Question about army?

djy · August 20, 2003, 10:20

Have some question about armies?
-Dont know how load new unit into an army or unload unit(what's the maximum can they contain)?
-Can hurry a wonder with a army or his leader (if the army was already created)?
-Can disband army an keep leader?
-Exist patch for these problems?
Tank You!!

I think leader are more useful for hurry wonder than creat army if we cannot do anything until army was created??no?

Boracks · August 20, 2003, 10:32

To load: put a unit in the same square as the army and load the same as loading on a ship in port (load icon or "L" key). You CANNOT unload a unit from an army once its loaded.

Disbanding an army in a city gets you shields towards production but not a wonder (I believe). You do not get the leader back.

What I do is create an army with the first leader so I can build Heroic Epic, Military Academy and Pentagon. After that any leaders are used only to build wonders, I don't build armies except by using the Military Academy.

Hope this helps.

bobbo008 · August 20, 2003, 13:15

a patch for what problems?

vmxa1 · August 20, 2003, 13:27

Armies can have up to 3 units, until you build the Pentagon. Then you can have up to 4 units.
I think armies are more useful than wonders. I will try to have as many as I am allowed (# of cities). It is very hard to bust cities without an army. Yes you can use bombardment, but that destroys things and it is hard to get units to cities to bomb with.
Most of the time, I will make an army with my first leader. I can not wait to get another army until I have the Mil Acad. That comes way to late in the game.
Armies can not only bust cities, but they can pacifiy them as well.

GhengisFarb™ · August 20, 2003, 15:26

I tend to stack up empty Armies in my capital. Don't like giving up on more Great Leaders by sitting on them.

Jaybe · August 20, 2003, 21:27

Disbanding an Army provides 100 shields (the production cost of an Army at the military academy) to non-wonder production. You get no shields for any military units within (prior to the PTW 1.27f patch, at least).

None of these characteristics are "problems" that need to "fixed" for people that have enjoyed the game for almost 2 years.

EDIT: (1/4 the production cost of an Army at the military academy)

Nym · August 21, 2003, 07:55

Quote:

Originally posted by djy
Have some question about armies?
-Dont know how load new unit into an army or unload unit(what's the maximum can they contain)?

You can load a unit within an army with the Load button or L key when the army and the unit are on the same tile.
You can not unload a unit.
Default is 3 but you can increase it to 4 with the Pentagon.

Quote:

-Can hurry a wonder with a army or his leader (if the army was already created)?

You can not hurry a construction with an army; when you create an army, the leader disappears. You only can complete a wonder with a leader.

Quote:

-Can disband army an keep leader?

I do not know, but I would say no. In fact I do not see the interest in disbanding an army.

Quote:

-Exist patch for these problems?

Problems? These are not problems. That is the way the game is.

Quote:

I think leader are more useful for hurry wonder than creat army if we cannot do anything until army was created??no?

It depends on your style of play (warmonger/builder). I am a builder but I always use my first leader to build an army. As I am at war when I get it, it is very usefull.

Gufnork · August 21, 2003, 09:39

I believe that regardless of playstyle it's always better to hurry a wonder if one is available (and useful, I think an army is better than the great wall), with the exception of the first leader, which might be more useful to turn into an army to be able to build the heroic epic.

Spiffor · August 21, 2003, 10:14

Since I'm a builder, I don't engage in that many wars. That's why I always use my first leader to build an army, since otherwise I wouldn't be sure to have the herioc epic and other army-related small wonders in the game. Heroic Epic is a great investment for the builder player, since he can get leaders (immediate wonders) much more often from his few battles.

David Murray · August 21, 2003, 17:16

I almost always use my first leader for the FP. I'm surprised that isn't a more popular option, because it allows you to have two productive 'cores', drastically increasing your revenue and overall output at an early stage in the game ....

vmxa1 · August 21, 2003, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by David Murray
I almost always use my first leader for the FP. I'm surprised that isn't a more popular option, because it allows you to have two productive 'cores', drastically increasing your revenue and overall output at an early stage in the game ....

This is because we hope to have a leader before the FP is available.

Arrian · August 22, 2003, 09:00

DM - I often will use my first leader for a FP (or, more likely, a palace move, having built my FP close to my original capitol). But lately, I've been having a blast with really early archer wars, and if I get an ultra early leader, he's got Pyramids written all over him.

-Arrian

Arrian · August 22, 2003, 09:23

Quote:

Heroic Epic is a great investment for the builder player, since he can get leaders (immediate wonders) much more often from his few battles.

Actually, Spiff, I disagree.

Building an army and then the Heroic Epic uses 1 leader *now* for the promise of a +25% chance of leader(s) later.

In order for the HE to be worth your while, you need to generate at least 2 leaders after building it (1 to replace the leader you used on the army, and at least 1 more to justify that use). Now, in my opinion, once the game advances past the early industrial age, leaders are nearly worthless. Therefore, one must produce 2 or more leaders before, say, Electronics is discovered, in order for the HE to have been worth it. If you're a "builder" who doesn't fight much, that's not at all guaranteed.

