How to play Leaders with Protective trait

[TheMeInTeam]

Protective does nothing to avoid the AI DoW, it helps you defend if you are at war.

Now, I don't like the trait especially, but here's another use for it:

Stick 3 archers into the eye of the first AI you come across:

Expand to a decent # of cities on a tight map:

Build a lot of archers, so that the enemy suicides when attempting a counter attack:

Know what you're doing in terms of research, so you get your hands on trade techs (I went aesthetics and traded for alpha, iron working, masonry, and sailing, and am using alpha to get to currency).

This is an Immortal/Normal start with no events or huts. I'm using Mao, who people believe has crappy traits (though IMO exp is underrated), although this map IS made easier by the ridiculously strong Chinese starting techs.

Lincoln and Sully don't declare at pleased, which they are. Izzy is of course mad at me and will probably declare, but it's unlikely she'll be able to do anything ----> she doesn't have enough cities and her extremely mild tech lead on me won't last very long after currency + trades with the other two. She can be finished off at leisure, probably either in medieval or renaissance times, and that will be good for about 17 cities ----> immortal tends to be easy if you can secure 15+ by around 1500 AD and manage diplo.

I like it less than other traits because it's kind of quirky (wallchop, choke, declare early so that the stacks sent never get huge, etc) until gunpowder, but there you go. Drill helps a lot when camping in enemy lands (note that archers are = on both hills and forests, but can get guerilla, so favor hills if you can get them in the choke, especially forest hills).

I'll post 4000 BC and 1 AD saves in case anybody cares.

View attachment AutoSave_Initial_BC-4000.CivBeyondSwordSave

View attachment TheMeInTeam AD-0001.CivBeyondSwordSave

 

[PieceOfMind]

I have probably played over two hundred games over the past few years, and can honestly only recall it happening in two games. You will very frequently miss out on one of the big three (copper/horse/iron) and sometimes two, but it is a very rare game that you will get none of the three if you expand and look for them from the start of the game. If you are not expanding quickly your chance of getting screwed on resources goes up dramatically, of course.

What level and map types do you usually play? I know that when playing Tectonics the resources can be very spread out and it's not uncommon at all to end up in a situation where getting any metal at all means going through your nearest aggressive neighbour.

Also, I make the conscious commitment each game not to rush a neighbour because I feel it's too cheesy so it doesn't bother me greatly that protective does absolutely nothing for helping an early rush (except maybe the wall overflow trick).

The real problem, though, is that even if I knew I wasn't going to get any of them, I still wouldn't choose protective. One extra first strike chance isn't going to enable archers to consistently beat spearmen and axemen in the field. You are going to have to rely on siege units and diplomacy to win.

Siege units and drill units do really well together. Just like if you play an aggressive civ you usually can't get away with ignoring siege either. Protective is not meant to be a trait that enables you to win through brute force, ignoring the normal tactics like using siege engines etc. If you use protective promotions intelligently, it can be a lot more useful than no trait at all.

The primary justification for protective seems to be that it help you avoid getting DOW'd, but I don't really see how this works better than building melee or mounted units and paying attention to diplomacy. Could someone explain it?

Actually, I don't recall anyone ever trying to justify protective by claiming it helped you avoid getting DoW'd. If you have a link to someone saying that I'd like to see it. It's true that if you are really crafty with diplomacy you can pretty much avoid ever being DoW'd but that doesn't change the fact you sometimes want to attack other civs. Maybe the name is a bit of a misnomer, but Protective actually assists more than most traits in offensive wars (Agg being the only real competitor). Most other traits allow you to gain some tech edge (if it can be done at your difficulty) but with protective if you don't get that tech edge you can still win with obsolete units, as I'm doing in my current game, defeating curassiers and grenadiers with simple trebs, longbows, macemen and some chokonus. Siege is what softens them up, and yes a few will die inevitably (same with any trait really) but then following up with D4 units works very well, even obsolete units.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A tech edge is possible on any difficulty. I can't do it on deity, but that's why U Sun showed you it's even possible there by sticking longbows/muskets with INFANTRY !

