Armies of workers

Sandman · October 12, 2001, 20:20

So, can you add workers to armies?

Either for an easy to manage labour army consisting of three workers, or a two combat unit/one worker combo for an army which can lay down roads as it advances.

Answers please Firaxis.

Mars · October 12, 2001, 20:57

It wouldn't make much sense why you would want to waste a space in a army on a setlter. You only have 3 spots (4 with the pentagon) and you can't switch units out of an army. plus it requires a great leader to build an army (or the military academy which can only be able to be built by winning a battle with a army) so logical it would be bad idea to waste a space on a settler. Instead you would probaly want to just have the settler follow the army, because it would do the same thing as if it was in the army

Bleyn · October 13, 2001, 03:31

Mars, settlers aren't the question here. Workers are. Big difference.

I would agree adding settlers to an army doesn't make sense. Workers on the other hand. Now thats a different story....

If the productive capacity of workers improving terrain is only directly addative when working on the same tile outside of an army, would/should workers in an army be more than addative?

For example, say you have a mountain you want to transform to hills(can that be done in Civ3?). I don't remember the real numbers from Civ2, but lets say that it will take 1 worker 18 turns to do this. In Civ2, 2 workers starting at the same time would cut it down to 9 turns and 3 workers would cut it down to 6 turns. Ie. X workers improving the same square at the same time only produce X worker-turns of productivity.

I believe what Sandman is wondering(and I am too now), is if you had 3 workers in an army could they transform that same mountain in say 4 turns instead of 6. In other words, if they are linkable in an army, will the total productivity of the workers be more than the sum of their parts? Will they perhaps produce 1.5X worker-turns of productivity?

All I can say is, I hope that if they didn't already think about it, I hope they take note, and ponder it as an improvement for an expansion pack.

Maybe they could even go so far as to create a worker version of the great leaders. They could be produced on a random(and rare) basis by having several workers improving some terrain together at the same time. Similar functions to military great leaders, adding workers together in groups, or rushing wonders, but on a peaceful basis.

Skanky Burns · October 13, 2001, 05:06

Mars made a good point, if you read 'workers' instead of 'settlers', which he obviously meant. And i dont think this idea is a very good one (no offence

).

Armies dont get any attack bonus, defence bonus, or any other sort of bonus other than they pool their hit-points. Why a worker-army would suddenly be more productive i dont know. They would still have the same amount of people doing the job as a seperate group of three workers.

And having a 2 combat 1 worker army is fundamentally flawed. Armies are primarily used for offence. If a worker has replaced the spot another offensive unit could take, this would prevent the army from reaching its full potential. Also placing roads would be useless for two reasons - Firstly, the road would not help the army, as it would have to reach somewhere first before starting the new section of road, and Secondly, all offensive units in an enemy civs territory ignore roads. Thats right, they get absolutely no bonus from roads in another civs territory.

So for these reasons, i dont think workers will be able to become part of your army.

Rasputin · October 13, 2001, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Secondly, all offensive units in an enemy civs territory ignore roads. Thats right, they get absolutely no bonus from roads in another civs territory.

Is this in Civ 3 ??? I hope not, a road is a road no matter wher eit is built and all units should get advantage of the road movement enhancement

Skanky Burns · October 13, 2001, 09:55

Yes, it is in Civ 3. Theres a thread around here somewhere that Dan mentioned it... but im going to sleep in a min, so couldnt be bothered searching for it.

Maybe i will later, maybe someone else will link to it...

On the plus side, you could probably change this easily with the editor.

Dutch · October 13, 2001, 09:59

I truly hope that could be changed, because yes, a road is a road.

Now, railroads are another history ...

Immortal Wombat · October 13, 2001, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

On the plus side, you could probably change this easily with the editor.

Doubt it. Maybe with a scripting language you could...

Inverse Icarus · October 13, 2001, 12:32

i think 3 workers and a legion in a stack would be speedy for improvements, and also prevent easy captue of your precious workers.

is it possible

also, fleets of ships? or squadrons of air units?

c'mon dan. read one of my goddamned posts.

Stuie · October 13, 2001, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Jingo
also, fleets of ships? or squadrons of air units?

I know that it was specifically mentioned somewhere that armies can only consist of land based units. I'll try to find a link.

Faboba · October 13, 2001, 15:22

If it is possible to stack non combatants with combatants then you have to remember the now confirmed detail that stacks can't move.

Crouchback · October 13, 2001, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba
If it is possible to stack non combatants with combatants then you have to remember the now confirmed detail that stacks can't move.

Armies can't move?

Say it isn't so.

David

jdd2007 · October 13, 2001, 16:16

Quote:

Armies can't move?

armies CAN move, stacks of regular units CANT move together...

Sabre2th · October 13, 2001, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by jdd2007

armies CAN move, stacks of regular units CANT move together...

They don't move or fight together. Individual units like this work just like in civ2.

Crouchback · October 13, 2001, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabre2th
They don't move or fight together. Individual units like this work just like in civ2.

So basically what we're saying here is: there are no stacks?

Just armies and individual units who may occupy the same tile.

David

Sabre2th · October 13, 2001, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Crouchback

So basically what we're saying here is: there are no stacks?

Just armies and individual units who may occupy the same tile.

David

Exactly.

Civ Dave · October 13, 2001, 17:15

It'd be cool if you could make military units go and help settlers in times of peace, sort of like the national guard

Crouchback · October 13, 2001, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Exactly.

Glad to help your post count Sabre.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie
I know that it was specifically mentioned somewhere that armies can only consist of land based units. I'll try to find a link.

Where does it say you can't make armies out of non land based units? Aircraft I get, if I understand this concept of airstrikes correctly, but not early naval units. Combining the hit points of war galleys could be very useful indeed.

David

Blake · October 13, 2001, 18:10

An argument for stacking workers:
It is less effort to move 1 stack of 3 units and give it one order than moving 3 units seperately and giving the same order 3 times...
It would reduce MicroManagment.
An argument for them working quicker (gameplay, not realism):
Say you have a job requiring 10 turns to complete.
3 settlers require 4 turns, but 2 would be free to work on a different task on the 4th turn.
a stack of 3 settlers would require 4 turns, resulting in 2 settlers work being completely wasted for one turn. Thus a slight (20%-30%) workspeed bonus would mean you could stack workers without having to worry about the cost-effectivness.

A 'follow' order would be cool, whereby a unit can be order to follow another unit, and an "assist" order, whereby a unit mimic's the unit it has been order to assist. This would have almost the same effect as stacking in terms of effort / amount of clicking / orders, but without any implicit bonuses.

Crouchback · October 13, 2001, 18:22

Blake,

Problem with using workers in an army is that once an army has been created you cant easily get the units out again and there is no way to replace them. So you're stuck with these 3/4 units in lockstep whether you need them to work together or not. Better to move workers around independently IMO.

David

Inverse Icarus · October 13, 2001, 19:17

putting a battleship/ageis/carrier into 1 army (fleet) could be very effective. ::nudge nudge::

Jaybe · October 14, 2001, 03:52

Dan has mentioned that Armies cannot be rearranged, reconstituted or anything, once it has left the city it was created in. It made the Armies way too powerful, otherwise.

Jingo, if we can put a fleet together, I definitely agree! OTH, with the multi-tile bombardment range of naval units, it may not be available.

I suspect with the added emphasis that (most) everyone is going to be putting into building culture, along with rush builds being MUCH less common, that there will be not nearly as many units to move around as people are used to from Civ2.