HalfLotus posts a good article on Rush type vs. Boom type attacks

This is an extension of the basic relationship between booming and rushing (pure rush defeats pure boom). When developing an attack strategy, its strengths and weaknesses are based on the relative emphasis of economic vs military spending.

...

With a 'rush type' attack, you build only enough economy/tech to get to the target age and create a decent sized army. Examples would be a Mil first HI rush, French 150, a 10-11 minute Medieval attack, and Frogman's Spanish gunpowder attack (he attacks with GP army before getting Civ 3 and Commerce 3).

...

In a 'boom type' attack, you build your economy/tech 'as normal' while creating an army concurrently. Examples would be the Sci1/Mil1 HI rush (El capitan style), and Gooey's Medieval attack. The boom type is delayed so your attack has a lower chance of succes, but if it fails, your economy is in better shape.

I'm not sure if I agree with his distinctions. I'd categorize a Gunpowder age attack more of a boom attack than an ancient rush with SCI1 thrown in (there's a reason we call it a "rush"). There's also "rushing" to merely raid, such as the Mongol horse archer rush strategy. However, his point brings up some interesting considerations so it is worth pondering.
posted by Tim at 11:49 AM