However, sometimes the situation makes that very difficult. The above is an example of something that will work on anything but deity and on some maps will grant you access to the metals in the first place. PRO actually helps because of how stock archers can repel attackers that bypass the choke with very minimal expense.

I've done the longbows + siege vs medieval stuff before, even on immortal, and it does work pretty nicely with PRO (although flanking knights and cuirassers can be a problem). What really kills medieval warfare are those $#%# castles making bombardment so weak.

The true problem with medieval warfare is that the AIs all take it as a tech path, so if you research it too you research more slowly SOLELY because of fewer trade opportunities, although later universities hurts too. You can circumvent this in situations with a lot of AIs through trades, getting the techs just as fast as anybody and being set to go (tricky to get construction early w/o self-teching though).

If one goes the espionage route to full abuse (aka running great wall, only spy specs, espionage focus with SY in bureaucracy commerce capitol, or instead MOVING the capitol near the target), then medieval warfare is more sensible and a natural transition. EP is cheaper when stealing techs than beakers if set up properly, and especially early in the game it's very difficult for the AI to match the EP because no buildings are available. The conversion rate compensates the human for the AI bonuses to an extent and also allows the human to catch up ground as he conquers cities more readily.

However, it's frequently better to just go for tech anyway. PRO is killer with a gunpowder tech lead too (arguably it's best then), so it's not like you're hurting yourself.

 

[PieceOfMind]

TMIT I agree that medieval war can be a hard slog, at any difficulty, but why do you think flanking knights and curassiers are a problem for PRO? Usually as a Pro leader you'd want Engineering at a reasonable time, allowing you to build pikemen rather early. Pikes are no rifleman but they defend your stacks fairly cost effectively for a while. If the enemy possesses a huge stack of mounted then it would be wise to have it wiped out early in the war by drawing them to you first. Even as a pro leader, one can't afford to lose siege units due to enemy mounted flanking your SoD.

Anyway, my point is I don't see why flanking knights and curassiers are any more a problem for PRO leaders in medieval war as any other leader. With any trait it's still necessary IMO to build the appropriate number of pikes. Only with agg would you perhaps get away with fewer, because you can get them to formation a bit faster.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Anyway, my point is I don't see why flanking knights and curassiers are any more a problem for PRO leaders in medieval war as any other leader. With any trait it's still necessary IMO to build the appropriate number of pikes. Only with agg would you perhaps get away with fewer, because you can get them to formation a bit faster.

AGG is unique in its ability to easily get access to formation and amphibious (as far as traits go, rather than UUs). However, the flanking is indeed a problem for ANY medieval war, not just one based on longbows (knights stuff everything but elephants and pikes with little trouble).

Cuirassers are a real problem. Even after you knock out a SoD, an immortal AI with any meaningful # of cities (like, say 9+ which isn't super unusual) will still produce 8+ cuirassers and attack you with them throughout the war, especially since you'll be parking at each city to bombard for a bit. It can be done and with combat II pikes or useful terrain you can hold your own and still make progress.

But, it's slow, and there will be WW generated for killing more #'s in enemy territory since they'll just keep building units as you bombard. I don't think PRO is especially weak here...I think ALL war is weak here, thanks to castles.

If you can somehow get enough espionage early to cut down the castles, it might be more worthwhile. Counters in medieval times are HARD counters, and it's true that it's often possible to attack before MT, especially since a lot of AIs don't head there early.

I'll point out that knights can be troublesome to pikes in the field too (elephants do better), because knights can take shock, making even the tiniest bit of collateral give them the odds if you're on flatland. This, however, is not the realm of typical AI behavior.

Mounted can be hell on the drill line in general, though. Better to hit before they start showing up in force.

I would therefore advocate longbows and CATAPULTS over longbow/treb. HAs can hammer-effectively counter longbows in the field, but only 50/50, and lose anywhere else. Maces can win in the field but are sub-standard after minimal siege hits them (certainly less effective than knights), and maces are after feudalism.

Most importantly, there aren't castles yet, the AI probably has fewer units, and it is sometimes possible to snipe it before it gets feudalism if it's slow, even on immortal. IMO cats/bows is better all around.

