Did you know that your armies can do this: - Page 2

JohnM2433 · August 26, 2002, 15:53

I think they changed the healing rate for armies, so that it's 1 HP per turn per unit, 2 in a city. I don't know if they fixed the thing with the barracks, though. I didn't know armies can't pillage; I guess I never tried it and just never noticed the Pillage button was missing. Maybe they fixed that, too.

vmxa1 · August 26, 2002, 16:22

This is with 1.29F applied, no Pillage button, I guess I had forgotting or not use it before this as I usually do not make more than 1 army. I now have three due to the large number of GL's I am getting. They do get the 2 HP per turn in a city. I have barracks in all due to Sun..

Edit to correction of facts

Well I just double checked the healing of armies and it is only 1 HP per member of the army per turn barracks did nothing. I went from 13/19 to 17/19 on one army and the other went from 6/19 to 10/19. Yes they all have 4 units.

Panag · August 26, 2002, 17:39

hi ,

in the editor one can "flag" the option for pillage , ...

have a nice day

vmxa1 · August 26, 2002, 18:56

Thanks but I am just a stock player, no editoring my games. I do not mind the lack, just was surprised.

Thrawn05 · August 26, 2002, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

never - ever

okay , start with a couple of them next time , ....

have a nice day

never ever never never.

I think you know me by now who I always play (for those who don't it's Rome) and that doesn't help.

I've been playing since Dec, and I got an army from a goody hut back when 1.17f first came out. It was that I made a thread about the stack movement bug with armies.

Ethelred · August 26, 2002, 20:22

Its easier to get Great Leaders with Horse units than it is with Legions. They suvive more battles. I am playing the Chinese for the first time and I didn't get a GL till I was nearly finished with the Forbidden Palace. That was with a Rider. A lot of horsey battles preceeded that.

Usually I don't get leaders till I have tanks as I have mostly played a builder game. My last two games I have been warmongering starting with horses. Still don't get many leaders. I think nearly everyone claiming lots of leaders is playing on large or huge maps.

Tanks do help though. Units that blitz can attack two or even three times in one turn. Two succesfull attacks or two successful defenses in one turn ALWAYS promotes the regulars to elite. Thats not luck, its programmed that way.

Oh and Riders in an army can attack three times in one turn just like Panzers and Modern Armour. Cavalry and Mounted Warriors should do the same. Works best though when you are attacking inferior troops. I got my army of riders down to one hit each and that was two elite riders in the army. One less elite and the army would have been destroyed.

vmxa1 · August 26, 2002, 22:35

You may be correct as I am on a Huge map and 100's of battles. Industrial age is more than half over and I have now 12 GL's and started using them to made Ironclads just so I won't have one sitting around preventing me from getting another until I get to where a tech is learned that allows a new wonder. I can not recall having more than5-6 before this patch, but then I rarely used Military traits. Legions generated 7 and horse types 5. I know as I named the unit by appending a number to its type, hence Legenary7 and Calvary12. The late Legions are because I have had to send in an elite one to finish of nearly dead Infantry.

JohnM2433 · August 27, 2002, 12:11

Yeah, that probably explains it.

bigger map -> bigger empires -> bigger armies
more civs -> more enemies
bigger armies + more enemies -> more battles -> more elite units -> more Great Leaders

Playing on a Huge map, I got quite a few great leaders. I wasn't even playing as a warmonger per se, nor was I Militaristic (I played as the Americans), although I did make a point of finishing off every civ I went to war with.

Thrawn05 · August 27, 2002, 12:51

My game might be corrupt, even though I just did an uninstall/reinstall to "fix" a bug with the editor (it didn't work).

I don't build horseman only because I don't find them that powerful. I rather spend my shields on archers until other civs get spearman, then I start upgrading my warriors to legions and dismantle my archers on cities making legions (to make them pop out quicker).

I always play Huge 256x256 maps with 10 civs (I won't be bogged down with the 512 city limit as quickly and it's easier to keep track of the other civs).

In my current game, I'm in the industral age with all Rifleman and Calvary units. I just took out the greeks in the south (the game had them start in all tundra) so I can grab the only coal on the continent, but now I'm at war with Russia and Germany to the east (MPP stuff). I've razed every city and don't plan to stop (they want a war they are going to get one), I never stop in any war, they all must die.

Like I've said many times, not getting a GL or army is not a big deal for me at all. Not since Firaxis added stack movement command.

vmxa1 · August 27, 2002, 13:22

Not having Horsemen early hurts too much.You need the two movement unit to do some things such as get to the Barb coming for your worker/improvement/damaged unit, whatever. Besides they upgrade. I rarely make archers as I do not want 1 move unit that weak. Legionare, rifleman great, not archers.

