madscientist
RPC Supergenius
Well, we could go back and forth. I'll just say I disagree.
How to rush with axes
- Thread starter johncross21
- Start date
Kiershar
Chieftain
Indeed, most likely we just play much different game settings 
I'm trying to think what they changed in BTS that you believe made the early rush a poor choice? Is it just the fact that the AI will usually have a few more units early on? I must admit that I haven't had any problems Axe rushing, although I play with more Civs and therefore a more crowded map than default.
Bh
Kiershar
Chieftain
More unique units with no metals requirement (Bowmen, Holkans, Dog Warriors) and the catapults changes.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
I think by defeinition, and early rush is pre-construction.
As far as UUs in BTS, the only one I think that makes rushing prohitively difficult is the Babylonia Bowman, almost impossible to get them out of a city with axes and swords. Actually better to use chariots as long as there are no spears.
Up to Prince level a Dog Soldier rush is awesome. In my latest game I took out my three closest neighbours with only three Dog Soldiers and one Warrior. You can call that an early rush. Above Prince I believe that the AI starts with Archery and that makes this rush much harder or almost impossible.
what made the rush less effective in BtS?
In vanilla and warlords, the AIs spent their hammers towards settlers and workers to grab. Now they spend them towards units. Sorry to say so, but if you see no difference, you're blind.
I'm not saying the rush isn't working. I say it costs more than it used to, and brings less. Of course grabbing a second capital site on a crowded map certainly is a good move. But on a normal (I mean not overcrowded) map, you have room to expand at a lower price than what the rush costs you.
In vanilla and warlords, the AIs spent their hammers towards settlers and workers to grab. Now they spend them towards units. Sorry to say so, but if you see no difference, you're blind.
I'm not saying the rush isn't working. I say it costs more than it used to, and brings less. Of course grabbing a second capital site on a crowded map certainly is a good move. But on a normal (I mean not overcrowded) map, you have room to expand at a lower price than what the rush costs you.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
In my experience this is not the case with all AIs. Easy enough to figure out, if you using espionage correctly. Look at the power graph numbers for your potential target, if your's is soring as you build axes, chances are you have an easy target.
I don't see a significant difference in the number of units the AI has early. I mean, Blake has even made it a point of the upcoming patch to increase the AI's early unit production because the Axe rush was still so effective. The only area that makes it more difficult for me is the fact the AI will now whip defenders. But as long as your rush is timed properly, that's not a hugely significant change.
I'd point to the first Sisiutil Isabella game as a good example of that.
Bh
I'd point to the first Sisiutil Isabella game as a good example of that.
Bh
you mean you spend commerce for espionnage that early in the game?
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
you mean you spend commerce for espionnage that early in the game?
No, No, No. You get 4 Eps from the capital, if you target all those against the AI in question you will have more than enough EPs to view the relative powergraph numbers. That's what I meant.
Porphyrius
Warlord
There are quite a few inresting points posted here.
My main additions are :
Of course early rushes dont always work. They may prove too tough or just less efficient depending on UU/UB, traits. the land, difficulty level and map setting. Then again if they did the game would be much less fun...
However i have to say i disagree with all the fuss about rushes being less efficient in BTS. The AI is better at war and less likey to be caught empty handed unless its really early.
But its still possible to attack this early and the AI still messes up its plans quite often.
And different AIs make variable plans. Some build up militarily impairing their tech rate, others prioritize economy, wonders or expansion.
Plus the more rare strategic resources, and many early UU bring about as many cases that favor rushes as ones that prevent them.
May be you ll get easy access to copper while your opponents dont, or maybe it ll be the other way around.
Dog soldiers/Bowmen may obstruct an axe based rush, but if you re playing as Egypt or Persia why would you care.
I am not saying early rushes are THE way to go. Are they less efficient in BTS? Depends on the specifics.
