Introduction
Before I begin I must remind everyone that this article is, indeed, about Civilization. I apologize in advance (having at this time not written the article yet) that I tend to go off on tangents in such matters.
This thread may seem a waste of time, after all, who can raise an army only with drafts, especially before Nationhood? However, the word "Draft"" in the title is misleading when placed into Civ terms, after all, this strategy is an import from the excellent game Hearts of Iron, which I recommend to the highest degree.
Just branched off. Sorry.
Regardless, the distinction in simple terms is this: a standing army is an army kept for defense, ready for battle, at all times, and a drafted army is ANY army that is not kept ready to fight at all times, regardless of source. Before I continue, yes, a small standing army IS necessary no matter what you choose, as your cities must be defended from barbs and the hated "We fear for our safety" sad face.
After playing both strategies in near-experimental conditions, I was unable to find that one was actually better that the other. So, this guide will seek only to provide you with some of the information that I found, in a dramatized and non-sequiter format.
Let's begin.
Standing Army
I start with this because it is the strategy most commonly used in Civ - you always keep a large force of military units ready to stop a potential invader. Granted, military production goes up in wartime, but at least some cities can continue with domestic production.
This is undoubtedly the "safer" choice, as will be explained later.
Why use a standing army? For one, you are always ready to defend yourself. You have one hand on your sword at all times, ready to defend yourself if need be. You can better plan with a standing army, building forts and roads for military purposes.
Here is the promised dramatization from my test game.
1830 AD. Aztec forces cross the border into America, violating the earlier Treaty of Tenochtitlan. They are immediately engaged by American infantry divisions stationed at the border in case of this very event. The war quickly grinds into a stalemate. The Aztec offense is dulled, but the Americans cannot launch a successful counteroffensive. On the home front, many are unset by the war, but life continues. Public buildings continue to be constructed, and only a few new armies are sent down to combat the Aztec forces. After years of little movement on the front, a white peace is signed. America is safe and continues ahead in the domestic and tech games, but still has a deadly enemy to its south who will likely violate this treaty as it did the last...
So a standing army lead to a stalemate. America continued to stay stable in the tech and economic games, but is still threatened.
Drafted Army
This strategy is much more risky, because it relies on a huge and sudden change of economic gears, and failure to do so can lead to immense peril for your nation. In this strategy, you keep only the bare minimum of troops needed to garrison each city.
Why use a drafted army? This is a tough question. You are really betting that you can get an army together as soon as you are attacked. It also carries some direct benefits: you don't waste shields putting an army together, and you don't waste money supplying an army you don't need.
Here's the dramatization of my DA test game:
1830 AD. Aztec forces cross the border into America, violating the earlier Treaty of Tenochtitlan. The purely economic border guards surrender without sending out a warning. The enemy is miles in before anyone know about it. When word reaches the capital, the great gears of America's economy shift. The giant is awake, and it is angry. City after city fall to the onslaught and battle after battle is lost. But then the first run of soldiers is deployed to the front and they are more than prepared to give everything to defend their Motherland...
Link to video.
Nope. Couldn't resist it.
The Aztec forces seem to hit a brick wall. Their advance stops near St. Louis and never recovers. Inch by inch, the Americans push the accursed invader out of their homeland and takes the fight to Mexico, and eventually to the capitol itself. The Aztecs surrender and is annexed to the new American Empire.
America is now way behind the old world technologically, and is still geared to a war economy. But now they are unthreatened, the sole regional superpower. Great things are in their future.
A drafted army leads (in my experience) to complete destruction of the enemy, at the cost of time, land, and economic and technological standing.
Conclusion
You might from my example conclude the Drafted Army to be much better, but I crushed the Aztecs in the next war in the SA game once I had nukes, and then was the world's only superpower. In the DA game, while I was a regional power, I was WAY behind technologically. So really, it depends on the situation. Use DA if you can afford to trade land for time. Use SA if you can't. It's really that simple.
Didn't get too much off topic there except for the HOI stuff.
The soviet song was totally relevant.
