How close does an opponent have to be for you to decide to axe rush?
- Thread starter Artifex1
- Start date
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
Someone is going to write an essay on relativity soon. 
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
the opponent has to be on someone else's map, so that i can tell that someone else "hey, maybe you should rush that guy". i can't rush worth a darn, so i just don't do it.
i did twice in the last few weeks, but in both cases a barb uprising killed one of my neighbors. barbs i can axe-rush, that doesn't seem so scary to me.
i did twice in the last few weeks, but in both cases a barb uprising killed one of my neighbors. barbs i can axe-rush, that doesn't seem so scary to me.
obsolete
Deity
Probably 64 tiles or so. My requirement is just that they have to be on the same continent.
BTW, my first axeman rush generally consists of either a core of cavalry, or a few large stacks of modern armour.
BTW, my first axeman rush generally consists of either a core of cavalry, or a few large stacks of modern armour.
Verge
Let's hug it out
If I'm feeling tepid about war (which is most of the time), then the opponent has to be really, really close for me to think about an early rush.
If I'm feeling bloodthirsty, I'll hit someone as long as they're within a parsec.
If I'm feeling bloodthirsty, I'll hit someone as long as they're within a parsec.
reknaw
the Hopeless
Depends on the opponent, I probably wouldn't rush someone like Gandhi unless his capital was directly beside mine, but I would cross half the map to rush either Ceasar (assuming I can get there before he hooks up Iron). Toku and Monty I also prefer to kill ASAP. I know its not the advice people want to hear, but every situation is different.
absimiliard
Warlord
Depends a lot on who they are to be honest.
Some leaders I'll rush with axes or chariots at huge distances, like 20 squares or so. If they're treacherous, like Monty, or if they're a REX threat, like Joao, I'll rush 'em from a long ways off.
Others I won't rush at all if I can help it, mostly protective leaders. But even those will get a rush if they're too close.
So it's very situational.
-abs
Some leaders I'll rush with axes or chariots at huge distances, like 20 squares or so. If they're treacherous, like Monty, or if they're a REX threat, like Joao, I'll rush 'em from a long ways off.
Others I won't rush at all if I can help it, mostly protective leaders. But even those will get a rush if they're too close.
So it's very situational.
-abs
semirami
The Wolf
The same applies for me.
Daedal
Prince
It really depends...
How juicy is the enemy land? How many cities do they have? Is it a realistic target? How easy is it for me to REX without warring? Am I in a warring mood? So many considerations...
Most importantly: what do I gain attacking now vs attacking later? Distance is just another factor in deciding that opportunity cost and if you set a rule for yourself to follow, odds are you'll probably be presented with a situation that requires you to break that rule soon after.
How juicy is the enemy land? How many cities do they have? Is it a realistic target? How easy is it for me to REX without warring? Am I in a warring mood? So many considerations...
Most importantly: what do I gain attacking now vs attacking later? Distance is just another factor in deciding that opportunity cost and if you set a rule for yourself to follow, odds are you'll probably be presented with a situation that requires you to break that rule soon after.
I play on lower difficulty levels and mainly continental maps (planning to jump up another difficulty level next game probably). If I'm on a continent with only a few other civs, I'll attack them out as soon as I get to Axemen/Swordsmen. I'm usually forced to raze their cities due to maintenance reasons, but I like to wipe them out ASAP before they can build relations with civs on other continents - that way I get to war freely without a negative diplo modifier from the other civs. Plus, I basically get my run of the continent and can expand as far as my economy allows.
If there's a lot of other civs on the same continent, I'll only attack those who will threaten to take up too much of my potential real estate. For instance, if I'm on the norther stretch of a continent and I have one or two civs above me or squeezed in next to me, I'll set up a few cities to claim a slice of land, generally cutting off a part of the continent. Then I'll build a force of Axemen/Swordsmen and wipe out the one or two civs that I blocked in so that I can then settle their land at my leisure.
