Armies suckman

[civjunkie]

IMHO, building an army is a waste of a leader. OK: build one and have it win a battle, then you can build Heroic
Epic and get more leaders to build good things with;
but I'd rather have a stack of mobile units (even
Horsemen) than a slow-moving army. Frankly,
I don't see the point of armies. Can anyone enlighten me?and

[Theseus]

Nice attitude.

Here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=46197

[vmxa1]

Not sure if I can, but I will say that armies have several uses. biggest for me:
1- pacifiy captured cities
2- bust down strong defensive units

[civjunkie]

OK, have read the thread on armies: I must admit I haven't used them much, I got the impression from the Civilopedia that they only had 1 MP, but I gather they have the MP of the slowest unit in them. Still ... I like to develop peacefully and save my strength for a big battle in the modern era. In my current game (Americans-Regent-huge map) it is 1824 AD; I have assembled a kick-ass force of 38 modern armor, 120 MI, 13 elite tanks and assorted other units. With this force I have
attcked the Iroqouis, who have nothing better than infantry and cavalry, and in a single turn I have so far captured or razed 15 of their cities, created 3 GLs (which I have used to rush spaceship parts - I mean I am WAY ahead in science): so what did I need an army for? My objectives are limited, I just want to corral all the uranium so they can't ever build nukes, finish my spaceship, then rack up points waiting for the last moment to launch, without the chance of the other civs
starting a major fracas. Therefore I don't intend to grab any of their big cities or try to control them, and for this kind of warfare I don't miss having armies.

[Theseus]

Farir enough... by the time you have MA (much less facing only Infantry), Armies are sort of superfluous.

Uh, hmm, er... there's a whole period of the game that happens before then?

Do me a favor, and at least try it... I just played CFC GOTM 11, and having a Samurai + 2x Horsemen Army at the van of my forces just felt GOOD!!

[Jaybe]

I am finding that MA facing Mech Infantry entrenched in metros or in mountains results in the loss of too many MA for a Republic. Bring on the Armies!!

Even then, my armies are down to half strength (or worse) after knocking down 1 or 2 MI and it's back to a barracks for refit. Unfortunately, I had been undisciplined and had my 6+ armies going against multiple targets, not all focused on a single city or SOD at one time.

[coryl]

I only build an army with a GL if there are no wonders to build and I'm not going to research a wonder tech anytime soon.

I usually find armies to be excessive and I'd rather have 3-4 separate units. I use artillery and aircraft to crack tough defensive units instead of using offensive armies. Defensive armies often deter the computer from attacking completely and I want them to expose their offensive units (Knights, Cavalry, Tanks) so I can kill them.

I'm also a builder who plays on Emperor and try to push off war until I get Cavalry.

Killing an opponent's army is very satisfying though.

[planetfall]

civjunkie--

Armies aren't needed. However using one GL for an army and then winning is valuable for Heroic Epic and higher odds of more GL's.

I started playing with armies not because it is necessarily better, just more fun. Often I will use military academy to build shell armies. Just General and no units, until tanks/panzers/MA arrive. 12 MA can take out a city of 18 with 4 Mech Inf, but I hate losing the MA's. I would rather use 2 armies of 4 MA to remove the elite Mechs with no unit lost and then use the other 4 MA for the remaining defenders. I might need a few more MA initially, but I lose less units with armies than I did when I didn't use them. The biggest disadvantage of doing this is armies don't generate GL's. So I tend to use one or two armies to knock out the strongest defender, and then let normal force work.

I would not agree that armies suck, but you lose very little by not playing with them. They are somewhat like radar artillery, interesting but not really needed. They are not in the suck category like-- stealth fighters, explorers, privateers, and helios.


-- PF

[WarpStorm]

In addition to the good things about armies mentioned previously, they get blitz even if none of the units in them have it.

[Lucarse]

Armies are useful in a CIV military sense for destroying heavily fortified units or that pesky first unit in the city.

How many times have you chewed up 2 or more units trying to dslodge a heaviliy fortified unit?? use an army job done.

(bombarding/bombing also works of course)

[civjunkie]

>>They are not in the suck category like-- stealth fighters, explorers, privateers, and helios.>>

Hey, I like explorers. Much better than they were in Civ2.

[Theseus]

I noticed in your other "suck" thread (at least be more creative...) that you said you'd rather have individual units, especially fastmovers.

First, fastmovers don;t always retreat.

Second, in an Army, the attacking unit can use ALL of its hps without dying (except the last one, of course).

