 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Howdy,
The recent poll on your favorite standard units got me thinking. Nor Me and I both voted for the Archer as the "best" standard unit, simply because it wins games. My question is therefore:
If you successfully Archer rush a neighbor, is your game "in the bag", so to speak?
I would say yes. In recent (and maybe distant) memory, I cannot think of a game where I was successful in Archer-rushing my neighbor, but was forced to quit later on when obviously beaten. It seems to me like if you can "win the battle" early, you've also "won the war".
Note that I'm not saying Archer-rushes are always easy, nor are they always successful! There are many reasons why an Archer-rush is a bad idea, and why it would fail. For instance, Archer-rushes on Deity are pretty darn hard. Or, sometimes your neighbor is just too far for Archers to be really effective (although I've found that that is sometimes an advantage, as the AI's counter-attack is weaker).
So, my conclusion is that "rushes", like in almost any other war game (RTS, FPS, whatever) are really good in Civ3 too. Here are some reasons why I think this phenomenon is present in SP:
1. The AI is predictable in its defenses, and further its build queues. On Emperor, you can pretty much guess how many units an AI will muster to counter your Archer rush, and plan in consequence. Further, the AI, after a little expansion, will typically dedicate their best city to Wonder construction, regardless of military situation. What all this means is that you can incorporate an Archer rush into your gameplan without sacrificing too much on growth, because you know how many Archers you'll need. Against a human opponent, you need to sacrifice growth for conquest, which puts you behind the other more peaceful civs.
2. You get free techs from early conquest. People complain that you do not get a free tech when you conquer cities in Civ3. Big deal. What you get instead is all the civ's techs when you batter them down enough. The AI keeps on researching even if its being conquered, so you usually get a nice lump of techs for free. This is good because you do not have to trade for them with other civs, taking money and techs out of their pockets. One way to look at it is that you're translating 100-120 Shields (5-6 Archers) into (at least) 300+ Beakers. That's not a bad deal, considering that it's a "side effect" of conquest.
3. More room for expansion becomes available, in comparison to the AI civs. The ultimate point of Archer rushes is to claim more land for yourself. Notice that AI is coded to go to war to claim more land too. Where there is a discrepancy is when the AI chooses to claim more land militarily, in comparison to humans. The human player has the option (through Archer-rushes) to double or more his or her available land almost 50 or so turns before the AI gets the same idea. The Archer-rush is not a warmonger tactic, it's a builder one! Want a large, productive empire? Just take out your nearest neighbor and ride your land advantage to victory! True, the AI does sometimes "rush" early on, but these attempts lack focus, and therefore never achieve the same effect as possible for a human player. But consider KAI theory: those AIs which will emerge into killers are those which are able to take out their neighbors quickly. My toughest AI opponents have been those that have successfully (through favorable RNG outcomes) Archer-rushed their neighbor.
4. Alluded to above: the cost of conquest with Archer rushes is far far less than the relative cost of conquest at a later stage in the game. A strike force of five Archers takes almost no time to produce, yet alters the game the most. Twenty Cavalry can do some serious harm too, but nothing compared to five Archers. Since an Archer rush is so easy to set up and often so successful, the "cost of warfare" with it is much lower than at later stages.
5. (I actually forgot this one the first time around!) AIs are too easy to "control". Thus, when you leave your flanks or rear open by Archer-rusing in one direction, you need not fear because you can typically appease the other AIs long enough for you to complete your Archer rush (you can even bring them in on the action, if you sign an Alliance). In the games where I Archer-rush, my home cities are essentially undefended, while all my forces (Warriors and all) are wreaking havoc on my target. The other AIs, unlike human opponents, do not realise that I'm completely open, and would lose horribly if they just walked in and claimed my cities.
My advice is therefore simple: if you want to improve your game, master the Archer rush. You'll get to know when to use it, and when you do you will usually win. I consider this a "flaw" in the game, but such flaws always exist. Luckily this flaw is not emplyable in MP, where the defender can adapt to thwart the rusher's plans.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 20-05-2003 at 21:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
Hmm. I don't often archer rush, at least not in the sense that I think you mean: building a bunch of archers and taking a big bite out of a neighbor.
I do, however, use archers to fight early wars, and actually kinda like it if the AI is relatively far away. I find this tends to work to my advantage. With a few archers & maybe a spearman, I can destroy all incoming AI forces while hardly skipping a beat in my REXing. Meanwhile, the AI continues to send out its standard settler teams (spearman/settler) during the "war" and I can pick them off, greatly hampering their expansion while helping mine.
