Timeline for the ultra-early Archer rush

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
A good archer rush is great for a civ that starts too close for comfort (I play on huge maps and play expansionist civ's almost exclusively) usually my ancient warfare starts with a horseman rush with a few swords/archers/spearmen/cats for support.

Wow, you use cats in your offensive? Nice, cuddly creatures? You are a desperate man! My cats at home have very sharp claws, but I would never send them against even a conscript warrior! You are a sick person!

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth


Wow, you use cats in your offensive? Nice, cuddly creatures? You are a desperate man! My cats at home have very sharp claws, but I would never send them against even a conscript warrior! You are a sick person!

of course my reference to cats actually refers to catapults, but you knew that.

I had to clarify before the PETA people get ahold of my address .......!!

[Master Zen]

Nice post Sir Ralph, personally I like to wait a little longer before my warmonger instinct sets in (until Chivalry) if only because I trully enjoy the bloodlust of long wars.

But after reading this I will try archer-rushing more often.

[Master Zen]

I despise catapults, In fact, I despise all types of bombardment units until Artillery. I find them all but worthless. For every catapult I build I would rather make an archer which at least know will not "fail" so often.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I despise catapults, In fact, I despise all types of bombardment units until Artillery. I find them all but worthless. For every catapult I build I would rather make an archer which at least know will not "fail" so often.

I agree with your assessment for bombardment units in an offensive role (prior to artillery they do suck--offensively) but I don't have them accompany my invasion force for their almost negligable offensive abilities, but for their defensive abilities as I intend to hold what I capture.

[Master Zen]

Yeah, well I suppose they are much better at defense than at offense. However, I'm the type of guy which believe in pre-emptive attacks so I usually start a war before the other civs do. Hurts reputation, but saves a lot of units.

(let's make it clear I support these things in Civ, not in real life... hear that Bush??? )

It's only a game... it's only a game... it's only a game...

[Manya]

Catapults suck, i never built 'em, never will

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

[badams52]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

I agree with your assessment for bombardment units in an offensive role (prior to artillery they do suck--offensively) but I don't have them accompany my invasion force for their almost negligable offensive abilities, but for their defensive abilities as I intend to hold what I capture.

I usually have no problems holding what I take without the added catapults. The AI is too busy trying to hold his last cities from my massive invasion of swordsmen.

An early archer rush can be very useful, but I tend to wait for swordsmen and with a stack of 8-12 I can usually easily overrun any AI, except Greeks, Romans, etc.

Then again, I'm usually playing standard or small maps where armies and number of cities are smaller.

[Theseus]

I read somewhere that Genghis Khan demanded 1,000 cats and 10,000 birds from a besieged city... lit there tails on fire and sent them back home.

[Manya]

now that's a strategy

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by badams52


I usually have no problems holding what I take without the added catapults. The AI is too busy trying to hold his last cities from my massive invasion of swordsmen.

An early archer rush can be very useful, but I tend to wait for swordsmen and with a stack of 8-12 I can usually easily overrun any AI, except Greeks, Romans, etc.

Then again, I'm usually playing standard or small maps where armies and number of cities are smaller.

try playing on Huge maps, sooner or later you will run into the odd civ that has a 25+ city empire. Takes a lot of forces to blitz an empire of this size.

[badams52]

huge maps take too long...though interesing, I prefer shorter games.

[theNiceOne]

Much of this thread is pre-PTW, so I'd just like to point out that PTW has increased the effect of a very-early attack. If you start by taking the enemy's palace, you will get to keep the city due to its culture even if its size 1, and the palace will jump to one of thw other cities of the enemy.

In vanila civ, you'd have to wait 10 turns (until its border expanded) before you could conquer the new capital without razing it if size 1, but with PTW you will be able to keep it as long as it has generated 1 culture. So you can immeditaely switch your ttention to the enemy's new captal and take it the next turn.

So in PTW you will be able to keep more of the cities you take early on.

[Harovan]

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.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Theseus
I read somewhere that Genghis Khan demanded 1,000 cats and 10,000 birds from a besieged city... lit there tails on fire and sent them back home.

Yes, actually, he tied explosives to them and sent them back! Crafty little Mongol!