rush more than one opponent.

I was already feeling good about pulling off my first successful rush in my current game. This is on Prince, Normal speed, with BetterAI. I've played about 15-20 games before this one, and attempted a rush in a few of them, and always failed to take the enemy capital without bringing in siege (which to me meant it was no longer really much of a "rush"), due to various issues, the most common one probably being AIs having cities on hills when I was attempting rushes. This time, I drew Zara (randomly, though I played several games with him previously) and a good starting position (including sheep and Horses in the BFC), and happened to find Gandhi nearby. Managed to chariot-rush him. Of course, he is the AI with the single lowest probability of making units, and he only had 2 warriors in the capital (it was on a hill though). Well, Hammy was nearby, and I had enough troops that I thought I'd see what else I could do. I also went for HBR so I could continue fighting with Horse Archers if necesary. I managed to capture Hammy's two cities also, before even getting HAs online (though, Hammy had a Bowman somewhere near his capital that I didn't see, which killed one of my recovering chariots and probably would have retaken the city if I hadn't gotten his last city first).

So I'm happy about getting my first TWO successful rushes, in just one game! I don't know whether it's reasonable to expect to pull that off again. I know TMIT has said elsewhere that he has been able to conquer a whole continent with HAs. Unfortunately, now that I have some HAs, I'm not sure I'll be able to put them to use against the 2 remaining AIs. They are quite far from my capital, and the closer of the two has spears and Ivory and possibly Construction already for War Elephants. With Zara, I'm thinking it's probably safer to go the reliable Gunpowder-->Oromo Warrior (and siege) madness route.

So, do others find it very difficult to rush more than one opponent?

Alot of players playing Monarch and above, so there is answer yes, you have less time for preparation, and less time before AI will invent new defencive / counter unit during your assault.

 

[Silu]

Disclaimer: I meant at least Monarch+ where all the AIs start with Archery. And not below a level you can beat 90%+ of random civ&script starts.

 

[Hsinchu]

In reality, I really believe that paired traits are a more appropriate way to determine this, but if I had to choose one trait, it would be expansive. Max that happy cap, whip out your army. Half price granaries mean even more whipping fun.

Whip It!

 

[Woodreaux]

If you're going for the dreaded Archer rush, then because of the free Drill I it provides, Protective is the winning trait.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you're going for the dreaded Archer rush, then because of the free Drill I it provides, Protective is the winning trait.

Unfortunately you need the skirmisher to make the archer rush useful, and mali doesn't have a PRO leader...so you'd have to go unrestricted.

Although even without PRO the skirmisher can pull it off pretty well. With a good set of first strikes and an extra base STR, they damage defenders fairly consistently and are cheap to build. Mali is definitely a top civ in both single player and MP due to them IMO.

 

[Iranon]

For unrestricted leaders...

EXP for Inca
PRO for Mali
ORG for Egypt, Persia
AGG otherwise.

For default leaders, I'd say AGG is the single strongest rush trait... but none of the AGG leaders is a contender for the best rusher.
Other considerations, particularly UUs, have more effect on how good the rush potential is - and the best do not come with AGG leaders.

 

[mariogreymist]

Sure, there are more important factors. I didn't mean to imply there weren't. What's interesting to me is the decisions we make that aren't 100%, easy, slam dunks. It's almost always beneficial to utilize an early UU aggressively. The real question to be answered is how to decide to rush when playing a later peaking leader. I like making axe/chariot rushes with Mehmed for example because of his UB and the ORG trait. Those factors make him a solid candidate for a rush, and the kind of leader that benefits greatly from the extra land and resources during the middle portion of the game. Because I play random leaders from time to time, it's good to know which traits (other things being equal) favor an early rush. That way, the next time I am playing a leader I am not fully familiar with, I can have another factor to consider. After all, any good player will tell you there's a time to stage a rush even without every factor (early UU for example) in your favor.

Some other factors which (imo) may be more important than traits (other than early UUs):
Distance to nearest opponent
Land situation (can he be choked rather than rushed?...do I have enough land for 7-10 cities without a rush?)
Availability of resources (I have copper and/or horses, and they don't...yet)
Number/strength of civs nearby
Does the neighbor have a holy city to take?

Usually, some of these situations favor rushing, others favor peaceful expansion. In such cases, it's good to have considered how other factors, like leader traits, affect the choice.

 

[TheLazyHase]

Some other factors which (imo) may be more important than traits (other than early UUs):
Distance to nearest opponent
Land situation (can he be choked rather than rushed?...do I have enough land for 7-10 cities without a rush?)
Availability of resources (I have copper and/or horses, and they don't...yet)
Number/strength of civs nearby
Does the neighbor have a holy city to take?

Starting tech does count IMO. And kind of opponent. China is rather undestroyable in middle age (once it begin to have chulonu and wall), for example. Shaka should usually be destroyed, war will happen anyway so you'd better starting it.

Note that not-so-early UU does count too : Korea and china may want to wait for cat to attack, if it's possible. Carthage may want to postpone a little the war, because numidian cavalry is mighty before longbow.

 

[Slvynn]

Agree, Starting techs is more important than traits, it better to say their combos with traits and uus is thing that matter. Lets say Joao is not Agg. But he is one of best rushers because have cheap workers, cheap settlers and start with mining. Gilgamesh is not agg, but considered as one of best leader (assuming you playing normal restricted leaders) for rushing. His traits are pro and cre, He rushing with his UU which is melee, have UB that is very good for rushing, and UB to cover rush expenses. I defenitely will put them both above Hammurabi, which is Agg Org, which being described here by lot of posters as awesome rushing traits. He have weak early UU, and not so usefull for rush puprose UB.