But i would hardly limit their use to the availability of a strong UU/UB, leader traits. They are still for me often the most efficient way to go and worth considering before mere REXing.
My main additions are :
- Early rushes are supposed to be early
I mean the goal for me is not to ignore teching and make an immense heap of oldie military units. Thus an axe/chariot rush by the last centuries BC is not early, rather it is delayed.
I make 2-3 cities aiming for production, hooking resources needed, getting the right early techs. Whipping/choping is taken for granted. - They also depend on opportunity and the element of surprise. So it doesnt make sense to wait and build up till you ve got enough units to overcome any defence and keep an extra handfull in case you miss some rolls. Its supposed to be something of a risk anyhow.
Plus theres more to it than making units in your territory and sending them all in one big stack to take the enemy capital when you feel you have what it takes. Keep 3 or so around enemy territory. Wait till you know a few of your opponent units are out of the city scouting or escorting settlers/workers.
Of course early rushes dont always work. They may prove too tough or just less efficient depending on UU/UB, traits. the land, difficulty level and map setting. Then again if they did the game would be much less fun...
However i have to say i disagree with all the fuss about rushes being less efficient in BTS. The AI is better at war and less likey to be caught empty handed unless its really early.
But its still possible to attack this early and the AI still messes up its plans quite often.
And different AIs make variable plans. Some build up militarily impairing their tech rate, others prioritize economy, wonders or expansion.
Plus the more rare strategic resources, and many early UU bring about as many cases that favor rushes as ones that prevent them.
May be you ll get easy access to copper while your opponents dont, or maybe it ll be the other way around.
Dog soldiers/Bowmen may obstruct an axe based rush, but if you re playing as Egypt or Persia why would you care.
I am not saying early rushes are THE way to go. Are they less efficient in BTS? Depends on the specifics.
But i would hardly limit their use to the availability of a strong UU/UB, leader traits. They are still for me often the most efficient way to go and worth considering before mere REXing.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Exactly. The two ALC Isabella games are examples of each contrasting situation. In the first one I had Charlemagne uncomfortably close to me and very little good land in which to expand. An Axe rush was the only option. In the second Isabella game I was able to block the AIs from expanding into territory I wanted, and thus I was able to postpone an attack until post-Construction.
Right. But the point that I wanted to emphasize is that that fact hasn't changed in BTS. If you didn't have a relatively close neighbour in Vanilla or Warlords, rushing them wasn't really worth it either. So I'm still not convinced that BTS has changed the early Axe rush any - beyond letting the AI whip defenders, as I mentioned.
Bh
Bh
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
The majority of the new leaders introduced in BTS have bonuses that make them very difficult to rush (protective/uus/ubs/etc.).
Also, I have to agree with Cabert that in most cases the AI builds more units or when you declare they whip they maniacs now and build units properly to counter you. As a result, early rushing is much more difficult.
Due to the slowish AI tech pace it is often preferable to tech peacefully in the early game and then attack once these early game bonuses have faded.
In general I must say that my experience thusfar (monarch) is that early attacks cost a lot of valuable hammers that could go instead to settlers and workers to develop your economy leaving you in a stronger position to attack later supported by a developed economy.
Of course if you have a neighbour right on your doorstep and you happen to have copper then you are still in the right to go to war early. But I just don't have that scenario happen in many of my games and I start (but not finish) a lot of games.
Also, I have to agree with Cabert that in most cases the AI builds more units or when you declare they whip they maniacs now and build units properly to counter you. As a result, early rushing is much more difficult.
Due to the slowish AI tech pace it is often preferable to tech peacefully in the early game and then attack once these early game bonuses have faded.
In general I must say that my experience thusfar (monarch) is that early attacks cost a lot of valuable hammers that could go instead to settlers and workers to develop your economy leaving you in a stronger position to attack later supported by a developed economy.
