Best trait for rushing

[Sarge85]

Not enough love for Expansive imo.

Quicker Worker = Quicker Rush

Sarge

 

[Slvynn]

Not enough love for Expansive imo.

Quicker Worker = Quicker Rush

Sarge

Agree 100%
Just check all Expansive leaders. EVERYONE is good at rushing (better than hammurabi hehe for sure), bc they are expansive and most of them have mining starting tech (which speed your rush outcome with chops and fast bronze settling) . The ones who have not Mining are just Exp, Cha - Exp, Agg (Shaky)

 

[Tatran]

Stalin is the only AGG leader who starts with mining.
With some luck you don't need the wheel, so you can chop your axe-army after your first researched tech, BW.

 

[mariogreymist]

That's more than just some luck...but sure...you can get a rush going that early.

 

[TheLazyHase]

(better than hammurabi hehe for sure)

You have never try, or you're terrible with Hammurabi in my opinion.

 

[bestsss]

doh below deity unless i steal a worker i don't feel comfortable for rush.

 

[Slvynn]

You have never try, or you're terrible with Hammurabi in my opinion.

nope , i think that i am just better with expansives, and i rushing almost in every game i play (Emperor level, no tech trading/brockering (you cant bribe, cant gain techs though conquest)). (You can't say its wrong, bc i always play agressive game with lots of demands, fights, rushing, and conquest/domination wins, the way i enjoy game, and i sucess only if i do so VOV my best games were with Gilgamesh and few Expansive leaders (Sura, Joao, Pacal )

Gilgamesh and Joao is surely better for rushing than Hammurabi. d-e-f-e-n-i-t-e-l-y
(i did tried and that ended with simply axe flow. Bowmans are not-so-great units)

You can say i am terrible, but i think more like Ivan, Иван Грозный.
I just can answer you that some post ^^^ of yours is just weak.

 

[TheLazyHase]

Gilgamesh and Joao is surely better for rushing than Hammurabi. d-e-f-e-n-i-t-e-l-y
(i did tried and that ended with simply axe flow. Bowmans are not-so-great units)

Bowman are plain bad for rush. Hammurabi is not bad at all, and can definitely push some rush very quickly. The simple fact that barrack is half priced and that you need less axe make him better than an expansive non aggressive leader (think to it another way : since you need less chopping for the same army, it's exactly the same advantage than being able to chop more by being expansive),

And organized make the post rush blue better. That kind of advantage is easy to overlook, and cripple most of my rush. Especially other neighbor are far waya, since it mean a lot of barb. ANd here again, Aggressive and Organized help. Organized to make a bigger empire faster, aggressive to hold barbarian with less unit.

You can say i am terrible, but i think more like Ivan, Иван Грозный.
I just can answer you that some post ^^^ of yours is just weak.

Being terrible with a particular leader does not mean you're terrible with all of them. That said, this sentence is very hard to understand, I think it does not make a lot of sense in english. (even if I may not be that good in english, too).

 

[DaveMcW]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible

The joke is Ivan was only terrible to his enemies.

 

[Slvynn]

Just my civ playstyle, whipping, conquest, drafting, and building empire. There is note at bottom of article that explain meaning Terrible "Grozny" in his title in Russian.
I am sure he was Expansive.

 

[Hsinchu]

More units > Combat I bonuses on fewer units.

Expansive = More units
Aggressive = Combat I bonuses

Expansive + Aggressive = More units with Combat I.

Expansive + Aggressive + at least 1 Big 3 resource (copper/iron/horse) = Ridiculous 4\/\/350|\/|3 Rusher.

I guess that's why I can't lose with a Horsepowered Genghis Khan (vanilla).

(the jumble spells "awesome")

 

[TheLazyHase]

More units > Combat I bonuses on fewer units.

Wrong. A rush is not about making as much unit as possible, but to conquer one or more neighbor with as few unit as possible.

