Timeline for the ultra-early Archer rush - Page 4

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 24, 2003, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Perhaps we didn't understand what you mean. We thought you were referring to war weariness. What "discontent" are you talking about? Your economy? Or the attitude of the others towards you? And what, by your definition, is a miserable populace?

I guess I am talking about war weariness. I don't understand the exact "formula" of war weariness, especially under despotism and monarchy (that's when I wage my archer rush: I don't screw around with Republic, despite the advice of many Apolytoners I respect)

Harovan · March 24, 2003, 13:02

I made this point a couple of posts above. I don't use archers, when I'm already a Republic.

Pure Archer rushes are good between about 2000BC and 1000BC. In the following turns, till about 10BC, I reinforce my Archer armies with Swordsmen and Horsemen and don't build new Archers. When I switch to Republic (usually in the early ADs), I stop the pruning and start wars of extermination. These are usually so short, that war weariness is not an issue.

badams52 · March 24, 2003, 13:53

Yahweh,

It just sounds like to me your populace is too large for the current luxuries, marketplaces, cathedrals, etc. to support. Correct me if I'm wrong but look at these charts:

Code:

           # of :) needed to be at peace
City Size   Monarch  Emperor/Diety
 1               0            0 
 2               0            1     
 3               1            2     
 4               2            3     
 5               3            4     
 6               4            5

# of

received:
Temple: 1
Soldiers: up to 2 (despot) or up to 3 (monarchy)
Luxuries# 1 & 2: 1 each
Luxuries# 3 & 4: 1 each (2 each with marketplaces)
Luxuries# 5 & 6: 1 each (3 each with marketplaces)
Luxuries# 7 & 8: 1 each (4 each with marketplaces)
Luxury slider on the City manager screen: Varies upon gpt.

Maybe someone can correct my chart for me, cause I'm not positive on the actual numbers.

When doing archer rushes, you may or may not have many luxuries hooked up to every city. If so, then usually you might have 1 or 2 which would allow you to have a size 3 or 4 city without units or a size 5 or 6 with enough units on the Monarch level.

By the way, you can click on the individuals who are unhappy and they will tell you why. If they say "100% too crowded" it means you don't have enough luxuries/units/improvements and not because of WW.

War in a republic or democracy causes war weariness, but once out of war, it is non existant, and your people's attitude does not change with regards to your breaking treaties or abusing the AI and having a bad rep.

[edit: formatting]

badams52 · March 24, 2003, 14:31

Another way to keep people from being unhappy is by building settlers and workers to keep the population down till you're able to handle the people.

Oh, I just had another thought. Are you pop rushing? When you pop rush in a despotism, people become unhappy.

Mad Bomber · March 25, 2003, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Sage

Well,

to contradict you. But I just did an Archer rush on AU207 with my French. Poor Babylonians

Sir Ralph, thanks again for your input.
....

As Sir Ralph pointed out i should have qualified this statement. an archer rush is possible on huge maps when playing with large amounts of Civ's, The more civ's you play with, the more effective an archer rush will be (this is true on all maps). I had hinted that large amounts of civ's are the one condition that makes an archer rush possible on huge maps but I should have explained this further. I usually play with 9-12 civ's on a huge map with minimum distance of 24 tiles. An archer rush is difficult to pull off with these settings unless the map generator happens to ignore the min. distance setting of civ's (which happens occasionally). As such my early rushes comes with horsemen, with swords and archers/defenders in support.

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 25, 2003, 11:21

An archer rush can be very effective on a huge map with the max number of civs, but I prefer to wait for swordsmen or horsemen. The reason? I want to wipe the entire civ out... I don't like it popping up again somewhere else. If you archer rush on a huge map, there's generally some open space somewhere where your victim can emerge, timeline-wise.

Mad Bomber · March 25, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
An archer rush can be very effective on a huge map with the max number of civs, but I prefer to wait for swordsmen or horsemen. The reason? I want to wipe the entire civ out... I don't like it popping up again somewhere else. If you archer rush on a huge map, there's generally some open space somewhere where your victim can emerge, timeline-wise.

If you don't like them to pop up again then just play without respawning enabled

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 25, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
If you don't like them to pop up again then just play without respawning enabled

Ah, but that would take the "edge" off, wouldn't it?

On the other hands, I play with barbarians set to "roaming"... I couldn't deal with anything more than that.

If I really felt weak, I would take cultural linking off... but then, I like the challenge of the three European expansionists up against each other... the NMs and Hoplites clashing... the Industrious Ottomans vs. the industrious Persians...

...BECAUSE I LIKE BEING DRIVEN COMPLETELY INSANE TIME AND TIME AGAIN!!!

Cort Haus · April 18, 2003, 09:29

Effect of Archer Rush on Pangea:

Rotating the targets of archer rushes may be desirable on continents, where you need the other civs to research tech, but on pangea the effect can be to create a vacuum for other AIs to fill.

I followed Ralph's plan and settled the land freed by my campaign to the south, but it was my other opponents who benefited most from my northern excursions - ultimately creating a superpower which had to be dealt with.

Lesson - unless the settlers are flowing thick-and fast, it may be better to focus the archer rush to one initial target on pangea.

Theseus · December 9, 2003, 16:15

This needs to be re-visited, and extended.

Now with 0-bombard, Archers are deadly. Further, generating a bunch of Army shells for later use with Pikes and Longbows / Berserks (!!) will create a number of uber-units. Then, the upgrade path through Guerrillas and TOW Infantry...

In general, slowmover strategies in C3C need discussion, and I thought this would be a good place to start.

Yahweh Sabaoth · December 9, 2003, 16:40

Especially now that there's more than one archer-based UU, with a contreversial and highly acclaimed new ability... I've yet to use the Javelin Thrower myself, but I'd like to hear a discussion on it's effective use...

Theseus · December 9, 2003, 17:01

Look at my last few posts in the Armies thread in the Conquests forum.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...7&pagenumber=4

Not shown: All of my Workers are slaves.

Master Zen · December 9, 2003, 18:44

holy bump batman!

To be honest I dislike wasting my golden age by an archer rushing UU, which is the reason I would hardly ever use the bab bowman in action at first (wait for swords). I'm not so sure if the benefits of wasting a despotic GA on the higher difficulties are worth not waiting for swords. 20 GA turns in the 2000-1000 BC range is absolutely nothing.

Theseus · December 9, 2003, 18:57

I was thinking more of regular Archers, especially for the Vikings.

East Street Trader · December 10, 2003, 08:55

Once you take the enemy capital, have quelled resistance and brought the city out of revolt try rush building a worker (or two).

That produces something worthwhile, gives a bit of extra long term security as regards a culture flip and turns out to bring a small city back into profitable production earlier.

This is particularly effective when it reduces the captured city to one citizen.