Protective Trait = Archer Rush Is Back.

[couerdelion]

I think I agree with most people here. A rush that begins in 55 AD with archers is not a rush. In fact, I don't know what you didn't just start by building archers if all you wanted was the rush. Forget the barracks too.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theben
The reason to play Native American isn't the Philosophical but rather the unique building- the Totem Pole- which gives +3 exp to archer units. Add to barracks and you have 6 exp archers almost at start, and their UU isn't too bad either since it doesn't require iron or copper and has a +100% vs. melee. It's only STR 4, but 5x1.5=7.5 STR for regular axemen as opposed to 4x2=STR 8!

In my view, although the Dog Soldier (the Native American UU) has advantages over axemen in a few specific situations, it is clearly worse than axemen overall after a player has access to bronze or iron. This view is based purely on theoretical analysis, since I haven't actually played the Native Americans yet, but I'll go ahead and explain it.

Even under ideal conditions, the Dog Soldier's effective strength of 8 against melee units is only a small step up from axemen's effective strenght of 7.5. But under most practical conditions, the advantage is smaller, and it can disappear completely when other factors are involved. Consider what happens when an axeman or Dog Soldier is fully fortified, defending a city with a 20% cultural bonus. If I understand the math correctly, a Combat I axeman in such a situation has an effective strength of 10.25 against an attacking axeman or swordsman.

5 Base.
2.5 for +50% against melee units
1.25 for +25% full fortification
1 for 20% city defense
0.5 for +10% for Combat 1

A Dog Soldier in the same situation only has an effective strength of 10.2.

4 Base
4 for +100% against melee units
1 for +25% full fortification
0.8 for 20% city defense
0.4 for +10% for Combat I

A similar problem exists when defending on forests or jungles, or especially on forest or jungle hills. Even when defending against melee units, it's not hard for Dog Soldiers to lose more from having other bonuses apply to a lower base value than they gain from their higher multiplier against melee units. And when defending against non-melee units, Dog Soldiers face a huge disadvantage compared with axemen.

Offensively, when attacking an invading stack consisting only of melee units in the open field, Dog Soldiers have a small advantage over axemen. But if the enemy stack has archers, chariots, or other non-melee units mixed in, Dog Soldiers will probably have to fight through those units at much worse odds than axemen would face before they can even start trying to attack the melee units in the stack. Similarly, when trying to attack AI cities, there are almost certain to be archers included in the cities' defenses, forcing the Dog Soldiers to chew through those before they can start attacking melee units.

Even against barbarians, Dog Soldiers are mixed bag. On the plus side, they can be built earlier than axemen because you don't have to wait to hook up bronze or iron; they pack a slightly better punch against barb axemen (and warriors) in many situations (and essentially always when attacking them); and there is no risk of not having the needed resources. But on the minus side, Dog Soldiers are not nearly as effective as axemen against barbarian archers - including the archers that defend barbarian cities.

If Dog Soldiers were available in addition to axemen, they would offer the Native Americans a clear advantage. But to me, forcing the Native Americans to build Dog Soldiers instead of axemen looks like it is as much a penalty as an advantage.

[Chemical Ollie]

I quite often use archer rush to take out my closest neighbour. And if his capital gets to strong for the archers to crack, I put 4-5 archers around his capital to keep him canned and prevent him from expanding, until I can build catapults.

[Krill]

Better suggestions: get 2 archers asap (ie get archery as 2nd or 1st tech) and use them to interdict you opponents capital, stop them developing etc. This is choking and is much more effective because it lets you develope you empire without fear of (immediate) retribution.

[Pinchak]

forcing the Native Americans to build Dog Soldiers instead of axemen looks like it is as much a penalty as an advantage.

Its all in how you use them. The Native Americans are the ultimate early game rush civ (i guess inca could be argued as well). The dogmen + super archers make for a nasty combo almost right out the gate... without worrying about metal.

Not having to worry about metal has more advantages that simply "well, i know i won't be metal screwed". It means you can persue other early tech paths first without the awful, "well, no bronze so i guess i'll make the slow climb to iron and pray".

It means you can plan your rush sooner, not only because you don't have to wait for the actual metal "hookup", but because you KNOW from the get go that you will have the units to finish the job so to speak (ie. not being metal screwed after pissing off neighboors in the first several turns).

Too some these advantages might seem trival, but on harder levels they can make or break your game.

BTW, the Apolyton Tri-League game for this month features Sitting Bull... a great oppertunity to try the fabled archer rush, or test the true grit of the Native American Dog Soldiers.

[ZEE]

.

[One_more_turn]

It's 1000AD and you haven't researched Mathematics at Prince level?

[ZEE]

.

[Pinchak]

I give ya props for not quitting and restarting. Making due with what you have is the sign of a true leader.

I think the point myself and others were trying to make was that although an archer rush CAN work, it USUALLY isn't the best option.

In your situation however, it worked rather well.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Pinchak
I give ya props for not quitting and restarting. Making due with what you have is the sign of a true leader.

QFT. Also I applaud your resistance to the "wonder crutch", as you put it. I'll admit that's a weakness of mine.

My main concern is your lack of technical advancement at such a late age. Go ahead and play it out; prove us wrong. But in any event I don't see the "archer-rush" as an all-purpose strategy, but rather one that may present itself under certain circumstances. I have tried it in the past, w/o much success.

[ZEE]

.

[Fleme]

I don't think anyone was trying to say that you were bad at any point. We just argued the point of Protective being one of the best traits. You made due with what you were given and that deserves a

Don't forget to toss Representation into that combo of yours.

[Pinchak]

Don't forget to toss Representation into that combo of yours.

Buracracy as well IMO. Filter hammer/coin producing SS to the capital.

Wonders such as pirimids (for early representation) and parthanon (for the +50% GP rate) are also worth building if going the philo route.

[Chemical Ollie]

Protective rocks!

In my current game, I play China and have barracks + 4 great generals + West Point + Military Academy in my Heroic Epic city. Include Pentagon in the equation and I get 4 upgrades for every new unit. So every defensive infantry unit rolls out with City Garrison III and Drill III combined, fresh from boot camp.

[frenzyfol]

One problem not mentioned here is that there is a higher amount of war weariness when using archers/longbowmen offensively due to the higher unit loss when compared to using catapults/trebs.