Timeline for the ultra-early Archer rush

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Manya
pre-emptive attacks are the only way, i generally stuck lot's of swordsmen right next to all of their border cities and surprise attack them

i'm such a coward

Me too...

...but I notice that pre-emptive attacks generally eat up my troops more than declared attacks. I.e., if I break a treaty to attack a city I'm right next to, I might lose a swordsman or two, whereas, if I declared war and moved in, I might not lose any.

I assume this has something to do with troop morale... Can someone shed some light on this subject?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Right, theoretically we could take a civ out in one campaign. But we won't want to hurt that civ too much that early, will we? We want them to stay halfway competitive with the other AIs to buy/research more techs for us and build a couple more cities for the next raid 20 turns later. Remember, oscillating wars.

It's also always pick at your prey, take half their empire early on, and then give them a paltry tech after a while to declar war on each other! Dividing and Conquering is trickier in Civ than in real life, but it's still the best tactic there is, IMO.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Right, theoretically we could take a civ out in one campaign. But we won't want to hurt that civ too much that early, will we? We want them to stay halfway competitive with the other AIs to buy/research more techs for us and build a couple more cities for the next raid 20 turns later. Remember, oscillating wars.

It's a balancing act. Do I take more cities to make my empire stronger while sacrificing the easy tech trading laddder my enemies help me with, or do I let them hang around strong so that I can stay equal with the civs on the other continent till I make contact with them.

Wipe 'em out, or buy tech. always a tough choice, but I prefer wipe 'em out.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Yes, remember: Wipe Them Out means more land and cities, which means more trade, which means more tech per turn. Crippled AIs means you can BUY techs, and most likely they're all researching the same tech at the same time, so it's hardly an advantage... (IMO)

[Mountain Sage]

Sir Ralph,

Very interesting as usual. I have just a question: with all your cities committed to building military, settlers (and maybe some worker?), when do you plan do build some Wonder, beside the standard answer 'let the others build it and just capture it'.

[Harovan]

I usually don't build ancient wonders, plain and simple.

By the way, I could build some of them despite the military buildup. What I described above, is a matter of a couple of turns, let's say about 30 turns. The other 30 turns I did just the same I would have done in other games without an archer rush: building settlers and some barracks. In this time, I usually didn't get to, say, Literature, to build one of the best ancient wonders. I can start it after the archers are on their way. What I most likely will miss, are the Pyramids. But I can live without them.

[Mountain Sage]

I understand...
I am correct in assuming you play on standard maps and Pangea?
Playing the French on Huge maps changes lots of things.
I just started a new game and tried your early archer rush with 4 cities+barracks against the English (got 3 cities). By the time I switched to the Great Library (and I have only to research Writing and Literature) I lost it to the Iroquois.
Then I re-run the game without the archer rush. The difference was 6 more cities built+GL+some temples+the Great Lighthouse 10 turns away.
But I would definitely use the archer rush if I were blocked on a peninsula as the English are...

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

It's true, on a huge map, the archer rush can set you back a bit. You have to be confident that your neighbors are struggling: it's effective if your intended victim are the ones who are building the GL! Otherwise, better to wait 'til mounted warfare... IMHO.

[badams52]

Hmmm, that sounds about right. The larger the map, the longer it takes for REXing to end, the farther away the AI will be, the longer it takes to attack with archers, the less effective archer rushes become.

But I will say one thing is that even with the same map, every civ game is not the same. Maybe the Iroquios got into a war or didn't trade early enough for literature, or... you get the point. Just look at any AU spoiler thread, and you will see differences in what happens with the AI, esp when you look on the other continent. Sometimes one of them gets wiped out (see Russia in AU206) sometimes they're still around. The RNG takes care of that.

