How do I break up an Army???

[Smitty258]

Hey guys. I'm new here, but a LONG time Civ geek. I have a question on Civ3...

I'm generally a builder in my play style, but those pesky Persians were on my continent and in the interests of Manifest destiny, I had to expel them

I got a leader in this war, and built an Army with him, but after the war was over I had no real use for the Army so I wanted to break it up and save the leader for a rainy day. I searched and searched but could not find an option for this.

The dumb mistake I made was I put the Army in a city, and thought maybe the "Disband" option might just break up the Army into it's individual units, but POOF, there goes 3 knights AND my leader! That Barrack sure got built quick though

So tell me, how do I split up an Army?

[Jon Shafer]

You can't.
Sorry.

[Coracle]

That's why a lot of us don't bother with Armies. You can't even upgrade units in them.

Before 1.29 I heard of a trick to use one of the key commands (was it J?) to move a unit out of an army. Anyone remember that? As I don't build armies, at least not until the very end of the game, I don't recall.

[Elagabalus]

Sad to say, units can not be extracted from armies.
Thus, armies can not are not very useful. I try to build one (1) army per game, only. Then that army tries to win a battle, thus allowing me to build:
1) Heroic Epic; 2) Military Academy.

The Military Academy is wrothless, save for it's culture contribution.

P.S. I have build armies 'by accident', i.e. when pushing the wrong button when trying to hurry an improvement with a Great Leader (the indicated keyboard shortcut does not work, instead seemingly moving map focus to your capital - in the ensuing confusion, I managed to "build army" with the Leader.. )

[zulu9812]

Supposedly, upgradeable units in armies was rejected during game deveopement because it was too powerful. I can see how it would be 'poweful', but would you expect anything less for 40 shields?

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Elagabalus
Sad to say, units can not be extracted from armies.
Thus, armies can not are not very useful. I try to build one (1) army per game, only. Then that army tries to win a battle, thus allowing me to build:
1) Heroic Epic; 2) Military Academy.

The Military Academy is wrothless, save for it's culture contribution.

P.S. I have build armies 'by accident', i.e. when pushing the wrong button when trying to hurry an improvement with a Great Leader (the indicated keyboard shortcut does not work, instead seemingly moving map focus to your capital - in the ensuing confusion, I managed to "build army" with the Leader.. )

It's actually control-H to hurry an improvement. Or you could just click the button...

[DeepO]

People who think armies are not worth it are playing the wrong difficulty level, they should move up at least one level. When your MAs are facing MIs, your cavalries are facing infantry, your knights are facing riflemen, etc. an army is what saves the day. But this only becomes apparant when there is a real challenge, if your tanks face spearmen you, indeed, don't need armies.

DeepO

[Smitty258]

Thanks for the response guys. It's a pain you can't do much with the armies. It doesn't really make any sense. Firaxis are you listening?

[Proserpine]

Some people like armies A LOT. There is a thread but I don't have the link right now. Personally I think they are pretty powerful, and useful esp. when attacking strongly defended positions. I usually try to build a few.

[DeepO]

You can't do much with armies? You should read Aeson's posts more, or any other of the warmongers which basically live by the armies.

References? head over to the strat forum, and read any of the larger threads, e.g. the MT IV, Babylon and on spoiler thread, the Oh so cold (of the map generator) thread, the ultimate power (TM) thread. Then come back here and tell me no-one has any use for armies

DeepO

[Theseus]

Wait for MP.

[Venger]

Armies blow. An army with three Modern Armor may never lose a battle, but they'll never win the day either, with a single attack, you'll have to have hordes of them. Screw that. Give me the same three Modern Armor, and I'll take a small city with them.

Why, oh why, did they not simply build off the CTP armies, which were so well done?

Venger

[Theseus]

MAs should generally not be put into Armies. Even Tanks are questionable, although useful as an MI nutcracker, and can often add some real punch to a remaining 3X Cav Army.

Venger, you feeling OK today?

[N. Machiavelli]

'Armies' as Civ3 percieves them, are *generally* not cost-effective. Instead, they may be used to create a souped-up version of a specific unit. I generally have one or two of them at any given time: one with the most powerful offensive units, the other with the best defensive units availible at the time. The attacker makes an excellent crack-troop. Fortified enemy infantry in key mountain territory that just won't move? Use the shock-army to take it out. Just took some key territory and know that the enemy has a shitload of units ready to counter attack? Put in the defender army.

Civ3 armies are, without a doubt, inferior to CtPII armies. That does not mean that they are completely without merit or worthless. Underpowered? Of course. Over-costly? Absolutely? So adapt. Use them in roles where they make the most use.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Coracle
That's why a lot of us don't bother with Armies. You can't even upgrade units in them.

Before 1.29 I heard of a trick to use one of the key commands (was it J?) to move a unit out of an army. Anyone remember that? As I don't build armies, at least not until the very end of the game, I don't recall.

Yeah, I made a post about that. There was a bug with the stack movement.

I guess they fixed that... I never got a leader since 1.17f from a goody hut. I find armies dumb since firaxis alowed stack movement.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
I find armies dumb since firaxis alowed stack movement.

