Early game rush defence.

[Spiffor]

In the SP DemoGame, we needed about 60 turns before our archers marched on Washington. The other teams will want to attack either with more units (letting us more time to prepare numidians), or less units (giving us a chance to win with our warriors).
Don't forget they have to discover us to attack. If we use most of our warriors to defend our cities rather than scouting, they are less likely to stumble on one, and guess where we come from. It'll also buy us time if we can't produce enough Numidians.

[lmtoops]

We definitely must be of the mind set that a rush will happen. Everything we can do to prepare an impressive defense and counter-stirke ability will serve our immediate needs and will send a long term message.

If a rush does not happen....we will still be in good shape.

1. Get numidians ASAP
2. Limit our scouting...nothing worse than being attached when my warrior/scout can only watch.
3. Use terrain to our advantage, where feasible. Build on a hill surrounded be grasslands.
4. Build barrack before numidians.

[Tiberius]

I've just seen the GS's member list: Theseus, Arrian, dominae, ... If they start near us they will rush us, I guarantee.

I'll quote Theseus from an older thread about rush:

And the second best way... destroy them before they have the capability to attack you.
I just did that to Rome, in a similar situation. Made them respawn in a vast jungle

My friend, you need... the Warrior Rush.
Just trim Hammie a little bit, here and there, and your problems will be over. I wouldn;t even go after towns; just get a couple of Warrior pairs nearby VERY early, and watch for Settler-Warrior pairs.

Gotta get to them first... at all costs. If playing Egypt, for instance, with cultural linking on, I'll not build any twons beyond Thebes, and just go all Warrior, all the time, until I know I've got Caesar in hand.

If nearby, Romans, Persians, and Iroquois need to be trimmed

[vondrack]

I tend to agree with that we will be rushed if starting close to a warmongerish tribe (if for nothing else then just to be shown that rushing works...).

However, attackers will be risking a lot. If we defend ourselves successfully, they will become very vulnerable and I am sure they will realize that. Thinking of the warrior, warrior, warrior, settler, merc build order we have unofficially agreed on, I would send the first warrior straight away, trying to find/contact other civs, kept the second one circling around the capital, mapping the vicinity of our first city, looking for suitable places to expand to, and fortified the last one inside the capital. This way, we should always have at least two warriors ready for defense. That should be enough to stop a single archer trying to harass us. We would have to be seriously unlucky to get attacked by more than one or two archers before we get to BW and mercs. If there is an enemy unit approaching, we might build one more warrior, sending it to search for where the invader came from. Just pushing our lone warrior around their capital should make them think more of defense and less of rushing.

[Tiberius]

Yeah, I think it's a sound plan. Anyway, we will know more about this after the early turns. Let wait for now and see who our neighbors will be and then act accordingly.

[Kloreep]

Actually, I think a good defense against a rush is to not be found too early; thus, I think we should devote our first warrior to mapping a ring around our capital (to search for city sites) and send the second one out searching wider.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Actually, I think a good defense against a rush is to not be found too early; thus, I think we should devote our first warrior to mapping a ring around our capital (to search for city sites) and send the second one out searching wider.

You do have a point. However, applied upside down, the best way to keep someone at bay is to find him first - the very moment your rival realizes you know where to strike at, he must strenghten his defenses. Circling around the capital, we give up on the possibility of locating someone else and accept the fact that WE will be found out.

As far as looking for city sites goes, there will be plenty of time - while building the third warrior and then the settler, the second warrior will have time enough to find a good spot.

Also, actually making a contact with another civ or two may result in learning a new technology that will make our building options after the settler (and possibly the merc) richer. By sticking to Legopolis, we would be passively waiting for others to come to us.

Another thought: the farther away our first warrior gets, the better - during the initial period of the game, most of the territory will be neutral, thus easily tresspassable. With territorial borders expanding, we may later have troubles establishing contacts with faraway civs.

OTOH, if someone else gets to our capital until the second warrior is built, then we are toast (applies vice versa, too - if we get lucky and find someone else's capital early enough, we can either toast him or make sure that they do keep in mind we let them stay in the game). Actually, will respawning be on? Can a human team respawn?

I am not pushing this, just putting thoughts together... feel free to argue, I hope nobody will take discussions here personally.

[Kloreep]

Good arguments. You've convinced me. Not having a capital defense is bad, but it would probably be just as bad with the warrior circling around it.

It's a risk we'll have to take.

[lmtoops]

Another thing to consider for later turns is that the Numidian Mercs are good offensive units. I've trying some early game tactics and the Mercs are doing great until Pikemen and Knights.

[Kloreep]

Yeah, 2 attack will be nice in some situations. Though if it's a large attack, I'd rather have archers guarded by a few Mercs.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Though if it's a large attack, I'd rather have archers guarded by a few Mercs.

I wanted to say the same thing. Num.merc. have the same attack as archers but are much more expensive. So an attack force should be formed of a few Merc. (for defense and eventually a last push in attack) plus archers as the basic attack force.

[vondrack]

I agree that Mercs should be used offensively only when really necessary (finishing badly wounded enemy units, for last ditch fighting and such). Let's use them defensively whenever possible. Their defense of three is at least 3.3 anywhere and rises even higher when fortified and/or stationed on a well-defendable terrain. Having the (relatively) cheap archers carry attacks and protecting the victorious survivors with full-health mercs sounds like a very good idea.

But it certainly does not hurt that the Mercs can attack just as well as archers.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Not having a capital defense is bad, but it would probably be just as bad with the warrior circling around it.

It's a risk we'll have to take.

Boldface added.

I would not be able to put it better. That's exactly how I feel about it... sending the first warrior straight away is nothing that would conform to "playing it safe", which is what I usually go for (and, to be honest, I seldom do that in my SP games). But I fear it will be necessary to remain competitive.