[Mountain Sage]

YS,

You call 6 cities and the GLibrary 'a bit'?
If you are in a good position (plenty of free land), I prefer to build those 6 cities, put 2 of them building Wonder/Palace-Wonder and still have 4 'operating' ones. Then, if I have to, I go to war with Horsemen.
Again, huge maps give you more flexible tactics. IMHO

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
YS,

You call 6 cities and the GLibrary 'a bit'?
If you are in a good position (plenty of free land), I prefer to build those 6 cities, put 2 of them building Wonder/Palace-Wonder and still have 4 'operating' ones. Then, if I have to, I go to war with Horsemen.
Again, huge maps give you more flexible tactics. IMHO

Yes. I've found that unless you're playing as a militaristic or industrious civ, it's better to have 10+ cities before beginning a horsemen or swordsmen war. Your capital and second-best city can be building GL and HG (my preferred choices, but substitute all you want), while the rest switch off between building military units as needed, and improvements.

I found I can generally take anywhere from 30% to the entirety of any nearby civ, under these settings. I'm currently playing as the Spanish, and have about 15 cities. The English, with a similarly sized empire, just attacked me. I do not currently field any horsemen and have no barracks. But in about ten turns I'll have both, and I'll be able to take at least a few cities. Depending on my success, I'll take all of merry old England, but I might settle for just setting back their progress, making them intimidated of me, and getting a few cities from which I can launch a total annexation when I get chivalry.

I shoulda brought a screenshot.

[Mad Bomber]

An Archer rush on a huge map? Fu-git-about-it! THe only time an archer rush is useful on a huge map is if you happen to get a civ that starts off within 10 tiles from your civ. I've pulled off the archer rush a total of 1 time on a huge map and I have played about 100 games total on a huge map (the one time it did happen I was playing with 24 civ's)

[DaveMcW]

Actually, on Emperor and Deity rushes work better on huge maps. The AI's free units are more spread out and they focus on building settlers for a long time.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
Actually, on Emperor and Deity rushes work better on huge maps. The AI's free units are more spread out and they focus on building settlers for a long time.

Yes, rushes work better on huge maps but not Archer rushes. By the time your archers find the civ you want to hit, the AI will be producing Pikemen.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
I understand...
I am correct in assuming you play on standard maps and Pangea?
Playing the French on Huge maps changes lots of things.
I just started a new game and tried your early archer rush with 4 cities+barracks against the English (got 3 cities). By the time I switched to the Great Library (and I have only to research Writing and Literature) I lost it to the Iroquois.
Then I re-run the game without the archer rush. The difference was 6 more cities built+GL+some temples+the Great Lighthouse 10 turns away.
But I would definitely use the archer rush if I were blocked on a peninsula as the English are...

I often play huge maps. Actually, one of my best games was an emperor game with the French on a huge/continents map. I have mentioned often, so people who already read about it, please forgive me to repeat this story.

The map had 3 continent of roughly even size, with a distribution of 5, 5 and 6 civs. I was on the smallest (not by much) continent, together with the Russians, English, Germans (all 3 typical French neighbors) and Egyptians. I succeeded to warrior rush the Russians to my south, effectively setting them back to a no-threat, but in the Egyptians to my north outrexed me quickly.

The Archer rush I started somewhere around 1500BC on the Egyptians, worked extremely well. It gave me some air to breathe in the north, and pushed the Egyptians back. After I made peace, I left my army in the north, but directed my reinforcing stream of Archers and Spearmen to the south, to prune Russia again. Meanwhile, my northern army healed and did some work to block the German and Egyptian armies to finish off England, which was the weakest civ of all. After 20 turns, I pruned Egypt again, this time with a little horseman help.

Later in the game I finished Russia (with Knights), Egypt (with Cavalry) and Germany (with Inf/Arty and later Tanks). I got some footholds (esp. luxury colonies) on the other continents too. I build every single medieval (except Sun Tzu's and Leo's), industrial and modern wonder without any leader and won the game by space race with the other civs barely having entered the modern age.

All in all, archer rushes are well possible on huge maps, better even than on standard/continents, because you usually have more neighbors (5-8 as opposed to 3 or 4). You have just to take in account, that the roads are longer. To be industrious, and to build some intelligent supply lines (without or with well-distributed river crossings) helps a lot.