Ethelred · August 27, 2002, 14:05

Archers are only good till you get horses. Horses really help in spreading fast not just with the attack of two and the retreat. They are far better than archers which are good for a quick rush on the nearest enemy city and with a huge map and only 10 civs you aren't likely to have cities that near.

On a standard map I desperatly need the long range moves of horses so you must be really crippling yourself on a huge map.

Panag · August 27, 2002, 15:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05

never ever never never.

I think you know me by now who I always play (for those who don't it's Rome) and that doesn't help.

I've been playing since Dec, and I got an army from a goody hut back when 1.17f first came out. It was that I made a thread about the stack movement bug with armies.

hi ,

, well , you should start a couple times with some , both armies and great leaders , this way you can use the unit and learn more about it , ...

tip ; there are some intresting wonders , ....

have a nice day

Thrawn05 · August 27, 2002, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Not having Horsemen early hurts too much.You need the two movement unit to do some things such as get to the Barb coming for your worker/improvement/damaged unit, whatever. Besides they upgrade. I rarely make archers as I do not want 1 move unit that weak. Legionare, rifleman great, not archers.

I disagree totaly. Archers are great so long as the enemy doesn't have spearmen. Many times I have cleansed the world of civs within 50-75 with them (I turn off respawn, I hate that) with my archers.

On the contrary, I lost many horseman. They are just archers with two movement. I lose too many to make me consider building them. At times I even skip Knights and B-Line to Cavalry, buying other techs to keep up so I don't become a "backwards" civ.

Speed is not an issue for me. I look for attack and defense numbers. The bottom line is the battle, and I for one rather build a legionary then a horseman, which have a hard enough time against spearman not to mention hoplites (which I need to go up against a lot). Also, horsemen die more often from enemy counter attacks, which is the reason I feel legionary's are better then immortals.

I know my views are not that very popular, but this is my opinion. I can find one good thing about horsemen, they are good for scouting.

Thrawn05 · August 27, 2002, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

, well , you should start a couple times with some , both armies and great leaders , this way you can use the unit and learn more about it , ...

tip ; there are some intresting wonders , ....

have a nice day

I know, but I try my best not to edit the game too much. If I'm going to do that, I'm going to have to do that with all civs.

vmxa1 · August 28, 2002, 01:33

Originally posted by Thrawn05
"I disagree totaly. Archers are great so long as the enemy doesn't have spearmen. Many times I have cleansed the world of civs within 50-75 with them (I turn off respawn, I hate that) with my archers."

50-75 of anything can be good, but suoerman is no good if he can't get there or gets there late.
And how long is it before they have spearmen, not long. A huge problem with archers are they can not be upgraded to anything worth while. Longbow when you finally get it is junk as Knights or better will be smacking them.
Horsemen are weak, but they can become so much more.
I must say skipping Knights is insane

Originally posted by Thrawn05
"Speed is not an issue for me. I look for attack and defense numbers. The bottom line is the battle, and I for one rather build a legionary then a horseman, which have a hard enough time against spearman not to mention hoplites (which I need to go up against a lot). Also, horsemen die more often from enemy counter attacks, which is the reason I feel legionary's are better then immortals"

If you dropped the speed is not an issue I could go along ith you. But speed is the issue much of the time, hence you could make use of Horses. True they are not good for many jobs, but a Hammer is a good tool, it just can't to everything.

Panag · August 28, 2002, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05

I know, but I try my best not to edit the game too much. If I'm going to do that, I'm going to have to do that with all civs.

hi ,

let each civ start with an army and a leader then , ...

have a nice day

Gen.Dragolen · August 28, 2002, 11:24

As nice as an army is, I still manage without them. In games where i take a militaristic civ, the GL's appear from defending units that are killed that same turn, and bye-bye GL...

But I agree that you should be able to unload an army and reform it. With one provision: the army doesn't disband and you don't get the GL back. It would be nice to have a standing army that you could replace the swordsmen with a Pikeman and a pair of Longbowmen.

And it would not be unfair: if we can do it, the AI Civ's can do it. Just need to write the code to allow it. It might make some of the militaristic civ's into serious killer civ's.

D.

Thrawn05 · August 28, 2002, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
50-75 of anything can be good, but suoerman is no good if he can't get there or gets there late.
And how long is it before they have spearmen, not long. A huge problem with archers are they can not be upgraded to anything worth while. Longbow when you finally get it is junk as Knights or better will be smacking them.
Horsemen are weak, but they can become so much more.
I must say skipping Knights is insane

If you dropped the speed is not an issue I could go along ith you. But speed is the issue much of the time, hence you could make use of Horses. True they are not good for many jobs, but a Hammer is a good tool, it just can't to everything.

