I can rush horsemen, I am so awesome!!!

[PhamHall]

Seems like that's all anyone does now on MP. rush a horsemen army and blitz. do people really think they're awesome when they do this? IMHO it ruins the multiplayer experiences, because in order to survive one must adapt and thus everyone ultimately becomes a horserusher.

yawn...i mean yeah!

[CoryTV]

Really, what's your point? People have developed that as a way to get a good start. Are you saying you shouldn't make warriors and search for barbs ? Seriously. Stop whining and play or quit. Complaining about popular strategies and certain civs just makes you look like a whining baby.

Now, I have to go whine about this damn freezing game.

[dio3d]

Seems like that's all anyone does now on MP. rush a horsemen army and blitz. do people really think they're awesome when they do this? IMHO it ruins the multiplayer experiences, because in order to survive one must adapt and thus everyone ultimately becomes a horserusher.

yawn...i mean yeah!

I hear where you're coming from. Interestingly enough, I rarely come across the Zulu any more (I'm on PS3), but I have been coming across horse rushers more frequently. I usually play as the Aztec, but my games are decidedly peaceful (my choice). However, during the past few days I've had MP games where more and more Civs rush horsemen units. It sucks for a player like me, because that usually makes the game all about defending against someone else's plans for warmongering/domination.

I wish there was a way for players interested in non-domination victories to play a ranked match. I know that others in these forums would argue that this game is all about domination and getting the fastest win (which is usually domination) but I prefer a more peaceful MP gaming experience. Is that so wrong?

[Ckmost]

If the other victories could be achieved before a typical domination victory it would make the game so much more interesting.

the way the game is so lopsided balanced right now, the only way to be competitive in MP is to go for a domination win. Unless all human parties happen to want to go for an alternate victory.

One big problem is that the advanced military techs can be attained way too early in the game relative to the advanced techs needed to get a) tech win b)economic win. In MP I usually get to tanks on average around 1000 AD which is way earlier than pretty much anyone can in a MP game ,with any sort of real competition, get anywhere close to a tech or economic win (i.e., getting space tech or getting internet).

I think the techs between Knights-Tanks - Riffle - Inf are way too close and dont give the interim units any time to really be used.

If tanks were push further out at least one more preq set, it would make for a totally different game. That and of course making the AI more challenging.

But as things stand you end up having to counter with military and abandon the alternative victories with any decent player.

another example of great concept with poor execution (i.e., good game concept but poor balancing and lack of features to improve the experience).

Just avoiding military tactics is boring IMO as its a central part of the game.

A great game is so well balanced that all units and features can and do get used equally with different strategies.

[IML Owl]

The guy does have a point though. Everyone does the horseman rush nowadays. People either pick the Chinese or Aztecs most of the time. I don't mind it as much, but the game is essentially over after 15 turns because everyone goes for the juggular immediately. I never play games that are still up in the air by the modern era. Either someone rushed me and won or I rushed them and won. There really is no middle ground.

For the record, I'd rather play a game without the initial rushes that are en vogue. But people do them for a reason, because they work. Maybe if they didn't work SO well it'd be better. Maybe HBR should take 30-40 beakers, or so. That'd cut down on the rush significantly, but still not so prohibitive as to prevent people from rushing.

[Ckmost]

The guy does have a point though. Everyone does the horseman rush nowadays. People either pick the Chinese or Aztecs most of the time. I don't mind it as much, but the game is essentially over after 15 turns because everyone goes for the juggular immediately. I never play games that are still up in the air by the modern era. Either someone rushed me and won or I rushed them and won. There really is no middle ground.

For the record, I'd rather play a game without the initial rushes that are en vogue. But people do them for a reason, because they work. Maybe if they didn't work SO well it'd be better. Maybe HBR should take 30-40 beakers, or so. That'd cut down on the rush significantly, but still not so prohibitive as to prevent people from rushing.

Again pushing back military techs a few more beakers would change the game dramatically. Like HBR after Bronze working. Like you said would cut the rush % down sig, but not prevent it. It would make players use warriors a bit more and give people time to build def if they want to go for alternate victories. Of course the only problem would still be the overpowered Zulu rush.

