I can't believe this..

[Velociryx]

Okay....gonna do the polite thing and try sending you an e-mail. You'll probably not answer it, but....*shrug* this is getting out of hand and you're probably verging on an anurism....

-=Vel=-

[HappySunShine]

Keep it here and reply. That's not even my real email address. If you want to just admit the fact that you're an SP rookie and your knowledge doesn't extend beyond the AI we can end this right now.

[Velociryx]

in that case, I just sent you a pm. Anything is better than subjecting the board to any more of....this....see you there?

-=Vel=-

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
And of course 1 HP isn't really that big a difference with this combat system.

That is incorrect. Neglecting retreat, a regular unit with attack two v. a regular unit with defense two fortified will win 36% of the time. A veteran attack will win 51%, a very significant increase. Of course, sometimes it is still better to not build the barracks and rely on speed and numbers, but if you want to implement a successful rush strategy, it is important to understand the combat system.

Do you think that you could successfully defend against the rush? Consider that while you build chariots, the defender can build an equal force of defenders.

[vondrack]

Vel, I told you...

But thanks for the show, it's fun to watch...

BTW, where is Ming?

[Velociryx]

*sigh* I know...I know...I got baited for another few posts....but I really *did* just send him a PM and refuse to reply further to him here....hopefully that'll help calm things down.

Of course, I have my doubts that he'll respond to my pm....after all, I'm just a no-talent peon....what is that to a god? Probably not even worthy of a reply, but....of course I had to try....

-=Vel=-

[Theseus]

I would add that the increased retreat odds also have another benefit... by not losing a higher percentage of battles, you decrease the defending enemy's chances of promotion. This is especially important given the relative parity of offense and defense strength this early, with the resulting less than opverwhelming odds of winning a given individual battle.

[Velociryx]

Total agreement. With the combat model vastly simplified, each addtional hp is a HUGE boon....makes an enormous amount of difference in combat. Add to that fast-mover's increasing chance of retreat (and therefore, survival), and barracks are a good value for the money (esp. for militaristic civs).

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Dang....he logged off without even opening my PM....I'm crushed!

-=Vel=-

[Hagbart]

This thread is too long. Close it.

[Bleyn]

Why would an Egyptian WC rush be superior to say a Chinese horseman rush, or an Iroquois Mounted Warrior rush?

As I see it the only advantages to the Egyptian WC rush is the factor that you have to research only 1 tech, The Wheel. And WCs cost 20 to the 30 of horse or MW.

With a horseman-based rush, you would have to research two techs, The Wheel and Horseback Riding. I realize that. But horsemen, have what I see as a significant advantage over chariots. That is the ability to go through any terrain. That chariots are not allowed to go through unroaded mountains or jungle is a significant disadvantage in my mind. I've hit maps before where chariots had to go turns out of their way to get through a mountain range at a particular spot, when horsemen would have plowed right through in far less time.

And I don't see that Egypt's Civ-Abilities would be all that significant compared to the Chinese, Iroquois, or the Japanese for that matter.

China has the same industrious trait as Egypt, which really only counts in cities 7 or larger, and it has military, which cuts the barracks down to a 20 cost from 40, making it as cheap as a chariot and cheaper than a horseman. True, the chinese horseman isn't a UU and can't trigger a GA like the WC, but the GA only last so long, and a lot of time in the early stages can be taken up just moving.

Iroquois has religious which is also the same as Egypt, but I can't believe that trait would be significant in such an early rush. After all no government swaps would happen and surely happiness wouldn't be a problem. And expansionist would give you cheap two move units useful for scouting out the territory faster so you can attack directly at your enemies (along with the better goody hut selection that might just hit a useful tech or two). Not to mention that the MW is a UU with a stronger attack than the WC.

The Japanese also look somewhat reasonable to me. Mil, religous with The Wheel as an automatic tech. So, barracks are cheaper, and chariots are available as soon as you can get a supply of horses. Only one tech to research, and you are up to horsemen.

Anyway, thats my take on that aspect of rushing. *yawn*

[Theseus]

Bleyn, if you look back a page or so, I made the argument for Japan as a Horse rush champ. I think the deciding factor is as simple as researching only 1 tech instead of 2.

I haven't played Japan in a while, certainly not since I've become proficient at very early rushes... it's gotta be devastating against anybody except Greece, and in SP at least, no way is Alexander ready for that much aggression that soon.

[spy14]

Just read this page after a few days absence... nice to see everyones quoting good evidence ("rookie", "moron" ) and generally getting along

[spy14]

"Everyones" perhaps being the wrong way of putting it

[Theseus]

I have been trying to bring it back to a somewhat interesting discussion... what early tactics from SP might have relevance in MP, and what civ attributes might be preferable.

(I really am interested)

My efforts have been, uh, marginally successful.