They are totally different! When fighting easy troops, a stack is much more efficient, you don't 'lose' units that don't get used as the army runs out of movepoints. However, when fighting something hard, armies are key (or a combined arms approach when no army is available), or you would lose many troops from your stack.

Think of the following: a regular MI fortified in a metropolis, built on a hill which you want to kill. You have 4 veteran MAs to do the job. If you just use them one by one, there is a big chance you will lose the first two MAs. Further, it is a fact that once a unit is attacked twice in the same turn, it will at least get one promotion. That MI is at least veteran by now. You hit it again with an MA. Again, there is a big chance it will survive, and surely it will be elite when it does (probably with only a few HP remaining though). Again you attack, and the outcome is still not sure, still there is a chance that that elite MI survives. But so far you lost 4 MAs! (In general, you'd lose at least 2 units, but losing 4 is not far fetched)

OTOH, if you had a army of 4 veteran MAs, there was only a very slight chance it wouldn't kill the regular MI... basically you get the kill, and keep all your units.

The downside is that when you were very lucky, and the first MA would have killed it anyhow, there was no need to spend an army on it. But armies can blitz, meaning that they can attack again in the same turn if you have enough movement points left... if you risk it, of course.

No, in certain situations, there is nothing that beats an army. If you use them in the wrong situations, you just toss away your advantage, nothing else is lost. Armies may be too powerful for MP...

DeepO

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by DeepO

They are totally different! When fighting easy troops, a stack is much more efficient, you don't 'lose' units that don't get used as the army runs out of movepoints. However, when fighting something hard, armies are key (or a combined arms approach when no army is available), or you would lose many troops from your stack.

Think of the following: a regular MI fortified in a metropolis, built on a hill which you want to kill. You have 4 veteran MAs to do the job. If you just use them one by one, there is a big chance you will lose the first two MAs. Further, it is a fact that once a unit is attacked twice in the same turn, it will at least get one promotion. That MI is at least veteran by now. You hit it again with an MA. Again, there is a big chance it will survive, and surely it will be elite when it does (probably with only a few HP remaining though). Again you attack, and the outcome is still not sure, still there is a chance that that elite MI survives. But so far you lost 4 MAs! (In general, you'd lose at least 2 units, but losing 4 is not far fetched)

OTOH, if you had a army of 4 veteran MAs, there was only a very slight chance it wouldn't kill the regular MI... basically you get the kill, and keep all your units.

The downside is that when you were very lucky, and the first MA would have killed it anyhow, there was no need to spend an army on it. But armies can blitz, meaning that they can attack again in the same turn if you have enough movement points left... if you risk it, of course.

No, in certain situations, there is nothing that beats an army. If you use them in the wrong situations, you just toss away your advantage, nothing else is lost. Armies may be too powerful for MP...

DeepO

From my experence with Armies and stacks, is that there is no difference. Armies are as good as the top unit on the stack, and a stack is as good as any unit on the tile. Units die in armies just as much as a lone unit. Thefore, IMHO, armies are bad. Unless Firaxis does somthing such as the attack and defense number of the army equals to the total number from all of the units' attack defense points, same with movements, then I would bother with armies. Until then, IMHO, armies are a rip.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Units die in armies just as much as a lone unit.

What do you mean?

Units in Armies don't die unless the whole Army does. In fact, this means that they get promoted fairly often.

[DeepO]

Thrawn05, did you play the MT IV game? There it becomes apparent very fast what the exact difference is. Loosing units is only half of it, the problem lies in the promotions that troops get when single units aren't able to kill it immediately.

An additional advantage is that when facing some kind of artillery on defense, an army is only hit once, when single units are hit as many times as there are artillery... especially when facing radars this is an important factor, you can easily gain an extra 2 HP on an army (lose them on single units might be better put)

BTW, units in armies do not die until the whole army is 0 HP...

DeepO

[Palleon]

Armies aren't all bad, especially in a game that goes to modern times. Put 3 mech infantry in one, and use those to defend your cities. I don't like to do it to modern armor because 3 individual ones get 9 attacks instead of 3, but with just defense units, it can be a fantastic deterrant.

[Dom Pedro II]

I want to know when the programmers were all sitting around coming up with the Army idea, did not the idea of getting units OUT of the army not occur to them?? I really would like to know what the thought process was. As I never use armies, I'm not really complaining, its more of a point of interest.

[Jaybe]

Dom Pedro II, while under development (before 10/30/01) you COULD take units out of armies! It led to abuses, made the armies TOO powerful in the eyes of the developers. Perhaps it was a matter of players taking advantage of the flexibility and the AI not, I do not know.

[Elagabalus]

Armies suck because:
* Armies are VERY expensive - you forfeit completing a city improvement, e.g. a wonder. The cost at the Military Academy escapes me, but I recall it as rather steep, also.
* You get one attack for three or four units
* Combined arms are not really doable - if you put one Mech Inf in with your 2 Modern Armor, you slow it down to move 2 and kill its blitz ability
* You cannot disband the army and get the individual units back - that is all I ask for
* Armies never retreat (at least I have never seen it happen) - when its attack against a heavily fortified position (e.g. vs. Inf in Metropolis) fails, it SEEMS that the army (three Tanks) always dies - I have not experimented a lot with this, but it has been the case all the times I have seen it thus far (observations from patches 1.16f, 1.17f, and 1.21f - not 1.29f). In contrast, of three tanks two usually survive - and you can call it off earlier if the first two attacks have failed miserably (and you can kill off three enemies if you are really lucky).