[outlawtown]

i love countering a rusher soo much
i was lucky three times against the same guy. he was zulu, i was japanese. start of the game i switched my food tiles to water tiles to get the 1beaker at the same time and researched bronze working. all it took was 1 archer to stop that guy.then i culture flipped his city and built an archer there :)


he took it back later though, using a hill and a catapult army.


felt good to stop him though :)

[MorteEterna]

i love countering a rusher soo much
i was lucky three times against the same guy. he was zulu, i was japanese. start of the game i switched my food tiles to water tiles to get the 1beaker at the same time and researched bronze working. all it took was 1 archer to stop that guy.then i culture flipped his city and built an archer there :)


he took it back later though, using a hill and a catapult army.


felt good to stop him though :)

Then I figure out how much you got lucky or how he was noob.. Archer in 8-10 turns, or he got warrior army after a lot of turns.

[PhamHall]

Really, what's your point? People have developed that as a way to get a good start. Are you saying you shouldn't make warriors and search for barbs ? Seriously. Stop whining and play or quit. Complaining about popular strategies and certain civs just makes you look like a whining baby.

Now, I have to go whine about this damn freezing game.

Is that truly the spriti of the game, that's my point. call me old school but I believe in taking out the AI's before starting wars with the other human player. I find excitement in racing for techs and trying to earn victories other than domination. And i've lost many games for sticking to the philosophy of not attacking unless attacked upon.

btw - it's a stretch to call rushing horsemen and building a horse army and taking capitals before leaving the ancient era a strategy...there's nothing complex about it. it's more a tactic. a strategy implies a thought out plan.

[badken]

btw - it's a stretch to call rushing horsemen and building a horse army and taking capitals before leaving the ancient era a strategy...there's nothing complex about it. it's more a tactic. a strategy implies a thought out plan.

Well, the strategy is "attack enemies before they have defenses up". The tactic is to use horsemen. Some civs can do it with warriors. If you're lucky and get Knights Templar early enough, you can do it with a single unit.

[PhamHall]

But where is the fun or challenge in that?

[Frelinder]

I belive that the problem with many of the rushers is that this is pretty much all they do/can do.

They put all their eggs in one basket and if it doesn't work they don't have much more aces up in their sleves and they quit.

The few MP games I have played its pretty much the same thing. Stop their rush. Then I tech up fast and expand. When they realize they are 10 techs behind they quit. I would love to win another type of win then dom in MP but that wan't happen. The other guy will quit way before..

I mean why stay in a game and be humiliated when you can just start a new game and pawn a noob with a horse rush?

[Hellogoodbye123]

I don't rush, I like to be napolean, have 4 cannon armies with the samurai castle, fundamentalism, blitz and infiltration plus battleships naval boost!

They can even sometimes go through modern infantry!, but people usually have riflemen when I get to there cities, the attack is atleast 74

[CapnCrunch2K]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong... I see some names on this thread whose opinion I really respect.

I find most rushes pretty easy to defend against. All you really need is forewarning. If you get warriors out soon enough, it's easy to know when a rush is coming. Bronze Working is just as cheap as Horseback Riding. And, once you've got it, archers are half the cost of horsemen. A fortified archer army in a capital will beat a horsemen army most of the time. Plus, a horsemen army is extremely weak on the defense. Even an attacking warrior army will beat it half the time.

BUT... a rush can be extremely powerful when it either catches someone off guard. And, in a multiplayer game, it doesn't matter how prepared you are. If one of the other players falls to a rush (perhaps because he was trying to rush himself), you've got another player with two capitals early. That can really change the game!

[derekt75]

While it's easier to make archer armies than horseman armies, if you focus on defense, then you're not capturing other civs. If I've captured 2 enemy capitals, and you haven't captured any, I would hope I have enough skill to beat you from there, especially if I've gained an important tech from a captured city (like Religion, Democracy, Navigation, etc.). Besides, your archers aren't getting much exploration gold.

Defend all you want; the people that seem to beat me are the ones that outrush me, not the ones that hole up in a walled city until my tanks (aided by horsemen with a great general) roll over their pikemen.