To Rush or Not to Rush

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by Murky, Apr 23, 2009.

  1. Murky

    Murky Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    7,216
    Location:
    The Milky Way Galaxy
    How do you decided if it's a good idea to do an early rush or do a fast REX instead?

    edit:

    Here's a few sample scenarios.

    Game 1: Playing as Lincoln on a standard map with barbarians enabled. The start is pretty descent with irrigated corn, silk and lots of river/floodplain, forested hills and forested grassland tiles. Opponents are Sitting Bull, Mansa Musa and Charlemagne. There is a lot of land to settle and the nearest neighboring capital is more than 12 tiles away.

    Game 2: Playing as Alexander on a standard map with barbarians enabled. The start gives you cows, ivory and lots of production tiles. Your early opponents are Cyrus, Julius Caesar and Hannibal. Cyrus' capital is closest at 10 tiles away. Researching Bronze Working reveals bronze nearby but to get it in BFC you have to place the city in a less than optimal spot.
     
  2. shyuhe

    shyuhe Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    Proximity of neighbors, whether the target is protective or has cities on hills. You also obviously need early access to bronze or horses. Having lots of forests to chop is also a factor.
     
  3. Tempesta13

    Tempesta13 Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    353
    I'd say if you can get more/better land by rushing then do it. If you don't have to then just REX. Depends on how aggressive, what UU that AI has - maybe you'd be better off rushing even if you don't have to. A 2nd capital is nice too if it's close. Otherwise, just REX. If you can peacefully get a lot of decent land then sometimes it's better to just avoid the risk of a failed rush - or other AI's getting land you would have gotten if you didn't rush. Also you'll pay more unit maintenance than if you only were building enough units to feel safe rather than enough to eliminate an AI.
     
  4. Huaojozu

    Huaojozu Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    How much land is a lot? How many decent cities should you have the space for when not rushing?
     
  5. Krill

    Krill Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,332
    Location:
    Stoke-on-Trent, England
    Quality of near by land/resources is another point.
     
  6. JonathanStrange

    JonathanStrange PrinceWithA1000Enemies

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    TThe Dreaming
    Game 1: I probably wouldn't go for an early rush as you stated there's plenty of land to settle. I'd probably go for the REX. Exceptions being if the nearest enemy has really good resources.

    Game 2: I'd probably go for a rush. Your opponents are a bit more dangerous than the previous game (for example once Romans get Praetorians), with access to copper, I'd knock out Cyrus (the closest enemy and not too far away either) rather than face his Immortals later on.

    All choices subject to change according to details.
     
  7. Scoottr

    Scoottr Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    435
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    For me I will go for it if I can adjust my city production to fire off three warriors quickly and the neighbor is close (varies on what I think is close but 10 ain't far) and not protective. If they have promoted city defenders you pretty much are hosed.

    Then for an Axe rush, same criteria if I can pull bronze in my capital or my second city.

    Othewise, I will expand out to grab resources.

    Play noble which may be why the warrior rush works for me...
     
  8. TabascoBob

    TabascoBob Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Morris County New Jersey
    I've done a warrior rush a few times, but only when my neighbor is within a couple of moves. I've even had a couple where the capital was undefended and the border hadn't popped, so I was one diagonal from an attack. In one case the city went to two pop and I kept a shiny new capital; in the other, it was only a one pop city and *poof* went Hannibal.

    I almost always consider an early rush, but the window is so tight the opportunty often slips away first, and I'm left with REX.

    If you do wind up with the fast REX, how much do you prioritize key resources, choke points/blocking, or optimal placement? During a rush or a REX, you can wind up with some really sucky spots if you're not careful. I must say, however, that the dotmap feature of BUG has helped me immensely with that aspect.
     
  9. §L¥ Gµ¥

    §L¥ Gµ¥ Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    I read somewhere on here that the 'maximum' distance one should consider for the early rush is about 14 squares to the target's capital on normal speed. It was a rule I used to generally follow, and it worked quite well [chariots, war chariots, immortals extending the distance a bit, but maintenance become the limiting factor, not unit speed].

    Now however, I find it useful sometimes to do a little of both. If there's a mint city spot or two floating around, I never trust the AI to settle that land effectively and I'll rush out to settle it. It just means I have to whip and chop a little more aggressively to get there before those pesky city walls or CG2 archers start showing up.

    And another thing: protective civs are rushable. Just bring more in numbers so accept the fact YOU WILL LOSE UNITS. You may need 3:1 numbers or better, but getting to a capital quick with 8 chariots vs 2 archers is still a win. Rushing isn't all about building an experienced army for the rest of the game, it's trading early hammers for great early land.
     
  10. futurehermit

    futurehermit Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,724
    monarch/standard/normal

    recently, i am finding i am having considerably more success if, instead of rushing when i have a close neighbour, i go for an early construction beeline instead. then i proceed to hit with axe/sword (if iron)/cata/spear (if necessary). i find my losses are less and my economy suffers much, much less.

    if a neighbour is really, really on your doorstep or if you are really going to run the risk of getting boxed in by an aggressor or a creative civ, then i think you still have to consider rushing, despite the economic consequences.

    however, if you can get 3-4 cities peacefully while beelining construction, i think you would be in a stronger position to go that route in most cases.

    alternatively, if i have horses, i might substitute a hbr beeline, which can have the same effect if done correctly.
     
  11. FlyinJohnnyL

    FlyinJohnnyL You need more workers....

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    After reading a couple of above posts who said the window for a rush is small, just remember, like anything else in civ, this is situational. If you get an opponent who has no metal, your window is MUCH bigger. Scouting out your opponent is always important. Pillaging is good, but they may have already built some axes/spears. If they have no metal, you'll only face archers. Quecha rush 1000 BC ftw!
     
  12. Gliese 581

    Gliese 581 Your average civ junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,503
    Location:
    Sweden
    I will put weight on not rushing on the higher difficulties when possible. That is all I will say for now.
     
  13. SlipperyJim

    SlipperyJim Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    332
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Rush!

    Sorry, what was the question again? ;)

    I must confess that I'm addicted to warmongering, so I'm always looking for a chance to attack. I guess I have a bit of Shaka in me. War is just more fun than peaceful building! That's a big factor for me: fun. War might not always be the best option, but it is loads of fun.

    In your specific examples, I would certainly look for an opportunity to attack in Game #2. Alex is a good rusher with a good rush UU. I'd probably whack Cyrus first, and then consider JC if he hasn't hooked up Iron yet.

    Your first game doesn't look like a rush time, not even for me. Lincoln has nothing to help him in the early game except for being Charismatic. And your neighbors are going to be tougher nuts to crack. (Not impossible, but tougher.) So I'd look for peaceful expansion at first, while training some units against the Barbs. Then come back with swords and catapults to take out a neighbor. Probably Mansa, just because he's so annoying.
     
  14. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,064
    I used to be all 100% super warmonger...but rushes get harder w/ difficulty and faster speeds. I can swing them on immortal/normal but I better have a REALLY good reason to do it and forgo my own land (being able to do it and not forgo any sites is a good reason...).

    Sometimes I wait until the renaissance or infantry to throw down now ;).
     
  15. Gliese 581

    Gliese 581 Your average civ junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,503
    Location:
    Sweden
    Yeah exactly that's my experience as well.
     
  16. Soirana

    Soirana Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,410
    Location:
    Dreamtime
    don't know I rush with half a reason on immortal now... But i of course play with epic speed cheat:cool:.
    Immortal normal is probably already on other side of equation.
     

Share This Page