Tweet
Howdy,
The recent poll on your favorite standard units got me thinking. Nor Me and I both voted for the Archer as the "best" standard unit, simply because it wins games. My question is therefore:
If you successfully Archer rush a neighbor, is your game "in the bag", so to speak?
I would say yes. In recent (and maybe distant) memory, I cannot think of a game where I was successful in Archer-rushing my neighbor, but was forced to quit later on when obviously beaten. It seems to me like if you can "win the battle" early, you've also "won the war".
Note that I'm not saying Archer-rushes are always easy, nor are they always successful! There are many reasons why an Archer-rush is a bad idea, and why it would fail. For instance, Archer-rushes on Deity are pretty darn hard. Or, sometimes your neighbor is just too far for Archers to be really effective (although I've found that that is sometimes an advantage, as the AI's counter-attack is weaker).
So, my conclusion is that "rushes", like in almost any other war game (RTS, FPS, whatever) are really good in Civ3 too. Here are some reasons why I think this phenomenon is present in SP:
1. The AI is predictable in its defenses, and further its build queues. On Emperor, you can pretty much guess how many units an AI will muster to counter your Archer rush, and plan in consequence. Further, the AI, after a little expansion, will typically dedicate their best city to Wonder construction, regardless of military situation. What all this means is that you can incorporate an Archer rush into your gameplan without sacrificing too much on growth, because you know how many Archers you'll need. Against a human opponent, you need to sacrifice growth for conquest, which puts you behind the other more peaceful civs.
2. You get free techs from early conquest. People complain that you do not get a free tech when you conquer cities in Civ3. Big deal. What you get instead is all the civ's techs when you batter them down enough. The AI keeps on researching even if its being conquered, so you usually get a nice lump of techs for free. This is good because you do not have to trade for them with other civs, taking money and techs out of their pockets. One way to look at it is that you're translating 100-120 Shields (5-6 Archers) into (at least) 300+ Beakers. That's not a bad deal, considering that it's a "side effect" of conquest.
3. More room for expansion becomes available, in comparison to the AI civs. The ultimate point of Archer rushes is to claim more land for yourself. Notice that AI is coded to go to war to claim more land too. Where there is a discrepancy is when the AI chooses to claim more land militarily, in comparison to humans. The human player has the option (through Archer-rushes) to double or more his or her available land almost 50 or so turns before the AI gets the same idea. The Archer-rush is not a warmonger tactic, it's a builder one! Want a large, productive empire? Just take out your nearest neighbor and ride your land advantage to victory! True, the AI does sometimes "rush" early on, but these attempts lack focus, and therefore never achieve the same effect as possible for a human player. But consider KAI theory: those AIs which will emerge into killers are those which are able to take out their neighbors quickly. My toughest AI opponents have been those that have successfully (through favorable RNG outcomes) Archer-rushed their neighbor.
4. Alluded to above: the cost of conquest with Archer rushes is far far less than the relative cost of conquest at a later stage in the game. A strike force of five Archers takes almost no time to produce, yet alters the game the most. Twenty Cavalry can do some serious harm too, but nothing compared to five Archers. Since an Archer rush is so easy to set up and often so successful, the "cost of warfare" with it is much lower than at later stages.
5. (I actually forgot this one the first time around!) AIs are too easy to "control". Thus, when you leave your flanks or rear open by Archer-rusing in one direction, you need not fear because you can typically appease the other AIs long enough for you to complete your Archer rush (you can even bring them in on the action, if you sign an Alliance). In the games where I Archer-rush, my home cities are essentially undefended, while all my forces (Warriors and all) are wreaking havoc on my target. The other AIs, unlike human opponents, do not realise that I'm completely open, and would lose horribly if they just walked in and claimed my cities.
My advice is therefore simple: if you want to improve your game, master the Archer rush. You'll get to know when to use it, and when you do you will usually win. I consider this a "flaw" in the game, but such flaws always exist. Luckily this flaw is not emplyable in MP, where the defender can adapt to thwart the rusher's plans.
