What’s the thought process behind suicide rushing at the beginning of the game?
I’ve been away from RTS games for probably a decade or so; I was never a forum regular; and I don’t know the current/appropriate lingo for this game, so let me define what I mean by that term: when I say “suicide rush”, I’m talking about sending one’s forces on an all out offensive that leaves one unable to defend one’s homeland cities and directly results in one’s own defeat (whether or not it also results in the defeat of the target).
Let me be clear, as well, that this is not a whine about, or even necessarily a complaint against rushes, but rather a curiosity about the logic that fuels rushes from which the attacker can never fully recover. I do sometimes lose against a good or very unexpected rush, and I’m sure I could be better at defending against them, but that’s not my motivation behind this post, nor are those successful rushes by my opponents the type of rush I’m questioning. As an extreme example of a suicide rush of which I was both the target and the easy victor, I’ll cite the most recent rush used against me as an example to keep us reminded that I’m not writing this out of “butt-hurt” feelings.
I want to also be clear that I’m not opposed to the (non-suicide) rush strategy in general. I think that in the correct circumstances, it can absolutely be the correct approach. In fact, I have used and will continue to use rushes when appropriate, and even when I don’t rush, I’m an aggressive expander by nature. So, I’m not at all advocating that everyone “sit back and turtle” or build for a period of time before attacking at all. By all means, do what works in the situation.
But what about when it doesn’t, won’t, or can’t work? I’m assuming that the general goal for most people in most games is to either win or do as well/last as long in the game as possible. A suicide rush seems to virtually ensure that won’t happen, so what’s the reason that people do them?
Here’s my latest example: I entered a new game relatively early. In this game, I happened to take a nation of considerable size and resources (rare for me, I’m a small nation guy, but this was Rising Tides, so the map was all different). A more experienced player had taken another nation of considerable size and resources sharing a long border with me before I logged in. We both had other nearby options (for targets) over which we had nation and experience advantages. This player elected, however, to rush me.
Now, on its own, that’s not an incomprehensible strategy. I’m the most experienced other player in the immediate area but less experienced than “Player B”, we’ll call them; my country is big, has lots to offer, and could be a problem later in the game; etc. - I get it. I’m sure Player B’s initial plan was to take me out quickly and then deal with the rest of the region.
And this is where my questions start, I guess. What’s the thought process behind losing everything you have against your opponent immediately after you select your country, leaving your own cities completely open to their own destruction? Sometimes, it’s a punch for punch, one-for-one exchange that leaves both parties so far behind that recovery takes forever and rarely really happens. In most of those situations, opportunistic neighbors will swoop in and pick the bones of both clean. Sometimes, the defender will get the better of the exchange, and the attacker who initiated the rush will be out of the game while the defender is left to clean up the mess. Then there are suicide rushes in which the failure is so complete that the defender is not even as disrupted by the rush as the defender would have been if they had themselves been the attacker. That’s what happened in the Player B scenario: by Day 3, I never lost a city, gave up only ever a total of three open territories, defeated every one of Player B’s units, and have taken 4 of Player B’s 6 cities (the other two will soon follow), including their capital.
The point isn’t a comparison of Player B and I. They are a more experienced player, and I’m sure they are better at the game than me, in general. So, why would they, and why does anyone, do the suicide rush? Obviously, you can’t always know from the beginning that a rush won’t work against someone, but you should at least have an idea of whether or not it will. And, regardless of what you originally thought, you should be able to determine relatively early that it’s not working and will not work, and you should adjust accordingly.
This huge wall of text has all been in an effort to clarify my one main question: Why do people conduct the suicide rush?
I’ve been away from RTS games for probably a decade or so; I was never a forum regular; and I don’t know the current/appropriate lingo for this game, so let me define what I mean by that term: when I say “suicide rush”, I’m talking about sending one’s forces on an all out offensive that leaves one unable to defend one’s homeland cities and directly results in one’s own defeat (whether or not it also results in the defeat of the target).
Let me be clear, as well, that this is not a whine about, or even necessarily a complaint against rushes, but rather a curiosity about the logic that fuels rushes from which the attacker can never fully recover. I do sometimes lose against a good or very unexpected rush, and I’m sure I could be better at defending against them, but that’s not my motivation behind this post, nor are those successful rushes by my opponents the type of rush I’m questioning. As an extreme example of a suicide rush of which I was both the target and the easy victor, I’ll cite the most recent rush used against me as an example to keep us reminded that I’m not writing this out of “butt-hurt” feelings.
I want to also be clear that I’m not opposed to the (non-suicide) rush strategy in general. I think that in the correct circumstances, it can absolutely be the correct approach. In fact, I have used and will continue to use rushes when appropriate, and even when I don’t rush, I’m an aggressive expander by nature. So, I’m not at all advocating that everyone “sit back and turtle” or build for a period of time before attacking at all. By all means, do what works in the situation.
But what about when it doesn’t, won’t, or can’t work? I’m assuming that the general goal for most people in most games is to either win or do as well/last as long in the game as possible. A suicide rush seems to virtually ensure that won’t happen, so what’s the reason that people do them?
Here’s my latest example: I entered a new game relatively early. In this game, I happened to take a nation of considerable size and resources (rare for me, I’m a small nation guy, but this was Rising Tides, so the map was all different). A more experienced player had taken another nation of considerable size and resources sharing a long border with me before I logged in. We both had other nearby options (for targets) over which we had nation and experience advantages. This player elected, however, to rush me.
Now, on its own, that’s not an incomprehensible strategy. I’m the most experienced other player in the immediate area but less experienced than “Player B”, we’ll call them; my country is big, has lots to offer, and could be a problem later in the game; etc. - I get it. I’m sure Player B’s initial plan was to take me out quickly and then deal with the rest of the region.
And this is where my questions start, I guess. What’s the thought process behind losing everything you have against your opponent immediately after you select your country, leaving your own cities completely open to their own destruction? Sometimes, it’s a punch for punch, one-for-one exchange that leaves both parties so far behind that recovery takes forever and rarely really happens. In most of those situations, opportunistic neighbors will swoop in and pick the bones of both clean. Sometimes, the defender will get the better of the exchange, and the attacker who initiated the rush will be out of the game while the defender is left to clean up the mess. Then there are suicide rushes in which the failure is so complete that the defender is not even as disrupted by the rush as the defender would have been if they had themselves been the attacker. That’s what happened in the Player B scenario: by Day 3, I never lost a city, gave up only ever a total of three open territories, defeated every one of Player B’s units, and have taken 4 of Player B’s 6 cities (the other two will soon follow), including their capital.
The point isn’t a comparison of Player B and I. They are a more experienced player, and I’m sure they are better at the game than me, in general. So, why would they, and why does anyone, do the suicide rush? Obviously, you can’t always know from the beginning that a rush won’t work against someone, but you should at least have an idea of whether or not it will. And, regardless of what you originally thought, you should be able to determine relatively early that it’s not working and will not work, and you should adjust accordingly.
This huge wall of text has all been in an effort to clarify my one main question: Why do people conduct the suicide rush?