Stock Swordsman Rush - No Praets No Cheese!

[dankok]

Lots of haters here about researching Iron Working and hitting the neighbours with Swordsmen. Decided to post a game I played this morning. Originally when I started this game I actually wanted to hit with Horse Archers to prove that they are basically as devastating as Keshiks (see my other thread) but considering by closest neighbour was Pacal who spams Holkans I decided fairly early it would be perfect for Swords. Read on below.

Settings are Standard Size Pangaea, Emperor, Normal Speed. Leader is Ragnar. Pretty poor start as the capital has no resources except Sugar and Silk. Meh they could be farmed for 4 food and also the FP two tiles below.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Mj6FDTUDEan2DSr67

Anyways the nearby land had no Copper anywhere so after Agri, Mining, and BW I went straight for IW and got it around 1700 BC. By the time I researched it I had a third settler ready to settle Iron but I already discovered a source in my second city. As soon as the Iron was connected, Swords were being built with the help of shopping and whipping.

And so much for IW being useless as trade fodder:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Atq8YGntVcXxCxUU9

Anyways in 675 BC Pacal was gonna get it!

https://photos.app.goo.gl/J4wQivA3CgjtszhP6

One Sword died at 75% odds against a Holkan. I gave the boys a mix of Cover and CR1 promos. Went for the second Mayan city after that:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/n5oPag1fuFMCbBeUA

And the third:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/sJU9XTVjQmRXwgM5A

Took both easily. One more Sword died and Pacal was dead.

Took a dozen Swords and went after another neighbour next... the little Hatty. Her capital had 3 Axeman and 2 Swords behind a wall and it was a holy city. 4 Swords died softening the defenders but the city was mine.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/daBdLwQwrcRPYeTRA

https://photos.app.goo.gl/MnbDQkSKZX5W6Z3D8

As soon as I declared on Hatty she bribed Sully on me so I called off the dogs after getting Thebes. I'm quite a bit behind in tech compared to Lizzy and Sully but I have 3 capitals before 1AD thanks to Swordsmen and should be able to catch up. I had **** luck too as midway through the Mayan war I lost the city west of the cap to a barb Warrior. My own Warrior inside had 90% odds of winning but lost. Took it the very next turn with a Sword and luckily the city had no buildings that were razed. Apart from the war, played this one pretty sloppily. Didn't whip a Library much earlier to run a scientist.

Saves are attached.

 

[Fippy]

I think you already lost me here after 3 words with "haters", we are not using this orientation here at IV..
choose which advice you agree with or want to try & use, but those "i want to proof you wrong" threads have little purpose.
On Emp many units can be used for succesful attacks, and AIs do random stuff, so you are not showing much new.

 

[Gumbolt]

Might try this later. Start seems very unlucky in terms of food.

It's an interesting challenge for HA and swords. Also to see what people do. Plenty of forest here so BW will be important early tech whatever people choose.

I think doubters would be a better word. No one hates IW. We just target other approaches to reach the tech.

 

[Fippy]

Chariots

Spoiler :

Very sloppy attack, got impatient and was slowed down by forest too. Allowed a settler escort archer moving back in as well. But still worked.
Anyways, just an example of how several units can work. Seeing Hatty at 1.3 power i could probably overwhelm her if done fast, esp. if i had played better

 

[drewisfat]

what do i win?

 

[AcaMetis]

what do i win?

The "confuse people with the Choose Religions option" prize. Here's your trophy:

 

[Tobiyogi]

There are examples of sword rushes from the YT guys (on deity/imm) but that strategy is really situational and at least AZ already knew the map before. I guess with the right numbers you can also axe rush somebody (see Lain playing the Churchill map), it is not the question if it is POSSIBLE but if it is really needed or rather waste of resources you could spent better. If you rush so early, you always have to sacrifice expansion and tile improvement and that won't help you in the long run. Maybe it is a good strategy for some leader who has only little economic boosts like Monty/ Toku/ Dschingis. But overall I would say, try again with a level-up and you might realize that you won't get trades for IW and that the new cities will cost a lot after the revolt if they are too far away.

 

[Fippy]

what do i win?

Wastin Time would be proud of you, i think warrior rushes for HoF record games was his favorite.

 

[dankok]

Chariots

Spoiler :

Very sloppy attack, got impatient and was slowed down by forest too. Allowed a settler escort archer moving back in as well. But still worked.
Anyways, just an example of how several units can work. Seeing Hatty at 1.3 power i could probably overwhelm her if done fast, esp. if i had played better

You settled in place? I moved my initial scout East (was really a 50/50 call IIRC) and didn't see the Cow SSW so I settled 1E of the start location to be on the river. Thus the Cow wasn't in my BFC and I didn't prioritize AH since I had no resources to use with it. Was first planning an Axerush and after I had no Copper nearby went for Iron Working.

As for Chariots very risky to go after Pacal with those. A Holkan can come out as early as turn 30 and those spell doom.