Part 1: I skip knights because Cavalry is better, and you'll be suprised if you b-line for them how weak knights becomes. Not skipping and wasting time on researching knights is insane

Part 2: Speed is not an issue. So long if you have a well thought out plane. Keeping units in certain locations for chock points and such is FAR better then having a horseman sitting around waiting to intercept an army (no, the army unit, army as in enemy units) of swordsmen. I agree speed is an issue with the navy, but not with land battles. Sure you can get your horsemen to the enemy quicker, but good are they when they get there? Pulling down the enemy's pants? Get your legions right next the enemy border in key locations THEN DECLARE WAR! Or better, don't do it at all, this early in the game reputations can be ignored.

---
The thing with Rome is that you get archers right away, and a 2/1 unit is better then a 1/1 unit. So while I'm busy hammering my enemies, I'm researching for legionaries and then I withdraw my archers, dismantle them so that I build my legionaries much more quickly. Legionaries can act as pikemen while I'm b-lining to cavalry (which on the ways picks up musketmen).

Thrawn05 · August 28, 2002, 11:39

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

let each civ start with an army and a leader then , ...

have a nice day

I know, but I rather have a surprise. IF I get a GL... you'll be the first to know.

have a great day

Ethelred · August 28, 2002, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05

Part 2: Speed is not an issue. So long if you have a well thought out plane. Keeping units in certain locations for chock points and such is FAR better then having a horseman sitting around waiting to intercept an army (no, the army unit, army as in enemy units) of swordsmen. I agree speed is an issue with the navy, but not with land battles. Sure you can get your horsemen to the enemy quicker, but good are they when they get there? Pulling down the enemy's pants? Get your legions right next the enemy border in key locations THEN DECLARE WAR! Or better, don't do it at all, this early in the game reputations can be ignored.

That is not always possible. My present game I was at war with EVERYONE on my continent. I had to keep creating horses and sending them out to newly taken cities or my offensive would grind to a halt because nothing but horses could get to the cities in time for me to continue.

With Riders I was actually able to blitz. That is, take a city and then from there take one even farther away on the same turn. I was often expanding two cities away PER TURN. That can't be done with one move units. Can't even be done with two move units but at least with two move units I was able to expand outwards at one city per turn. It takes two to three turns to expand one city out with one move units and then you have to stop again. Have to replace more loses as well.

It took a long time afterward the rapid expansion for me to replace all the Riders with one move units which are better defenders. I didn't finish the job till I had Riflemen. I now have 52 cities on a standard map and most were taken with Riders. Early on it was Horses and the last ten or so were with Cavalry and by then it was getting hard for the Riders to handle the pike that were finally showing up.

Thrawn05 · August 28, 2002, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred
That is not always possible. My present game I was at war with EVERYONE on my continent. I had to keep creating horses and sending them out to newly taken cities or my offensive would grind to a halt because nothing but horses could get to the cities in time for me to continue.

Thats your problem. You shouldn't have a world war. I b-line for Cavalry and do just that when I'm at war (no more than 2 at a time).

Quote:

With Riders I was actually able to blitz. That is, take a city and then from there take one even farther away on the same turn. I was often expanding two cities away PER TURN. That can't be done with one move units. Can't even be done with two move units but at least with two move units I was able to expand outwards at one city per turn. It takes two to three turns to expand one city out with one move units and then you have to stop again. Have to replace more loses as well.

I group my cavalry/tank/etc. into a stack of 10. I hit multiple targets at the same time. Garrison damaged units (no more than 2) and have defensive units come in take their place.

Like I've said before, my views are not popular, so there is no need to drag this on. I find my way to be the best.

Ethelred · August 28, 2002, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05

Thats your problem. You shouldn't have a world war. I b-line for Cavalry and do just that when I'm at war (no more than 2 at a time).

It wasn't my idea. Hasn't happened to me in a long time either and never so early.

I was thinking it might be because I was playing a militaristic Civ on Monarch. All I know is suddenly everyone thought I was the target to go for despite loads of room for them to expand into elsewhere and the instigator Americans haveing to come through France to get at me with is measly warriors. Now it remains in the area it should have gone in the first place. Its homeland is mine and I was able to take it with France as my allie and by going through France to get at them.

France was mostly taken with Cavalry. They were close enough for foot soldiers but musketmen are just worthless for offense.

Quote:

I group my cavalry/tank/etc. into a stack of 10. I hit multiple targets at the same time. Garrison damaged units (no more than 2) and have defensive units come in take their place.

I would have been dead long before Cavalry showed up. I needed to take out the beligerents then, not later. I had over 40 cities when I got to Military Tradition and I got there first.

Quote:

Like I've said before, my views are not popular, so there is no need to drag this on. I find my way to be the best.

