Armies need revision

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Armies are unbalancing things. In my game, the Aztecs got a great leader, built an army and then won with in. This was in the Middle Ages with Knights. They build a military academy and then they are cranking out these armies. And on top of that, there are 5 units per army. wth? I thought armies were limited to only 4 with the Pentagon. Anyways, then they start demanding rubber, cvuz for some reason I had hella resources: 1 iron, 1 coal, 6 rubber, 3 horses, 1 ivory, 1 gems, 3 incenses. So then they roll over with with 5 armies. Not 2 or 3. FIVE armies. And I dint have a single one. And with the predictable result too. Since armeis never lose on attack against units in the same age, I got beaten hard.

The point is that one civ gets an army and can then conquer the whole world because no one else has any. It is too unbalancing.

There are a few ways to remedy this.

(1) No armies-bad idea
(2) Allow stacks to attack together- bad idea
(3) Make great leaders more common-good idea

More common great leaders wil mean that more wonders wil be completed quickly, but it also means that militarily all nations willbe more or less equal

[barefootbadass]

Armies are fine, most people find them too weak for the units that go in them and the fact that they can never be upgraded. If that ai had sent all those units in the 5 armies plus units from the shields to make the army, it would have been much worse for you(assuming the ai didn't screw it up dividing forces, all too common). With 5 units in an army you only have one attack instead of 5. Sure its almost invincible during that attack but it should be with all that is put into it.

[Jaybe]

FIVE units in an army? Whose mod are you working with, or did you change (in the editor) the max number of units in an army yourself???

[Blitzer]

I have never had any problems with armies and the AI. Frankly the AI is retarded when it comes to building them and it's not unusal to run over a few longbowman/musketeer/swordsman armies with a tank. Quite frankly I think it would be great if the AI used them more, it might give human players a reason to ACTUALLY BUILD A FEW OF THEIR OWN. As it stands, There's no way I'm building an army until I'm through the middle ages. Military academy takes a while to get going. Each army costs the same as a damn ancient wonder. Not sure on shield counts, but they are 10+ turns in a high production city in the modern era.

If armies are harassing your cities, use tactics. Beat the hell out of it with fast units before it can get to your borders... armies take years to heal, and that bad boy will be walking back for a long ass heal in a no barracks city.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Armies are unbalancing things. In my game, the Aztecs got a great leader, built an army and then won with in. This was in the Middle Ages with Knights. They build a military academy and then they are cranking out these armies. And on top of that, there are 5 units per army. wth? I thought armies were limited to only 4 with the Pentagon. Anyways, then they start demanding rubber, cvuz for some reason I had hella resources: 1 iron, 1 coal, 6 rubber, 3 horses, 1 ivory, 1 gems, 3 incenses. So then they roll over with with 5 armies. Not 2 or 3. FIVE armies. And I dint have a single one. And with the predictable result too. Since armeis never lose on attack against units in the same age, I got beaten hard.

The point is that one civ gets an army and can then conquer the whole world because no one else has any. It is too unbalancing.

There are a few ways to remedy this.

(1) No armies-bad idea
(2) Allow stacks to attack together- bad idea
(3) Make great leaders more common-good idea

More common great leaders wil mean that more wonders wil be completed quickly, but it also means that militarily all nations willbe more or less equal

Or you can do what I did. Covert your Palace into a Small Wonder with the ability to create Armies without a leader right off the bat. And no it's not cheating, it's removing a frustration so you're free to enjoy the game more. Not to mention that the AI can build one right away as well.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Willem
Or you can do what I did. Covert your Palace into a Small Wonder with the ability to create Armies without a leader right off the bat. And no it's not cheating, it's removing a frustration so you're free to enjoy the game more. Not to mention that the AI can build one right away as well.

Armies cost about as much as an ancient wonder to build(I think its 450 shields). This might cripple the ai by giving them something to waste shields on. It might also cripple you if you waste shields on them. Before you have some high production cities in industrial, I think it is a waste to build your own armies. You should be expanding, conquering, and building up your infrastructure.

[Willem]

Originally posted by barefootbadass


Armies cost about as much as an ancient wonder to build(I think its 450 shields). This might cripple the ai by giving them something to waste shields on. It might also cripple you if you waste shields on them. Before you have some high production cities in industrial, I think it is a waste to build your own armies. You should be expanding, conquering, and building up your infrastructure.

Well if I can turn the Palace into a small wonder, I can also lower the cost of Armies. I cut mine in half, but as a compensation I've also added a population cost. And it's not that much of a problem building them, since it's only my capital that can do it at first. So for all the rest of my cities, it's business as usual and I'm having no trouble expanding or building.

I like the way it's working out really. I've restricted my Armies to just foot soldiers and have been sticking my Swordsman into them, with lately Musketmen. I prefer moving only the one unit rather than a bunch of Swordsman. It makes the game a bit simpler to play.

