Rush-building early in the game

[tobyr]

I do a lot of rush building early in the game, either to:
- build a defensive unit for a city at once, or
- to complete a unit or improvement that is getting built slowly because of low city production, or
- to build a unit for a quick attack on a nearby, undeveloped civ, or
- to build a realtively fast-moving unit that can go exploring and open huts.

I particularly tend to "finish" anything that has about six turns and less than 100 gold to complete, if I see an immediate need for it.

This strategy usually leaves me with less than 200 gold most of the time, well into the second age.

My question is: IS THIS A GOOD STRATEGY? Is it common, or should I be doing something else?

(Note that I play mostly at King level, so I try to build as many cities as I can, usually 12 to 20 before 1AD.)

- toby


------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[The Mad Monk]

I rush-build early, late, whenever the cash is there. In the early game, there isn't much else to do with cash, anyway, so I just spend, spend, spend! The threshold tends to be 50 gold in the early game, 100 gold later on, and just about any price toward the end, since I'm reaping 4K+ gold a turn from all those marketplaces, banks, and stock exchanges I rush-built earlier. I picked up this strategy from playing far too many games of MOO2 at Hard and Impossible...
By the way, NEVER rush build in the first turn, if you can help it. With city improvements, the price is four gold/shield, I think, but drops to two gold/shield if even one shield is on the board.

[George Garrett]

Hi Tobyr,

You're in excellent company - mine. As in real life, I like to put money to work, but, if I had my druthers, I'd opt to keep a 1,000 or so in case of a Big Mac or its barbarian ilk attack, and want to purchse defensive magice potions, or instant death rays in a hurry - I think you're wise to let the city provide the bulk of the shields, ere you chip in with your closing gold, not economical to pay 320 for an engineer, when you can get it for, as is your stated custom, less than a hundred a little later in the game - 'course, there are times, especially in war, when one has to pay thro the nose -even as one holds that nose, a neat trick -for a vital bod e.g. a fortress- building engineer at 320 gold!

I spend freely, the last few shields for a pub here, a bingo-parlour there, until the stern warning flashes "You are in trouble with the taxman!---pay 1 arm, plus 1 leg or go directly to jail, do not pass Science City, do not collect 200 gold "(I knew I shouldn't have tinkered with those game files!). Then I play a merry tune on the rates,sliding the tax to the max, and the science to a sizzle.(Luxuries? Wot luxuries? Let them eat cake).
Besides being great fun, this works for me, as rush building seems to for you - I'm either as great a player as you Tobyr, or you're as crummy as me.

Summed up, my fiscal policy is try to keep a grand, or so, nut- this is not carved in gold- try to put the finishing touches on the struggling wee cities...a few shekels for this desert shanty-town's engineer,invest a bob or two in that strategic 2-square "Southend-on_Sea" for their fish-and-chip shop victualling passing mariners on their way to nukedom, in that war up the road, later on, you'll find that cash spent on finishing touches to any enterprise- factory, off-shore platform, super market, is a wise investment, bringing in more dough than you know how to spend -especially if you're in Democracy or Fundy.
I dunno why this is a man's game ...women would surely love those shopping sprees, where with oodles of ackers in hand, one can review one's cities, ascertaining which needs what, with the wherewithal to wager on it - I know I do.

[Empress]

If I am in a no city bribe game I definitly rush build! However, recently I have become reluctant in city bribe games, afraid I will run low on cash, thus making my cities easier to bribe.

[Jim W]

I find this thread interesting, as I rarely have over 500 gold in the BC period. I only rush-build when it seems like a good idea, i.e., get that settler to work a little sooner upgrading my property, get that Legion out a little sooner because those nasty red guys on wheels are heading my way, and so on.

But having 1000 as a "nut"? I wish!

I must be doing something dreadfully wrong.

Jim W

[Ming]

I agree with Empress.
In a no bribe city game, I will spend my money freely. Buying up units or wonders as needed.
But in a bribe city game, I horde my money to make it harder to bribe my cities. I will only spend it if I'm threatened by barbs and I need a wall or unit quick, or if I think I need to buy a KEY wonder before somebody else builds it.
A big treausury is one of your best defenses for keeping your cities from being bribed.

