Useless army

[Arrian]

1. All in all, how many GLs do you produce in a given game?

2. What % of those GLs go towards armies, as opposed to wonders?

3. When do you build your first army? First chance you get, or do you use the GL on something like the FP, etc?

Totally depends - if the RNG smiles upon me, I may get lots of leaders (in a recent game, I got 9. My records, IIRC, is 12). If it doesn't, I may only get 1 or 2. For a militaristic civ played to maximize the trait, 1-2 is pretty bad.

I just happened to jot down the uses of my leaders in recent 9-leader game...

1) Palace move
2) Army
3) Sun Tzu
4) Sistine
5) Leo
6) Military Academy
7) Universal Suff
8) Hoover
9) unused upon victory

#6 was a bit wierd. He was generated at a time when the only available GW der was Copernicus, and I was halfway done with it. I didn't feel the need to have more armies yet, and I was fighting and had a nifty stockpile of elite Samurai.

In my current game (AU206) I have gotten 2 leaders:

1) Army (mmm, gallic swordsman army, mmm)
2) FP

I decide how to use a leader based upon a number of factors. First: do I have my FP/Palace set up the way I want? Second: do I have the Heroic Epic? Third: what Great Wonders are available? Fourth: how many elite units to I have, and am I using them now or will I be using them soon?

In AU206, my first leader appeared long before I had conquered my way to the spot where I wanted my FP, and I had a number of elite GSs. With elite GSs running around trying to conquer a continent, I felt I could reasonably count on 1 more leader, particularly with the HE. So I went army.

In the 9-leader Japanese game, by the time I generated leader #1, I was close to the city I wanted to move my Palace to, and I really needed to hit that Civ before they got any stronger. As it turned out, I got 2 more leaders prior to the completion of the HE, and then went through a sustained drought while winning battle after battle with my hordes of elite units. By the time the RNG began to favor me again, I had built the big medieval wonders manually (except for SunTzu, clearly).

-Arrian

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Arrian


Totally depends - if the RNG smiles upon me, I may get lots of leaders (in a recent game, I got 9. My records, IIRC, is 12). If it doesn't, I may only get 1 or 2. For a militaristic civ played to maximize the trait, 1-2 is pretty bad.

I just happened to jot down the uses of my leaders in recent 9-leader game...

1) Palace move
2) Army
3) Sun Tzu
4) Sistine
5) Leo
6) Military Academy
7) Universal Suff
8) Hoover
9) unused upon victory

#6 was a bit wierd. He was generated at a time when the only available GW der was Copernicus, and I was halfway done with it. I didn't feel the need to have more armies yet, and I was fighting and had a nifty stockpile of elite Samurai.

In my current game (AU206) I have gotten 2 leaders:

1) Army (mmm, gallic swordsman army, mmm)
2) FP

I decide how to use a leader based upon a number of factors. First: do I have my FP/Palace set up the way I want? Second: do I have the Heroic Epic? Third: what Great Wonders are available? Fourth: how many elite units to I have, and am I using them now or will I be using them soon?

In AU206, my first leader appeared long before I had conquered my way to the spot where I wanted my FP, and I had a number of elite GSs. With elite GSs running around trying to conquer a continent, I felt I could reasonably count on 1 more leader, particularly with the HE. So I went army.

In the 9-leader Japanese game, by the time I generated leader #1, I was close to the city I wanted to move my Palace to, and I really needed to hit that Civ before they got any stronger. As it turned out, I got 2 more leaders prior to the completion of the HE, and then went through a sustained drought while winning battle after battle with my hordes of elite units. By the time the RNG began to favor me again, I had built the big medieval wonders manually (except for SunTzu, clearly).

