Crucial early turns on Emperor: Archer rushing, initial rex, initial build priorities

Artifex · March 2, 2003, 05:51

This is for emperor level, take the Celts as your civ. How you should build in the crucial first few turns given certain city layouts?

When would you decide to build a granery? How soon? which city?

Different build priorities for each initial layout possibility. Wheat on flood plains. Cow on grasslands, 2 cows. Wheat or cows on plains. etc.

What factors into your decision if and when to archer rush? How many to build? How many cities when you archer rush?

I read the thread in the must read category about archer rushing and it seems he waits way too long like 4-5 cities to rush.

I know the variables are infinate, but the first turns can make or break the game on emperor.

nbarclay · March 2, 2003, 07:32

It really depends on how close your nearest neighbor(s) are. If they're close, a very early archer rush can make a lot of sense (although luck plays a major role in how successful it will be). If they're a long way away, it generally makes more sense to focus on building up your economy first and fighting later.

An ultra-early rush with only two cities is quite possible if a neighbor is close enough. Two cities don't provide enough free unit support for a sustained campaign, but they can provide enough punch to cripple an opponent if the RNG doesn't hate you too much. One option is to do an initial strike with two cities, make peace, build a couple more cities and additional troops, and then strike again when the initial peace treaty expires.

Nathan

Harovan · March 2, 2003, 08:58

If the neighbor is very close and the terrain allows it, another viable option is to try to intercept the first settler shuttle, around 3300..3200BC. All you need is 2 warriors and a bit luck, that the settler is sent your way, which seems to be more often the case than otherwise. If you succeed, you have 2 free workers and a severely hampered AI opponent, who most likely won't have a chance to get back in the game.

Dominae · March 2, 2003, 10:54

There are many ways to use Archers effectively, but I believe that these can be conbined into two main strategies: 1) super-early disruption, and 2) early conquest.

The first strat is described above by nbarclay and Sir Ralph. If you can find an easy target that your 2-power unit will most likely fall prey to, you've succeeded. After a few turns you can sue for peace for even more of advantage over that neighbor.

The second strat involves sending a steady stream of Archers into enemy lands, when they have under 4 cities. A stack of Archers should take out a city or two even when defended by Spearmen, with acceptable losses. Again, if this is done the strategy is a success and you've essentially "taken care" of one of your neighbors.

AU206 Spoiler

In AU206 I used both of these strats. I grabbed an Indian Worker with one of my Warriors. A few turns later, I assaulted Delhi with only 1 Regular Archer, and was lucky enough to nab their only city. Had I spotted a Settler/Warrior combo, I would have gone for that instead.

Once that was done, I was still too far away (economically and technologically) from Gallic Swordsmen or Horsemen to consider those units for an offensive. But I figured I should attack China quickly, lest they buid too many cities. So I set two cities with Barracks on Archers, and began my assault when I had a stack of 5 Vet. Archers and 2 Elite Warriors. This ended up being enough to take care of the Chinese army (Archer bombard in the AU mod is amazing for this!), and then a few cities.

By the time Gallic Swordsmen arrived, I was already on my third target: Persia.

Sorry if this sounds like a self-congratulating story. I'm just trying to describe a situation from recent memory where Archers were useful and even critical.

Dominae

Artifex · March 4, 2003, 11:17

It sure does takes some sturdy economics to build a GS army.

vulture · March 4, 2003, 12:29

I haven't found it much of a burden in my current game with the Celts (my first game with the Celts in fact). I think my initial build was warrior (explore), warrior (garrison), warrior (explore), warrior (escort), settler. I think I went for a barracks after that, then pumped out a few more warriors. Tech-wise I set about researching straight for Monarchy (the Celts big advantage) at 40 turns per tech, which let me stockpile plenty of gold and keep up to date in techs trading mysticism and polytheism. By the time I traded for iron working I have a huge stockpile of gold, and a fair number of veteran warriors ready for the upgrade. I also kept a city disconnected from iron to build more veteran warriors for the upgrade. This has given me a servicable army of about 10 GS at the time when I changed to monarchy. And hitting the golden age (one reason I didn't want to connect to iron before monarchy arrievd) lets me get the rest of the ancient era techs in 4 turns each

If you don't start near a river it is going to be that much harder for you of course, but acquiring enough cash for 8 GS upgrades should be do-able on a standard map, I'd have thought. That's enough to start off a war with on emperor.

nbarclay · March 4, 2003, 14:38

You can build up a lot of gold researching Polytheism and Monarchy in 40 turns each with the science slider at the minimum needed to get any science. And if you're willing to compromise science during your golden age, you can get quite a bit more gold for additional upgrades once your first Gallic Swordsman wins.

Artifex · March 4, 2003, 19:18

The problem I fear is the quick discovery of feudalism by the ai's by that time. Particularly if your on a large continent with various AIs trading back and forth (feaudalism is discovered with breathtaking speed).

