Protective Trait = Archer Rush Is Back.

[-SafaN-]

mayb i'm overlooking something, but ending a war in 1515 AD with archers doesn't sound like a rush?

[ZEE]

.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Theben
City guard isn't an offensive option, although the Drill I can be...

It's not in the tactical sense, but good defenders can make quite a difference strategically, preventing counter attacks from succeeding/happening.

[wodan11]

Every time you take a city, it's going to be sitting there for 2-9 turns or so with 0 border before it comes out of unrest. That's your period of maximum vulnerability to a counterattack. Having an archer / longbow / crossbow army all with free city defense promotions can be a huge help, not only to stop any counterattack, but as a deterrent against counterattack in the first place. At least, I'm pretty sure the AI calculates the modified strength when deciding whether to attack or not.

Wodan

[Ming]

Originally posted by wodan11
I'm pretty sure the AI calculates the modified strength when deciding whether to attack or not.

I've seen the AI attack in situations where it was totally hopeless for them... so I wonder about that.

[wodan11]

That's only when they have the "lemmings suicide attack" flag set.

Wodan

[Theben]

Actually, I'd say that AAHZ's example is a good reason NOT to use archer rush. As I look on his power graph, he has NO religions and is researching Metal Casting(!) in 1515 A.D. There's no way he's going to catch up to any decent civ out there and chances are this game is already lost.

Maybe the archer rush worked intially but this is an example of what happens when you engage in a long, drawn-out war. Both sides eventually lose.

[wodan11]

Probably true, Theben. Though, if true, that's more of a comment on his execution, not of the concept itself.

If it was me, I probably would have stopped with Nobama and Bulawayo. Both of them had no culture defense, and a rush can easily take them. Plus, they would give you pretty much your optimum empire size for the early game, and they will hobble Shaka's empire growth by the same amount.

But... stop there! We have the majority of the continent, and it will be VERY hard to take the capitol. At this point, we probably don't have Courthouses or Commerce, so additional cities will really tank our economy anyway.

Usually right after I get Commerce and Code of Laws, I'll push to get Engineering. Trebuchets changes everything, and allow you to knock cities down quite easily. In fact, you could even do it with your Archer army (and not bother with Maces or something).

Wodan

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Ming
I've seen the AI attack in situations where it was totally hopeless for them... so I wonder about that.

Even better if you have good defenders. Free XP.

[ZEE]

.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by wodan11
If it was me, I probably would have stopped with Nobama and Bulawayo. Both of them had no culture defense, and a rush can easily take them. Plus, they would give you pretty much your optimum empire size for the early game, and they will hobble Shaka's empire growth by the same amount.

But... stop there! We have the majority of the continent, and it will be VERY hard to take the capitol. At this point, we probably don't have Courthouses or Commerce, so additional cities will really tank our economy anyway.

Yeah, I recently did something similar while doing a rush with Egypt's UU chariot. That's a good rushing unit, but there was just no way I could take down a capitil on a hill with a high culture defense with them; even with the chance of retreat I still just could not have built an army big enough to do so, so I just took his second city, trashed his improvements, and then made peace and went on to take over some barb cities with my chariots. Worked quite well; even though I only took one fairly small city from him, that was enough so he was never able to catch up with me and ended up just as a minor trading partner for the rest of the game, he was never again a threat.

[absimiliard]

I don't disagree with the principle that a Protective archer rush could be effective.

But since you didn't completely destroy your opponent, or even successfully take his capitol, I think I might debate calling what you did a "successful" rush.

Given that your first pic shows the date of the beginning of your war w. Shaka I might even debate calling that war a rush at all.

Generally I expect a rush to be done before 500BC, and I expect it to leave either no opponent or at worst a crippled opponent with one or maybe two peripheral cities.

Sorry. Call it like I see it.

-abs

[ZEE]

.

[Fleme]

Sure you can sufficiently wage war with Protective Archery units and Koreans for example can make a pretty decent medieval army with Crossbows, Longbows and Hwachas. Also, the mentioned Native Americans and other Protective leaders who make use of the trait by enchancing it through an UU or by other means can make it worthwhile. However, saying that the trait is among the best is just false in my opinion. Drill 1 doesn't make your army that much better and overall you will always be better off with stronger melee units. First strikes of the Archers can be countered and if you're on a good defensive spot, there's no way that offensive archers are going to take down your fortified archers unless they outnumber the defenders three to one or more. Even then, moving in just a few defenders will help thwart an offensive archer attack. Talking about rushes; I'll agree that you might be able to wreak some havoc with an offensive archer rush just as well as you could with other ancient units - heck you can even dogpile weak enemies with just warriors (let alone Quechuas).

All in all I would much rather take any other trait that Protective. One extra first strike chance (or CG 1) doesn't make them supermen by any means and since offense is always the best defense they will never be as good for waging war as "regular" units. Units that are best defending and are just walking experience to the enemy when left on a plains/grassland tile don't really strike me as something I'd build my army around. Always bring a few archery units to guard the weak units (artillery, wounded) and to leave behind as garrisons but never have I built my army around them.

That said; To each his own.

[jbp26]

Originally posted by Fleme
All in all I would much rather take any other trait that Protective. One extra first strike chance (or CG 1) doesn't make them supermen by any means and since offense is always the best defense they will never be as good for waging war as "regular" units. Units that are best defending and are just walking experience to the enemy when left on a plains/grassland tile don't really strike me as something I'd build my army around. Always bring a few archery units to guard the weak units (artillery, wounded) and to leave behind as garrisons but never have I built my army around them.

this is basically why i think the logic that protective is a good offensive trait is erroneous. effectively, all it does is give an extra first strike to the second weakest unit in the game. i'd much rather have an unpromoted axeman then a drill/city garrison archer. its pretty clear to me that this strategy did way more damage than good in this game.

the only effective archer "rush" that i can consistently pull off, and would have been better for this game, is the old take two archers and fortify outside of his capital. your enemy will essentially never expand as long as you're positioned there.