Upgrading units in armies

caveman · May 6, 2002, 15:23

I've got 5 armies of 4 tanks each. I just got Modern Armor. Can I not upgrade the tanks in the armies to armor. If not, what were they thinking?
If so, how?

Inverse Icarus · May 6, 2002, 15:26

you cant. firaxis doesn't like doing things right.

during the modern age still have a standing army of knights, in almost every game i play.

Grrr · May 6, 2002, 15:44

Thats why Leaders are only good for wonders.

Inverse Icarus · May 6, 2002, 15:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr
Thats why Leaders are only good for wonders.

but sometmies you just have too many leaders / oppurtunities to get leaders that have have to use them anyway. armies arent that bad early on. the greeks can have a hoplite and 2 swordsmen... 3/3/1 i think.

Theseus · May 6, 2002, 16:58

Improve Armies over time.

Instead of 4 Tanks, I would have left it at 3, and added 1 MA. The unit still rocks, as the MA will be the first to fight in any given battle, with it's full # of hit points (until the very end). The Tanks absorb any extreme losses.

Coracle · May 6, 2002, 21:50

This is why nobody builds Armies. Why waste a Leader for a unit of limited value the units in which can't even be upgraded?

There are NO MILITARY LEADERS in Civ 3, none that can effect combat the way Alexander, Napoleon, Caesar, Hannibal, or Frederick the Great could.

Oh yes, I tried editing Army units to make it possible to unload units from them. Didn't work - hardcoded. Perhaps there is a trick with the new patches to do it, but since I still don't think they are worth it I never have them.

Inverse Icarus · May 6, 2002, 21:57

what i would have done would be to make the leader rush an improvement, or 5 cities worth of military units. that way you could get a sizeable force, as if the "great leader" stirred up soem patriotism.

and armies? they should always exist. you should be able to build an army leader at any time in any city, and they shuoldnt be so costly. it makes them seem so powerful but they really suck.

question: is an army considered 1 unit for boat transporting?

Tuberski · May 6, 2002, 22:04

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
what i would have done would be to make the leader rush an improvement, or 5 cities worth of military units. that way you could get a sizeable force, as if the "great leader" stirred up soem patriotism.

and armies? they should always exist. you should be able to build an army leader at any time in any city, and they shuoldnt be so costly. it makes them seem so powerful but they really suck.

question: is an army considered 1 unit for boat transporting?

No, I tried to cut an army on a galley and it wouldn't let me.

Sean · May 6, 2002, 23:50

Yes, it is really frustrating not being able to upgrade the units in armies, so I generaly don't build armies until calvary.

The Rook · May 7, 2002, 00:21

Dont know why everybody hates armies. Yes, I know they have some problems, but if you build the acadamy, and then just start building armies, you could knock the AI off the face of the earth. I had about 8 armies and I was invincible mlitary-wise. I use the armies to support each other, and build specialized armies like an army of elite mech inf that I use to protect my artillery during assaults.

asleepathewheel · May 7, 2002, 00:28

I personally don't mind the no upgrade policy. To me, it adds more strategery to the game. Do I make the army now, of mws incase there is a well fortified hill town? Or do I use the GL on a wonder, in the hopes that I get a GL later on to make an army.

If you really don't like it, you can just disband the army, puts out quite a bit of shields when you do. Not sure if you could do that in the city building the army, if you could, then you would get maybe a new half-priced army.

Theseus · May 7, 2002, 00:57

1. Agree with The Rook.

2. Great idea, aatw.

3. I believe Armies are counted as the number of member units + 1 for the purposes of transport.

Lastly, Armies are great. Nutcracker, indomitable defense, ultimate pillage cover...

I'm throwing down the gauntlet... those who vote nay to Armies, when MPP comes around, stand by your words. I will use Armies, and you, on your honor, will not.

Let's see how you feel about it when a 4X Legion Army shows up on your Spearman's doorstep... or how 'bout a blitzing 4X MA Army when you are still on Infantry. Not to mention mixed-unit Armies.

Buh-bye.

Stuie · May 7, 2002, 08:52

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
what i would have done would be to make the leader rush an improvement, or 5 cities worth of military units. that way you could get a sizeable force, as if the "great leader" stirred up soem patriotism.

and armies? they should always exist. you should be able to build an army leader at any time in any city, and they shuoldnt be so costly. it makes them seem so powerful but they really suck.

question: is an army considered 1 unit for boat transporting?

Additional options for use of the Great Leaders would be welcome.

As for armies, I like them as is, but couldn't you use the editor to make them available from the outset (or at least tied to a very early advance) and at a reduced cost? Be interesting to see how a game thusly modded played out.

Cookie Monster · May 7, 2002, 09:41

I'm definately a pro army person.

They are great attackers/defenders in any age.

An army of swordsmen can defeat a knight.

An army of tanks is pretty unstoppable until mech infantry.

Your first victorious army allows you to produce the academy when the tech is available. This in turn increases your culture slightly. Any little bit helps here WRT culture.

Keep armies firaxis don't get rid of them for MP.

Solver · May 7, 2002, 09:50

Armies should be kept, but they're slightly weaker than they were supposed to be before the release - then they were supposed to be something of great power.