Ofcourse rendering your GS army obsolete. The GSs don't look so swell facing hordes of fortified pikemen in cities.

pedrojedi · March 4, 2003, 21:51

But if usually we use archer vs spearman why don't use GS vs pikeman? It is the same offense vs defence. Of course losing attackers is bad business but early in medieval age there is room for another 1 or 2 final city strikes if you have a good army (which is what usually people here have).

vulture · March 5, 2003, 07:57

Archers vs spearmen in towns is one thing, swordsmen vs pikemen in cities is a slightly worse thing. The first is 2 vs 2.2, for a town on plains, the second is 3 vs 4.8 (or is it 4.95 - I've never been sure how the defence bonuses stack up together). By the early medieval age, you will be facing a greater number of cities than in the ancient era (much to no-one's surprise).

Plus, artifex makes a good point about the number of opponents you are in contact with. I've got two games on the go - one as the Celt on a standard map, with 3 Ai civs on my continent. One is as the vikings on a huge map (with max land) and 24 civs in total, 18 of which I made contact with before halfway through the ancient era. In the first game I was able to get techs first and trade them, and get Monarchy while there were still a few ancient era techs to go. In the other game, I never had the unique hold of a tech - with 18 competitors someone was always researching the same thing as me, often with 100% science in 38 turns rather than my 40. So more of my gold had to go on buying techs, and the tech rate was phenomenal. And we had massive barbarian uprisings before anyone had monarchy.

Actually the 24 civ game has a wholly different kind of feel to it - it really does feel like being one small nation in a large world, and having to worry only about local affairs, and carving out your own niche, rather than trying to dominate the game as per an 8 civ game.

pedrojedi · March 5, 2003, 12:11

Actually the 24 civ game has a wholly different kind of feel to it - it really does feel like being one small nation in a large world, and having to worry only about local affairs, and carving out your own niche, rather than trying to dominate the game as per an 8 civ game.

Reeealy true. That's why I like the 8-civ standard-map game: you really have a good call to world domination really early. Although sometimes it's good to change for a while

Archers vs spearmen in towns is one thing, swordsmen vs pikemen in cities is a slightly worse thing. The first is 2 vs 2.2, for a town on plains, the second is 3 vs 4.8 (or is it 4.95 - I've never been sure how the defence bonuses stack up together). By the early medieval age, you will be facing a greater number of cities than in the ancient era (much to no-one's surprise).

The problem is the city and its bonus to defence. That's the reason I like the early (difficult to manage, but when done, it sounds so cool

) invasion task force, with 2-3 spearmen/pikemen, 4-9 GS, 2-3 horsemen and 3-5 catapults, a mobile force of terror. This is maybe enough for a capital or a wonder city, but can have a easy time with border cities or 1 not-so-heavily-guarded core city.

Artifex · March 5, 2003, 22:04

It is SO hard for me to wait until Monarchy to start fighting with my Gallics.

Especially if I have no access to horses (like in my current game). This means I have no viable offense except if I go with my Gallics.

Right now I am 15 turns away from monarchy and I started a war with Russia, they are threatening me seriously. I haven't used my Gallics yet but they are all stacked at the border ready to rumble next turn.

Talk me out of using them. I am listening.

Master Zen · March 5, 2003, 23:29

Originally posted by Artifex
The problem I fear is the quick discovery of feudalism by the ai's by that time. Particularly if your on a large continent with various AIs trading back and forth (feaudalism is discovered with breathtaking speed).

Ofcourse rendering your GS army obsolete. The GSs don't look so swell facing hordes of fortified pikemen in cities.

You will have a lot of time from which an Archer-rush is a viable tactic until they discover Feudalism. If you miss the chance you can always Knight-rush them just hope they aren't too powerful.

Master Zen · March 5, 2003, 23:35

Originally posted by vulture
Archers vs spearmen in towns is one thing, swordsmen vs pikemen in cities is a slightly worse thing. The first is 2 vs 2.2, for a town on plains, the second is 3 vs 4.8 (or is it 4.95 - I've never been sure how the defence bonuses stack up together). By the early medieval age, you will be facing a greater number of cities than in the ancient era (much to no-one's surprise).

Not necessarily. Since construction is one of the last ancient techs, you will still be well into the Medieval ages with most of the AI's settlements are only towns. I fought a 25+settlement enemy in the early medieval ages recently and they only had 3 cities, the rest were towns. Aqueducts are not that cheap. The only situation would be if the enemy territority would be exagerately blessed with rivers.

I've said in a previous post that Knight-rushing is my favorite because they have a 4 vs. 3.75 advantage against Pikemen. When you get Cavalry that's the problem since most of the AI settlements are cities by then (late Medieval) 6 vs. 7.5 and canons don't really help much IMO.

RGBVideo · March 23, 2003, 12:11

Small map. Archer rush in the beginning. Conquer nearby civ, get a GL, build army. Add Swordsmen to army. Kill other nearby civs. Spread out your empire. That's a good start to a game