[Bohlen]

I also agree with Empress and am probably even overly cautious when it comes to having a nice bank so my cities do not revolt. However, in the early game, especially before Writing, I usually rush build settlers as much as possible so that I can expand as quickly as possible. You have to spend money now to make money later.

[George Garrett]

Dont feel bad, Jim - I should have pointed out that, most of the time, I play at the Chieftain level, which is way below what you play at, I'm sure. I am playing one game at Prince,in which I imagine I'm doing the same rush-buying thing, and in the game of SP Deity on which I've just embarked, I find I gotta rush buy - them pesky raging hordes come at one's phalanxes with CRUSADERS yet! I imagine that this is the level in which I'll find bribes offered to my garrisons for the first time in my playing experience, tho why the AI would bother, I don't know, seeing how easy it presently is to knock off my cities thro siege, or make me, as ol' King Sol, the Sun Diety pay tribute thro our Royal nose.
1,000 gold? ...now, I'm beginning to wish!

[geofelt]

When I have diplomats available, I like to have enough gold to bribe a city. Before that, I use gold for emergency use, and to complete wonders. If I see that barbarians are about to capture an unguarded city, I spend down to 50 gold, reducing the amount they demand to leave it alone.

[Taian]

You don't have to spend all the way down to 50 gold to get the barbs to take as little as possible. In BC, they always demands half of your gold, to a minimum of 50. So you could have 100 gold in your treasury and still keep half of it after paying off the barbs. Could be useful for you gold hoarders
I always rush buy whenever the cash is available.

Depending on the circumstances I tend to rush build settlers in order to get my civ up and running as quickly as possible. If another civ is nearby however I often tend to focus more on defense and when they bcome available decent troops so I can get rid of that civ quickly (this is in singleplayer of course).

[The Mad Viking]

I don't rush buy that much.

A city wall in a pinch, or an extra defender, to save losing the city to a civ. Barbs? Not as big a deal, they don't steal your advances and trade them to to every other civ the next turn.

To complete a key wonder before the AI.

If I have a low production city, I'll plant trees on a railiroad and add 3 shields. (Last time I did this I got a silk!)

I prefer to save my money for bribing cities. The other day I spied got a 12 pop city with many improvements, and discovered the English fleet was in port - 4 destroyers and a cruiser in the city, another adjacent outside; a marine, and alp and 2 rifles, and an engineer adjacent. All for just 1088!

I should point out that I rarely have much money because I tend to maximize science. I deficit spend, actually, and make it up with carvans, and barb captures, and plunder. After a big bribe, I'll slide the scale to refill the treasury in a couple of turns.

[This message has been edited by The Mad Viking (edited April 10, 2000).]

[Steve Clark]

My usual clobbering (conquest) game usually involve tremendous amount of rush-building of military units, including in the early game. As in my latest game, I went after several size 6-8 Celts cities with vet Knights and Diplomats early on. I usually throw all of my Diplomats at a fortified city first, to take out the temple and walls and such, and then follow up either with the attack units on the same turn or wait to the next turn to bribe the disordered city with a Diplomat. The key is to constantly keep the pressure on the enemy, attacking all of their cities in successive turns. This takes numerous Diplomats for each investigation, sabotage or incite, the Diplomat is lost. The same for attack units where it can take 5-7 units to attack and hold a larger city. My point is that during conquest of an enemy civ, I am rush-building several units each and every turn. Your economy must be sufficient to sustain that way of playing.

[SandMonkey]

hmm i don't normally rush build, but it seems to be the way to get ahead of the AI... maybe i should tweak my strategy a bit. Any other tips on rush building from anyone?

[VetLegion]

There is incremental thing

Funny to play a ww2 scenario, clean the russians till 1943 and still see a message that they get a winter bonus

Scenario did say dont exchange tech, but they said none of rushing so it can pass.

And most of us rushbuy anyway I believe. All I think about is 25 gold intervals

[Earthling7]

I rush-build a unit when barbs are nearing an undefended city, when a rival is about to finish a wonder or when a city is too slow in building an improvement or wonder. I also rushbuild if it is beneficial. I build Adam Smith now for 1500, instead of waiting, and save 2000 in maintenance for the remainder of the time it would have taken. Also to build shield-enhancing improvements (factories, off-shore platforms etc.).

I usually don't bribe cities unless my civ is fairly well off. If I can't afford it, I save money or "soften" the city first... or rush build a military unit and storm the city