I don't know - I have never built slow armies early in the game. Mine have usually been Knights, Cavalry, or Tanks (escept for my early (before I knew better) army - two cavalry and one musketman :-( ).

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Elagabalus
Armies suck because:
* Armies are VERY expensive - you forfeit completing a city improvement, e.g. a wonder. The cost at the Military Academy escapes me, but I recall it as rather steep, also.

So change the cost in the editor.

* You get one attack for three or four units

Nope, I attacked with a 4-unit all-Cavalry army and more than one Cavalry attacked.

* Armies never retreat (at least I have never seen it happen)

Not sure about this one - you could be right.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Elagabalus
* You get one attack for three or four units
* Combined arms are not really doable - if you put one Mech Inf in with your 2 Modern Armor, you slow it down to move 2 and kill its blitz ability
* Armies never retreat

I don't know - I have never built slow armies early in the game.

1. Nope, Armies have blitz, although the units within them do not... meaning, 4X Cavs can attack 4 times, but the same is true for 4X Tanks.

2. Combined arms is very effective in Armies, but not with the a) mixing fast and slowmovers, and b) wasting the blitz abilities of Tanks and MAs.

3. Not sure about retreat... I think you're right.

4. Slowmover Armies are great in certain circumstances... ever play Rome?

[alexman]

Originally posted by Theseus
MAs should generally not be put into Armies. Even Tanks are questionable, although useful as an MI nutcracker, and can often add some real punch to a remaining 3X Cav Army.

Theseus, I've seen you post this philosophy a couple times before, but I still can't understand it.

1) Why would you put a tank in a 3XCav Army? You reduce the movement of the Army from 3 to 2. You reduce it's potential blitz attacks from 3 to 2. Why don't you just wait and add a MA which has a movement of three also?

2) MA Armies are great for winning up to three difficult battles in the same turn without losses. They weren't great before Armies had blitz, but now they are.

3) I agree about not putting tanks in Armies, unless it's adding to a 3X Knight Army or a 3X Mech Infantry Army. The latter is very good way to increase the offensive firepower of a defensive unit, without sacrificing the extra movement of MA.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by alexman
1) Why would you put a tank in a 3XCav Army? You reduce the movement of the Army from 3 to 2. You reduce it's potential blitz attacks from 3 to 2. Why don't you just wait and add a MA which has a movement of three also?

Technically, you're right of course. By this time, however, most of my attacks are timed to the speed of Tanks, so degrading the given Army to 2 moves instead of 3 is not so bad.

This does mean that if I get as far as MA the given Army is too slow... in certain cases I have reserved 3X Cav Armies for the later addition of an MA, which is of course a much better match.

I guess it depends on what I'm facing... if the enemy still has just Infantry, I'll try to wait for MA. If I'm facing MIs, then the 3X Cav Armies just aren't good enough, and I'll add a Tank.

2) MA Armies are great for winning up to three difficult battles in the same turn without losses. They weren't great before Armies had blitz, but now they are.

I'm still undecided... this is an unbelievably powerful Army, but in a 4X you're wasting up to NINE attacks. Also, given that the same unit surviving 2 battles in a turn is automatically promoted, there are too many opportunities for GL generation lost.

3) I agree about not putting tanks in Armies, unless it's adding to a 3X Knight Army or a 3X Mech Infantry Army. The latter is very good way to increase the offensive firepower of a defensive unit, without sacrificing the extra movement of MA.

I try not to have 3X Knights, but if I do, a Tank is a GREAT match. Tanks and MIs are also great together.
_________________________

On a related note, I'm also perfectly happy to add an MI to a 3X Infantry Army, even though it obviously loses its speed.

I probably have as much fun with mixed-unit Armies as anything in the game... the permutations allow for almost surgical precision in application.

Also, they make me fearless in certain cases. Even a 2X Swordsman Army is the equivalent of a Great White shark on the battlefield.

[Changmai Beagle]

I use them all the time as nutcrackers. They can often kill that one pesky high defense unit in a city. If I kill it on the third or fourth army unit, I`ve saved 2 or three units - and since the defender doesn`t get the experience gain in between the win is easier to achieve.

[Pliny The Elder]

You can edit armies, to be able to unload units...

[sabrewolf]

In contrast, of three tanks two usually survive - and you can call it off earlier if the first two attacks have failed miserably (and you can kill off three enemies if you are really lucky).

if you attack with 3 tanks you might get 3 separate attacks. the problem is, that the AI unit has 3 chances to get promoted... and the second won battle in the same turn ALWAYS promotes the unit.

so attack a veteran MI with two tanks --> maybe it lost 3 HPs, but it's elite. usually there's another unit to defend the city against the last tank.

and btw: don't attack MIs with tanks... use MAs against them and use the tanks against the infantry waiting behind