Timeline for the ultra-early Archer rush

[vmxa1]

No it does not, did the city get to a new pop size? Did they put up a wall? Was it over a river, were the others were not? Was it build on a hill? Many factors, including bad luck.

[De Gaulle]

Txurce:
Interesting story. As you mentionned that your most important problem might have been a lack of culture, I recalled a recent thread about the usefulness of a very early temple for warmonger strategies.

It basically stated that, owing to the huge importance of early culture, a SINGLE ultra-early temple could put you in the cultural lead until about 500 or 1000AD.

Judging from your post, your first war against Egypt might have been a lot easier in that case.

Of course, the problem is whether or not this temple will critically delay the archer rush or not... Apparently many warmongers can "fit it in" rather easily when doing a (later) horsemen rush.

[Arrian]

I'm one of the early temple builders. Even when playing China, I build temples in the ancient age. Waste of time? I don't think so, personally, but I accept there are other ways to do things. I just can't accept being weaker culturally than any 1 AI, and I want my borders expanded so I can use my land properly. As a religious civ, I can easily beat the AI in culture on Emperor, but it's a bit more challenging with China.

I played a marathon session last night (start through mid-industrial age): China, small, continents, 5 AIs. I started with 3 neighbors (India, Russia, Japan). I was in the south, with lots of room, but with a large desert and jungle seperating me from India. Northeast of India was Russia, northwest was Japan.

Using my little industrious worker man, I chopped a couple of forest tiles down to speed my 2 early archers, and sent them off with a couple of warriors. I explored, and consolidated this team near Delhi, and stole the Indian's 2 workers, killing a few units and then retreating. I made peace, extorting tech and gold. I then fended off a warrior rush (4) from Russia. I built up normally, which includes temples. It takes a while when you're not religious, but I think it's worth it. As a result, I am #1 (I may have been #2 for short periods) in culture. Not the usual cultural dominance I have when I play Japan, but good enough. Germany (overseas, but ornery as ever) is right with me.

The biggest thing I've learned since moving up to Emperor is that not every war has to be militarily decisive. You can harm the AI and extort things from them by merely killing units and stealing workers. I used pick fights only when I felt ready to conquer a civ, or at least take a big bite out of them. Now I'll fight pretty much whenever I see an opportunity to benifit from it.

-Arrian

[DFHNY]

arrian: i assume your China game was on play the world
Has the AI changed at all do you think?
Also, on the smash and grab for the workers I assume you are dropping them into your new cities, or are you using them to build roads/mines?

thx

[Arrian]

No, actually, I don't have PTW yet. I'm in no rush to get it, but I'll probably throw it on my Xmas list.

As for captured workers... it depends. I used to buy workers, and those would be added to cities, because keeping slaves from another civ angers them, and I wanted to pick a fight when I was ready. I've stopped buying workers (I was convinced by others it was an exploit, and besides, Firaxis jacked the value of workers in PTW anyway), so now they already hate me for attacking them. In this case, I used them to improve land.

-Arrian

[DFHNY]

Vel or Theseus have you both not yet purchased PTW yet? The masses must wait I guess until the Holidays for Arrian, Vel and Theseus to purchase PTW and get the new definitive strategies.

Wait we must.

In the meantime, Celtic stongman is like swordsmen on wheels! And wait until you take a Medieval Infantry up against a vet. Spearman...butter, soft butter.

My anectotal evidence for what it is worth is that the AI has been tweaked yet again in PTW vs. 1.29f.

[vmxa1]

Soren just said they chnge the way the AI builds in 104 and it has made an impact.

[TbTimVa]

Great thread Sir Ralph.
I tried this tactic over the weekend and it worked well even with a critical tactical error on my part. I had tried archer rushes in the past with little success. I see that the key is to build your initial cities close together. I would always spread out and build near luxuries and resources.

I chose China, build my capital and two other cities. I
built barracks and began pumping out a stack of archers.
I saw an outline in orange and sent the stack toward it.
My thinking was that the British ( in orange) would be
a pretty easy target. I made contact and found that it
was the Carthaginians. My stack of eight archers with
two spearmen were all but wiped out with only two
archers surviving (elites) and one spearman. I did manage to take the capital, and raze another city. I repeated this process on the Ottomans. I was set for
the remainder to the game. My error was in fighting 3.2.2 numidian warriors instead of British spearmen.
I just wish that I had made contact with the zulus earlier. I could have trimmed them down early. They were a pain through the rest of the game.

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by DFHNY
In the meantime, Celtic stongman is like swordsmen on wheels!

I agree, they are nice but compared to the Iroquois Mounted Warrior they are just not cost effective (50 shields for the Gallic Warrior, 30 for the Mounted Warrior). The extra point of defense is not worth 20 shields AND the Mounted Warriors upgrade to Knights, while the Gallic Warriors will go back to slow moving Medieval Infantry. Therefore unless you strongly prefer Militaristic over Expansionist (ok, this will dependent on map type and size as well) the Iroquois will always be better (they are both Religious otherwise).

[aaglo]

I tried Sir Ralph's ultra-early archer strategy. I play horribly as an agressive player. The egyptians (and their war charriots) crushed me. Completely.

[Harovan]

Aaglo: When you attack civs with ancient attacking UUs, you should have 2-3 spearmen extra, aiming for the resource (iron, or in your case horses) and locking/pillaging/denying it. That's valid not only for the archer strategy, but for every attack in general. That's why I didn't mention it explicitly.

Good luck for the next time.

PS: I also happen to fail with that approach, but seldom. Maybe one game out of 10, or even 20.

[aaglo]

Yep, and since I feel comfortable with builder strategy, I cannot handle war very well (not early nor late war).

Or atleast such is my belief.

[Harovan]

You should read Theseus' thread about the "Seven pillars". It's excellent!

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hi!

Sir Ralph, and everyone, I just wanted to note that I've been using this strategy to great effect on a huge map, continents, with max # of civs. I have used a few horsemen, but for the most part, I am using 4-7 archers along with 1-2 spearmen. I have annexed (most of) Russia and England, I now dominate my region and am a top contentder in terms of the tech race. I may lose the GL race that I always run, but I'll have HG at least and be poised in an excellent position to take on a number of civs with my knights, when the medival era rolls around.

So, thanks for the good plan! And, yes, try it on a huge world!

[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.

[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!