I find them to be best if I get the chance myself and if I am going the builder route. Which is what I did untill lately. Early conquest just isn't early if its done with Cavalry. They are great for a later conquest though. For the same reasons that horses are good in the Ancient Era.

vmxa1 · August 28, 2002, 17:53

Regardless of wheither it is best or worst, I refuse to make very many units with no upgrade path with the exception of Legionare. I remember all the early games I had where the AI would show up for war with low level units that could not be upgraded (not that the ai would have at the time). Archers fall in this camp in a big way for me. I do not even regard them as much when they first bcome available on a one on one basis. Yeah you can rush with them as you can with nearly any unit in mass. It is painful later to have all of those useless units and have to scrap them or toss them to the wolves.

Theseus · August 28, 2002, 18:25

Well, I wouldn;t call Archers exactly useless.

People forget that Longbowmen come with Invention, not Chivalry. There are times, for instance if you've got a Legion military, where adding a couple LBs to an attack stack can be useful.

Also, over time I've found that I can use up my non-upgradeable units pretty effectively as they become more and more obsolete. Home Guard. Armies. Insta-builders and extra garrisons in captured towns.

It's the price you pay for early power.

Ethelred · August 28, 2002, 18:29

There is one use for them. You can disband them in captured cities while the city is still in resistance. I found that artillery is ideal for that. Three or four and you have the improvement while the population is ranting and raving in the streets. Archers however, that is going to take a lot them. Them must be rendering the bodies for fat or something because they aren't worth much.

I need a Demon Barber of Fleet Street improvement to get more out of obsolete foot soldiers:

Fleet Street Barber Shop and Food Center Complex:

30 shields

Disbanded foot units pay half shield cost instead of one quarter. Units are converted into Prize Winning Pie. Does not effect disbandment of Naval Units nor Tanks, or Modern Armor.

Decreases unhappy population by one.

vmxa1 · August 28, 2002, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Well, I wouldn;t call Archers exactly useless.

People forget that Longbowmen come with Invention, not Chivalry. There are times, for instance if you've got a Legion military, where adding a couple LBs to an attack stack can be useful.

Also, over time I've found that I can use up my non-upgradeable units pretty effectively as they become more and more obsolete. Home Guard. Armies. Insta-builders and extra garrisons in captured towns.

It's the price you pay for early power.

No not exactly worthless, just nearly. Yes all obsolete units can be used to make shields or do home guard duty, which is what I do with some left over legionares. Archer will be hard to use for garrison of captured towns as they will not be there for some time (too slow)and can not be relied upon to defend once Knights or better are around, which is when I tend to do my real expansion. Note that does not mean it can not be done, only that I do not care for it.
Never bothered to make a longbow in all the games I have played. I will have discovered Chivalry already and not want any Bows of any kind. Talk about a dead end unit. Yeah I understand a LB could do this or that, but tell me who would trade me one Knight for one LB? Knights are not king, but they do become Calv and smack most of their contemparies with out much trouble.

Thrawn05 · August 28, 2002, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Regardless of wheither it is best or worst, I refuse to make very many units with no upgrade path with the exception of Legionare.

I combated this with my upgrade path. I did this not for me but for the AI's sake. I always hated charging in with modern armor while the AI still has it's old Swordsmen and longbowmen.

Here it is, UU's are understood ('...' means continue with normal path.

Warrior -> Swordsman -> Rifleman...
Archer -> Longbowman ->Rifleman...
Chariot -> Horseman -> Knight -> Cavalry -> Tank...
Frigate -> Ironclad -> Destroyer

The idea is, just retrain the guys to use new weapons and run tanks. The navy path was done only for the AI's benifit.

Theseus · August 28, 2002, 23:10

I'm with you, Thrawn, but I wanna see this Med. Infantry unit.

vxma1, don;t get me wrong, the Archer / LB path sucks. I'm just saying that for a limited number of units, achieving relative strength through numbers (i.e., the Archer Rush) has value. The later disposition of those units can be handled for greater or lesser benefit.

Would I ever BUILD a LB? Maybe after Longevity...

vmxa1 · August 28, 2002, 23:44

Theseus, sounds fair to me.

Trawn05, I think some form of that could be reasonable. Not sure what exactly is the way to go. Maybe a skip for some of the units in the path to not give too much value to cranking out massive numbers of warriors that will be upgraded. I dunno what makes the most sense though.

JohnM2433 · August 30, 2002, 16:17

Personally, I think I might upgrade the swordmen to knights. Knights are basically mounted swordmen, right? (I mean functionally, as they're used in the game. I'm not talking about taking a vow of chivalry or anything like that.) They're kind of a combination of the swordmen and horsemen that precede them. That way you would preserve the unit's status as an "attacker", too. Of course, you would then be upgrading a foot soldier to a mounted unit.

Cavalry to tanks isn't a straight "upgrade", really, because the unit sacrifices a movement point. But that's already the case for upgrading some of the UUs, anyway.

It would help to tie things together if there was some sort of mounted archer unit, too. I don't know if any such unit has been used historically to any significant degree.