A Medieval Attack

[HalfLotus]

My first loss with this strat came today vs Spanish on Australian Outback. I got 100 in ruins, he got 1000. His free heavy ship destroyed several of my fisherman. His economy was way ahead; he then came with Horse archers which I countered pretty easily, but the damage had been done. My attack didnt come til about 12:30. I took his second city, but he ended up an age ahead and won quite easily. He was a bit better than me (2000+) but it was a humbling experience. Never again will I underestimate the Spanish! I need to get better at finding ruins. GG to redrum!

[Madine]

I was beat by this strat once. I made some mistakes in that game though, and I think I could have beat back the initial attack.

It's a good strat though. However I do think that in general the success of a pre-gunpowder attack depends on your opponent not being prepared.

[HalfLotus]

I think you played me madine.

You're right that it relies on them having a smaller army, though not many people will have a comparable army in medieval unless they are also planning on attacking in Medieval. The city will be reduced in about 45 seconds, not much time to field an entire army to counter. As soon as it it reduced I can repair it, forcing them to make siege to get it back.

The spanish player was able to boom so quickly that my taking the city didnt stop him from getting an age ahead and whooping me. His truckload of ruins and the free heavy ship were deadly!!

It's a blessing when they make horse archers for raiding because they do nothing against my full siege army, and I have light cavalry to counter.

EDIT: Yep, halflotus vs madine (Ger v Ger) on Watering Hole. You're right, you had a good sized army when I attacked, and the score was almost dead even. But you fought with unupgraded units, otherwise it would have been very close!

[HalfLotus]

I've been trying Ancient rushes lately, and one of them turned into a Medieval attack as well! I sacked his capitol and used the plunder to start booming, he retook the city, but not before I was able to raze a few farms.

This was on Mediterranean (an outstanding map) so my Hoplites had to take the long way, and there's some Ocean combat as well. I didnt have a huge lead after the rush, and I knew that the longer the game went on the better his chances would be. So I whipped out the Trebs and delivered a Medieval army to his doorstep. What was that about every game being the same?

The replay is here at RoNU:

http://ron.pcgaminguniverse.com/forum/index.php?act=Downloads&CODE=02&id=249

[HalfLotus]

The key to that Ancient rush was building a second city before capturing his capitol. Otherwise you must wait until he retakes his capitol to found your 2nd city because of the Civic limit.

This allows you to immediately spend the +500 plunder to expand economy with new farms, market, temple, dock, etc. Do this while razing farms in his captured city.

[Out4Blood]

I normally just get the other upgrades first - I'll even go classical first.

[HalfLotus]

What other upgrades? And what do you mean by "Classical first"? Just want to understand you, it's a little vague.

[Out4Blood]

On my way to a capitol, I usually research COM1. Once I sack the capitol, I research SCI1 and CLASSICAL. This gives me the option of upgrading troops and finishing them off, or by booming and dropping a second city. IMO, there's no hurry for the CIV1 tech because I can't drop another city until he fights me off, but I need to spend the money as quickly as possible. So I go classical and use it to invest in miners and a university. I use the mayhem and sack bonus to leapfrog the other guy. I'll get a second city when I can, but I'll still be way ahead of him.

[HalfLotus]

I think you misread my post and didnt watch the replay. Try and keep up.

IMO, there's no hurry for the CIV1 tech because I can't drop another city until he fights me off, but I need to spend the money as quickly as possible.

I said the key was "building a second city before capturing his capitol". The operative word there is _before_. In the replay I researched Sci 1 and Civics 1 while my troops were en route, and built a second city just as my troops arrived at his capitol. This put me at 2/2 cities and then I capture his capitol.

I got the sack bonus and immediately built farms in the second city then researched Comm 1, Sci 2 and Comm 2 and THEN Classical Age. This is the optimal Boom order and is much stronger than a 1 city Classical Age. 1 city Classical is a very weak boom, and I seriously doubt you'd be "leapfrogging" anyone. If you have a replay please post it.

On my way to a capitol, I usually research COM1

So you research the +100 commerce cap, but you only have 1 city so you're stuck with +60 food (which doesnt even max the original cap of +70, ). I guess you could spend a ton of food to max your lumber at +100, but that is a waste of resources to say the least. Food is the limiting factor in early game.

I'd also like to see a replay of Ancient rushing and then upgrading troops to Classical to "finish him off". As long as your opp. has a barracks to garrison in, you are at an extreme disadvantage while trying to hold the capitol. Any competent opponent will recapture his capitol and then have a much stronger economy than you. In my experience it's suicidal to spend your +500 plunder on more troops.

[Out4Blood]

I got the sack bonus and immediately built farms in the second city then researched Comm 1, Sci 2 and Comm 2 and THEN Classical Age. This is the optimal Boom order and is much stronger than a 1 city Classical Age. 1 city Classical is a very weak boom, and I seriously doubt you'd be "leapfrogging" anyone. If you have a replay please post it.

I'm not so sure about the COM2, CIV2 boom approach in general. I don't think it's better than an early classical. But enough debate. You can prove me wrong.

Also, the whole notion of attacking in the ancient age does nothing but support my original argument: there are only two good times to attack. Ancient age before they get MIL1 and later, around gunpowder. If you're beating people with Medieval attacks it's probably because they did someting wrong (like not scouting or not making troops). Although I confess, I have not watched your game.

[HalfLotus]

Also, the whole notion of attacking in the ancient age does nothing but support my original argument: there are only two good times to attack. Ancient age before they get MIL1 and later, around gunpowder.

Huh? This makes no sense. I've got replays of me beating equal opponents with classical age and medieval age attacks. What have you got? And if you had watched the replay, you'd know that he researched Mil 1 before my rush! Man, what are you smoking??