There are examples of sword rushes from the YT guys (on deity/imm) but that strategy is really situational and at least AZ already knew the map before. I guess with the right numbers you can also axe rush somebody (see Lain playing the Churchill map), it is not the question if it is POSSIBLE but if it is really needed or rather waste of resources you could spent better. If you rush so early, you always have to sacrifice expansion and tile improvement and that won't help you in the long run. Maybe it is a good strategy for some leader who has only little economic boosts like Monty/ Toku/ Dschingis. But overall I would say, try again with a level-up and you might realize that you won't get trades for IW and that the new cities will cost a lot after the revolt if they are too far away.

On Deity it may well be waste of resources but the Sword rush in this game was a huge success. Took out Pacal while losing just 2 units (one at high odds) and then took a capital from another AI and really crippled her. My next war against Hatty is going pretty smoothly basically a long mop-up with Catapults. I'd say Swords proved their worth.

As for situational yes it is and I don't often go for Swords but this situation (no Copper, lots of jungle, nearest neighbour has a spear UU, plus Agg leader) definitely called for it.

 

[Tobiyogi]

Of course, every game is unique and it is good to question fixed ideas (like "never go for Iron Working"), the game is flexible enough for almost any approach. Nevertheless, on deity it becomes quite rigid and you MUST follow certain paths (in most of the cases) because no matter how creative you are, the AI is always ahead in a ridicilous manner (at least in the early-game).
However, frankly speaking, the essence of your post was not extremely new, because others have showcased sword rushes on deity. I think Absolute Zero is well known for his very unconventional approach to the game.
Btw, in most of the cases, poor Pacal is the one to suffer, because he insists like an idiot on building his Holkans and on going full religion.

 

[dankok]

Of course, every game is unique and it is good to question fixed ideas (like "never go for Iron Working"), the game is flexible enough for almost any approach. Nevertheless, on deity it becomes quite rigid and you MUST follow certain paths (in most of the cases) because no matter how creative you are, the AI is always ahead in a ridicilous manner (at least in the early-game).
However, frankly speaking, the essence of your post was not extremely new, because others have showcased sword rushes on deity. I think Absolute Zero is well known for his very unconventional approach to the game.
Btw, in most of the cases, poor Pacal is the one to suffer, because he insists like an idiot on building his Holkans and on going full religion.

The said rigidity is why I don't like to play Deity. At that level you're essentially forced into taking advantage of AI's programmed tendencies in order to win and I wouldn't be surprised if many Deity players aren't elite against other thinking humans which for me is the real level of competition. I'm not a great MP player myself but just saying. To me it's sad to reduce a game with great complexity and variety to a limited set of strategies (i.e. beeline Aesthetics, don't research IW etc). I also hate micromanagement and checking my cities every turn or even every two or three turns (after every growth or build) is just too much for me.

Having reached Emp/Imm level and being fairly confident on those I may start playing games with The Better AI Mod for a bigger challenge. I don't think I'll ever move up to Deity.

 

[Tobiyogi]

Be careful, playing BETTER AI on high levels makes it even worse. I think the only way to manage Civ 4 on high levels is because you can predict the AI-moves quite often. You know what techs you can get from whom, you know how to trick someone into a war, you know they will suicide against well-protected cities, etc... Better AI is different, and still they have their huge bonuses. But try it out! I didn't like it.

 

[Fippy]

Well if Pacal would have built a Holkan i could have taken Hatty's cities first.
But i saw he has no BW, AIs always switch into Slavery when they get there.
(i settled on sugar)

Can still do almost everything on deity, i think Lain i.e. proofs that much with his usually bad starts.
There are also plenty examples from Absolute Zero, from earlier times on YT.
All kinds of rushes, with bulbs added (Engineering, x-bows), you can go wonders on deity too..

 

[Tobiyogi]

I meant that Pacal builds enough Holkans even when he has copper and makes himself a target.
Maybe we are not good enough to play on deity, maybe the game becomes too unfair at some point. I have generally little tolerance for "injustice" and civ 4 drives me crazy enough without being on the highest level.
Also I feel that some little nasty things become worse with every level (like barbs always smashing YOUR pasture, AI having unreasonable combat odds, etc.) Last but not least, they seem to get units out of the blue, like building a new archer in 5T in a 1-pop-city where all productive tiles have been occupied (that was a test run once...). Another example is a stack where you can see 4 catapults but eventually, your city is attacked by 6 catapults. (I often play with full motion on defensive fights). Am I the only one to see this from time to time?

 

[dankok]

Be careful, playing BETTER AI on high levels makes it even worse. I think the only way to manage Civ 4 on high levels is because you can predict the AI-moves quite often. You know what techs you can get from whom, you know how to trick someone into a war, you know they will suicide against well-protected cities, etc... Better AI is different, and still they have their huge bonuses. But try it out! I didn't like it.