-Arrian

the most leaders you have had is 12! I thought it would have been higher

There are way's to maximize leaders, there have even been threads on the topic (yes I am too lazy to do a proper search) but I will list a few ways to make sure you get more GL's

1) The first leader should be used for an army and it should be strong enough to insure at least one win. I like 3 Knight armies as my first army. Get the army a victory and you can build the HE, which improves the odds of future leaders.
2) Protect your elites, use them only against targets which you are reasonably sure of sucess. If an elite is badly hurt try to get another unit to the elite to protect it.
3) Use your GL's!! There is no sense in "saving" them as you cannot generate another GL until you have used the current GL. If you don't have something to rush (unlikely in mideival or industrial ages) then build an army. (One exception to this rule is if you are researching tech that leads to a wonder)
4) Leaders increase in freq. during modern age warfare due to the blitz capabilities of armor units, utilize this capability to get an elite in a single turn!!

I have had games in which I have had 15 leaders, most of which go to wonders or palace moves. Although a few do end up as Armies.

[pedrojedi]

Usually I try to make an army of an leader, but, depending of the game conditions, it becomes a fundamental wonder, like the Pyramids or Hoover. Since I like the more "builder-civs" (even though I am a natural warmonger!) like carthagians, babs, egyptians, I usually get few leaders, and each one of them is very well planned... I rarely rush FP or Palace, unless it is of the most important significance, since I like 'till late of the game to decide the best spot for FP.

How many tiles you leave between your palace and FP?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I would agree with this. I rushed the FP for the first time on my recent Romans game, to make a far away land profitable, and pave the way to future conquests. Normally, I don't mind a longish wait building the FP, especially if the city it's in is secured, or bordered by secure cities.

[Thirgaral]

How many tiles you leave between your palace and FP?

It depends on mapsize...but I try to put them as far from eachother as possible to get out the most of them.

[minke19104]

You'd want one close to Iron Works.. If you ever able to build one.. 120-180 shields/turn city is nuts..

[pedrojedi]

As far as possible, just as I thought. I usually build FP on the opposite side of the continent, compared to the Palace. Never change both to other continents... they usually become my Wastelands - "The land of lawless men and brutal domination, where only the cunniest and strongest survive". Lands of leaders for sure, at least while I still battle for them.

[minke19104]

EDIT: Double Post Demon

[Theseus]

Theseus has entered the building... (the crowds go wild!)

(that was an Elvis reference for the youngsters out there)

Armies...

How do I love thee, let me count the ways.

Ah, screw it, read this:

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

I started that thread awhile ago, and frankly should update it for the uses I've found since.

Call me crazy... I am uncomfortable prosecuting offensive or defensive wars without at least two Armies per front.

(Actually, that's also one of the reasons I love mixed-unit Armies... I want the nutcracker punching power, but I also want them to be meaningful defenders.)

There are all sorts of ways to use them... The initial example of using a 3xInfantry Army to attack Infantry in a city was flawed. For those of you still learning to use them, imagine, in the late ancient era, a 2xSword+(1xNM or 1xHoplite) Army, or for that matter a 3xLegion Army, later bolstered by either a MedInf or a Musketman, depending on circumstance... see the power?

The most important rule I would point out from the previous posts in this thread is that mixed-unit Armies should have the same movement. Arrian's example of Riders + Cavs is an excellent example. One I also like, which is pretty common (for me), is a 3xCav Army... bolstered by an MA.

Do you understand how Armies work in combat? Best unit fights first, repeatedly?

And yes... must have HE, must have HE, must have...

[badams52]

Originally posted by Theseus
Theseus has entered the building... (the crowds go wild!)

(snip)

(Actually, that's also one of the reasons I love mixed-unit Armies... I want the nutcracker punching power, but I also want them to be meaningful defenders.)

I always remember it as "Elvis has just left the building."

In thinking about defense, just from the sheer number of hitpoints, some armies don't get attacked by the AI (so you can hide units under them, keep cities from being attacked, etc.). One example I have is an army of 3 cavalry before tanks. The AI refuses to attack a 3 cavalry army till he has tanks, or at least, I've never, ever seen him take it on.