Because the more unit you make, the more problem you will have after the war, because of upkeep, because what is chopped in unit cannot be chopped for other goal, etc...

So, expansive still help, and tremendously, because it allow faster rush. But agressive help a lot too, and as somebody already say, it help in the post rush phase. That's the strength of Hammurabi : he 's good at rushing, and good at recovering. By the way, Gilgamesh had the same strength, but by virtue of UU and UB instead of trait. That's why Hammurabi of sumerian can really be nasty, maybe the better unrestricted early rusher.

 

[dalamb]

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.

If I understand TMIT's HA strategy correctly (especially with Kheshiks) a key is to get Flanking II and attack only with the first move, reserving the 2nd for a possible withdrawal; even against spears, 50% retreat probability helps a lot. I've never tried it, but plan to, One Of These Days.

 

[Hsinchu]

Wrong. A rush is not about making as much unit as possible, but to conquer one or more neighbor with as few unit as possible.

Because the more unit you make, the more problem you will have after the war, because of upkeep, because what is chopped in unit cannot be chopped for other goal, etc...

So, expansive still help, and tremendously, because it allow faster rush. But agressive help a lot too, and as somebody already say, it help in the post rush phase. That's the strength of Hammurabi : he 's good at rushing, and good at recovering. By the way, Gilgamesh had the same strength, but by virtue of UU and UB instead of trait. That's why Hammurabi of sumerian can really be nasty, maybe the better unrestricted early rusher.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand this. Conquering your neighbor requires more units or better units than your rival's units. I don't doubt that you want to conquer it with as few units as possible, but to make enough units as efficiently and as fast as possible, you're going to want Expansive. Expansive is not only useful, but necessary on maps where health is in short supply. ...and if you are planning on chopping away your forests, that's more health going out the door and expansive helps again.

 

[TheLazyHase]

but to make enough units as efficiently and as fast as possible, you're going to want Expansive.

There is absolutely NOTHING as an required trait for rushing.

Expansive help you to rush because it basically allow faster building, and the faster you go the less unit you need. Aggressive help you too, both by speeding you up (half price barrack) and making you need less unit.

But of the two, aggressive tend to help a lot more than you say. Because it allow you to use less hammer to conquer the same opponent. That mean more hammer for other thing, including courthouse, settler, whatever you want. more health toon, since you chop less. It make the post war phase a lot easier.

In short, expansive does help. But it's not the best trait for that, and it does not dwarf aggressive. You think it's better than aggressive, but I don't see why, and I believe that's because you don't look at the recovery phase and/or fail at build a smaller army. And you absolutely overestimate health, it's really a secondary thing until late in the game. One of my citizen eat 3 food ? I can't care less in the BC !

in any case, circonstance trump trait by a large margin. I'd better rush with gandi if circonstance are good than rush with Gengis when it's not the case.

 

[Hsinchu]

There is absolutely NOTHING as an required trait for rushing.

Expansive help you to rush because it basically allow faster building, and the faster you go the less unit you need. Aggressive help you too, both by speeding you up (half price barrack) and making you need less unit.

But of the two, aggressive tend to help a lot more than you say. Because it allow you to use less hammer to conquer the same opponent. That mean more hammer for other thing, including courthouse, settler, whatever you want. more health toon, since you chop less. It make the post war phase a lot easier.

In short, expansive does help. But it's not the best trait for that, and it does not dwarf aggressive. You think it's better than aggressive, but I don't see why, and I believe that's because you don't look at the recovery phase and/or fail at build a smaller army. And you absolutely overestimate health, it's really a secondary thing until late in the game. One of my citizen eat 3 food ? I can't care less in the BC !

in any case, circonstance trump trait by a large margin. I'd better rush with gandi if circonstance are good than rush with Gengis when it's not the case.

