I wouldn't want the job of making Civ V, Civ IV is too good

[wodan11]

If any player techs to cats then this does not qualify as a "rush" in my book.

Worst case scenario is you get killed by chopped axes before you can even tech to archery.

Second worst is you get killed by chopped axes after you tech to archery. Even though you can whip 1-2 archers, you can't chop any because he's choking you.

Like I said, you know all this. I'm not sure what your goal is here... care to explain?

Wodan

[snoopy369]

Krill is suggesting surviving the rush via archers until you are able to beat off the choke (choke being the tactic for a failed rush, basically) with catapults. Either catapults or longbows are availabe surprisingly early, if you head straight to them; one very effective strategy is heading straight to longbows, going into vasselage, and producing Woody2 longbows. Then walk straight into your opp's easy targets while they're working on writing or whatnot...

[frenzyfol]

The previously posted idea of unit attrition would be a good answer to reducing the effectiveness of early rushes.

If certain technologies and promotions reduced unit attrition then war would be more effective in the later game rather than early game.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Krill is suggesting surviving the rush via archers until you are able to beat off the choke (choke being the tactic for a failed rush, basically) with catapults. Either catapults or longbows are availabe surprisingly early, if you head straight to them; one very effective strategy is heading straight to longbows, going into vasselage, and producing Woody2 longbows. Then walk straight into your opp's easy targets while they're working on writing or whatnot...

Okay, let me make sure I have this right.

The scenario is two players (A and B), each beelines BW. A has copper, B doesn't. B now must choose: IW, AH, or Archery. You suggest he goes for Archery.

A chops and whips axes. How long will it take to have a half dozen? Not long. However, he presumably will scout A, and may even begin a choke. (I disagree that a choke is a failed assault... it's also a precursor to an assault, especially because A wants to go and pillage B's copper.)

Meanwhile, B gets Archery (personally I would go for AH instead, but that's just me). We presuppose he can research it before A shows up with Axes which is not a given, but say he does. He then whips a couple of Archers but can't whip more because he lacks the pop. If A is choking him, he can't chop any, either.

So, B has 2 archers and 1 warrior to hold off 6 axes. Not gonna happen.

Okay, let's look at your expanded scenario. Let's say through some miracle or flubbing by A, that B is able to hold him off. You are suggesting that B research Math, Masonry, Writing, and AH or Pottery or Priesthood (and their prereqs). All to get Cats. And, you say that B can do this before A will even get Writing?

Obviously I'm missing something. Please help me out!!

Wodan

[Krill]

If any player techs to cats then this does not qualify as a "rush" in my book.

Worst case scenario is you get killed by chopped axes before you can even tech to archery.

If you can't get be bothered to get archery before your opponent has axes entering your land you deserve to die. As MP is played on quick speed, it takes atleast 3 turns to hook up copper (by city connected via river), possible more than 10 (you have to research wheel...). Both civs can get out a worker in the same amount of time. Both can chop (BW should always be the first tech that you aim for in MP). It shouldn't take more than 10 turns to get archery, and when that happens you should have either a settler half done (2 chops and a slave) or another worker to clear cut all of your land immediately so the axes can't sit on forests (personally I'll pretty much always get the 2nd worker before a settler in MP, as you have to chop most of your foests immediately anyway to speed developement).

Now, all things being equal player A has to now get together 115 hammers for 5 axes, whereas player B only needs 3 archers to hold his city (48 hammers). And player A has to walk his axes one tile at a time to player Bs' land, so if Player B can get out his archers and take the defensive positions he can force the axes onto flat ground where he can 2v1 them (if they are walked in 1 at a time, called trickle attacking, which you have to do early on in the game to get the choke established). If player A is going to rush and keep his intentions hidden from player B, and waits until all of his 5 or 6 axes are done then player B should have out his settler (walking time for axes and an extra 62 hammers difference between 3 archers and 5 axes, and a settler is only 65) and have planted on his nearest resource (preferably metal) and as he has 2 workers he should have been able to road to that site and have it scouted with an archer (or maybe two).