Of course if you have a neighbour right on your doorstep and you happen to have copper then you are still in the right to go to war early. But I just don't have that scenario happen in many of my games and I start (but not finish) a lot of games.
shyuhe
Deity
rushing is significantly harder against high level AIs in bts, especially if they have bronze working and masonry. They will whip their cities silly to fend off an attack and things can get ugly very fast. I think it's generally better to out-rex the AI now and attack later in the game with siege and/or gunpowder units.
Further to the points made by Cabert Shyuhe and FHermit is that the AI is teching more slowly. So the attack later on, based on a good econ, is likely to be against units that are one era behind.
You can possibly allocate some of your commerce to espionage to drop cultural defence, and to build an army which fits the situation, thereby saving you hammers.
You can possibly allocate some of your commerce to espionage to drop cultural defence, and to build an army which fits the situation, thereby saving you hammers.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
I tried a rush on noble (Hey, if I want to post advice I need to know how it works, right).
Situation was the following :
- noble level, epic speed (makes the early rush a lot easier too)
- me and saladin (protective! + he founded hinduism = loads of culture) on one island. He was locked on my west.
- copper was grabbed by my second city
- I had the "cover for all melee" random event
- I attacked with 6 axemen (which was more than twice his number of archers, but with a protective leader on a hill with culture, it seemed the minimum)
- As soon as I had declared, he whipped chariots (good move!), but he didn't send them against me (bad move!)
- I lost half my axes against a lower city, but the reminders got CR2 on top of cover.
- I was building reinforcements during this attack, and striked the capital with 5 axemen, 3 high promoted ones.
He only had 1 archer + 1 warrior there. The hill and culture didn't save him.
conclusion : at noble level, an early rush is still pretty easy in BtS, even against a protective leader who settled on a hill.
Sisiutil showed it's possible on monarch too, although a lot tougher (without the cover event too).
I'm pretty sure it's still possible on emperor and immortal too.
However, I lost 6 axemen for 3 cities, 2 of those weren't really worth the capture (on noble I raze nothing, above it's different).
And I had room for 3 cities on my own, so it was pretty unnecessary. With only saladin and me on the island it's still mostly a good thing to get rid of him (he wouldn't trade anyway, but I miss the foreign trade routes).
If it wasn't for the holy city, with a cultural victory as target, I wouldn't have gone this way.
Situation was the following :
- noble level, epic speed (makes the early rush a lot easier too)
- me and saladin (protective! + he founded hinduism = loads of culture) on one island. He was locked on my west.
- copper was grabbed by my second city
- I had the "cover for all melee" random event
- I attacked with 6 axemen (which was more than twice his number of archers, but with a protective leader on a hill with culture, it seemed the minimum)
- As soon as I had declared, he whipped chariots (good move!), but he didn't send them against me (bad move!)
- I lost half my axes against a lower city, but the reminders got CR2 on top of cover.
- I was building reinforcements during this attack, and striked the capital with 5 axemen, 3 high promoted ones.
He only had 1 archer + 1 warrior there. The hill and culture didn't save him.
conclusion : at noble level, an early rush is still pretty easy in BtS, even against a protective leader who settled on a hill.
Sisiutil showed it's possible on monarch too, although a lot tougher (without the cover event too
).I'm pretty sure it's still possible on emperor and immortal too.
However, I lost 6 axemen for 3 cities, 2 of those weren't really worth the capture (on noble I raze nothing, above it's different).
And I had room for 3 cities on my own, so it was pretty unnecessary. With only saladin and me on the island it's still mostly a good thing to get rid of him (he wouldn't trade anyway, but I miss the foreign trade routes).
If it wasn't for the holy city, with a cultural victory as target, I wouldn't have gone this way.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
I See no real difference between warlords or BTS probably because I did not rush that much anyway in warlords. It may have to do with playing huge maps in warlords. I am now playing standard maps in BTS (late BTS game on huge maps slow my computer down too much) and find myself rushing as mush or a little more. Again, probably more to do with map size.
Similar threads
