mrcash
Member
posted 04-01-09 08:16 PM
EDT (US)
3 / 27
Wait...why wouldnt ppl rush a mayan? Now, I wouldnt rush a chinese but to me, a mayan is fair game. Btw, as a mayan, your resources are probably better spent booming and getting wonders up, not rushing. Even germans can rush better than mayans.
mrcash
Member
posted 04-03-09 04:12 PM
EDT (US)
6 / 27
Mayan defense bonuses are just not good enough in the beginning. Even with temple, a mayan city wont go over 2000hp in ancient age. The extra arrow means nothing since arrow fire from a city is very innefective against heavy infantry. You might be able to hold out just a bit longer but the extra time is negligible. I would say 10-20secs...
You may be right when you say that a mayan rush is unexpected. I suppose that an element of surprise wouldnt hurt...
Btw Red Rev care to expand what you mean?
daddykhan
Member
posted 04-06-09 04:31 PM
EDT (US)
8 / 27
Have a question for StrategicJoeL and/or mrcash: would you please describe, in as much details as you wish, what you mean by a "rush"?
daddykhan
Member
posted 04-07-09 11:15 AM
EDT (US)
10 / 27
Thank you for responding, StrategicJoeL.
I understand your logic regarding a "rush" directed against Chinese or Mayan opponents. In the Ancient Age, a Chinese player will have large cities before anyone else, and such cities are difficult to capture, as they can sustain more damage than a small city before surrendering. Similarly, a Mayan opponent is likely protect a city with defensive towers, as these are relatively less expensive and more effective for the Maya.
However, I am still a bit confused. Even in the Ancient Age, a properly constituted army can pack a hell of a punch. Attaching 5 or more catapults to such a force ensures it can reduce a city quickly. The real question is: how/when to build such a force.
The strategic calculus each player faces in a RON game is to weigh the costs/benefits/risks of military aggression versus the costs/benefits/risks of economic development, technological research, wonder building, doing nothing, etc.
To my mind, deciding what is a rush depends very much on timing. In other words, since it takes time to build one's economy to a point where one can create a medium-sized combined arms force with the 5+ catapults mentioned above, is doing that a rush? I would say it is not.
Therefore, if a rush is, as you say, an attack during the first 3 minutes of a game, I have to ask: does that ever work? I mean, if all the attacker starts out with is a small force (what could an attacker possibly build in 3 game minutes, anyway?), wouldn't some well positioned buildings and a tower or 2 be enough to foil such an attack?
Am curious because, typically, I play against the CPU (at Tougher or higher), and it seems as if the machine almost always launches an early attack (a rush, under our definition) with its initial force (8 infantry, 2 cavalry, 1 supply wagon, 1 Senator/Despot) during the first 3 minutes of play. Invariably, I can defeat this rush with a little preparation (1 tower, the Senator for decoys) and my own initial force.
Even if I'm fighting a defensive conquest battle and have no initial force to throw at the machine's early rush, I can usually prevail against it by building a couple of towers and making sure I start a 2nd city away from the enemy's likely axis-of-advance (so that my economy continues to expand).
mrcash
Member
posted 04-13-09 07:04 PM
EDT (US)
12 / 27
To be honest, I wouldnt classify medievel age attacks as rushes. I wouldnt say its an attack b4 3 minutes because in reality, the time can differ depending on the type of game it is (i.e: nomad, cheap or expensive techs etc.)
In fact, I would classify a rush as an attack BEFORE Medieval Age that exclusively has mostly just Heavy Infantry and maybe some light infantry. A classical rush might have some Light cav and maybe a catapult but in most cases its just HI and LI. The point is to attack your opponent before they have any sort of defense up. It takes advantage of players that only boom without getting an army.
I dont find rushes very difficult to defend against. All you need is some archers (say two) and micromanagement. The city should fire arrows at slingers while you maneuver your bowmen in a place where they can fire at HI without taking hits. If rushing is a serious problem, play as the Chinese or Russians. Rushing a Russian is usually a silly thing to do.
mrcash
Member
posted 04-23-09 05:40 PM
EDT (US)
14 / 27
Well yes perhaps LC work better than LI. Yes I agree, LI are quite useless before gunpowder age yet using them in a rush would save you from having to build a stable early on. Plus they can take a little more punishment from enemy cities and can attack from range. So in normal situations, yes, they may be quite useless, but in rushes they can have their worth.
