Early Game Battles

[djdeth]

Hey Guys,

If I am trying to rush guys that can defeat fortified archers early game, what tech do I need? It seems archers can hold a TON off at the beginning of the game. Thanks.

 

[Chemtech]

Hey Guys,

If I am trying to rush guys that can defeat fortified archers early game, what tech do I need? It seems archers can hold a TON off at the beginning of the game. Thanks.

Easiest path is to play an Agg leader, beeline bronze working, hook up copper get a baracks up and turn out axemen - they will be 4/5 xp - find an obliging barb to level him up and take the promo that is anti-archery (25%) since its slightly better than city raider I, although not as useful long term if you ever plan on upgrading units.

They will do a fine job taking out fortified archers - maybe a win 2 in 3 tries.

 

[OctavianFlu]

The problem with early rushing is what if the city you are attacking is on a hill? Gottta love archers on hills. Typically I would only early rush if someone built a second city near my borders. God knows what's going to happen if I let them remain there. Next thing I know its a troop gateway into my borders. imho -- I would build units until construction, then bring 4-5 catapults with your stack of doom, and pick a target. Early warring is in my opinion a 80/20 draw, where the defender has the advantage. Unless you can slave enough units to put the odds in your favour. Some people won't build more than one archer to defend a city earlier on.

 

[Bhruic]

Being on a hill is only a problem if it's a Capital, or they've built a wall. If you're an Aggressive leader with a Barracks, you've got C1 Axes with CR1. While you'll likely lose the first fight, you'll also likely wound the Archer enough that you'll win the second. Generally, 2-to-1 odds are considered "good enough" to attack Archers on hills. Otherwise, about 1.5-to-1 odds are enough for your garden variety cities.

Bh

 

[djdeth]

Thanks for the tip. That seems like a lot to rely on though.

 

[Sisiutil]

Thanks for the tip. That seems like a lot to rely on though.

Not if you use the whip effectively. Whip one Axeman and the 2nd is usually built thanks to the overflow.

Since early cities usually only have 2-3 Archers defending them, 4-6 Axemen should be sufficient to take a city with 20% cultural defense, even on a hill. Say if it's a capital with 60% defenses, a 3-1 ratio ought to suffice. Leave that city until last so you have a few units with additional City Raider promotions from the easier cities. Use the units with the lowest number of promotions first, to weaken the defenders, and let the strong ones finish them off.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

If you want an easy early civ to go a fighting with, try the Persians. The Immortal is (imho) the strongest UU in the game, including Praetorians. The Immortal has a 100% bonus vs axes (same as chariots), but also a 50% bonus vs Archers and a 30% withdrawal chance. They are cheap to build, and get to battlefields quickly. They also are a "one stop shop" vs all barbarians.

Their only counter is the spearman, but a single axeman to accompany a stack will protect them. Even against a capital on a hill with culture, a 3 /1 immmortals per archer should do the trick.

Add to this Cyrus's imperialistic (each win counts double xp towards Great Generals) and Charismatic (one win from a barracks produced Immortal vs absolutely anything gets them a new promotion) traits, you've got quite a war machine.

Also, Cyrus starts with Hunting and Agriculture, making Animal Husbandry an even cheaper research . Play Cyrus, research An Husb, the Wheel, Pottery (for economy) and you're off to war

 

[Hero]

Play the Incas and you'll be killing plenty of archers. Quechas rock in the early game. Get them a couple of CR promotions by beating up on animals and barbs, and you can take any AI city.

ETA: Also, you don't need any techs. You'll get one at 4000 BC and hopefully pop some more in huts.

 

[Vizzini]

If I am trying to rush guys that can defeat fortified archers early game, what tech do I need? It seems archers can hold a TON off at the beginning of the game. Thanks.

Persian Immortals can tackle archers on almost a 1:1 basis (but bring 2 just in case) as can Que rushing - but with either of those civs you're still looking at bringing a minimum of 2 units to overcome a single archer. You can try 1:1 odds but I wouldn't want to if I could avoid it - especially if the archer is on a hill.

Fortified archer on a hill with any kind of culture or structure (walls) bonus is going to be murder on any other ancient era troops you care to name so just plan on taking heavy losses if you want to attack that city. If you haven't got an ancient era UU that can at least counter the archer's defensive bonuses then you're better off waiting until you can combine catapults and swordsmen. One suicide cat (with Barrage) per city should be enough to maul the defenders and allow your swordsmen to walk into the town at will.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Archers and hills, hmmm, its an old gripe, and yes I can partly see why it was done, but to me they are still completely wrong. I'll explain, build a city on a hill anywhere and even at size one, its virtually invulnerable with a couple of garrison 1 archers. Often its harder to take than a size 7 city thats been there for 2000 yrs (on a grassland) with a monument , library monestary etc. Wrong. Just completely wrong.

I wished some kind of sliding scale had been used which made small cities (villages really at size 1 or 2) a lot more vulnerable. As I said, I can see why Archers were made that way, but the double bonus for a hill city (+25% for building the city on a hill, then another 25% because its on a hill (hmm wrong again), and then another 50% because its a large village, AND another 25% from fortification (what fortification ? 1000 people live there thats all) AND THEN yet another 25% garrison bonus......just too much, and completely unrealistic. Mature cities yes, but tiny ones really shouldn't receive that kind of invulnerable bonus in my opinion.

 

[Ecofarm]

And then there is protective...

 

[DrewBledsoe]

And then there is protective...

Oh they just make me cross

 

[AThousandYoung]

Just make a stack of like 8-10 swords or axes and hit a city with 2 archers.

 

[pigswill]

A problem with hill cities is that there's no way to remove the 50% defence bonus for archers/longbows. That doesn't mean they're invincible but it does mean heavier losses when attacking. As usual a lot depends on RNG.

 

[Kietharr]

The earlier you get those axes out, the better. Every turn you wait for more axemen before war, he builds more archers. You can even consider an early warrior rush if they're close enough and you're aggressive. Whip a barracks and make 3 or 4 warriors with shock 1, with any luck you'll get them to a nearby enemy capital before they even get hunting. If a target civ starts with hunting though, you can rule it out unless you're the inca.

 

[bardolph]

Excluding UUs, the best candidate to take out archers is Catapults, followed by Swordsmen, then Axemen. Against small stacks (2 or less), swords are usually better than cats.

Since Axemen only require Bronze Working + Copper, your first war will often be waged with Axemen.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

You'd be surprised how often 2 protective archers, on a hill in a capital holds out against EIGHT axeman. Look at the odds:

60% cultural, 25% city garrison, 25% hill, 50% city, 25% fortify = 8.55 strength. I haven't counted in the drill 1 yet, which counts for a lot but I don't have patience to map out the whole stocastic "tree".

Axeman with city raider 1 (assuming barracks): 5 strength against 8.55 lowered to 7.8. It's a lot worse than warrios against archers, because as both attackers and defenders gain strength, the difference in damage between each point of strength becomes very large, hence the way infantry cripples rifleman.

 

[DaveMcW]

Catapults are a guaranteed win.

Other units might help you beat one opponent, but the cost is so high you will probably fall behind the others.