[Theseus]

Yep, combat avoidance is definitely a useful tool.

(You're right about "left"... it just seemed, uh, a good way to open the post)

[Harovan]

Twas about time for you to enter this thread.

[aaglo]

I noticed one special thing about armies:

If you put only amphibious units (Marines) in your army, it still loses its amphibious bonus. Why is that?

It was almost a shock to me when I discovered this 'bug' (or is it a feature).

[badams52]

Sir Ralph: So true...

aaglo: I think for the most part armies are considered like transports without the unload ability, so anything the special units can do, armies can't. That makes me think we should test what special features armies can and can't do.

• I don't think you can airlift them with a helicopter, maybe if you increase the payload of the helicopter you could, but who uses helicopters anyway?
• Pre PTW you can't pillage
• An army of paratroopers won't be able to airdrop.
• An army of marines (as you found out) can't use amphibious assault
• Armies (except through loopholes) can't be upgraded or unloaded.

are there others?

[minke19104]

Originally posted by aaglo
I noticed one special thing about armies:

If you put only amphibious units (Marines) in your army, it still loses its amphibious bonus. Why is that?

It was almost a shock to me when I discovered this 'bug' (or is it a feature).

I'm almost sure I had an army of Marines before and was still able to attack cities.. Maybe my memory is becoming a blur by playing too much Civ3 ......

[CerberusIV]

An army of marines can attack as any other unit but not make amphibious assaults from ships, unlike individual marine units.

The problem is that if armies are edited to have amphibious assault, and it works, then all armies would have amphibious assault capability. Imagine what a four MA army attacking direct from a transport would do!

[Rommel2D]

Armies inherit the abilites of the units in it. In Civ3v1.29, this only applied to mobility and the blitz attack.

In PtW, armies are now supposed to inherit any ability. Amphibious assault is one specific I've seen mentioned. Paradrops should also work. I'm guessing these need to be pure armies of Marines and Paratroopers, but I'm still waiting for my copy of PtW to arrive. Free shipment from Amazon looks like it will take until after the next patch to arrive. :[

Also, each unit in the army takes up one space for transport, including the leader guy. That means 2-5 units in any army- no way to fit on a helicopter. Does anyone use helicopters?

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
An army of marines can attack as any other unit but not make amphibious assaults from ships, unlike individual marine units.

The problem is that if armies are edited to have amphibious assault, and it works, then all armies would have amphibious assault capability. Imagine what a four MA army attacking direct from a transport would do!

You know that would not be a bad thing actually, I think ALL armies should have this ability. I mean if you look at all amphib invasions very few were undertaken by proper marines. Amphibious invasions were used by ancient civ's as well. The Greeks, Romans, and Carthage were particularly adept at this. Finally the invasions in operations in Africa, Italy and Normandy in WW2 were not marine units but army units. In the game the army unit should be given the AA ability to enable other troops to be able to land on foreign shores. If Kuwait and Saudi Arabia kicked us out of their countries; do you think that the marines would be the only units in an amphib assault on Iraq? I think not!

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

A point well made... but a lot of modern-day "units", and ancient "units" as well, after disembarking on a shore, required "set up" time to get going on a proper attack. In this sense, they couldn't be said to have AA capabilities. Often, throughout history, a landing force would be destroyed by local defenders before they were able to fight back. On the other hand, sometimes the defenders have had little to fight back with. I think Civ does a good job representing AA, but I'm no expert, to be fair.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
A point well made... but a lot of modern-day "units", and ancient "units" as well, after disembarking on a shore, required "set up" time to get going on a proper attack. In this sense, they couldn't be said to have AA capabilities. Often, throughout history, a landing force would be destroyed by local defenders before they were able to fight back. On the other hand, sometimes the defenders have had little to fight back with. I think Civ does a good job representing AA, but I'm no expert, to be fair.