If, however, you instead invest your leader the Pyramids (if you get it early enough), or failing that, an ideal FP/Palace move, I think you are likely to get more bang for your buck.

-Arrian

vmxa1 · August 22, 2003, 20:24

Sounds about right to me. I use most of my later leaders to crank out armies. In a really leader fest game, I have used them for such goofy things as a battleship or a temple/cath. Just to not have them hanging around.

Kuciwalker · August 22, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
Disbanding an Army provides 100 shields (the production cost of an Army at the military academy) to non-wonder production. You get no shields for any military units within (prior to the PTW 1.27f patch, at least).

None of these characteristics are "problems" that need to "fixed" for people that have enjoyed the game for almost 2 years.

I thought armies cost 400 shields.

Bleyn · August 22, 2003, 21:07

I agree more with Spiffor on this one.

For a "builder" type player, first leader -> army is the best move. The reason being is we are not "combat" or "expansionist" type players. We do not have wars going on any more than we absolutely have to. Personally, unless I have what I feel to be a good advantage both in numbers and in tech, I am not going to pick a fight. And when a fight comes to me, as often as not, I will stand on the defensive if I can. It is not unusual for me to experience at least one "war" where practically no combat occurs, and I eventually get the other guy to make peace.

This being the case, I do not see that many leaders in a game. It is strongly to my advantage to convert that first leader to an army. Not for the HE, though that is nice. But for the Military Academy. Without an army, I can't build the MA. And being as many times, I might not see more than one or two leaders in a whole game, using the first one on a Wonder just isn't efficient. Getting that victorious army as soon as I can is.

For one, it allows the MA, which makes me independant of leaders as a source of armies, which also means that I can be sure of aqcuiring the Pentagon. It also means that should I so choose any other leaders I might see can be focused on building, if I have something worth using them on going up.

Furthermore, as a builder, I am often in the situation where it is into the late-game before I have spread out enough that I even have enough of a spread to warrant the FP(at least to my thinking).

Taken together, for my style of play, that initial army is much more important than any building I might do with a leader.

However, I would agree that for a more expansionist style of player, who is generating lots of leaders, these factors would not be as important.

The whole key to this question, really, is how many leaders do you normally see in a game.

Lord_Davinator · August 22, 2003, 23:30

Agree with Bleyn... first leader army... then don't even bother wasting your great leadears on an army of unupgradable misfits... instead build wander or save your leaders for wonders you have in mind.... one wonder is worth a dozen armies...

vmxa1 · August 23, 2003, 00:40

Actually wonders will not save you from an army. You can win with out any wonders.

Oerdin · August 23, 2003, 00:56

I usually use the first great leader to build an army just so I can get the three relevant minor wonders then I use the rest on wonders.

Catt · August 23, 2003, 14:04

I'm with Arrian on this one. Unless I am confident of having a lot more battles, I won't use a first leader for an army when playing a "peaceful" game unless there is truly nothing more attractive to use him on. In truly peaceful circumstances, the HE may be more valuable for its culture than its leader-generation improvement.

On a very simplified statistical analysis, one would need somewhere close to 48 elite unit offensive victories before the HE paid back the cost of using the first leader for an army. Example: leader used for army; heroic epic built; with 1-12 chance on offense, 48 additional elite victories generates 4 leaders for wonders -- versus -- leader used for wonder; with 1-16 chance on offense, 48 additional elite victories generates 3 additional leaders for wonders. In both examples, 4 wonder-producing leaders are available to each approach -- the frst approach puts the player in the same position but makes available the HE, MA, Pentagon and confers the ongoing 1-12 benefit.

The question for me is usually: (1) how many more elite battle opportunities can I reasonably expect before the value of a leader devalues substantially (industrial age), and (2) what other possible uses for the first leader are there?

With a somewhat isolated location and a desire to play peacefully, I'll do what I can to use a leader on a wonder. If, OTOH, I want to play peacefully, but circumstances indicate that it will be a challenge (i.e., sharing a landmass with lots of civs) I'd be more inclined to build an army for the HE in the absence of a solid wonder or a good palace jump opportunity -- even a "peaceful" player might very well have lots and lots of battles if circumstances so dictate.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
I thought armies cost 400 shields.

They do - which means they're worth 100 shields disbanded (25% of cost).

Catt

vmxa1 · August 23, 2003, 14:29

I do not have an iron clad rule for my first leader. It can be a wonder (wonder could be FP or Palace too), it could be an army. If it is an army it is not to get the HE, but because I want to do some damage to someone. The HE will just be an after effect of that damage.
I tend to play a semi builder. That is I do build as a builder, but I will be fighting lots of wars as well. I often let them start them, but will not pass up a chance to trim a nearby civ. If I see a settler combo, I will likely take it.

Lord_Davinator · August 24, 2003, 00:57

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Actually wonders will not save you from an army. You can win with out any wonders.