This tends to work because the AI will send out archers in ones & twos without spearman protection. I can sit on a hill or mountain with several archers and nail their archers piecemeal. 2 attack vs. 1 defense, over and over.
I did this to great effect in my current game as Germany against the Russians, French and England. I took down 5 settler teams, captured 1 worker, gained another 2 in one of the peace deals, and generated 2 great leaders. The shield investment on my part was pretty low (though by the end of those little skirmishes, I had probably invested what you would invest in an early archer rush... I would guess that I built 8-10 archers total).
I've fought early archer wars on Emperor as well, and it seemed to just mean a few more archers coming at me.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm. I don't often archer rush, at least not in the sense that I think you mean: building a bunch of archers and taking a big bite out of a neighbor.
|
Arrian, what you describe is just a prelude to actually conquering your neighbor. A successful Archer rush will begin with either a Settler bop or an attack on a city. Then, you fortify your forces in defensible terrain and wait for the AIs counter-attack (it always comes). Once you've dealt with this (easy, because the AI does not have enough Roads yet and throws its Archers into the open), its an simple matter to finish off the job by taking all their cities. This last step is "simple" because the AI has sent everything it has to attack you; all that is left maximum a Spearmen or Warrior defending each city.
A subtle point is timing of the AIs construction of Archers for counter-attack: by noting when a city pushes out an Archer, you can calculate how long you have before another is built (modified by difficulty and land availalbe). If you do this well, there is rarely a need to bring any Spearmen along, since you'll never be defending.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Arrian, that's another way to do it. But I believe my point remains: if you exploit another civ in the way you describe, do you ever lose (forget UP for the moment)?
My own strategy is to take out the civ as quickly as possible (sometimes I wait a bit if they're nearing completion of a Wonder). What this allows me to do is: 1) REX with imputiny and set up an economy that the AI cannot rival, 2) proceed to the another civ with my still-useful Archers. Concerning the second point, the longer you wait with Archers, the less useful they become (this is obvious). So, if you really want to get the best bang for you buck with them, it's best to use them to take out multiple opponents. In my recent China game, I eliminated France and Persia with Archers, and took out most of India before Horsemen came online.
Olaf, I agree with your first point, but disagree with the second. Depending on the extent of your isolation, even a successful Archer rush may not put you over the top. But Reputation is not really a big deal. Just declare war, conquer their cities (never Raze) and you should not suffer any detrimental effects for the long run.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nor Me
|
|
An oscillating war is better on a civ far away.
But if a civ is close enough, you gain a lot from capturing their cities early so I'd aim to take them out fast. It often only takes a small attack force to take their capital early if it's size 1 after building a settler.
If I'm planning to build, taking out the civ in 1 war without razing any cities is obviously better for reputation,cities and land. It just means you have to wait 10 turns for most cities.
I've never lost or even struggled after a successful archer rush. That might be due to never having a fairly successful archer rush on Deity though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nor Me
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
How do you deal with autorazing, btw? Do you follow the capitol? What if you approach a size 2 city (without culture) and it dropped to 1 due to poprush, do you withdraw? |
If I actually want the city, I won't autoraze it. That does mean always following the capital and waiting 10 turns. If they have a size 2 city, they'll usually pop-rush in the end (if you plan on taking/razing it this war) so forcing it is only a bad idea if you want to kill more archers (for possible elites/GLs).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
peterfharris
|
 |
Sydney, Australia
May 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Good thread, well put.
I have used very early Bab Bowmen rushes to good effect (put the game in the bag) but oddly never thought about doing the same with ordinary archers when playing some other civ. I instead wait for swordsmen. Those Bab Bowmen have been game busters a couple of times.
Umh, must try an archer rush, same attack as Bab Bowmen and same time period. Ooh, and archers don't trigger a despotic golden age.
A quick well executed archer war could often "put the game in the bag".
EDIT.
I did stuff up the first couple of games in which I tried this rush. Very bad idea for beginners to try this. Very good idea once you have the hang of the game.
Last edited by peterfharris on 21-05-2003 at 07:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
peterfharris
|
|
Sydney, Australia
May 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Johnson
I generally play normal sized maps, and for those I rarely find the far flung enemy cities to be of much interest in the early game where archers would be the dominate fighters. Now if the enemy is breathing down your neck, and sending out settlers into areas usable around your immediate capital, then by all means, slam them, but I usually there are iron or horses around, and I'm more worried about setting up my own cities, in my useable area, not picking on the AI. |
Ah, but a Bowman or Archer rush is great when you are squeezed for space (as on a tiny/small map).
