Ancient Era Warfare

[Jon Shafer]

Hindsight, they say.

[lmtoops]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yes, in retrospect, I believe you're right.

We should have hung back for 2 more turns.

Python did not immediately attack Fort Siamang. They marched to FS9 (T3), then to FS3 (T4), THEN bombarded & too it (T5).

So, had we landed on T2 or T3, things might have worked out better. Or not.

-Arrian

This brings up a different problem (I think) with MP games and coordinating battle plans with another player. I think the most common problem is your ally blocking the road or having a unit(s) on a key tile.

This happen to me twice in my Dbl or Nothing PBEM game; both times my ally was blocking the only road to the front. The first time I managed to play around it. The second time, I had to go to war with my ally to get his calvary out of the way.

Of course the same thing can happen in a SP game, but there not much you can do about that. For MP games, it's preventable with better planning.

[Dominae]

Re: Ancient Era Warfare

Originally posted by Trip
The Rush is a strategy which is especially liked by most warmongers in Civ 3. The main goal of it is to catch one's opponent off-guard with few defenses, but often costs a great deal to perform early on, and is a risky venture to engage in.

The three units most often used in a rush are the Archer, most often early in the game, Horsemen and Swordsmen...

What about Warriors?

[vmxa1]

I guess the phrase "most often used" lets him off the hook, but I would think warriors are close.

[Arrian]

I have a friend who plays, typically Monarch level like me, but he plays less often and doesn't hang out at 'poly, so he's not quite as good Anyway, for a while his almost standard opening strat was to build 6-8 warriors and just bumrush the nearest AI capital. It worked pretty well, I have to admit. On that level, anyway.

Against other humans, it's got a better chance, I think. Other humans aren't getting free spearmen like the AI. However, it all hinges on the element of surprise.

-Arrian

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I guess the phrase "most often used" lets him off the hook, but I would think warriors are close.

Yes, that was the idea. I could have mentioned certain UU replacements as possibilities also, but I wanted to keep my description generic.

[Dominae]

The Warrior rush is fundamentally different from both the Archer or Horsemen/Swordsmen rushes (in fact, Horsemen/Sworsdmen "rushes" are not really rushes at all, but just early warfare). I would think the whole matter requires three sections:

1. Warrior rush
2. Archer rush
3. Horsemen/Swordsmen warfare

[Jon Shafer]

A civ starts with Bronze Working, starts on Iron Working. Builds Barracks early on, a few vet Warriors. Finds iron nearby, hooks it up. Upgrades 5 Swordsmen and sends them towards a hapless nearby civ with 1-2 cities. Same thing can be done with Chariots to Horsemen.

How is that so different from using Warrior or Archer rushes?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Trip
A civ starts with Bronze Working, starts on Iron Working. Builds Barracks early on, a few vet Warriors. Finds iron nearby, hooks it up. Upgrades 5 Swordsmen and sends them towards a hapless nearby civ with 1-2 cities. Same thing can be done with Chariots to Horsemen.

How is that so different from using Warrior or Archer rushes?

Let's focus on the Warrior rush.

First and foremost, the timescale is completely different: with a Warrior rush, you want to be decalaring war at around turn 20; with a Horsemen/Swordsmen, it's about double that. What this means is that a Warrior rush has higher probability of catching the opponent with his or her pants down, for instance undefended Workers.

Second, of course, is the huge difference in cost. In a Horsemen/Swordsmen "rush", you have to research (unless Japan) upwards of 6 tech points just to get to your unit. Then you have to save up enough cash to upgrade those, say, 5 units; upwards of 250 Gold. Either that or you and your neighbors make a killing out of Goody Huts. There is also the Shield cost: in your example, a Barracks plus 5 Warriors is 90 Shields. A standard Warrior rush is typically 30 Shields less costly than this. This is huge in the early-game. Of course, you could always do without the Barracks, but with Swordsmen, would you want to (see the fourth point, below)?

Third, Warrior rushes are about terror and initiative; Horsemen/Swordsmen rushes are about taking cities. 5 warm Warrior-bodies in the early-game puts a thorn in your opponent's side that he/she is simply not prepared to extract. This hopefully hampers his/her growth enough for you to gain an economic advantage. Horsemen/Swordsmen rushes are prone to failure if your opponent defenses are strong enough. On the other hand, Warrior rushes rarely fail outright because they're about disruption, not conquest.

Fourth, Warrior rushes are more or less fluid with standard early-game openings (at least in MP): you build 3 Warriors, then, if your opponent is close enough and you want to take him/her out, you build a couple more and send them off. Then you're free to concentrate on other things (like Pottery and a Granary). This is in contrast to the Sworsdmen rush, which requires a lot focus and effort. If that type of rush fails, you're likely behind because you've focused all your resources into that one strategy. Your opponent, as the defender, probably has the upper hand.

Now, this is not to say that one is better than the other, or even that one cannot morph into the other given the right circumstances. Just that if you're going to right a guide about it, there are some fundamental differences between the two that need to be discussed.

Archer rushes, as you would expect, are midway between Warrior and Horsemen/Swordsmen rushes. They require more focus but less cost, and their timeframe is sligher faster than Horsemen/Swordsmen rushes. As a hybrid of the two other types of rushes (interestingly, with a completely different unit) the Archer rush is special because it serve both terror- and conquest-type roles. Sometimes your realise that your 5 Archers in the field are not enough to take cities, and you make do with just scaring the crap out of your opponent instead. Although this is possible with a Horsemen/Swordsmen rush, it's inefficient because of the high cost of getting those 30SUs out there in the first place.

[Cerbykins]

A little bit to add to the SoDs, at least in my usage of them. I'll often waft it around on the AI border, and whack a couple of outsider towns, to get some attention. Then the REAL force shows up to come stop me, and of course...all those attack units in the SoD come into play
You'd never get away with it vs humans, but the AI bites regularly

[Jon Shafer]

Dom: If you wish to seperate "Rushes" from "Ultra-Early Rushes" then yes, I will grant you that the strategies involved are different. I will add a paragraph or two to solve this issue.

As for some of the other stuff I was planning on doing, sorry for the delay, been busy at the end of this week, I should be able to get more done on the weekend.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Trip
A civ starts with Bronze Working, starts on Iron Working. Builds Barracks early on, a few vet Warriors. Finds iron nearby, hooks it up. Upgrades 5 Swordsmen and sends them towards a hapless nearby civ with 1-2 cities.

Minus the bit about starting with Bronze Working... this might be briefly stated as... The Fall of Lux Invicta

[Arrian]

True. Didn't ND hit Lux with ~4 swords? That's a small, early sword rush. Quite effective against a single spear and a couple of warriors.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Trip
Dom: If you wish to seperate "Rushes" from "Ultra-Early Rushes" then yes, I will grant you that the strategies involved are different.

Originally posted by Trip
How is that so different from using Warrior or Archer rushes?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Arrian
True. Didn't ND hit Lux with ~4 swords? That's a small, early sword rush. Quite effective against a single spear and a couple of warriors.

-Arrian

5, IIRC.