I bet it can be done... never done it myself... but seriously... would be impossible on diety...

Gufnork · August 24, 2003, 06:26

Of course it's possible on deity. I think I've done it. I might have gotten one or two wonders, but considering that I was always behind in tech and did not have the industrial capability of the comp I'm not sure. If I got one it was in the industrial age and forward. So it wasn't a choice, they just beat me to every wonder. And I didn't war until tanks and after that the game was over.

So it's definetly possible.

Lord_Davinator · August 24, 2003, 06:54

hmm... then you definitely are a better player than I am

Panag · August 24, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord_Davinator

I bet it can be done... never done it myself... but seriously... would be impossible on diety...

hi ,

its been done , ......

have a nice day

Dr. A. Cula · August 25, 2003, 07:14

Re: Great Leader generation

I think it is possible to have Great Leaders even when you're not looking for war. All you have to do is get everybody else to wage war on you.

I have recently started a game to verify a few things about the Great Library and was planning for the peaceful builder approach. Well, 14 out of my 15 neighbours had different ideas, as they lined up to declare war on me every chance they got. At first, I was planning that any Great Leader I may get would go to wonder building, but then I had so many, I just had to build an army. At one point, I was waging a defensive war against 5 other civs. I got 2 other guys to declare war against one of them, so they made peace with me, 3 others were so far away that I thought they won't be a problem, so I proceded to pummel the 4th one out of existence. Or least I wanted to, because the 3 distant civs paid for Right of Passage and sent wave after wave of attackers against me, anything from archers to knights. I didn't lose territory and they proved to be a nice source of Great Leaders. Nothing like getting 3 wonders and an army from a war where the enemy was doing most of the effort. At the end of the war, I realised these guys wasted on me TONS of units (plus whatever they might have paid for RoP), gave me 4 Great Leaders, plus the hefty tributes they paid for peace, while I only lost a couple of musketmen and about 3 knights. I guess I can always count on the AI to turn a disaster into a victory (for me).

Nym · August 26, 2003, 08:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. A. Cula
I guess I can always count on the AI to turn a disaster into a victory (for me).

That is often what defense is made for. Karl von Clausewitz explained that the defense was the strongest position.

Concerning your numerous wars, that is typically the situation where statistics would be interesting.

Arrian · August 26, 2003, 16:08

Quote:

On a very simplified statistical analysis, one would need somewhere close to 48 elite unit offensive victories before the HE paid back the cost of using the first leader for an army. Example: leader used for army; heroic epic built; with 1-12 chance on offense, 48 additional elite victories generates 4 leaders for wonders -- versus -- leader used for wonder; with 1-16 chance on offense, 48 additional elite victories generates 3 additional leaders for wonders. In both examples, 4 wonder-producing leaders are available to each approach -- the frst approach puts the player in the same position but makes available the HE, MA, Pentagon and confers the ongoing 1-12 benefit.

The question for me is usually: (1) how many more elite battle opportunities can I reasonably expect before the value of a leader devalues substantially (industrial age), and (2) what other possible uses for the first leader are there?

As usual, Catt said what I was trying to say, better than I said it.

In order to justify the cost (1 leader + 160 shields of construction) of the HE, you need to fight. Builders don't usually fight that much, unless the AI decides to get nasty (as mentioned above).

Like Catt said, the real question is: how many more elite unit victories do you really expect to have? If the answer is "not many," I strongly advise against the army/HE route, unless it's kinda late in the game and you already have your Palace & FP sorted out and the important wonders are built... then it's not important. And armies can be fun.

-Arrian

pauli · August 30, 2003, 00:11

heh, in my current game i ended up disbanding armies in large part cause i was getting tired of the upkeep costs... i had 11 armies of four cavalry each. as i also had 200 (well, 197 after a few losses) modern armor (including 8 in a pair of armies), and the strongest defender i'm facing is riflemen, i didn't really need the cavalry anymore.

best part is that they all came from leaders. i *think* so far i've had 15 leaders, but i'm not certain. i know it was at least 13. i believe i had a couple armies of swordsmen...

at the time i made the cavalry armies, they were vital to the war effort. cavalry vs entrenched riflemen is a tough fight, especially in the core of the enemy empire!

i suppose i could have used the newer ones for wonders, but the damn things don't take much more than ten turns now *anyway.*

i was very proud of the leader produced by one of my infantrymen, btw

vmxa1 · August 30, 2003, 00:59

Try naming your units as they generate a leader. I do it like Swordsman1 for the swordman that made the first leader. Then it maybe Horseman2 or Rider2 or whatever it the type is. If I get one that makes two, it would be something like Rider3_Calv6. This means it is the 6th leader and this one made the third one as a Rider and the 6th one as a calv unit. This lets me keep tabs on how many I get. You may mess up once in awhile, but it is better than nothing. This is how I knew I had 55 in one game, give or take and foul ups in the assigning of numbers. That could go in either direction, but is probably + or - two.