If the stacks defending in the city are longbow heavy, possibly barrage on some of the cats is superior to CR? Even if you need 3-4 cats per city, that's a minimal price compared to waiting. You want wars as short as possible so that the cities can be usefully converted.

 

[Dhaulagiri]

The protective trait seems kinda weak but in practice it's strong. Charlemagne for example, Imp/Prot, seemingly weak combo, but his UU and UB are awesome, and the traits work well for alot of warfare. Gilga is protective and is also a very strong leader.

Just play protective aggresively. AI's will often pick another target because of those CG archers in the early game, Without catapults they will pay a huge price trying to take a city, then you counter attack. Go down the monarchy-feudalism path after you have CoL and other necessary techs. Then with Charly go for engineering and steamroll your continent with the super pikes and trebs. The only counter to it is mass xbowmen which the AI doesn't do too often.

 

[Molybdeus]

What level and map types do you usually play? I know that when playing Tectonics the resources can be very spread out and it's not uncommon at all to end up in a situation where getting any metal at all means going through your nearest aggressive neighbour.

Emperor on continents at either epic or normal speed. I fully admit that deity players may find my opinions inapplicable to their games.

Also, I make the conscious commitment each game not to rush a neighbour because I feel it's too cheesy so it doesn't bother me greatly that protective does absolutely nothing for helping an early rush (except maybe the wall overflow trick).

This is probably the fundamental difference between those who like protective and those that don't. If I get horses but not iron or copper near my BFC that's fine, because my nearest opponents will be dead before they can attack me anyway. (Unless one of them is Mansa Musa, but I can deal with him later once I get catapults.)

The defenders of protective seem to feel . . .

Protective is underrated by the vast majority of people on this forum for the simple reason that most players feel the only way to play Civ IV is to attack people with axes, and if you for whatever reason don't do that, you're a suboptimal player.

While I don't think that people who don't axe rush are bad players, I do think that early rushing is the strongest strategy on any level other than deity.

Actually, I don't recall anyone ever trying to justify protective by claiming it helped you avoid getting DoW'd. If you have a link to someone saying that I'd like to see it.

The argument is that it boosts your power graph and thus helps stop the AI from attacking you. A couple of posts talking about this:

Obviously it depends on the opponents. But Protective has a hammer-efficient means of bumping their power graph without having to pay troop maintenance.

BUT let me point out that it is a deterrent to the AIs too. Building cheap walls and castles DOES impact the Power graph, which is what the AI uses when deciding who is weak and who is strong, when picking someone to attack.

I can find more posts, but those were the two I remembered. Though I'm still not certain what Bandobras Took meant by "without having to pay troop maintenance" since you do have to pay support costs for archers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The argument is that it boosts your power graph and thus helps stop the AI from attacking you. A couple of posts talking about this:

If you're playing on emperor+, using PRO, or any form of power as a deterrent early in the game is garbage.

I'm serious. Complete crap. Don't believe people who say it. The AI has an on/off switch with regards to power and war decisions. If you're below the thresh-hold that lets them declare, they don't care what your power is. 1 troop or 100 makes no difference then. PRO walls aren't going to change your power enough. On emperor, you could do nothing but build military to the point of driving yourself to ruin, and some AIs would STILL declare on you early, since there's no way you have 150% of their power. This is in the code, you know.

So like I said, PRO doesn't do anything to prevent DoWs, though it can certainly help to survive one.

Also, I make the conscious commitment each game not to rush a neighbour because I feel it's too cheesy so it doesn't bother me greatly that protective does absolutely nothing for helping an early rush (except maybe the wall overflow trick).

I can't buy this argument either. It's hard for me to even buy that winning using the AP is "cheesy". But with an axe rush, it's barely debatable at all. Axe rushes on normal speed/high levels (or just the level that currently challenges the player enough) have a reasonable high failure chance.

Also, I've already posted proof that PRO has an alternative use that also allows it to secure more early-game cities, but I suspect you'll call my screenshots here "cheesy" too...even though neither an axe-rush nor an archer choke/settle strategy has anywhere near the end-game impact as basic solid play. Where do you stop? Is tech brokering cheesy? Using siege well? Destroying an AI navy on the 1st turn of war while in port? We're not even talking about something convoluted when it comes to using military to capture cities or repress expansion by the AI...it's a logical usage (and the former can kill us, too, while the latter would impede us but to a lesser extent).