If you're beating people with Medieval attacks it's probably because they did someting wrong (like not scouting or not making troops). Although I confess, I have not watched your game.

I'll tell you a secret about RoN. Any time is a good time for an attack so long as your opponent is still booming. Thats the whole reason I wanted to come up with the Classical and Medieval attacks was so I could defeat gunpowder and enlightenment boomers. Guess what, it works, and I have the replays to prove it. A medieval attack especially cannot be stopped by a small army. If a player is booming past medieval (which 90% do) he will not have a comparable army and will not prevent you from taking a major city. I've already explained it in this very thread! Medieval attack does not win every time, nor does Classical or Ancient. But they can all defeat a boomer.

You don't have multiplayer experience and you havent watched these rec games, and you don't read my posts before replying, and you don't listen to experts like tuf_richter. Your credibility is wearing thin. If you want to know what's possible you should play vs people, testing against the AI is giving you the wrong idea.

[Out4Blood]

Half_Lotus. There's no need to be so negative. I'm not questioning your manhood. So relax.

I've made no claims about being credible, although I do play people and I do watch games. In fact that's why I posted what I did. I've been around and that's what I've seen. Sorry, that I didn't watch your game - if I get around to it, maybe I will.

But just because I have NOT watch your particular game doesn't mean I cannot challenge some of the blanket generalizations you make. This in particular:

... then researched Comm 1, Sci 2 and Comm 2 and THEN Classical Age. This is the optimal Boom order ...

If you've followed any of the discussion at all over at HF, then you'd know that I have reason to believe it isn't. And there's been no analysis or discussion on this topic at all - other than comments like yours, "This is the right way to do things" and "You're wrong 'cause you're not an expert!"

I'm challenging those beliefs and am proposing people back them up. Are you willing to back it up or are you just going to hide behind ad hominem?

[HalfLotus]

It's cool dude. I will concede that there may be another BO which is stronger than sci 2, comm 2, classical. I had followed the conventional wisdom from the MFO article and the BHG strat guide. Seeing that you have found something different, I am open to new ideas. Good luck with your testing.

My original point (which you didnt read) was that you should build your second city before taking their capitol and immediately develop it (with plunder bonus), rather than wait for them to retake the capitol as you stated. This will give you a much larger advantage regardless of how you time your classical age.

And I have challenged your belief that attacking in classical/medieval age is not effective. I have provided explanations and replays to back it up. Are you going to keep debating my assertions about classical/medieval attacks without watching these rec games or reading my posts?

And this statement in particular:

Also, the whole notion of attacking in the ancient age does nothing but support my original argument: there are only two good times to attack. Ancient age before they get MIL1 and later, around gunpowder.

What does a successful ancient rush have to do with the effectiveness of other attacks? Because the anceint rush works that means classical/medieval attacks do not? I really dont understand your statement.

[Out4Blood]

No. I DID read it. You also said this:

This allows you to immediately spend the +500 plunder to expand economy with new farms, market, temple, dock, etc. ...

To which I said: "I normally just get the other upgrades first - I'll even go classical first." To which you replied:

What other upgrades?

Which gets us back to the early classical versus COM2 boom question. You can ALSO "expand your economy with a classical expansion.

Anyway. I'd be interested to see your try at the RON Challenge Game. Load it up and see for yourself which way works best for you. Share with everyone. You might come up with a different, better way.

[HalfLotus]

I have no desire to test such things. I've done some testing already and it is slow and boring, I'll leave that to others.

Why do you avoid every other issue I bring up? It's apparent that you only want to discuss a few selective topics. If you aren't prepared to discuss _all_ of your claims, please find other threads to post in. Onto the discussion...

It doesn't take us to the Classical debate. Here's a few ends which you left loose. When I asked what other upgrades you replied:

On my way to a capitol, I usually research COM1.

I asked why you research comm 1 instead of civics 1 when you have only one city.

I research SCI1 and CLASSICAL. This gives me the option of upgrading troops and finishing them off

I said that finishing off someone is not going to work against a decent opponent because he can garrison/heal. Conventional wisdom says you should invest the plunder in your economy. Do you have any replays of finishing off a rush with Classical upgraded troops? Do you destroy the barracks as well?

IMO, there's no hurry for the CIV1 tech because I can't drop another city until he fights me off, but I need to spend the money as quickly as possible.

This is why I think you didn't read my reply. You obviously missed the part where I said you can build your second city _before_ taking his capitol. **Regardless of whether you go classical before or after sci 2/comm 2** it is better to have two cities so you can immediately build more farms and reach the food commerce cap, and start a trade route, AND have the innate production of the second city. You can spend your plunder much faster and more efficiently with two cities and your economy will expand much faster than with only one city. Doing it your way means you are stuck at +60 food, and with no trade route, and with very little territory for making mines/lumber camps. Why do you wait so long to found your second city?

I'll get a second city when I can, but I'll still be way ahead of him.

My experience has been the exact opposite. I assume you've done this before. Would you share the replay please?

Also, the whole notion of attacking in the ancient age does nothing but support my original argument: there are only two good times to attack. Ancient age before they get MIL1 and later, around gunpowder.

I've had great success with Classical and Medieval attacks, most of which I shared here at Apolyton. How did you come to this conclusion and what evidence do you have to support it? Curiously you have chosen the most popular strat (booming) and designated it the most powerful. You also claim that all games play out the same, and that there are only two times for effective attack. It would seem that your opinions are based solely on recorded games and popular opinion, and not on actual game experience. How much multiplayer have you played?

If you're beating people with Medieval attacks it's probably because they did someting wrong (like not scouting or not making troops). Although I confess, I have not watched your game.

I give you the benefit of the doubt with your Classical ideas, and you insist that I try your "challenge". Yet you dismiss my Medieval ideas without even looking at the evidence provided.