If there's a lot of other civs on the same continent, I'll only attack those who will threaten to take up too much of my potential real estate. For instance, if I'm on the norther stretch of a continent and I have one or two civs above me or squeezed in next to me, I'll set up a few cities to claim a slice of land, generally cutting off a part of the continent. Then I'll build a force of Axemen/Swordsmen and wipe out the one or two civs that I blocked in so that I can then settle their land at my leisure.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
They have to:
1) "Feel" close enough that I can keep a few of their cities, esp their capital, without crippling my econ. This is something that is judged better with experience.
2) Be boxing me in in that I can't expand peacefully myself. I prefer to expand peacefully first, focusing on econ, unless taking them out would be strategic like my one HC game recently where I was on a large island with only Genghis and taking him out early gave me the whole thing to myself.
1) "Feel" close enough that I can keep a few of their cities, esp their capital, without crippling my econ. This is something that is judged better with experience.
2) Be boxing me in in that I can't expand peacefully myself. I prefer to expand peacefully first, focusing on econ, unless taking them out would be strategic like my one HC game recently where I was on a large island with only Genghis and taking him out early gave me the whole thing to myself.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
A sI have been expanding quite a bit early while getting archery and I have not really rushed AI's too much lately. But these are the times where I think it is required.
1) You have a creative leader or Hyuna very close. They both will box you in, leaving little working room.
2) If I got a religious Zealot as a neighbor and i founded and early religion which is different.
3) If I have horse or copper and the enxt door neighbor already has control of the other.
EDIT: To finish post
It does not reallt matter how close they are to start, given the above reasons, 4 tiles or 24 doesn't matter.
1) You have a creative leader or Hyuna very close. They both will box you in, leaving little working room.
2) If I got a religious Zealot as a neighbor and i founded and early religion which is different.
3) If I have horse or copper and the enxt door neighbor already has control of the other.
EDIT: To finish post
It does not reallt matter how close they are to start, given the above reasons, 4 tiles or 24 doesn't matter.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
I don't know, if they are 24 tiles away and you have a lot of back-fill space, I think it can be advantageous to delay war, settle toward them, backfill, and then tech to something like knights (before longbows/pikes) or cavalry (before rifles) and wipe out their developed empire.
If you are destined to be really boxed in though, hitting them early can be good.
Some special circumstances apply as well. I was playing a game as HC and shared a mid-sized continent with only Genghis. His capital was far enough away that I could put one city in between and their fatcrosses wouldn't touch, but they would be close enough that it didn't make sense to put additional cities between them. I took him out before building any cities myself keeping only his capital then I built the one city between the two cities. Then I focused on economy and expanding at my leisure.
In 90% of my BtS games though (monarch/normal) I expand peacefully and go to war either with catas/swords/axes or cavalry. I usually win my games around 1930 space or domination. For domination I like to take my time and get good use out of tanks/bombers then modern armor/stealth bombers. I usually try and vassal everyone. Feels more like domination that way--I'm actually dominating civilizations that are still around as opposed to being nearly the only one left (feels more like conquest imo).
If you are destined to be really boxed in though, hitting them early can be good.
Some special circumstances apply as well. I was playing a game as HC and shared a mid-sized continent with only Genghis. His capital was far enough away that I could put one city in between and their fatcrosses wouldn't touch, but they would be close enough that it didn't make sense to put additional cities between them. I took him out before building any cities myself keeping only his capital then I built the one city between the two cities. Then I focused on economy and expanding at my leisure.
In 90% of my BtS games though (monarch/normal) I expand peacefully and go to war either with catas/swords/axes or cavalry. I usually win my games around 1930 space or domination. For domination I like to take my time and get good use out of tanks/bombers then modern armor/stealth bombers. I usually try and vassal everyone. Feels more like domination that way--I'm actually dominating civilizations that are still around as opposed to being nearly the only one left (feels more like conquest imo).
Similar threads