Also, map and enemy leaders cause far greater variance than ANY trait, as does picking the correct approach based on them.

 

[AfterShafter]

Emperor on continents at either epic or normal speed. I fully admit that deity players may find my opinions inapplicable to their games.



This is probably the fundamental difference between those who like protective and those that don't. If I get horses but not iron or copper near my BFC that's fine, because my nearest opponents will be dead before they can attack me anyway. (Unless one of them is Mansa Musa, but I can deal with him later once I get catapults.)

The defenders of protective seem to feel . . .



While I don't think that people who don't axe rush are bad players, I do think that early rushing is the strongest strategy on any level other than deity.



The argument is that it boosts your power graph and thus helps stop the AI from attacking you. A couple of posts talking about this:





I can find more posts, but those were the two I remembered. Though I'm still not certain what Bandobras Took meant by "without having to pay troop maintenance" since you do have to pay support costs for archers.

The power graph comment is about cheap walls. Walls boost your power graph and don't require troop maintenance. Yes, this is a perk of protective, but it isn't one of the ones that people generally harp about... I certainly never have. Most of us Pro die-hards love protective primarily for the drill line paired with the free CG on those yummy resourceless units - the idea being to make you immune to warring opponents rather than immune to DOWs.

Now, here's the thing.. You say "While I don't think that people who don't axe rush are bad players, I do think that early rushing is the strongest strategy on any level other than deity" while you're playing on emperor. What's more on continents, which gives easy rush access and more directions to find resources in compared to any water heavy map. Protective was *not* my favorite trait when I was playing emperor, partially for the same reasoning - "why jump through all these hoops when I can just rush?" When immortal rolled around, I rushing became anything but a sure thing, and I had to start jumping through hoops. I came up with my stasis rush (actually did that playing emperor, but it was a favorite on immortal), but more consistently, I started to rely on protective for the multitude of reasons listed all over the bloody place.

Immortal rushes are tricky. Your economy is substantially less forgiving so making city leaps for resources will be more likely to cripple your economy, the AI gets running just a little bit faster, and overall, it's just a bad scene. I pretty much gave up on axe rushes (though I'll still indulge in a war chariot rush and I frequently stasis rush) on Immortal since it would result in me either restarting or not being able to get the required resources a good chunk of the time, and therefore leave me in a position where again I had to restart.

My original position... Protective doesn't shine until you get to a point where things get taken away from you. The ability to rush with any reliability of success is one of the things which goes the way of the dodo - specifically past emperor I find. Better players than me do pull it off consistently I'm sure, but, that doesn't do me any good. What I can do is have my little army of protective rocks put the enemy in a hard place - reliably. But as I've said many a time before, protective simply isn't a wonderful trait until the things you've come to think of as the best strategies are no longer viable. Early rushing is in notable jeopardy for me on Immortal, and I'd ask that you not say that it's a better strategy on immortal than our protective mongering until you're on immortal and axe-rushing consistently

 

[AfterShafter]

Also, map and enemy leaders cause far greater variance than ANY trait, as does picking the correct approach based on them.

Very much the truth. Immortal with three gems, two corn, copper, and a bunch of flood plains in your starting city and nice land around you is easier than emperor in a desert. Though, since Civ is like a box of chocolates and you often get those gross chocolates with that simulated coco-mocha rather than those yummy caramels, I like my protective to get me ready for play in the worst case scenario

 

[cardgame]

Protective shines whenever I play large map/marathon/raging barb games. I can think of at least one instance where I almost certainly would have died if I didn't have protective archers, with their ability to access the counter promotions from the barracks upgrade.

This. I personally love the barbs suiciding themselves on my elite archers... By the time I get to longbowmen I usually have several level 4 or level 5 of them, all upgraded heavily. Drill helps them survive against many opponents, CG is great for defending cities against barbs and other civs, but what I really love is the upgrades you can get right off the bat with a barracks and/or some civics. Shock especially for barbs.

