Answered: How to unload units from an army in PTW!

[Beanzy]

If this would just be made an option in that game settings screen, everyone would be happy. Personally, I like it the way it is, but I'm a sentimentalist, and would dearly miss that army of useless cavalry. Actually, I'd be fine either way, this seems like the perfect thing to have the user decide on when setting up a game. It all depends on your preferences.

 

[gozpel]

I think the idea of disbanding units in an army would be ok, and then load new units into the army. Of course I lose the units and shields when disbanding, but at that point it hardly matters.

Great leaders are scarce as it is and to choose between a juicy wonder or an army is always a tough choice for me. But of course I grab the Sistine Chapel before an army...but when there are no wonders around the corner, then I build an army. I can always disband it later to grab 100 shields or whatever...but not until it had an victory

 

[Alki]

Originally posted by alamo
I think it is an exploit. Historically powerful armies were combinations of great commanders and loyal troops. You cannot interchange the troops or commander without loosing the espirit de corp.

We have so many real life examples that contradict that statement. French Foreign Legion, US Cavalry, Us marines, British Royal Dragoons, British Lancers etc.

 

[Sims2789]

it would be cool if you could unload from an Army no matter what. i think the reason that you can't is because sometimes, in real life, generals use old tactics with new technology and have disastrous results (i.e., the Mashenou Line in WW2, the American Civil War)

 

[St-Jean]

I think the whole army issue between a bug and a feature has to do with the level of war play in the game. The scope is strategical but the wargame is tactical or more than often to small units. It think it needs to follow this scope or else it would not be a civ installation. When the AI win unfairly, when it cheats, I remember that it is playing a low-unit tactical game and certainly not the same game as we are!
I won't enter in my grognard theories or even if I am truly such, still after all this time, I'm getting pretty sure that no upsizing or downsizing can reasonably occur in a computer game between strategical and tactical gameplay.

But it is tempting! Oh, so it does! A very marketable trend, AFAIK without any irony.

 

[SinisterDeath]

Well, it's official, here is the thread to the poll I started on this subject. This was such a hot debate I couldn't help it. The thread starter had a real good one here. I knew by the varying responses that we needed a poll, so here it is : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60766

 

[solops]

Originally posted by Alki



We have so many real life examples that contradict that statement. French Foreign Legion, US Cavalry, Us marines, British Royal Dragoons, British Lancers etc.

To repeat my previous post....Absolutely. There is no rational real-world argument for making army composition "fixed". Indeed, the whole concept of an army is that of a command/management structure through which units are freely cycled in a such a manner as to maximise the effectiveness of the army for its current task.

All one needs to do is look at the constantly changing order of battle in the armies of Napoleon, the armies of the American War Between the States, WWI and WWII. The US First and Third armies were constantly exchanging units or rotating them in and out of the line for rest and refit. The German army is an even better example. Divisions were regularly rotated back to Germany for refit, rest and new, better equipment (Although on the Russian front, this became a problem due to troop shortages. Much of the R&R/refit then came through rebuilding destroyed units)).

Nations design their armed forces so that armies can be flexible in composition....common training, equipment, doctrine, etc. Having Civ III armies "fixed" is unrealistic, non-historical and adds nothing to game play. Indeed, it detract from game play.

 

[HangingChadDad]

I like the general idea of unloadable armies, but I would see that is would be very open to abuse.. should u be able to fight, unload, load fresh units, fight next round? I don't think so but some may.. Perhaps it should be allowed but only if the units are in full health? or whatever kind of "check and balance" thoughts

 

[Grand Cadfael]

Wow a two year and a half year bump

 

[HangingChadDad]

lol.. WOW GC, you must be desperate to get ur post #'s up!

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

The same could be said of those who bump a two and a half year old thread.

and yes, I AM trying to get my post numbers up! I want to be taken seriously!

 

[Eberhard]

Wow a two year and a half year bump

One and a half maybe?

 

[Civrules]

Moderator Action: HangingChadDad, warned for bumping an old, old thread.
I don't see any further contribution being made to this thread, as it was turning to spam.
Thread closed...
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889