Currently, it's just a unit with more hit points, that can't be upgraded. If I got an army of Samurai, and everyone gets Nationalism (Gunpowder, to a lesser extent), all I can do with the army is defending.

When playing Militaristic civs, I noticed that there are lots of Leaders, despite my peacful style. And always use your first one to build an army, just for the Heroic Epic.

The Rook · May 7, 2002, 10:32

I think the fact that you can't upgrade units in the army was an oversight on Firaxis part. It doesn't seem like it was a desired feature of the game. It doesn't make any sense. Still, armies are useful. I'm sure people can do just as well without them, but I have found a way to use them for great affect.

zulu9812 · May 7, 2002, 12:25

Not being able to upgrade units in armies wasn't an oversight: it was a design decision. Can't understand why, though.

Mickeyj · May 7, 2002, 13:01

I agree I never build armies as you loose your ability to attack more than once.

player1 · May 7, 2002, 13:17

FIRAXIS said several times, that UPGRADEABLE armes were too powerfull (unbalancing) in beta, so they removed them in final version of Civ3.

Redstar · May 7, 2002, 13:29

i think its fine the way it is...you can build an army and not fill it right away..so you can get more leaders.

even better -- when you win often enough with your army you can build small wonders to allow you to make armies...so in a way you can upgrade at your convenience (by spitting out new ones).

The part that is not fine is covered in another good post.

Rhuarc · May 7, 2002, 13:43

I also like using armies, although I feel that units within an army should be able to fight using flanking and things. But overall I really like the use of the army. Even though I never manage to get as many armies as I would like!!

zulu9812 · May 7, 2002, 14:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
An army of swordsmen can defeat a knight.

Of couse they will. You're talking about 3 units beating down one unit. Outnumbered 3 to 1? Of course that knight is gonna lose. Jesus. What's your point? That one big army costing 39 shields is good at beating a single unit that only costs 7 shields?

Austin · May 7, 2002, 14:36

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
Not being able to upgrade units in armies wasn't an oversight: it was a design decision. Can't understand why, though.

Because until fairly recently armies tend to ossify and stick with technology and methods even when newer advancements pass them by.

For example despite all the evidence to the contrary the British army in 1916 was STILL trying to use Napoleonic style tactics (bombard, then charge) against machine guns, with predictable results.

The die hard cavalry charges of von Bredow into the muzzles of French riflemen in 1870, the stubborn refusal of many armies to accept the consequences of gunpowder, Admiral Sir Tom Phillips refusing to admit AFTER Pearl Harbor that ships could be sunk by aircraft right up until the Japanese sunk him, the list goes on and on.

Remember that grouping your troops together into an army means you need a lot of beaurocracy. And bearocracies don't like change.

Austin

zulu9812 · May 7, 2002, 14:43

Hold up Austin - the Armies in civ3 are not the armies of the real world. The armies you're talking about are equivalent to your civ's entire military. I always thought of Civ3's Armies as being brigades or corps - simply large collections of troops.

zulu9812 · May 7, 2002, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Let's see how you feel about it when a 4X Legion Army shows up on your Spearman's doorstep... or how 'bout a blitzing 4X MA Army when you are still on Infantry. Not to mention mixed-unit Armies.

Armies cannot airdrop or blitz, no matter which units are inside.

player1 · May 7, 2002, 14:47

ARMIES CAN BLITZ (in 1.21f patch)

Evil_Eric_4 · May 7, 2002, 14:49

Quote:

I agree I never build armies as you loose your ability to attack more than once.

Micky--
This has been fixed.Any army can attack as many times as they have units. Unless a unit in the army dies -then the next resumes the attack but you lose that units attack.
Example--An army of 4 Cavalry attacks a city--If the first attack succeeds then you will be allowed to attack again-up to 4 times.
If however the first cavalry fails it will retreat and the next unit will resume the battle.In this case then you would only have 2 attacks after that.
I dont know if im making sense to you but these are my observations in 1.21.

One question I do have though is why cant you form Artillary armies?
Even if it gives no benefit I would still build them just so I can move the things 4 at a time.

ALPHA WOLF 64 · May 7, 2002, 14:53

Armies are only as strong as their weakest unit, therefore, they should only be allowed blitz if all its units can blitz, and its speed should be that of its slowest unit. You shouldnt be getting unit cheats just for having them in a army. Armies traditionally move/react slower than a unit.

Evil_Eric_4 · May 7, 2002, 14:56

I agree AW

Leave it to firaxis to go from one extreme (useless armies) to the other (blitzing foot soldiers).

Austin · May 7, 2002, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
Hold up Austin - the Armies in civ3 are not the armies of the real world. The armies you're talking about are equivalent to your civ's entire military. I always thought of Civ3's Armies as being brigades or corps - simply large collections of troops.

This is true, however even within armies you often have big differences. When von Seekt and Co. where hashing out the doctrine that was to become stormtrooper tactics on the Eastern Front during WWI, Falkenhein was trying to take Verdun by bashing it old style.

Having legions running around in 1940 is a bit silly though.

Austin