 

[Molybdeus]

I play fractal a lot too, but that also results in pretty easy warmongering. The problem is that any map can be abused. When I first started playing on Noble, I actually wanted to be isolated so I didn't have to waste hammers on units to defend myself and could devote production to all those shiny wonders. If I were to pick a map that prevented easy war, I would abuse it by reverting to the obsolete style wonderspam strategy and neglecting my military.

Lately I've been playing leaders I always hated before to try to force myself out of my comfort zone. Sitting Bull was my last leader, and I ended up going to war with grenadiers to stop Elizabeth from getting out of control. I wasn't able to leverage either of his uniques or the protective trait, and felt forced into an offensive war to remove a threat.

This reminds me somewhat of the debate between progressives who argue about what the world ought to be and conservatives who argue about what the world is. Neither side can convince the other because they are arguing about two things. I can't give up active defense even when I use REX to block off land, and it's probably best that we agree to disagree.

 

[Ghpstage]

AGG is unique in its ability to easily get access to formation and amphibious (as far as traits go, rather than UUs). However, the flanking is indeed a problem for ANY medieval war, not just one based on longbows (knights stuff everything but elephants and pikes with little trouble).

Drill 2 allows formation too, so its not unique to AGG. However its not very useful for Longbows/Crossbows without defesive terrain, although it does allow 2 promo LBs to have a slight edge against HA.

I can't give up active defense even when I use REX to block off land, and it's probably best that we agree to disagree.

I don't see how PRO automatically means no active defense. You can if you really want, ignore PRO for a while and use the axemen and things you would use anyway. Besides, drill and counter promo archers are capable mop up troops when combined with catapults for AI armies, and can handle barbs easily by themselves.

I still find archers too weak to do just about anything when I have metals, even with PRO. I am slowly starting to find PRO useful as early as Longbows and Crossbows now, and I doubt anyone can say its useless after gunpowder..



By the way, how do PRO archers stack up against axemen/horses as post siege stack destroyers? Offering more attack turns/ may be a noticeable advantage, catapults in the stack will be an issue, unless a little flanking damage is dealt before hand. Maybe something worth giving a go

 

[Molybdeus]

By the way, how do PRO archers stack up against axemen/horses as post siege stack destroyers? Offering more attack turns/ may be a noticeable advantage, catapults in the stack will be an issue, unless a little flanking damage is dealt before hand. Maybe something worth giving a go

It depends on how many siege unit you bring. Protective archers need the target to be softened up with a lot more siege than aggressive axemen/swordsmen do, but take less damage afterwards due to first strike.

The difficulty inherent in such an attack, though, is that your opponent may hit you with chariots or horse archers while you are invading them, and your archers are going to be mincemeat unless you can advance through good defensive terrain. It sometimes works well, but you are generally better off sticking to melee and/or mounted units.

 

[AfterShafter]

I play fractal a lot too, but that also results in pretty easy warmongering. The problem is that any map can be abused. When I first started playing on Noble, I actually wanted to be isolated so I didn't have to waste hammers on units to defend myself and could devote production to all those shiny wonders. If I were to pick a map that prevented easy war, I would abuse it by reverting to the obsolete style wonderspam strategy and neglecting my military.

Lately I've been playing leaders I always hated before to try to force myself out of my comfort zone. Sitting Bull was my last leader, and I ended up going to war with grenadiers to stop Elizabeth from getting out of control. I wasn't able to leverage either of his uniques or the protective trait, and felt forced into an offensive war to remove a threat.

This reminds me somewhat of the debate between progressives who argue about what the world ought to be and conservatives who argue about what the world is. Neither side can convince the other because they are arguing about two things. I can't give up active defense even when I use REX to block off land, and it's probably best that we agree to disagree.

Now, why do you go and intimate that "leveraging the protective trait" is somehow in opposition to waging an offensive war? In every single thread on the subject that I've ever seen the pro-protective (heh, pro-pro) crowd makes it an explicit point of their argument that protective is bloody good on offense too. Sitting Bull is my favorite leader, and my longbows are frequently marching into enemy territory, kicking arse and taking names.