[Krill]

Wodan your numbers are way off. The only way someone has 2 archers and 1 warrior (42 hammers) to hold off 6 axes (138) is if they have a a second city out, and even then, you aren't accounting for traveling time. Building 6 axes by choping all your forests (with 1 worker! 2 would be better depending on the amount of forest) and slaving yourself retarded really ****s up the developement of your civ, that's why it takes A so long to get to cats, wheras B is developing by getting the 2nd city immediately (maybe after a 2nd worker) to get a resource.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by wodan11

Okay, let me make sure I have this right.

The scenario is two players (A and B), each beelines BW. A has copper, B doesn't. B now must choose: IW, AH, or Archery. You suggest he goes for Archery.

A chops and whips axes. How long will it take to have a half dozen? Not long. However, he presumably will scout A, and may even begin a choke. (I disagree that a choke is a failed assault... it's also a precursor to an assault, especially because A wants to go and pillage B's copper.)

Meanwhile, B gets Archery (personally I would go for AH instead, but that's just me). We presuppose he can research it before A shows up with Axes which is not a given, but say he does. He then whips a couple of Archers but can't whip more because he lacks the pop. If A is choking him, he can't chop any, either.

So, B has 2 archers and 1 warrior to hold off 6 axes. Not gonna happen.

Okay, let's look at your expanded scenario. Let's say through some miracle or flubbing by A, that B is able to hold him off. You are suggesting that B research Math, Masonry, Writing, and AH or Pottery or Priesthood (and their prereqs). All to get Cats. And, you say that B can do this before A will even get Writing?

Obviously I'm missing something. Please help me out!!

Wodan

First, you're assuming that 6 axes take an equivalent amount of time to 2 archers + research archery. Most definitely not the case. Archery - and hunting, even - takes a total of 10 turns to research. Archers then can be chopped/whipped at about 4 per 10 turns, for one city. Given the delay to archery, you can build a second city during this time. With that second city, you can put out 4 per 10 turns with a much reduced cost, or 5 per 10 turns with a higher cost to your civ.

Second, you're assuming you can get 6 axes in an unreasonably short amount of time. You can get about 3 per 10 turns, roughly. 6 axes takes 20 turns, and that's assuming you basically trash your civ (one city only, slaved quite thoroughly, forests smashed up.)

Third, you're assuming the civs are immediately next to each other. There is SOME distance, at least 10 or so typicaly. Since these are 1 move units, that's another 10 turns added on.

So, you have both civs assumed identical, starting at the moment you research BW (assuming same techs to start with). Let's say you went worker first for both, and finished said worker 8 turns prior to BW being researched, allowing both civs to grow to size 2. One finds copper (A), the other (B) doesn't (and is aware of the civ nearby). If i'm civ B, I realize I am vulnerable to a rush, and immediately research hunting/archery (assume I don't start with it). I build a settler while i'm doing that, at size 2 I get 6 hammer-equivalents plus two chopped forests and finish the settler as my civ finishes archery. I go settle that city two turns' distance away. At this point, (A) has 3 axemen finished. I begin building (quickly) archers, and A sends the three axemen over. If I get archers started now (10 post BW), I have 4 built when those three axemen arrive, enough to survive (by turn 20 post-BW). At this point it's clear I'll survive, as I can out-build civ A, and with two cities I'll continue to do so (either producing archers in both cities, or using one to improve my civ). Not only will I survive, but I probably will actually outperform Civ A, since I have one more city, so long as I can protect my territory from a choke long enough to make the choke non-viable (say, putting archers on hills/forests so far).

The choke certainly will be hard to break off, but if I'm outperforming civ A, I can afford to attack axemen and lose one archer per axeman defeated (2 archers > 1 axeman generally). That exchange is a very good rate...

[Krill]

Actually it is wiser to grow your city immediately by making warriors to explore and choke with. You can probably get out 3 or 4 warriors out and have half a worker built which you slave when you get BW and change to slavery. Those warriors can scout out your metal and also be used to choke civ A when you find that he has copper. This slows down Civ A hooking copper even more.