The point of my argument is this: There are too few units that can perform an AA in the game. think about it; almost all footsoldiers could be properly trained to make an AA and designing specialized landing craft is not really that difficult. I think that by reserving this function to an army it would represent a group of units specially trained for an Amphibious Assault. If you don't understand why this is needed try playing Marla Singers World map. An Invasion of Crete or Sicily is impossible due to barbarians completely ringing the island with units. Either give the army the ability to AA or create an ancient and midieval unit with the ability to AA. Finally, Marines have been around since at least the seventeenth century (and as I indicated, have origins of a FAR earlier date) so having them be available in late industrial era is simply not correct.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Well, with that I can most certainly agree. I don't think it would be appropriate for cavalry/horsemen or very "heavy" (legionaries, med. inf., etc.) units to have the AA ability, or units in general that require some time to "set up" (re: musketmen). I think it's totally appropriate for swordsmen, pikemen, riflemen, etc.

[Hugfrty]

I had a metropolitan city on a hill with walls. 6 ELITE modern armours were fortified inside. Here is how the stupid computer (Level: Monarch) took it:
Step 1: Waste a ten minutes moving immortals and longbowmen (all veterans, thanks to their barracks).
Step 2: Spend thirty minutes attacking my city (human tidal wave). By the way, I managed to kill all but 5 of the bastards.
Step 3: Raze the city and steal the 6, I repeat, 6, settlers sealed inside.
Step 4: Get your ass whipped by the blitzkrieg.

[vmxa1]

Why would you not have sent over bombers and arty to whack them as they approached and MA to finish off the wounded? At least send in reinforcements. You must have had RR by then and gobs of troops to use.
Ancient troops are sitting ducks, but if you have only 6 units in a metro and they send lots of units, they will win enough battles to take the city, no way I let that happen.

[Mad Bomber]

Hugfrty:

I don't doubt that the Ai is that stupid but your Metro could not have a city wall and why didn't you have a MI or two in the city? Finally How did the AI get so far behind that they had to resort to immortals and longbowmen? Why did you have 6 settlers inside?

[badams52]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Armies inherit the abilites of the units in it. In Civ3v1.29, this only applied to mobility and the blitz attack.

Actually in 1.29f, all armies can blitz, even cavalry and knights and horsemen...you just have to have the movement points left.

[Hugfrty]

Damn... I didn't know that about the walls...
The settlers were inside because they were all preparing to expand when the persian bastards put some immortals near my city and declared war. I hurried them all inside before he managed to marshall his troops.
The main reason he used his immortals was because this city was basically a rubber colony within his borders and he must have removed troops from outlying cities.
The other reason was that his only strategic resoure was iron (ROFL) since all the maps I play manage to have no real resources (phooey).
I couldnt build artillery because the city went into unrest as soon as the *****es declared war. I hate democracy. Anarchy is even worse. I controlled an entire continent on the other side of the map so the stealth bombers had no way of rebasing there. The transports were almost to the rescue when I got raped.

[Hugfrty]

I didn't have any MI because I expected to be on the offensive in any war and I didn't expect the Persians to so stupid as to declare war on a superpower.

[Theseus]

Hugfrty:

Keeping this thread on-topic...

6 elite MAs = 15 dramatically advantaged attacks (reserving 1mp for each of 3 healthy units) = much destruction of enemy units and high likelihood of a GL = fortified 3xMA Army (appr. 12hp) = probable survival.

[Hugfrty]

I'm sorry, but I don't speak abbreviation gibberish.
I admit, it is PROBABLE survival, but not DEFINITE survival. I thought I was going to live, but they were damn lucky and they got an average of 0.5 hit points off my tanks per veteran longbowman/immortal.
And yes, from now on I will remain on topic.
By the way, armies need to keep the special abilities of the units inside (assuming all one type, of course). Someone needs to make a mod or something that does that, if possible.

[Hugfrty]

In all my playing experience, although it was almost always peaceful, I have only had ONE great leader, and this was not one of those occasions. I made an army with three marines and it couldn't do an assault landing... very annoying.