I'm skeptical of the chances that a rush could be worthwhile unless (1) we have good reason to believe we can catch a neighbor seriously unprepared militarily, (2) the consequences of not winning an early military victory would be seriously negative (for example, leaving us with too little land if we have to share), or (3) we can form an alliance to force an opponent to fight on multiple fronts. In early one-on-one fighting, it's far too easy for the result of a military struggle to be that both sides end up weaker, thereby giving the other civs that didn't waste resources on early warfare a significant military advantage.
A skirmisher rush could easily hurt a neighbor more than it hurts us. But whether that would be worth the combination of ruinous diplomatic consequences with our neighbor and the diversion of resources from peaceful pursuits would be a much more problematical issue.
A skirmisher rush could easily hurt a neighbor more than it hurts us. But whether that would be worth the combination of ruinous diplomatic consequences with our neighbor and the diversion of resources from peaceful pursuits would be a much more problematical issue.
Comment