I don't really know why they've put so many restrictions on Armies, they're not really any more powerful than attacking with 3 or 4 individual units. And the AI does use them, though maybe not as much as I do. I have 5 in my current game, and I don't see that I'm getting a huge advantage by having them, just less hassle moving units around. I've also added the "Make Larger Armies" flag to a number of other small wonders, and I'm thinking I might end up with an Army of 13 units by the end of the game. It's my solution to the lack of stack movement everyone is fond of complaining about here.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

If that ai had sent all those units in the 5 armies plus units from the shields to make the army, it would have been much worse for you(assuming the ai didn't screw it up dividing forces, all too common)

They had 3 Cavalry and 2 Riflemen. And they sent all their armies at the same time.

Armies are fine, most people find them too weak for the units that go in them and the fact that they can never be upgraded.

They cant be upgraded, but you can build a new one with the military academy, and thats what blows. Because if I have no army, and they got one and thet win, they can build A armies, where A=#of their cities/4 which in this case is about 50/4

I have never had any problems with armies and the AI. Frankly the AI is retarded when it comes to building them and it's not unusal to run over a few longbowman/musketeer/swordsman armies with a tank.

Not in my game. They had combined arms armies

FIVE units in an army? Whose mod are you working with, or did you change (in the editor) the max number of units in an army yourself???

No mod. No editor change. Normal, out of the box LE

Or you can do what I did. Covert your Palace into a Small Wonder with the ability to create Armies without a leader right off the bat. And no it's not cheating, it's removing a frustration so you're free to enjoy the game more. Not to mention that the AI can build one right away as well.

hmmm great idea

Armies cost about as much as an ancient wonder to build(I think its 450 shields). This might cripple the ai by giving them something to waste shields on. It might also cripple you if you waste shields on them. Before you have some high production cities in industrial, I think it is a waste to build your own armies. You should be expanding, conquering, and building up your infrastructure.

I dont have a problem with production. One of my lower end cities in the Industrial age, Chicago, pop 25, built the Hoover Dam in 8 turns.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia I dont have a problem with production. One of my lower end cities in the Industrial age, Chicago, pop 25, built the Hoover Dam in 8 turns.

Yeah but that is in industrial age. I'm talking about it hurting in particular in the ancient era.

Willem:

I hear you about the stack movement thing, I have thought about doing that with calvary and tanks once I have the military academy, but its a lot of units with reduced number of attacks, although you could get away with fewer armies than you need loose units to take out X defenders, with mobile units.

One thing, about 5 unit armies, I think when an army gets upgraded to elite it then has 5 units I've seen one of mine get upgraded although I didn't check how many units were in it, but one should note that with the pentagon and 4 units initially, the army is called 'veteran'.

[vmxa1]

No matter what you call an army they are not of much use IMO. I usually make one with one unit to get my win and then shelf it.

[Ironikinit]

They're good in a few spots, esp defence and actually can make the difference in the early war offensively.

But the OP in this thread was the first time I saw anybody argue that armies were too powerful. Normally the AI doesn't use them a whole lot... and when it has I just made peace until the army I was worried about was obsolete.

Now that I've said that, in my next game the Aztecs or somebody will kick my butt with an army.

[Willem]

Originally posted by barefootbadass

I hear you about the stack movement thing, I have thought about doing that with calvary and tanks once I have the military academy, but its a lot of units with reduced number of attacks, although you could get away with fewer armies than you need loose units to take out X defenders, with mobile units.

Well if you restrict the Armies to only load Foot soldiers, you're not really sacrificing any abilities since they had none to begin with. And I've figured out how I can build on the numbers within the Army to the point that I might be able to get 15 or more Rifleman, or even Marines, in a stack. That's going to be alot of firepower, just through sheer numbers. I probably won't have to use as many tanks etc. since my lowly foot soldiers will be a force to be reckoned with for sure.

It's working out great for my Artillery at any rate. I just had a stack of about 9 musketmen guard over a bunch of cannon who where reeking havoc on a city, and the AI didn't even try to attack them. I did however lose an army of 5 Swordsman to a single Samurai earlier. Man those guys are tough!

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Willem
Well if you restrict the Armies to only load Foot soldiers, you're not really sacrificing any abilities since they had none to begin with. And I've figured out how I can build on the numbers within the Army to the point that I might be able to get 15 or more Rifleman, or even Marines, in a stack. That's going to be alot of firepower, just through sheer numbers. I probably won't have to use as many tanks etc. since my lowly foot soldiers will be a force to be reckoned with for sure.

I always use footsoldiers and later mech infantry the way it is.

I've been thinking about in early modern era, an army or two with 2 tanks and 2 mech infantry, 14/13/2 instead of two armies, one all tanks and the other all mechs or both all tanks. You'd have 32 hp of defense 13 and a decent attack rating with both, to take out the first couple of defenders leaving the weaker ones for your free tanks. You might also have a mech infantry or two for holding the city or protecting the armies if they get in the red. This whole group has a move of 2 as opposed to normal footsoldier armies. I think the armies would be better able(according to average shield loss per attack, just a guess though, I haven't done any calculations) to take out defending mechs than lone tanks, which don't benefit from retreat vs. mechs. If there are no mechs you could just use your tanks and fortify your armies.