Before I begin I must remind everyone that this article is, indeed, about Civilization. I apologize in advance (having at this time not written the article yet) that I tend to go off on tangents in such matters.
This thread may seem a waste of time, after all, who can raise an army only with drafts, especially before Nationhood? However, the word "Draft"" in the title is misleading when placed into Civ terms, after all, this strategy is an import from the excellent game Hearts of Iron, which I recommend to the highest degree.
Just branched off. Sorry.
Regardless, the distinction in simple terms is this: a standing army is an army kept for defense, ready for battle, at all times, and a drafted army is ANY army that is not kept ready to fight at all times, regardless of source. Before I continue, yes, a small standing army IS necessary no matter what you choose, as your cities must be defended from barbs and the hated "We fear for our safety" sad face.
After playing both strategies in near-experimental conditions, I was unable to find that one was actually better that the other. So, this guide will seek only to provide you with some of the information that I found, in a dramatized and non-sequiter format.
Let's begin.
Standing Army
I start with this because it is the strategy most commonly used in Civ - you always keep a large force of military units ready to stop a potential invader. Granted, military production goes up in wartime, but at least some cities can continue with domestic production.
This is undoubtedly the "safer" choice, as will be explained later.
Why use a standing army? For one, you are always ready to defend yourself. You have one hand on your sword at all times, ready to defend yourself if need be. You can better plan with a standing army, building forts and roads for military purposes.
Here is the promised dramatization from my test game.
1830 AD. Aztec forces cross the border into America, violating the earlier Treaty of Tenochtitlan. They are immediately engaged by American infantry divisions stationed at the border in case of this very event. The war quickly grinds into a stalemate. The Aztec offense is dulled, but the Americans cannot launch a successful counteroffensive. On the home front, many are unset by the war, but life continues. Public buildings continue to be constructed, and only a few new armies are sent down to combat the Aztec forces. After years of little movement on the front, a white peace is signed. America is safe and continues ahead in the domestic and tech games, but still has a deadly enemy to its south who will likely violate this treaty as it did the last...
So a standing army lead to a stalemate. America continued to stay stable in the tech and economic games, but is still threatened.
Drafted Army
This strategy is much more risky, because it relies on a huge and sudden change of economic gears, and failure to do so can lead to immense peril for your nation. In this strategy, you keep only the bare minimum of troops needed to garrison each city.
Why use a drafted army? This is a tough question. You are really betting that you can get an army together as soon as you are attacked. It also carries some direct benefits: you don't waste shields putting an army together, and you don't waste money supplying an army you don't need.
Here's the dramatization of my DA test game:
1830 AD. Aztec forces cross the border into America, violating the earlier Treaty of Tenochtitlan. The purely economic border guards surrender without sending out a warning. The enemy is miles in before anyone know about it. When word reaches the capital, the great gears of America's economy shift. The giant is awake, and it is angry. City after city fall to the onslaught and battle after battle is lost. But then the first run of soldiers is deployed to the front and they are more than prepared to give everything to defend their Motherland...
Link to video.
Nope. Couldn't resist it.
The Aztec forces seem to hit a brick wall. Their advance stops near St. Louis and never recovers. Inch by inch, the Americans push the accursed invader out of their homeland and takes the fight to Mexico, and eventually to the capitol itself. The Aztecs surrender and is annexed to the new American Empire.
America is now way behind the old world technologically, and is still geared to a war economy. But now they are unthreatened, the sole regional superpower. Great things are in their future.
A drafted army leads (in my experience) to complete destruction of the enemy, at the cost of time, land, and economic and technological standing.
Conclusion
You might from my example conclude the Drafted Army to be much better, but I crushed the Aztecs in the next war in the SA game once I had nukes, and then was the world's only superpower. In the DA game, while I was a regional power, I was WAY behind technologically. So really, it depends on the situation. Use DA if you can afford to trade land for time. Use SA if you can't. It's really that simple.
Didn't get too much off topic there except for the HOI stuff.
The soviet song was totally relevant.
.
