Successful Archer Rush: Can You Lose Afterward?

[Frank Johnson]

I generally play normal sized maps, and for those I rarely find the far flung enemy cities to be of much interest in the early game where archers would be the dominate fighters. Now if the enemy is breathing down your neck, and sending out settlers into areas usable around your immediate capital, then by all means, slam them, but I usually there are iron or horses around, and I'm more worried about setting up my own cities, in my useable area, not picking on the AI.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
I generally play normal sized maps, and for those I rarely find the far flung enemy cities to be of much interest in the early game where archers would be the dominate fighters. Now if the enemy is breathing down your neck, and sending out settlers into areas usable around your immediate capital, then by all means, slam them, but I usually there are iron or horses around, and I'm more worried about setting up my own cities, in my useable area, not picking on the AI.

Ah, but a Bowman or Archer rush is great when you are squeezed for space (as on a tiny/small map).

I think anyone who has mastered the art of REXing (I haven't) would find this idea very useful when they are not boxed in even on a standard map so they can get hugely huge.

[HazieDaVampire]

Re: Successful Archer Rush: Can You Lose Afterward?

Originally posted by Dominae
It seems to me like if you can "win the battle" early, you've also "won the war".
Dominae

Civ3 lacks being able to 'turn the tides' of wars.
Unless sombody wishes to show me i'm wrong?

[Catt]

I'd have to agree that a successful archer rush should ensue a win. Crippling a neighbor (or two!) and acquiring additional room for expansion can seal the game. For that very reason, I tend to not archer rush all that often -- I know it may not make much sense, but I just don't like winning the game in the ancient age.

Sometimes, of course, an archer rush is simply a requirement, as when the nasty Babylonians dare to block my expansionist Zulus from wider exploration.

Catt

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Catt
... but I just don't like winning the game in the ancient age.

...

Yeah! Thank you for the validation, Catt!

I've always had problems declaring war so early. Actually, I have problems getting around to declaring war, PERIOD. Like many players, I suppose, I AM good at finishing a war someone ELSE declares!

[cumi]

I have a few question about archer-rushes:

Dominae,

1. a. Are making archer-rush only too weaken you opponent or you are pushing settlers at the same time? I mean, do you start the war, when you really don't have space to expand or you do the preventivly? I mean, to weaken you neighbour once, so can expand in silent, while the AI tries to stand up again...

When I make an archer rush, I make a precise calculation before:

- How many new cities do I want to build?
- How many settlers/spearmen do I need for that?

In the most cases the FP will be also started in one of my new cities, so maybe I need more than one settler for that city.

- Which enemy cities do I want to keep/rize?
- Then the offense plan, like: x1, x2 armies against y1, y2 cities, later meeting at y3 city...

1.b. Do you also make a precise project plan like me? (and later you can see, if your attack was succesful or not)

2. When is the moment to start it? Taking in accout the answers for my 1st question.

3. ...and of course: When do you stop? When all of your archers are lost, or when you reached your previosly defined goal...

4. Do you build elite archers?

[cumi]

Re: I have a few question about archer-rushes:

Originally posted by cumi
4. Do you build elite archers?

I mean veteran, of course...

[trev]

I use jags initially for exploration and generally make war with my first (closest) opponent and from that stage mostly build archers, and place ironworking into the research queue ( set science at 80 - 90%) - a high science rate is ok if most cities have no improvements.

Usually build at least 3 cities before I commence the first war.

I build settlers when cities approach size 5 generally as this avoids unhappiness (size dependant on number of luxury resources available) otherwise just build archers and later swordsmen until first civ wiped out

At this stage I turn myself into a builder as I have gained enough space to build a powerful civilisation.

[Dominae]

Re: I have a few question about archer-rushes:

Originally posted by cumi
1. a. Are making archer-rush only too weaken you opponent or you are pushing settlers at the same time?

Those are not exclusive. I do both simultaneously.

I mean, do you start the war, when you really don't have space to expand or you do the preventivly? I mean, to weaken you neighbour once, so can expand in silent, while the AI tries to stand up again...