[snoopy369]

And this is why Krill can outrush me ten times out of ten

[Krill]

It's also the reason Mali died before he got archery on saturday

[Krill]

Well, I think I should qualify that statement about the worker. It isn;t always wiser to get the warriors out, but it is safer; it gives you control over your opponent by letting you choke them, but going worker first can speed up getting you a settler if you have a good food tile (irrigated wheat or better) and you can immediately hook it up, ie you have agri. if you can't hook up your food it probably isn't wise to get the worker because he won;t be able to do anything.

Also, this is one of the reason I don;t like coastal starts. You have to spend hammer on workboats that you can't get back. yes, you have an unpillageable food tile, but it is half a worker or 2 warriors. And you still have to get a worker to chop your forests anyway (for the hammers to speed up the settler and to give the choker/rusher less tiles to hide in).

[wodan11]

Okay all that explanation helps.

I agree with you about making warriors and growing rather than workers right off. I pretty much always to that whether I'm rushing or not, as it seems to give faster overall results.

However, sending the warriors on the early choke only helps prove my point... something is needed to prevent early chokes or rushes. They are bad for the game.

Wodan

[Krill]

Wodan, you point basically means that early warfare is a bad idea and shouldn't be in civ. Unfortunately for you early warfare is always going to be a necessity to even up imbalances in start location, and your answer to that, which is basically to make all starts even; makes civ more and more chess like. If you want to play chess, then go play chess, but civ is about making a choice; can I hook up that copper and use warriors for defence until I get an axe out, or do I need archery? Do I go for AH and hope I get horses and I can hook up that pig for faster growth or play it safe and get archery? Do I get this settler out and plant on copper immediately and use warriors for defence or do I get an archer there first? Do I keep a warrior on that forest hill so I can 2v1 anything that comes at me from that direction? Early warfare isn't bad, it's just that you (and alot of people who play RAH games) don't understand how to do it properly without screwing yourself over longterm and you don't know how to clear out or stop a choke.

[wodan11]

Whether or not *I* know how to deal with it is not the issue. To be honest, a lot of the questions above were probing questions, so your assessment that I would be hapless if faced with a rush is a bit out of order. I fully admit that I haven't played a lot of CIV MP. However, anybody who has played as much Starcraft online as I have certainly has the experience both in handling and in executing a rush.

The question is whether any and all newbies would be hapless, and whether that's a good thing. A second question is whether fixing it would require evening up imbalances in start location. A third question is the benefits to experienced players.

You haven't really said whether you think tossing newbies into the deep end of the pool is a good thing. Instead you focus on the benefits to experienced players (which is a totally different issue).

Second, I do think that most mapscrips (certainly the default ones) could be improved in start location. I don't think they need to be made exactly mirrored... as you say that would make it like chess and that is a valid objection that I agree with. Nevertheless, I do believe that there is a middle road where the mapscript could avoid totally shafting players, which it occasionally does now.

An adjunct to the second question is What are the other ways to improve the situation? I suggested one which was to provide a cheap defensive unit that will be quickly obsoleted. You didn't really comment on that.

I'm sure there are other options as well. You say that early warfare is the ONLY way to even up imbalances in start location; why do you think so? What if there are "early game" civics such as SMAC social engineering where you have to set a goal for your expansion in terms of hammers/commerce/growth/whatever, and perhaps the benefit you achieve is offset by the civic benefits? e.g., if you have high food, the only way to harvest/store/realize the benefit of the food is to choose the "Growth" social engineering setting.

The third question is the benefit to experienced players in allowing rushes. When all players have the experience to deal with it, we don't have the same issues of discouraging new player introduction to the community. However, we should recognize that this kind of thing will enourage drops. Many players simply don't have the maturity level to suffer through a lack of copper after they beeline BW. Well, maybe "maturity" isn't the term... they're there to kick ass and take names, and archers isn't the way to do that. So, they drop and go join another game.

I do believe that there are plenty of other ways to satisfy that desire of the experienced players. For one thing, all it does is defer the rush. For example, perhaps that defensive unit I suggested is -50% vs Swordsmen but defends against other early units.

The point is not to get tied to specifics... the bottom line question is whether rushing is good for the game or bad for the game.

Wodan

[Krill]

I'll reply to the majority of your post when I have more time (probably tomorrow night) but your bottom line misses the pivotal point: choices are always good, it's the no brainers that need pruning. And as I've said before rushing isn't a no brainer.