I'm not sure we are rushing the same way. While a Barracks is great because promoted units are really the nail in the coffin, half-price granaries to whip out units more often is typically the tactic I use when rushing. I would prefer 6 units unpromoted to 4 units promoted when going up against 2 hill fortified archers in a city. Ideally, I'll get the barracks, too, typically by whipping. It's not just the health, its the faster granary (which ALSO has bonus health).


I don't always rush, but when I do, I prefer Expansive.

 

[TheLazyHase]

I would prefer 6 units unpromoted to 4 units promoted when going up against 2 hill fortified archers in a city. Ideally, I'll get the barracks, too, typically by whipping. It's not just the health, its the faster granary (which ALSO has bonus health).

Waiting for granary for rush ? I tend to understand better why you need expansive. By the time you get granary, you may very well encounter opponent with wall, etc ... In a nutshell, for me you're making classical war more than rush, and it does not mean the same strategy.

Granary are more likely if you chariot rush, because it implie more tech in pottery techpath, but even then it's pretty slow. For me, by the time I have pottery, I usually already have a barrack and maybe a couple unit. Wasting time on a granary to make unit more quickly does not seem a good deal, because I also need more unit because of the waiting. Anyway, whipping is rarely a good option for rush.

If I have 3 vulture, even without prom, I go all out, because my opponent may not even have archer, or have only one. If I axe rush, 4 may be enough, especially if aggressive, 6-8 is sure. If my opponent walled his city, then 10-12 axes may required.

 

[Silu]

A rush with granaries? Whoa. New concept for me. (Granaries don't really even help since you can whip way enough for a rush without them)

EXP doesn't really even give you any more units for a fast rush over AGG, as the hammers gained from Workers (quite minuscule tbh, especially the first one - overall the EXP worker bonus is way overrated) are lost because the Barracks takes double time. A rush without Barracks is ludicrous without a very good UU or low difficulty level.

But as pointed out ad nauseam, traits are meaningless compared to many other factors.

 

[Hsinchu]

But as pointed out ad nauseam, traits are meaningless compared to many other factors.

Agreed.

A rush with granaries? Whoa. New concept for me. (Granaries don't really even help since you can whip way enough for a rush without them)

Not true, necessarily. Depending on how effectively I want to wage war or how close/far my target is, granaries are essential for production and recovery, at least for me. I'm not sure what "classical war" refers to, but if you are talking about the civilization equivalent to a six zergling rush, I'll have to concede that Agg wins for that rush. If I am rolling horse archers or axeman or chariots, in the end, I do prefer the added flexibility of granaries/expansive.

EXP doesn't really even give you any more units for a fast rush over AGG, as the hammers gained from Workers (quite minuscule tbh, especially the first one - overall the EXP worker bonus is way overrated) are lost because the Barracks takes double time. A rush without Barracks is ludicrous without a very good UU or low difficulty level.

I am not really even counting the worker hammers as the hammers saved. For one thing, you don't always need a Barracks, and when you do (agg opponent) The granary helps you accelerate and recover from whipping a barracks in the first place. If I am rushing, I don't usually plan to straight build the latter half of a barracks.

If a worker is good for anything, its for building the farms needed to accelerate whipping and get metal/horses that much sooner so I don't waste any more time building warriors/archers I don't plan on using and to chop out the granary I want for infrastructure ASAP (or barracks).

Also, if I'm rushing a close neighbor, saving one or two turns by having a road can mean all the difference in finishing a war before the next archer pops (or the opponent discovers BW and switches to Slavery).

 

[Silu]

Okay we are talking about vastly different things here. For me a rush is at latest a dedicated HA or Sword attack with 3 cities max. In the vast majority of cases it's Axes or Chariots off 1-2 cities though. For this anything but mass chopping and a whip or three for the last units before attacking kinda sucks - there's no time to wait for whip cycles. How you have time to build Granaries (or tech Archery for that matter?) for an Axe rush is beyond me. Or succeed in rushing at all without Barracks.