Third, you don't understand the power of Army hps... if you have say, a Tank on top of 2 Horsemen, the Tank is the attacker on each successive blitz attack, using 1/3 of the remaining hps.

You don;t know the game well enough to knock it yet... yeah, you may have been a primo Civ2 player (so was I, and many others around here), but it's a new ballgame, jack.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by civjunkie
My objectives are limited, I just want to corral all the uranium so they can't ever build nukes, finish my spaceship, then rack up points waiting for the last moment to launch, without the chance of the other civs
starting a major fracas. Therefore I don't intend to grab any of their big cities or try to control them, and for this kind of warfare I don't miss having armies.

One thing you should be made aware of is that, when you build the spaceship-game over, once you build the 10th piece it launches.

[Sheik]

I always build an army unless Sun Tzu is an option. Armies open up so many possibilities and I find them to be fairly powerful.

[vmxa1]

Like I said an army is great to sit o a city with a few resisters. I often have an early army of calvary left over and they can sit on a city and it will not rebel. The later armies of say MI can sit on a city that is in danger of a counter attack. Not many counter attacks have enough behind them to crack it. A nice MA army or two can come in to a city and bust that defender without having to send in 3 or 4 units losing most. When I have pacified the previous city or the one with the MI defending is no longer in danger they move up to sit on the next one. I may have made many armies if I generate lots of leaders late in the game with no strutures needing a rush.

[civjunkie]

um, well. Two of my MIs just killed an Iroquois army: the poor saps just kept stepping up like sheep to the slaughter while the MIs blazed away. (If I saw
what I think I saw, the first MI took them down to 1hp each and the second one finished them off). If they had been a stack instead of an army it would have taken 3 MIs to kill them. So there are apparently downsides to armies on defence ...

As to attack, if I have a stack of a tank and two horsemen, surely I can choose to attack with the tank first if I want to? And there might be times when I don't want to, e.g. if their top unit is down to 1hp and I want to save the tank to deal with the healthy unit below it.

OK, I accept that armies have some advantages over
stacks, but there are some advantages that go the
other way. It's not clearcut.

[Artifex]

one drawback is armies take so long to heal back up to full combat strength..and when they take on a tough fortified defender in a city many times they end up in the red taking several turns to replinish their strength.

[Barchan]

Until you've seen the power of a swordsman or Legion army or, God help us all, an Immortal army, don't talk smack about 'em. Admittedly, once you get to the MI/MA age, armies are pretty much worthless. But in the age before ships and airplanes, where catapults are your best artillery piece, an army of slow but powerful attackers can be decisive. Yeah, horsemen are nice and all, but they're not as powerful as they used to be since they don't always retreat. If you've got an army (or two, if you really want to crack skulls) you can use it to take down the best city defender and let your mobile units pick off the stragglers. If you've ever thrown away a stack of attackers trying to dislodge a Hoplite or Legion from a hilltop city, you'll appreciate the utility of armies. Also, their defensive power is ridiculous in the ancient eras. It's almost impossible to budge a Roman Legion army fortified in a city without bringing every attacking unit in the world to bear.

I'm not saying armies are the best thing on the market, and there are games and civs for which they're pretty much useless. But if you're going to go on the rampage and want an early juggernaut, give 'em a go.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Barchan
Until you've seen the power of a swordsman or Legion army or, God help us all, an Immortal army,

Oh yes, I love them. There's no worthy opponent for an Immortals army for a very long time. I didn't try them on riflemen, but I wouldn't be surprised if my army killed some.

I'm not sure if somebody mentioned it or not, but an army of defender units is almost unbeatable.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Barchan
Until you've seen the power of a swordsman or Legion army or, God help us all, an Immortal army, don't talk smack about 'em. Admittedly, once you get to the MI/MA age, armies are pretty much worthless. But in the age before ships and airplanes, where catapults are your best artillery piece, an army of slow but powerful attackers can be decisive. Yeah, horsemen are nice and all, but they're not as powerful as they used to be since they don't always retreat. If you've got an army (or two, if you really want to crack skulls) you can use it to take down the best city defender and let your mobile units pick off the stragglers. If you've ever thrown away a stack of attackers trying to dislodge a Hoplite or Legion from a hilltop city, you'll appreciate the utility of armies. Also, their defensive power is ridiculous in the ancient eras. It's almost impossible to budge a Roman Legion army fortified in a city without bringing every attacking unit in the world to bear.

I'm not saying armies are the best thing on the market, and there are games and civs for which they're pretty much useless. But if you're going to go on the rampage and want an early juggernaut, give 'em a go.