Dominae
The recent poll on your favorite standard units got me thinking. Nor Me and I both voted for the Archer as the "best" standard unit, simply because it wins games. My question is therefore:
If you successfully Archer rush a neighbor, is your game "in the bag", so to speak?
I would say yes. In recent (and maybe distant) memory, I cannot think of a game where I was successful in Archer-rushing my neighbor, but was forced to quit later on when obviously beaten. It seems to me like if you can "win the battle" early, you've also "won the war".
Note that I'm not saying Archer-rushes are always easy, nor are they always successful! There are many reasons why an Archer-rush is a bad idea, and why it would fail. For instance, Archer-rushes on Deity are pretty darn hard. Or, sometimes your neighbor is just too far for Archers to be really effective (although I've found that that is sometimes an advantage, as the AI's counter-attack is weaker).
So, my conclusion is that "rushes", like in almost any other war game (RTS, FPS, whatever) are really good in Civ3 too. Here are some reasons why I think this phenomenon is present in SP:
1. The AI is predictable in its defenses, and further its build queues. On Emperor, you can pretty much guess how many units an AI will muster to counter your Archer rush, and plan in consequence. Further, the AI, after a little expansion, will typically dedicate their best city to Wonder construction, regardless of military situation. What all this means is that you can incorporate an Archer rush into your gameplan without sacrificing too much on growth, because you know how many Archers you'll need. Against a human opponent, you need to sacrifice growth for conquest, which puts you behind the other more peaceful civs.
2. You get free techs from early conquest. People complain that you do not get a free tech when you conquer cities in Civ3. Big deal. What you get instead is all the civ's techs when you batter them down enough. The AI keeps on researching even if its being conquered, so you usually get a nice lump of techs for free. This is good because you do not have to trade for them with other civs, taking money and techs out of their pockets. One way to look at it is that you're translating 100-120 Shields (5-6 Archers) into (at least) 300+ Beakers. That's not a bad deal, considering that it's a "side effect" of conquest.
3. More room for expansion becomes available, in comparison to the AI civs. The ultimate point of Archer rushes is to claim more land for yourself. Notice that AI is coded to go to war to claim more land too. Where there is a discrepancy is when the AI chooses to claim more land militarily, in comparison to humans. The human player has the option (through Archer-rushes) to double or more his or her available land almost 50 or so turns before the AI gets the same idea. The Archer-rush is not a warmonger tactic, it's a builder one! Want a large, productive empire? Just take out your nearest neighbor and ride your land advantage to victory! True, the AI does sometimes "rush" early on, but these attempts lack focus, and therefore never achieve the same effect as possible for a human player. But consider KAI theory: those AIs which will emerge into killers are those which are able to take out their neighbors quickly. My toughest AI opponents have been those that have successfully (through favorable RNG outcomes) Archer-rushed their neighbor.
4. Alluded to above: the cost of conquest with Archer rushes is far far less than the relative cost of conquest at a later stage in the game. A strike force of five Archers takes almost no time to produce, yet alters the game the most. Twenty Cavalry can do some serious harm too, but nothing compared to five Archers. Since an Archer rush is so easy to set up and often so successful, the "cost of warfare" with it is much lower than at later stages.
5. (I actually forgot this one the first time around!) AIs are too easy to "control". Thus, when you leave your flanks or rear open by Archer-rusing in one direction, you need not fear because you can typically appease the other AIs long enough for you to complete your Archer rush (you can even bring them in on the action, if you sign an Alliance). In the games where I Archer-rush, my home cities are essentially undefended, while all my forces (Warriors and all) are wreaking havoc on my target. The other AIs, unlike human opponents, do not realise that I'm completely open, and would lose horribly if they just walked in and claimed my cities.
My advice is therefore simple: if you want to improve your game, master the Archer rush. You'll get to know when to use it, and when you do you will usually win. I consider this a "flaw" in the game, but such flaws always exist. Luckily this flaw is not emplyable in MP, where the defender can adapt to thwart the rusher's plans.
Dominae
Comment