I do not expand until I've nowhere to expand anymore, then Archer rush to get more land. You need to harass the AI far before that (unless you're on a small peninsula or something; see The Power of Gold AU).

When I make an archer rush, I make a precise calculation before:

- How many new cities do I want to build?
- How many settlers/spearmen do I need for that?
- Which enemy cities do I want to keep/rize?
- Then the offense plan, like: x1, x2 armies against y1, y2 cities, later meeting at y3 city...

I'm not so precise in battle plans. I guess it just comes from experience. Here is generally what I do, and what works for me on Emperor as a Militaristic civ (starting from Turn 1):

1. One Warrior for exploration
2. One Archer for exploration
3. Settler or Granary, depending on my mood
4. Between Settlers/Workers, an Archer whenever I can.
5. A couple of new cities build Barracks and Warriors/Archers.

At around step 3 I've found a neighboring AI. I patrol around their lands to get some intel, and wait for a Settler/defender combo (a stack of two Workers is good too). Then I attack this juicy target. Sometimes I'll do this with only 2 Archers and 1 Warriors in my entire army. That's fine: the AI counter-attacks very poorly at this stage. Captured Workers beeline for my capital (of course).

This is key: I then wait around on high ground for counter-attackers, and pick these off with Archers. You've "conquered" another AI civ if you destroy its standing army. If ever the AI's forces threaten my settlements (which sometimes happens), I'll delay as long as possible, then offer Peace. They usually accept. Once I get 5-6 Vet. Archers up and running, I take down that first civ, and proceed to the next, all the while building Settlers and Workers in high-Food cities.

...and of course: When do you stop? When all of your archers are lost, or when you reached your previosly defined goal...

I stop when either: 1) the AI puts up too much of a resistance, and it would start threatening my cities in a counter-attack, or 2) that civ is more or less gone, at which point I proceed to the next target.

Looking at your version of the strat, I think you build too many Spearmen when you could just be building more Archers. Forget about defense: you're the aggressor, so why do you need Spearmen defending your cities? Barbs are annoying, which is why Warriors are an important build between Workers and Settlers.


Dominae

[lmtoops]

Dominae has a good point concerning spearmen. If you need mp, use warriors and then have warrior or archers monitoring the fog for barbs. Maybe a few spearmen for border towns, but that it.

[vmxa1]

I do pretty much the same way. I will always jump on my nearest civ when I run across a settler stack. Once that happens I will sent a stream of archers or something to take down the nearest and hopefully the capitol.
I paly with no respawn, one your done, you are done.
If this is not enough to eliminate a civ, I will come at them later with horses.
All the while I am trying to expand as this tends to occur when I have only a few cities. What stops it is they get too many units and I have captured one or more cities and have to hold them. I am usually at war with one than one by then. Either they get help or I have been force to whack another civs units.
I just feel that it is more fun to attack and it hurts them badly. The two or three civs that I fought early are going to be at the bottom of the curve with all the losses they incur.
I do this at Mon or Emp. At deity I will take more care to not have more than one foe at a time.

[bongo]

Slightly OT but when you're about to attack a spearman/settler combo, do you declare war first or just attack right away?

[Arrian]

I always formally declare.

-Arrian

[cumi]

Dominae,

did I understand you correctly: you are attacking sometimes with 1 worrior and 2 archer? Wow... Usually I am loosing this size of "army" against a single spearman.

What you described, are very aggressive playstile - as I understad - . How do you handle this with diplomacy? What do the other civs say?

I also think, that I am planing, waiting etc too long with my aggressions. I always want to be a perfectionist. It seems like, there is no need for this. Simply, for me buildig a military unit, is the last thing... If I can buld for examle a marketplace in a city, I will start it and NOT a millitary unit. Bad.... I am too much builder...

cumi

[Arrian]

I can't speak for Dominae, but I often attack with 1 archer, maybe with 1 warrior in support.

Then again, I'm not looking to conquer with that force. I'm looking to take out a settler team, steal the civ's worker, and do as much damage as I can without getting hurt. I also want to get my archer promoted to elite (if I haven't managed that already via battles with barbs) & fish for a leader.

-Arrian