[WarpStorm]

In my current game I just built an army of elite Samurai. It rocks. That blitz attack is eating up cities. All the low tech neighbors are worried.

[nationalist]

I find armies useful for guarding my cities. By endgame, I usually have armies of Mech. Inf. guarding all of my core cities. I build at least one army in every game, to allow me to build the Heroic Epic and get more leaders.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by nationalist
I find armies useful for guarding my cities. By endgame, I usually have armies of Mech. Inf. guarding all of my core cities. I build at least one army in every game, to allow me to build the Heroic Epic and get more leaders.

Ah, yes, the HE. That's another BIG argument for armies. The HE could come in very handy in pre-modern era times, but if you've got it by the time MA comes around, you'll have more GLs than you know what to do with. My last game I was the Indians (non-mil!), and I couldn't get rid of my GLs fast enough once the MA began mowing down the competition; I was using some of them to rush factories in newly-captured cities just to make space for the next GL to be created. Seriously, I believe I had at least nine GLs on Monarch level. As a Militaristic civ, you could count on even more GLs, which you need to do to overcome the lack of building bonuses in other areas. I know, it's realllllly tempting to use that first GL to rush an ancient wonder (particularly the Great Library, if it's available), but building that army, and then the HE, will almost guarantee you many more GLs to come in the following years.

[vmxa1]

I make some armies alright, but why would you have them in your core cities? If you are making armies of MI, those cities should not need defending. They should have a big buffer and be quite safe. With your rails you can get help back if any troops come in from air/sea.

[civjunkie]

OK, I replayed the combat I mentioned above, just to get a closer look. What happened is this: one MI took out a cavalry army singlehandedly, in one turn. As I said, the poor saps just stood up, one by one, and let themselves be mowed down. If they'd been stacked instead, it would have taken me 3 MIs to take them out.
So I'm not that impressed with armies on defence, though I take the point that AI has a phobia about them.

I think the division in this debate is really between the early and late warriors: personally I never fight early, I'd rather husband my resources and attack when I have a decisive advantage. Also I usually play on a huge map, so it takes a long time to make contact, and large-scale warfare really isn't practicable until I have RRs. By then armies are a waste of time. Next game I'll try picking a fight early, just so I can build HE and get the kulcha.

Incidentally, I can't find any reference to blitz in the civilopedia or manual. What it it? If a 1.29f feature, I'm waiting to apply 1.29f until I've finished my current scenario (when I try appying it to a scenario in progress, it crashes)

[Theseus]

Uhhh, I'm not impressed with Cavs on defense either. Against MI... yeah, good example. Try attacking a 3x MI Army in a metro with a Tank.

Blitz allows the individual units in an Army to attack in one turn (it came in one of the patches).

If you don;t fight early, you'll have a heck of a time on Deity. There are some ideas re same in the Strategy forum.

[Catt]

Originally posted by civjunkie
OK, I replayed the combat I mentioned above, just to get a closer look. What happened is this: one MI took out a cavalry army singlehandedly, in one turn. As I said, the poor saps just stood up, one by one, and let themselves be mowed down. If they'd been stacked instead, it would have taken me 3 MIs to take them out.
So I'm not that impressed with armies on defence, though I take the point that AI has a phobia about them.

I think what some of the others have been trying to point out (politely) is that you apparently lack the experience with armies to generate sufficient confidence in your opinion among readers of the forum that "armies suck man."

An army is not a magical unit that guarantees a victory in all circumstances; the strength and utility of an army depends quite significantly on the strength of its constituent units. Forming a conclusion that defensive armies are not impressive based on a "12 attack" unit (MI) defeating a "3 defense unit" (Cav) is silly.

Now, I myself have concluded that offensive armies suck because my 3-warrior army (all elites, mind you) failed to defeat a lone infantry unit!

Catt

[Theseus]

... but you should see the way that 3x Spearmen Armies take out Tanks!!!

[Arrian]

I like the nutcracking & stack defending ability of a swordsman army in the ancient era. Nearly guaranteed death for any single unit I need to kill, and defense the AI will not mess with. The other reason I like swordsman armies is that I am not sacrificing units that could later be upgraded. An elite* swordsman can never become something better, and cannot produce another leader. Therefore it is best used in an army, which cannot produce leaders anyway.

I love knight armies and cavalry armies. After that it doesn't matter unless you have to deal with mech inf. in metros.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Have I ever told you about mixed-unit Armies...