I think anyone who has mastered the art of REXing (I haven't) would find this idea very useful when they are not boxed in even on a standard map so they can get hugely huge.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cumi
|
 |
Austria
Jul 2002
time: 06:28
|
|
Dominae,
1. a. Are making archer-rush only too weaken you opponent or you are pushing settlers at the same time? I mean, do you start the war, when you really don't have space to expand or you do the preventivly? I mean, to weaken you neighbour once, so can expand in silent, while the AI tries to stand up again...
When I make an archer rush, I make a precise calculation before:
- How many new cities do I want to build?
- How many settlers/spearmen do I need for that?
In the most cases the FP will be also started in one of my new cities, so maybe I need more than one settler for that city.
- Which enemy cities do I want to keep/rize?
- Then the offense plan, like: x1, x2 armies against y1, y2 cities, later meeting at y3 city...
1.b. Do you also make a precise project plan like me? (and later you can see, if your attack was succesful or not)
2. When is the moment to start it? Taking in accout the answers for my 1st question.
3. ...and of course: When do you stop? When all of your archers are lost, or when you reached your previosly defined goal...
4. Do you build elite archers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:58
|
|
I use jags initially for exploration and generally make war with my first (closest) opponent and from that stage mostly build archers, and place ironworking into the research queue ( set science at 80 - 90%) - a high science rate is ok if most cities have no improvements.
Usually build at least 3 cities before I commence the first war.
I build settlers when cities approach size 5 generally as this avoids unhappiness (size dependant on number of luxury resources available) otherwise just build archers and later swordsmen until first civ wiped out
At this stage I turn myself into a builder as I have gained enough space to build a powerful civilisation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cumi
1. a. Are making archer-rush only too weaken you opponent or you are pushing settlers at the same time?
|
Those are not exclusive. I do both simultaneously.
quote:
I mean, do you start the war, when you really don't have space to expand or you do the preventivly? I mean, to weaken you neighbour once, so can expand in silent, while the AI tries to stand up again...
|
I do not expand until I've nowhere to expand anymore, then Archer rush to get more land. You need to harass the AI far before that (unless you're on a small peninsula or something; see The Power of Gold AU).
quote:
When I make an archer rush, I make a precise calculation before:
- How many new cities do I want to build?
- How many settlers/spearmen do I need for that?
- Which enemy cities do I want to keep/rize?
- Then the offense plan, like: x1, x2 armies against y1, y2 cities, later meeting at y3 city...
|
I'm not so precise in battle plans. I guess it just comes from experience. Here is generally what I do, and what works for me on Emperor as a Militaristic civ (starting from Turn 1):
1. One Warrior for exploration
2. One Archer for exploration
3. Settler or Granary, depending on my mood
4. Between Settlers/Workers, an Archer whenever I can.
5. A couple of new cities build Barracks and Warriors/Archers.
At around step 3 I've found a neighboring AI. I patrol around their lands to get some intel, and wait for a Settler/defender combo (a stack of two Workers is good too). Then I attack this juicy target. Sometimes I'll do this with only 2 Archers and 1 Warriors in my entire army. That's fine: the AI counter-attacks very poorly at this stage. Captured Workers beeline for my capital (of course).
This is key: I then wait around on high ground for counter-attackers, and pick these off with Archers. You've "conquered" another AI civ if you destroy its standing army. If ever the AI's forces threaten my settlements (which sometimes happens), I'll delay as long as possible, then offer Peace. They usually accept. Once I get 5-6 Vet. Archers up and running, I take down that first civ, and proceed to the next, all the while building Settlers and Workers in high-Food cities.
quote:
...and of course: When do you stop? When all of your archers are lost, or when you reached your previosly defined goal...
|
I stop when either: 1) the AI puts up too much of a resistance, and it would start threatening my cities in a counter-attack, or 2) that civ is more or less gone, at which point I proceed to the next target.
Looking at your version of the strat, I think you build too many Spearmen when you could just be building more Archers. Forget about defense: you're the aggressor, so why do you need Spearmen defending your cities? Barbs are annoying, which is why Warriors are an important build between Workers and Settlers.
Dominae
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-05-2003 20:57
Attachment: 
|