One notable distinction between this and the progressive/conservative debate you're referencing is that, in that debate, each side is very much focused on the other side just being without merit, and that people supporting it are misguided. In the protective/otherwise debate, the protective side doesn't adopt this position whereas the anti-protective side does. Protective fans aren't arguing that other methods of play don't work - we know they work. We know they work well. We know they have strengths and weaknesses distinct from those of protective military pursuits. In my case, what irritates me is that the contrary position is that protective is the "worst trait," it's intimated that it's good for nothing but defense (looking at you) and that another type of defense is just plain better, protective was just put in to help the AI is useless to players, etc etc etc...

These types of arguments which are very frequently put forth are irritating when you know from experience, for a fact, that protective is a very powerful trait if you're using it right. Is it perfect? No - but you'll see its adherents to to great pains, time and again, to point out explicitly where it is strong and where it is weak. There shouldn't be any mystery at this point, but people still go on and on and on about how it's so lacking. What I don't understand is... Is it so hard to believe that we're not just a bunch of bunglers or liars and that we really are using this trait to great effect - and that maybe, just maybe, the fault is in your (not you specifically, but the "protective sucks" crowd in general) court for not using it as well as we are? Is it so important that everyone believes it's really just a terrible trait, rather than to concede that a lot of people use it to great effect? This trait works for its money, and frankly, it makes my immortal and deity attempts go much more smoothly. I've come within a stone's throw of winning deity games twice now with Gilgamesh, and that was *only* possible because of my reliance on protective units for offense and defence.

I'll repeat it again, and I won't beat around the bush so much this time. You're playing on emperor and have ever so graciously intimated that people who don't rush "well, they aren't bad players, but..." Are you telling people effectively using protective above emperor that they're somehow just not that great because they're opting to do something other than base their game around an axe rush? We know how to rush. Do you know how to squeeze protective for what it's worth? Move up to Immortal, have a few axe rushes blow up in your face when your economy crumbles, then come back and stick by your guns about how powerful the early rush is. I really don't like pulling the "move up in difficulty then talk to me" card, but bottom line, if you think protective is so bad, you're on a difficulty where it doesn't shine yet, or you just aren't using it right... And your repeated intimations that we're just not up to snuff on how great rushing is comes off about as arrogant as I am probably coming off as right now.

Protective works, and works well. If it doesn't work for you, that doesn't change the factuality of the previous sentence. It's also not for everyone, and doesn't shine in every situation - but darnit, it works.

 

[AfterShafter]

It depends on how many siege unit you bring. Protective archers need the target to be softened up with a lot more siege than aggressive axemen/swordsmen do, but take less damage afterwards due to first strike.

The difficulty inherent in such an attack, though, is that your opponent may hit you with chariots or horse archers while you are invading them, and your archers are going to be mincemeat unless you can advance through good defensive terrain. It sometimes works well, but you are generally better off sticking to melee and/or mounted units.

I'll rejoinder this somewhat. On high enough difficulties, most rushes in that era are ill advised (you'll find a lot of players corroborating this), so this argument really only applies to lower difficulties - exactly where protective proponents openly admit it's not the most spectacular trait.

Archers are probably the most lackluster protective units... They're very solid on defense, but they're mediocre attackers because A) you're not in a position to give them all those juicy upgrades yet (that starts with longbows), B) their strength is very unfavourable for field battles with units like horse archers and axemen, C) their base strength is very low for attacking, and D) siege is a bit of an expensive novelty at this point, so Moly is essentially right. They can leverage terrain very well, and are situationally viable for cheap stack defenders and attackers, so they can be used as attackers, but you're better off using melee/horse units.

That being said, on Immortal, rushes become a big gambit and even a well implemented rush can be a quick ticket to a restart. What's important then? Securing your position so you have the infrastructure and security to launch an attack that will work. Once you get longbows, such an attack becomes very viable with protective, and prior to that protective archers are cheap security that you don't have to waste valuable resources trying to secure. Since AD wars are an iffy proposal at best at this point regardless of traits, this notable downside of protective doesn't weigh too heavily against it. Again, it's a difficulty sensitive trait, and never really a rush trait.