Unless you have an argument for that too...
mrcash
Member
posted 04-26-09 03:16 PM
EDT (US)
16 / 27
Well no, I would never even think of using LI AGAINST a rush or even for any defensive purpose at all. No no no, I said its a viable option if YOUR rushing rather than defending against a rush. Like you said, archers destroy HI but if you bring LI in a rush, you can take out those pesky archers. Oh and theyre available right from the ancent age.
Even in classical age though, theyre still a good option. By using them instead of LC for OFFENSIVE purposes, you can take out archers from a range and save the cost and time of a stable. LI can take many more hits from defending HI than your LC. They get more hitpoints too. If your oppnent defends with his own cavalry just have a group of HI (which any attack of yours should have) deal with him.
If you use LC instead, you will be vulnerable to defending HI and chances are, your rush will not have archers as wealth rates are usually low at this point. Whats worse, they have to chase down enemies (which means they can be lured away easier), have less HP, require a stable plus classical age and lvl 2 military. Yet your basic slingers, especially if microed properly, can be brought out much earlier and do an admirable job against archers.
mrcash
Member
posted 05-03-09 08:19 PM
EDT (US)
18 / 27
Weve yet to take into account militia btw, which any decent player would get and use in classical especially when attacked. Both LC and LI fare poorly against them BUT LI can attack them from a distance whereas LC must run away or run straight to them. Btw, when LC are running away, they cant attack archers. So stationing HI next to archers will stop LC cold. If your using LI, then the HI must run to YOU. Plus they wont go down as easily. To be honest though, a rush could be successful with either of them.
To the second part. Well you see, I play as the Germans preety much all the time, and obviously theyre excellent boomers. They dont get any real bonuses in rushing though. The german econ is not terribly strong in the beginning but by the mid-game (gunpowder age) it really picks up. I have been able to eliminate some ppl before gunpowder age but things go better for me when the game is prolonged.
Galahad Berlin
Member
posted 02-16-10 10:45 AM
EDT (US)
20 / 27
Oh!
You guys want to know what a rush is?
Go science1, mil1, no farms but a barracks towards the enemy. Use your scout well to get some ruins and build 4-5 HI. Maybe a LI too. Send these troops to the enemy capital. That is a rush.
If you do it well and teh opponent does not notice it early, you have a good change to get their cap.
It does not work well vs. china, maya, irokese, aztec, brits, persia, and some more (all nations that make an ancient raid themselves).
RandomCataphract
Member
posted 06-15-10 08:01 AM
EDT (US)
21 / 27
Here is how I deal with Ancient Rushes:
I build my Barracks tucked away behind my City, then I build 2 archers ASAP, it should take about the same time as my opponent would with his army.
When he attacks, his Hoplites will be all over my City, but my City will be firing at his Slingers. My Archers will then fire at the HU behind the safety of the City. When his Slingers try to get at my Archers, they have quite a long way to go and will be severely weakened. My Archers will "poof" back into their safehouse: the Barracks, watching with glee as the LI stamp their feet and run around getting shot at. Pop them out again when the LI are dead and slaughter the Hoppies.
Takes time, but I find it fun to play. Usually, by then my second City will have pieced together quite a few troops and calvary too. I will then proceed to station them in a dark corner, waiting to sneak attack some juicy supply/cannon/archers.
genesis222
Member
posted 07-24-10 01:42 AM
EDT (US)
22 / 27
In order to produce quick infantry and cavalry to reinforce your army fighting somewhere in enemy territory, use your monarch to quickly produce the units. Its better to keep your monarch in unit production area than in war. Use general for combats. Place monarch in the radius of Barracks and stable.
LordBJ
Member
posted 10-08-10 02:36 PM
EDT (US)
27 / 27
I'm also mainly a boomer, not a rusher. I think battles are much more satisfying when you rely more on general strategy and less on fast-paced tactics. But I haven't played any serious multiplayer games, and I'm only an intermediate player, so I'm not really sure how effective rushing is.