That actually sounds good. With a good AI, Noble level should already be challenging. The AI shouldn't need bonuses to compete with a human. See chess for instance. The AI doesn't get extra pieces or cheats when you're not looking but the best chess AI is barely beatable if at all even by grandmasters.

Your next point about unreasonable things is well taken. I agree wholeheartedly.

Well if Pacal would have built a Holkan i could have taken Hatty's cities first.
But i saw he has no BW, AIs always switch into Slavery when they get there.
(i settled on sugar)

Can still do almost everything on deity, i think Lain i.e. proofs that much with his usually bad starts.
There are also plenty examples from Absolute Zero, from earlier times on YT.
All kinds of rushes, with bulbs added (Engineering, x-bows), you can go wonders on deity too..

1700 BC is very late not to have BW... Wow!

 

[Tobiyogi]

Interesting comparaison. Chess is also complexe, but in the depth what makes it easier to program an unbeatable machine. In civ 4, you have too many choices, it is deep as well, but much wider. So your next step could be anything, unlike in Chess. I don't know how people have programmed the "Better AI" but I don't think that they have eradicated unfair mechanisms. I had the feeling that AI builds still more units and has a good tech pace at the same time (similar to the K-mod). It is certainly a good distraction.

 

[sampsa]

That actually sounds good. With a good AI, Noble level should already be challenging. The AI shouldn't need bonuses to compete with a human. See chess for instance. The AI doesn't get extra pieces or cheats when you're not looking but the best chess AI is barely beatable if at all even by grandmasters.

As a chess player, I've sometimes wondered what rating could be given to cIV AI. I'm guessing it's way under 1000, and 1000 isn't very much, so that's why skilled players need to give it "queen odds" by playing deity. Of course, everyone would love it if the AI wasn't so bad, but there isn't that much we can do. Better AI is better, but not by a huge margin.

 

[AcaMetis]

Personally I still the believe that the less than stellar level of the AI is, admittedly only to a point, intentional, and necessary. The game would be borderline impossible to play if the AIs actually used the unfair advantages they were given on high difficulties, not to mention early game UUs. Can you imagine getting Q-rushed by HC every time you started next to him? Or Persia, if Darius/Cyrus found Horses before you found and hooked up Copper/Iron and got Hunting? Or imagine Shaka using his Impis to cut off your metal, steal your workers, and than choke you as he settles a ton of cities right into your face while you fiddle around with trying to clear fortified spears out with archers. You'd basically have to pray that you don't start next to the wrong AI every game or it's GG on T0.

 

[dankok]

Personally I still the believe that the less than stellar level of the AI is, admittedly only to a point, intentional, and necessary. The game would be borderline impossible to play if the AIs actually used the unfair advantages they were given on high difficulties, not to mention early game UUs. Can you imagine getting Q-rushed by HC every time you started next to him? Or Persia, if Darius/Cyrus found Horses before you found and hooked up Copper/Iron and got Hunting? Or imagine Shaka using his Impis to cut off your metal, steal your workers, and than choke you as he settles a ton of cities right into your face while you fiddle around with trying to clear fortified spears out with archers. You'd basically have to pray that you don't start next to the wrong AI every game or it's GG on T0.

Welcome to Multiplayer!

Honestly I would love that. There is always an element of luck involved and that AI could just Q-rush another AI neighbour and not you. However that type of behavior you mentioned falls a lot under aggressiveness and not even necessarily a more intelligent AI. I would like an intelligent AI that can respond to threats effectively. For instance, I roll over with a stack of HA's and they aren't just whipping any defenders. They are whipping Spears! The AI should also know to concentrate its defensive units where they are needed. The AI should know not to bombard the city's defenses if it can easily capture the city with sheer numbers. On water maps, it should keep defensive units in coastal cities and not inland. These few changes and more would make the game more fun to play not less IMO. From what I read, Better AI Mod does implement a few of these but I haven't had a chance to test it out.

Interesting comparaison. Chess is also complexe, but in the depth what makes it easier to program an unbeatable machine. In civ 4, you have too many choices, it is deep as well, but much wider. So your next step could be anything, unlike in Chess. I don't know how people have programmed the "Better AI" but I don't think that they have eradicated unfair mechanisms. I had the feeling that AI builds still more units and has a good tech pace at the same time (similar to the K-mod). It is certainly a good distraction.

Better AI should be good enough to make Noble very very difficult. Then again like you said the game is very deep and programming the Civ 4 AI is more difficult than in Chess. Maybe it isn't realistic to expect that.

 

[sampsa]

Better AI should be good enough to make Noble very very difficult. Then again like you said the game is very deep and programming the Civ 4 AI is more difficult than in Chess. Maybe it isn't realistic to expect that.

Very unrealistic indeed. Existing "Better AI" won't make even immortal hard, but I'm assuming you mean something else. Not sure if game is very deep for humans (compared to say chess), but it's indeed complicated in ways that make it hard for a computer.