 

[Ghpstage]

I thought I'd mentioned but obviously didn't
I meant in active defense . In defense, counter attacks are an almost ignorable threat in my experience. Part of the idea also lying in being able to mass produce archers quickly. On catapults, yes you will need more but I'm not sure you will lose many more, as collateral will give your cats favourable odds failry quickly against axemen/swords on flatlands. Isn't it a common practice to attack with a lot of your cats anyway for the XP?

Its just an idea i'm throwing out there, I have no idea how effective it could actually be!
I like squeezing every advantage I can think of out of traits

 

[kristopherb]

I love protective, Drill longbows are awesome.
Anyway
I think that Protective is a Trait used for Multiplayer games where you expect to be attacked by other smarter players (then the AI). The Ai use it well, i hate taking Protective leaders they are hard to take. Any Trait combonation with protective works. Pro/Cre Cities that are realy hard to take due to Culture bonus, Pro/Fin (protecting your money) and so on some will be a lot better then others.
Added note
Has Anyone invaded Churchill while both of you are in the (Riflemen era)? Thought not.

 

[Molybdeus]

Move up to Immortal, have a few axe rushes blow up in your face when your economy crumbles, then come back and stick by your guns about how powerful the early rush is.

I've rushed and won on immortal. (Not on deity, though. It doesn't work on deity, I admit that.) When I say I play on emperor I don't mean I've never tried immortal or deity, only that I usually play emperor because I am an emperor level player. I'm frankly not good enough to win the majority of my immortal games whether I rush or not.

I really don't like pulling the "move up in difficulty then talk to me" card, but bottom line, if you think protective is so bad, you're on a difficulty where it doesn't shine yet, or you just aren't using it right... And your repeated intimations that we're just not up to snuff on how great rushing is comes off about as arrogant as I am probably coming off as right now.

The vast majority of players simply don't play deity. When I said . . .

I fully admit that deity players may find my opinions inapplicable to their games.

I meant just that. If you play on deity, just ignore everything I've said, because it doesn't apply on that level of play.

 

[AfterShafter]

I've rushed and won on immortal. (Not on deity, though. It doesn't work on deity, I admit that.) When I say I play on emperor I don't mean I've never tried immortal or deity, only that I usually play emperor because I am an emperor level player. I'm frankly not good enough to win the majority of my immortal games whether I rush or not.

I'm not good enough to win the majority of my immortal games rushing either. Heck, more often than not, it contributes directly to my losing when I try it. I am good enough to win a majority of my immortal games with protective though.

The vast majority of players simply don't play deity. When I said . . .

I meant just that. If you play on deity, just ignore everything I've said, because it doesn't apply on that level of play.

Perhaps people should ignore what you're saying if they're playing Immortal too. If you from this thread were talking to me from two years ago, the presentation you're giving me of protective would dissuade me from trying to learn to use what I'd perceive (on your recommendation) as a just sub-par trait for anything but deity, and in doing so, I would sabotage the future great effect I've managed with it. The reality is, it allows me to do things on immortal that I can't reliably do without it. That's almost the definition of increasing my chances of victory, whereas your presentation of it suggests that on anything but deity it'll do exactly the opposite. So again, shouldn't immortal players ignore what you're saying too? And if you're not good enough to win a majority of your immortal games rushing, why not give some of the protective methods people are harping over a fair shake?

Anyways, rushing and winning on immortal being possible isn't in contention: rushing and winning consistently is. To me, a strategy where I'm saying "Ok, 25% of the time this will work, the other 75% I'm restarting when it blows up in my face" doesn't cut it. Maybe when I'm learning how to do something, but rushing is much more contingent on resources, quality of your terrain, and who you're near than protective turtling and then warmongering. Protective military pursuits are, of course, contingent on this too - but much less so I find. It simply requires fewer stars to align properly to have things go right than a plan of "Ok, I'm rushing early since it's the bestest!" Sure, it won't net you the same immediate gains as a successful rush, but if a rush is far from a sure thing, then it'll put you in a much more secure position for the long-haul victory.